Justplainbill's Weblog

June 5, 2017

A Response to Butch re Fed Court Abuse 5 Jun 17

Butch got upset with a recent segment of Tucker Carlson that showed a blatantly legislating federal judge. My immediate response didn’t completely satisfy him. Below are Article III and part of Article II plus the reasoning behind them which are in

The Heartland Plan

, which may be found as a section in The Albany Plan Re-Visited available at http://www.bn.com/ebooks for $10.

Article III
The Judiciary

§3.01 The Judicial Power of these United States, shall be in a Federal System of trial and appellate courts with District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and one Supreme Court of Appeals, with jurisdictions as follows:
§3.01.01 District Courts shall be trial courts
§3.01.01a District Courts shall be apportioned among the states regardless of state boundaries
§3.01.01b Their jurisdictional borders shall be identical to the geographic borders of the contiguous congressional districts assigned to them by The Congress
§3.01.01b(i) No District Court may have fewer than one congressional district nor more than seven (7) congressional districts within its purview
§3.01.01c In criminal cases, the jury shall consist of no fewer than eleven (11) voting members and no more than twenty-one (21) voting members
§3.01.01c(i) a guilty verdict may be brought in by eighty percent (80%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01c(ii) a death penalty verdict may be brought in by ninety percent (90%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01d In civil cases, the jury shall consist of no fewer than seven (7) voting members and no more than fifteen (15) voting members
§3.01.01d(i) a liability verdict may be brought in by sixty-five percent (65%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01d(ii) a punitive damages award may be brought in by eighty percent (80%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01e There shall be no more than three times (3X) the number of voting members of alternates, and no less than two (2) alternates on every jury
§3.01.01f In the event of a deadlocked or tied jury, or the minimum number of jurors be passed, the judge shall seal the record and the Circuit Court of Appeals for his district shall immediately certify the record for appeal and decision
§3.01.01f(i) In addition to reviewing the record for legal errors, this Circuit Court of Appeal shall also render the verdict including all damages, real, compensatory, and punitive or in a criminal case, set the penalty including death
§3.01.02 There shall be several Circuit Courts of Appeals placed over the District Courts by The Congress
§3.01.02a Upon appropriate appeal made, the Circuit Court shall review the record for all errors of law and fact
§3.01.02b There shall be a separate Federal Court of Distinctive Appeal, which shall be responsible for all appeals from administrative and military courts
§3.01.02b(i) The Federal Court of Distinctive Appeal shall be located at the capitol but may create and order special magistrates to any locale for fact finding, but never decision making
§3.01.03 There shall be one Supreme Court of Appeal over all the Circuit Courts of Appeal
§3.01.03a Upon appropriate appeal made, the Supreme Court shall review the records and decisions of the lower courts for errors of law and fact
§3.01.03b The Supreme Court shall be responsible for resolving disputes between the circuits
§3.01.03b(i) It shall resolve disputes between the circuits as soon as they occur and certify the records no later than sixty (60) days from the rendering of the contrary decision
§3.01.03b(ii) All circuit disputes shall be resolved during the term in which they are certified, the court staying in session until its work is completed
§3.02 The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls and civil servants when performing within the scope of their employment; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; and to appellate controversies between two or more states, and between a state, or citizens thereto, and foreign states, citizens or subjects
§3.02.01 All Supreme Court decisions interpreting statutes or this Constitution of these United States, shall be, on the day rendered, forwarded to the Congress for complete acceptance, partial acceptance and remand, rejection and remand, or rejection and direction pursuant to §1.08.01a
§3.03 Eligibility requirements for the Federal Bar
§3.03.01 All Judges, Justices and U.S. Attorneys must meet the same eligibility requirements as those for president
§3.03.02 All private counselors and advisors, appearing in that capacity in Federal Court, must meet the same eligibility requirements as those for members of congress
§3.04 Representation of parties
§3.04.01 Only U.S. Attorneys shall be members of the Federal Bar
§3.04.02 All causes, criminal, civil, administrative, or other, will be assigned to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution, and to a second U.S. Attorney for defense
§3.04.03 Any and all parties to a Federal Action may, at his own non-reimbursable expense, hire a licensed member of any bar as a counselor to assist the U.S. Attorney assigned to represent him
§3.04.03a The Court, at its discretion or upon motion of a party, may, but is not required to, and it shall be reviewable on appeal, order more than one U.S. Attorney to represent a party in a Federal Action
§3.05 Everyone protected by this constitution has access to this court provided this court has subject matter jurisdiction
§3.05.01 Every petitioner shall submit his claim to the district court in which he lives
§3.05.01a the petition shall be reviewed by two U.S. Attorneys and one judge for appropriateness
§3.05.01a(i) Appropriateness shall include a decision on jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal
§3.05.01a(ii) Appropriateness shall include a decision on frivolity
§3.05.01a(iii) If the suit be found inappropriate, it will be returned with instructions on where and how to properly file it
§3.05.01a(iv) If the suit be found inappropriate for frivolity, the petitioner shall be charged the full expense of filing and assessment
§3.05.02 If the claim be appropriate, the court will prepare the petition for filing in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and assign it to the appropriate District Court wherever that shall be
§3.05.02a The appropriate District Court shall take charge of the suit, file it, assign a court, a plaintiff’s attorney and a defense attorney from its available pool of U.S. Attorneys, and perform all other necessary functions for the just and expeditious resolution of the claim
§3.06 Juries
§3.06.01 Every Bona Fide Corporeal Federal Citizen is subject to jury duty without recourse, except:
§3.06.01a Those actually in hospital
§3.06.01b Those adjudged mentally or physically incompetent by both a doctor of competent jurisdiction and a sitting Federal Court or under the age of eighteen (18) years
§3.06.01c Military or Civil Servants serving overseas or whose duties are of such paramount necessity to the public defense or health that to require their attendance endangers the public welfare
§3.06.01c(i) In such cases jury duty is postponed, not exempted
§3.06.01d Those scheduled to have life saving surgery during the time estimated for trial
§3.06.01d(i) In such cases jury duty is postponed, not exempted
§3.06.01e The President of the United States; The Speaker of The House; and, The Counter-Speaker of The House
§3.06.02 Jurors shall be compensated for their service by bringing the prior year’s 1040-IRA form and an hourly compensation will then be ascertained; compensation will then be at the hourly rate for the first forty (40) hours per week with the next twenty (20) hours at one hundred and fifty percent (150%) for the next twenty hours in that week and at two hundred and twenty five percent (225%) for each weekly hour past sixty (60)
§3.06.02a The court shall provide the second meal for any day where the juror’s time exceeds eight (8) hours
§3.06.02b Jurors shall supply the court with a statement of benefits from their employer or other provider of same and the court shall directly reimburse the provider the cost of such benefits for the duration of jury duty
§3.06.03 There shall be no peremptory challenges
§3.06.04 No potential juror shall be dismissed for any reason other than cause shown and cause shown is reviewable by the appellate court
§3.06.05 Avoidance of jury duty, or the filing of false information to avoid jury duty, is a felony
§3.07 Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort, or in supporting them financially or materially
§3.07.01 No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court
§3.07.02 The penalty for treason is death without stay or pardon
§3.07.03 No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted
§3.08 No Federal Court at any time nor in any manner may grant a criminal greater rights or privileges than has a bona fide corporeal citizen of these United States of America
§3.09 Federal Judges and Attorneys shall have, once appointed, tenure for life or voluntary retirement, excepting that:
§3.09.01 §1.03.05 applies
§3.09.02 The President or the House may remove any judge or attorney for medical or psychological reasons, proven in a court of competent jurisdiction, including but not limited to, a finding of drug or alcohol dependence or abuse
§3.09.03 A judge or attorney once dismissed, may never be reinstated

§3.01 & §3.02

What appear to be overwhelming changes from the 1787 Constitution are actually what was originally intended in the 1787 Constitution, by both the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, were reiterated in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, and from time to time by various presidents and governmental watchdog groups, each having recommended one or all of these things. Each time that one or more of these have been suggested, the United States Supreme Court has made its next decision on whatever subject raised everyone’s ire, a slightly retrograde decision which never recovers a tenth of the ground lost but which placates all of the court watchers but has continually moved us into the realm of socialism and of judicial legislation. The quick proof is to look at almost any controversial opinion made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and where the U.S. Supreme Court has ultimately ended up. Another quick proof is to look at how easily the avowed socialist Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Sotomayer were confirmed and to how impossible it has been to get Moderate Republicans confirmed, never mind actually getting a Republican or a Conservative confirmed. The best quick proof has been the death penalty.
When the founders put in the clause regarding cruel and unusual punishment, they were specifically talking about stocks, branding, maiming, dunking, drawing & quartering, castration, forced bankruptcy then moving the debtor and his whole family into debtors prison where he and they became day-laborers-slaves and died still in debt, as it was structured to be impossible to work the debt off, the debt being then inherited by his heirs.
Jefferson knew about this personally as he was debt free until he married. When his father-in-law died and they inherited her proportional share of his estate, Jefferson found himself so in debt that he never recovered. He himself died selling family/slave members west and a bankrupt. The state of Virginia allowed a lottery for the purpose of relieving his debt around 1823 but still couldn’t raise enough money to satisfy his creditors. (Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, died on July 4th, 1826 coincidentally within hours of John Adams, 2nd President of the United States, who died debt free.)
So, here we have a structure that places justice back into the hands of the citizenry. Currently, you do not have the absolute right to a jury trial in a civil case. You now have to ask and the court may deny your request. Also, the structure of the courts is codified. The Federal Circuit Court is now the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It just so happened to evolve this way because when you sue the federal government, you must file in D.C., hence, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just so happened to get the bulk of the administrative cases. This hasn’t affected how the individual circuits have interpreted the Code of Federal Regulations, the C.F.R.’s which are the regulations formulated by the various government agencies for the implementation of their powers. One need only check on what the 9th Circuit has allowed or what the EPA and NLRB have gotten away with.
A quick proof is the judicial extension of the Social Security Act by the 9th Circuit back in the 1970’s.
The SSA was for people who put into the funds. If you didn’t contribute to the funds or be the widow or minor child of someone who had contributed into the SSA trust funds, you weren’t eligible to receive any Social Security checks of any kind. With the influx of Vietnamese refugees, some claiming post-traumatic stress from watching their villages, farms, relatives or jungles being bombed into the stone age by the United States Air Force, all on their own testimony without corroboration, and Administrative Law Judges (ALJ’s) denying these claims, when appealed through the District Courts to the Circuit Court, the 9th Circuit decided to extend to these poor people one hundred percent (100%) vesting in the Social Security Plan. You should research this yourself to make certain that this is the correct order of things. It just may be that Congress violated the constitution and the original SSA and the 9th Circuit was merely following the will of the people as placed into law by the elected representatives of the people. Regardless … .
Another quick proof is the death penalty issue. In every poll and at every election, the citizenry are in favor of the death penalty with an affirmative vote of at least 70%. Yet the courts, both state and federal, keep saying that killing a murderer is cruel because it inflicts a certain amount of pain on him. Let us consider the absurdity of this position.
First, it’s not up to the courts to decide this issue, it’s strictly legislative. Second, even if you’re an atheist, what’s the real difference between death by lethal injection and death from old age? Personally, death by lethal injection is much more humane than requiring someone live in Leavenworth Prison for thirty, forty, fifty or more years.
Technically, the bulk of this section shouldn’t even be in a constitution. Most of this is statutory in nature. Because the courts have become havens for the personal agendas of the judges, it’s necessary to spell it out for them and remove so much of their discretionary powers.
§3.03 through §3.05

These are huge changes from the way that we currently operate, but, again, they’re actually what was intended by the founders, and the last 220 years have shown that they are necessary for justice.
The first purpose here is to screen potential legislators from gaining the bench. The second is to screen self-servers. The third is to actually remove pecuniary interest from the litigation process. Overall, the purpose is to fulfill the social contract of government.
With the development of civilization came property. With ownership came thieves. With thieves came the realization that you couldn’t stay awake 24/7 to protect your property so the law, and police, and the courts, were invented. Brief and superficial, but sufficient for our needs herein with the exception that until very recently, we have retained the rights of self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property, by the use of deadly force, to ourselves.
In order to keep the peace, we allowed for the expansion of courts and police and, for most of us, the un-intentional relinquishing of our rights of self-defense. Our hired police would both prevent crime and capture criminals for trial in our wonderful jury system, which, if they were proven guilty, they would be removed from our society and punished. Again, this is an oversimplification, but it states the obvious and places the foundation for the changes in the judiciary. In the XXth Century, with all of its psycho-babble, liberalism interpreted as self above all, and dumbing down while insisting upon unearned self-esteem as the standard for maturity, the criminal has been exalted above the citizen and been given rights and privileges far beyond those of the citizen.
Several quick-proofs are readily apparent. The 1787 Constitution provides for a jury trial. Now, a citizen does not have the right to a jury trial, but must instead ask for one and the court believes, erroneously, that it can deny this request.
A criminal has the right to a speedy trial, usually meaning within nine (9) months of the indictment. Civil trials, especially with the federal government as defendant, can go on for years without resolution. Further, in the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, the federal government has several privileges not permitted to others. An extended time to answer a complaint and special rules regarding judgments are just two such examples.
Health care is a third area where the criminal benefits more than the citizen. Thanks to the legislating 9th Circuit, if a serial killer, in jail for nine hundred and ninety-nine years (999), needs an organ transplant, he goes to the top of the waiting list and WILL be the next to receive a liver, or lung, or heart, whereas the taxpaying citizen must first be assessed to determine how helpful a transplant will be and then he’ll go on a waiting list behind everyone else who is already on the list. Criminals, thanks to the courts, have better health care, nutrition, leisure activities, educational opportunities, libraries and social services than families of four with a gross annual income of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Facilities, services and punishments for criminals, solely the legislature’s responsibility, have been usurped and standards set, by people rarely if ever subjected to victimization by anyone.
Another area where the courts have imposed not only their own standards, but their arrogant ignorance, is the area of social justice. Here, quick-proofs abound to the point of absurdity, and the Obamacrats keep adding more.
First, some historical asides to set the stage. According to historians, slavery is an economic circumstance and one not particularly related to race. Prior to 1750, race wasn’t much considered as a factor of slavery in the United States, but one of circumstance. As late as 1860, substantiated by an analysis of the 1860 United States Census by the Kennedy Brothers, Ronald and Donald, 42% of slaves were Amerindian, Chinese and white; 32% of slave owners were black, among them were some who’d escaped their fates on the Amistad. According to the November 2006 issue of Reader’s Digest, slavery is common enough in New York City. As a matter of religion, twenty percent (20%) of this world’s population believe slavery is appropriate and it is not only their right, but their duty to enslave the infidel.
According to Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade [Simon & Schuster, © 1997, ISBN 0-684-81063-8] over eighty percent (80%) of the eleven million plus (11,000,000) Africans taken into slavery and shipped to the New World, were enslaved by fellow Africans who bartered them away to, in descending order, the Portuguese (Brazilians, who ended their slavery in the 1880’s while Yankee clippers from Boston still profited from the trade), the English (who in fact forced slavery onto Virginia – the early colonists allowed indenture but not slavery but since the king got a percentage of every slave’s sale, the Crown Colony was required to admit slaves), the Spaniards, the Dutch, and the North Americans.
Fewer than half of American slave owners owned more than five slaves, and those with fewer than five slaves generally, they all lived in the same house and attended the same church, all as one family. Less than sixty percent (60%) of the blacks living in the United States are descended from slaves and fewer than twenty-five percent (25%) of the non-black population are descended from people who were here in 1850. Of even more interest, less than five percent (5%) of today’s American population are descended from anybody who’s ever owned slaves and thirty-two percent (32%) of that five percent, are black The richest slave owner in Charleston SC in 1860 was a black man named Jackson who owned seven plantations and over 680 slaves. When Lincoln was elected, he sold all of his property for gold and moved north to Chicago. When Farragut and Butcher Butler took New Orleans in 1862, the second richest slave owner was a black widow who had all of her cotton stolen and sold to Butler’s British cotton factors for way below market.
Women, until the birth control pill, were subject to a lesser status than men for various reasons.
Species continuity requires that women conceive and bear healthy children. Until penicillin, in the 1940’s, infant and child mortality was high. Married women, who accounted for approximately two thirds of the female population, were frequently pregnant and forced to labor at home, not necessarily because her husband wanted it, but because of the circumstance of child rearing combined with child bearing. They simply were unable to be out in the work force overseeing or participating in manufacture. Property laws and tra-ditional behavioral standards kept them there.
Of the other third, most were spinsters living in somebody else’s house and surviving on, usually a relative’s, generosity. Read your Jane Austen for some insight.
Judicial legislation in the way of desegregation decisions based on “disparate impact,” or quotas for employment or school acceptance are based on both false historical “facts” and improper application of statistics.
When an area has 70% of its criminals being black, it might behoove the court to see what the community is made up of. If the community is 70% black, then the police force is not targeting the black community. If 70% of the criminals are Latino and 70% of the community is Latino, then the police force is not targeting Latinos. It’s an odd thing, disparate impact.
First, the disparate impact shall be looked at and then the others.
“Disparate Impact” means that if a plaintiff can show the judge that his group has a lesser standing or greater handicap than the white male, that is automatically discrimination. No other factors need be taken into account, nor how this disparity evolved. In Kansas City, we have recently gone through a twenty year forced desegregation program, costing the state of Missouri over two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) in tax revenue because a Federal Judge was shown that kids in the Kansas City Missouri School District performed much lower on the standardized tests than those “similarly situated.” No interest was shown in the children’s backgrounds, environment &c. The court was shown that over seventy percent (70%) of the student population was black and Hispanic, and, therefore, it was the segregated school district that had caused this failure rate. Therefore the school district must be desegregated, regardless of the cost. Never mind that the district was 70% black and Hispanic, and the results were, according to the sociologists, because of the broken homes and poverty &c in their environment, which means that spending more money on the schools will have zero impact on the root causes of these kids’ academic failures , the Federal Court ruled that the district must desegregate. It also ruled on how the state of Missouri must spend its tax dollars – something strictly forbidden it by the 1787 Constitution. One absurd result of this ruling was that a child in Odessa MO, over fifty miles away, was “bussed” in by private cab at a taxpayer cost of over $150/day. So the school that needed more whites could have more whites; and the real result as of today, March 23, 2012, is that the Kansas City School District has become dis-accredited and many of the schools closed, but administrative staff and costs about what they were or higher than, in 2000.
In New York City, for many years Hispanics failed the written driving test at a much higher rate than whites. The test was given in English, so those who were not fluent in English, failed at a higher rate, thus, “disparate impact” on a racial group. Automatically, this was decided to be discrimination, and the test then had to be given in whatever language the candidate was comfortable with. Never mind that driving is a privilege, and, therefore, not covered by the 1787 Constitution, and never mind that driving licenses are strictly a state’s right where the feds are forbidden to meddle, and, never mind the extra cost for these additional changes or the hiring of translators for languages not common enough to warrant printed exams, and never mind that the reason that some of these people couldn’t pass was because of the educational system from whence they came, but, more importantly, never mind that by requiring the candidate to learn some English, he was forced to become American! Forced to integrate himself into the American Culture, imagine that!
And, don’t let’s get started on Medicaid!
Colleges with higher standards than average for admittance have been forced to accept under-qualified minorities, but not white females, and provide them with remedial classes, at double taxpayer expense as these skills have already been paid for in high school. These minorities then had a higher than normal drop out rate, because they were unfit for the curricula of study, which feeds the Catch-22 of “disparate impact.” Now these schools are discriminating because there’s a higher percentage of minority dropouts than whites, so, some are passed through without actually earning a degree but getting one anyway or programs are dummy-downed.
Community Standards are another way in which the courts legislate their personal agendas. When it comes to zoning, community standards require all sorts of restrictions including building size, occupancy, and location based on use, &c. However, pornography, or where a halfway house, or drug rehabilitation/ testing office is located, is purely at the whim of the judge. Quick-proof is when a half-way house was going to be located in a judge’s neighborhood in Westchester County, NYS, it wasn’t allowed because it would overburden the utilities, but it wouldn’t overburden the utilities in The Bronx, which if you’ve ever driven on the Cross-Bronx-Expressway, you’ll know looks like Dresden Germany the day after the fire bombing in World War II. Judges apply different standards for themselves than they do the people who have no control over them.
§3.06

Juries. Part of the problem with the lack of justice is the ability of the court to disallow citizens to participate on a jury on a whim, and that potential jurors can escape jury duty for any reason or no reason and without good cause shown. Actually, this, as certain other sections, shouldn’t be in a constitution. This should be a statute. However, the phrase, “why would you want a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty,” is all too true.
Judges and attorneys do not want anyone educated to sit on a jury, nor do they want anyone who may view the facts dispassionately. They all want an easy resolution by either overwhelming the jury with so much crap that they take the easy way out or they appeal to their emotions to get huge jury awards. Quick proof: there is no substantial evidence as to what causes cerebral palsy. The Plaintiff’s bar has made themselves billions of dollars by appealing to the emotions of jurors. The widow of a man who used Vioxx for less than nine months and then died of heart failure, is certainly not entitled to $50,000,000 for the loss of his life’s earnings and consortium, much less a punitive award of $250,000,000 when the evidence so clearly shows that the patient must take Vioxx for over 24 months to have any serious side effects. A jury made up of people from the community, college graduates as well as high school drop-outs, men and women, probably would not have come to that decision.
When one looks to Europe, we see that in these kinds of cases, an economic assessment is made for the bereaved family and that’s what they receive, and, if the manufacturer is found to have been negligent, the corporate leaders are charged with manslaughter and do time if convicted. Here, we try to keep things on the economic plane, keeping in mind fair play, equity and justice, which the courts disallow.
By having juries defined and the community protected by these rules, and the pecuniary interests of the judges and attorneys completely removed from the litigation process, justice will become the norm and injustice an aberration.

§3.07 through 3.09

These are self explanatory. The section on not allowing criminals more rights that citizens is fairly well covered above. The penalties’ section simply removes the undesirables from staying on the bench.
More Reasoning
Another quick proof of the malignant intentional negligence of the court system, and one which is about to cost the taxpayer trillions of dollars, is the allowance into the court system of a suit for reparations by people alleging to be descended from slaves, here in the United States. This gross injustice is so rife with illegal and non-judicial forms that it must be commented on.
A quick historical background on slavery in the western hemisphere has been pointed out above. In addition, it’s necessary to point out that the people who profited from slavery include all those northern states who provided the ships and ports, and agents in Africa who bought the slaves originally and those that took Federal Dollars to improve roads and canals, those Federal Dollars being tax revenue from primarily southern states. However, just to point out the legalistic nonsense involved and allowed in this suit, read on:
First, in order to file the suit, you must be the one injured. No one in this country can claim to have had his labor stolen by the government. The United States Government has never owned slaves and, in fact, when Lincoln tried to avert the War of 1861 by asking congress to buy the slaves, he was told that the federal government wasn’t allowed to own slaves, even for the limited purpose of manumission. When Lincoln proposed to buy the slaves from the slave states that had stayed loyal, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, & Delaware, his purpose to prove that the war was being fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves, which was an unconstitutional purpose, he was told that the necessary and proper clause wasn’t broad enough to allow congress to spend the money that way and that the spending clause also prohibited this purchase. His decision to free the slaves through The Emancipation Proclamation was allowed only because it didn’t apply to the United States but to a foreign nation with which the United States was at war and because it was not a government action, but an action by the military applying only to an enemy state! So, nowhere in the 220 year history of the United States has the United States owned slaves. Plaintiff’s lack standing for this reason alone.
Second, you must be the damaged one. Reparations suits have been allowed by the courts where the plaintiffs have been Japanese-Americans wrongfully incarcerated during WW II and for Jews and others against Germany and Swiss Banks for the theft of goods and labor. There is also a suit being considered against Japan by WW II veterans who were used as forced labor to build roads, bridges and work in factories, where, again, only those living have been allowed in as parties, none of their descendants. In this suit, no one originally a slave is a plaintiff.
Third is the all-necessary parties rule. In order to provide justice, you must make all those liable parties to the suit. Generally, this is considered a class action suit. Now, let’s look at those actually liable in the reparations issue: First, those who took the original peoples into slavery, according to the actual facts and records, were 80% African Tribesmen who took other tribesmen into slavery, a practice that still goes on today. Not one African tribe or country is included as a defendant. Secondly, there were those who transported the slaves, primarily Boston and Providence shippers, none who’ve been made defendants.
In such a suit, all the plaintiffs must be included or given the chance to be included. Everyone has seen the ads in Reader’s Digest and TV Guide, where you need to file as a plaintiff in one of the asbestos suits, or breast implants, or Vioxx. The same joining of parties is necessary in this suit. Since this is a suit for reparations for some ancestor having been a slave, then just about everyone should be a plaintiff because somewhere in your history, and mine someone was a slave to somebody. Being Polish, several generations of my ancestors were enslaved as serfs by the Russians; a serf being worse off than a slave because a slave has value and a serf is only part of the land, like a tree or a rock. If this reparations suit were reasonable, then we’d all be plaintiffs and every institution, business and government would be a defendant. Simply as a matter of law, it’s a necessity to include all necessary parties. Not done here.
Further, in order to be just, only those who originally owned slaves can be assessed damages. My grandparents came to this country to get away from the war. I’m second generation. To the best of my knowledge, no one in my family has ever owned slaves, but in fact, have been Russian Serfs. I should be a plaintiff. On the side of defendants, in order to be just, a study would have to be made as to who was here before 1866 when slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, as well as who is actually descended from an actual American slave owner. And, someone had better include those blacks descended from that 32% of slave owners who were black.
Next is the issue of Statute of Limitations. If these people who were not damaged by slavery are entitled to bring suit over one hundred and fifty years after the last occurrence, then everyone can bring suit against anyone and everyone for any reason at any time regardless of law or reason. The Statute of Limitation for a suit of stolen labor is less than ten years in Missouri. This means that any suit filed after 1876 should be dismissed for un-timeliness.
Next is the issue of Cause of Action. Is this really a suit for damages for discrimination or for forced labor? Forced labor is really a States’ issue and should not be in Federal Court for that reason alone. If this is a discrimination issue, then where are the Amer-Indians, Chinese and Caucasian descendants necessary for adjudication?
Damages must be for a sum certain or there must be some method of determining damages. In this suit there is no reasonable formula for computation of damages. In fact, there is no formulation for who should receive those damages if it becomes possible to ascertain them. Less than 60% of the blacks living in the United States today are descended from American slaves. How is the court supposed to determine who collects what.
Along with the issue of damages is mitigation of damages. How is the court going to count the monies spent by congress on welfare, affirmative action, EEO &c., or the monies given to charities or The National Negro College Fund, &c, by whites and others, against any spurious damages? Impossible.
Best yet, whom can they collect against? All the slave owners and their property are long gone. Under the 1787 Constitution, the court does not have the authority to order the Government to pay damages caused by private individuals, only congress can do that and only for a legitimate reason. Any order by the court to pay from tax revenue is unconstitutional on its face. The suit should have been dismissed as not in the jurisdiction of the court, but in fact a legislative issue. And Congress is forbidden to pass Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws. Meaning, you can’t post date a law back one minute, much less 160 years or more, just because you want to. And, the court has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Instead the people of the United States, over 95% who have no involvement in the issue, are staring at a lawsuit, or not because the mainstream media hasn’t reported this suit, are going to be out trillions of dollars.
One thing not mentioned above, is that the lawyers involved will make a fortune on this bogus suit. The court will award attorney’s fees to the lawyers. Article II removes the litigating federal attorneys from all temptation of financial gain through misapplication of law or procedure. Even in a case where the court feels that the suit needs more lawyers, in Kansas City alone, there are over 200 lawyers available for temporary work at $23.00 per hour, no benefits other than overtime, so additional lawyers, not U.S. Attorneys, are readily available at reasonable rates, as temps.
These changes are necessary for justice and to stop the millionaire jury lottery that our courts have become. Make a group of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty sympathetic, and regardless of law and fact, become an instant multi-millionaire with the lawyers getting up to 60% as their fee. (State of Missouri allows 60% to attorneys in contingent fee cases.)
Nope, these changes are not only necessary, they are righteous.

[From Article II, The Legislature:]

§1.08.01 The House shall have the following Standing Committees with the responsibilities as delineated therein, plus those others to be delegated and revocable to them by The People, and in The Senate revocable by The States:
§1.08.01a Judiciary
§1.08.01a(i) Within thirty (30) days of a decision by The Supreme Court on any Constitutional Issue, or Interpretation of a law passed by congress, this committee will recommend either the acceptance of the court’s interpretation in its entirety, acceptance of a part of the interpretation remanding the remainder for the court to reconsider, for which it will have no more than ten (10) days to submit a re-interpretation for this committee to reconsider, or reject the court’s interpretation in its entirety in which case the court will have ten (10) days to resubmit its decision; this committee shall have the privilege, not right, of suggesting to The Court a more appropriate decision
§1.08.01a(ii) When the committee has decided to accept the court’s interpretation in its entirety, it will then submit to The Congress the Court’s decision for its approval
§1.08.01a(iii) The Congress will then, as a committee of the whole, decide to accept or reject the Judiciary Committee’s Report. In the event of a rejection, The Congress shall have thirty (30) days to write and pass by a 60% majority of the Quorum of the entire Congress, a decision that will then be the final decision as to the interpretation of this Constitution or of the Federal law in question
§1.08.01a(iv) The Judiciary Committees shall recommend the appointment of all Federal Judges and Attorneys from the appropriate lists provided to them by The President to The Congress
§1.08.01a(iv)A Appointments must be made within thirty (30) days of a position becoming vacant
§1.08.01a(iv)B Appointments must be made from and only from the pre-existing list of candidates provided by The President, said lists further defined in Article II, The Executive
§1.08.01a(v) The Judiciary Committees will be responsible for recommending to The Congress for its approval all Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules of Evidence, keeping in mind the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and also that of The Executive as submitted by The Attorney General of the United States, but neither shall they be bound by such recommendations
§1.08.01a(vi) The Judiciary Committees shall be responsible for the recommendation of Impeachment of Federal Judges and U.S. Attorneys, when called for by a Writ of Impeachment from either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or by The Executive or by themselves, or by the Legislature of the State in which the Judge or Attorney is assigned
§1.08.01a(vi)A Said Writ shall clearly state the breach of this Constitution alleged, the evidence supporting the Writ, or, present the Conviction of Felony requiring said judge’s or attorney’s dismissal as required in Article III of this Constitution
§1.08.01a(vi)B If said Writ is presented by a state’s legislature, the Writ must have been voted approved by 75% of both houses of that legislature, 75% of the full legislature, not 75% of the quorum
§1.08.01a(vii) At the direction of The Congress shall provide all other oversight necessary to prevent the court from legislating

1.08 Required Committees and their responsibilities

Specific Committees designed to do certain things. The Founding Fathers, as noted in the preceding comment, had limitations on the franchise. They believed that certain issues, even those that were unpopular or messy, would be properly handled because congress would be made up of responsible people. Two Hundred and Twenty years have shown us otherwise. Just look at the number who routinely bounce checks. Look at the pork. Look at the current spitefulness & partisanship wrangling, over 9/11 and the Iraq Vote. Look to Obamacare and all of the waivers; and, if that’s not enough, go read Throw Them All Out, for the insider trading, legal for congress, illegal for you and me.
Look at the National Debt, or don’t. Whether you do or don’t, YOU owe over $100,000, as does each man, woman, and child who’s a citizen in this country. We’ve got this debt because members of the congress created by the 1787 constitution, are irresponsible and represent only special interest groups and most particularly not the middle-class taxpayer. (The current National Debt is over 16.75 Trillion Dollars – $16,750,000,000,000.00 now divide by 300,000,000 and that’s how much each individual owes, and really, who’s going to pay that money off? )
In recent history various congressional responsibilities have been ignored and the executive and judicial branches have stepped into the vacuum. Roe v Wade is only one public example of such. The Dred Scott Decision, for those who are actually familiar with it, is another. Almost every decision of John Marshall’s, starting with Marbury v Madison, has been a lurid and successful attempt at taking power away from the people. Reading from The Federalist it seems that the Founding Fathers would have approved. Reading from the works represented in The Anti-Federalist, The Massachusetts Plan, and those speeches in Congress from about 1820 through 1860, as well as the constitutional debates themselves (1787), it’s shown that the 1787 constitution became terminally ill with Marbury.
In both sets of essays and such works as Calhoun’s A Disquisition on Government and Geo Washington Letters to Bushrod Washington and the various letters of such note-worthies as Senator/President Jefferson Davis, Senator Stephen Douglas, President Abraham Lincoln, President John Adams, President Thomas Jefferson, et al, congress is MEANT to supersede the Supreme Court and the Executive. Instead, for fear of offending some special interest group back home, much power has left the people by the ineptitude and cowardice of the national legislators.
By having specific duties and responsibilities spelt out, The Congress cannot but do its duty and fulfill its obligations to the nation. The questions of constitutionality of abortion would’ve been answered within six months; Spiro Agnew would’ve gone to jail a lot sooner; the National Debt would be a lot less; a $500,000,000 bridge to nowhere in Alaska wouldn’t exist; Cindy Sheehan and now Sandra Fluke, wouldn’t be in the news ad nauseum.
An historical aside is that before the Marshalistas got control of the Supreme Court, constitutional issues were put to the jury, not to a judge or appellate court with its own agenda.

March 11, 2017

Imprimis Feb 17 Vol 46 #2

Support Imprimis

How Intelligence Works (When it Does)
February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer
Herbert E. Meyer
Founder and President, Storm King Press
________________________________________
Herbert E. Meyer, founder and president of Storm King Press, served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. A recipient of the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, his articles and essays on intelligence have been published in several major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books, including Real-World Intelligence and Hard Thinking; two eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty; and a recent booklet, Why is the World So Dangerous.
________________________________________

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 15, 2017, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.

The performance of our country’s intelligence service is the latest example of an issue exploding into the headlines and becoming a shouting match, while failing to clarify anything about the issue itself. This explosion was ignited last fall by allegations that the Russians hacked into Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the election. The blast radius expanded after the election, when rumors surfaced that the Russians had deployed their nasty tactic of kompromat to undermine President Trump’s credibility by spreading rumors about his private behavior while in Moscow years ago. All this, on top of failures that had already wreaked havoc at the CIA and our other intelligence agencies—the 9/11 attacks themselves, the mess over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the weird 2007 National Intelligence Estimate whose key judgment was that Iran had abandoned its nuclear bomb program, Edward Snowden’s NSA espionage activities—has kept the issue of our intelligence service in the headlines.

But before addressing the question of why these failures have occurred, we need to define clearly the role and purpose of our country’s intelligence service, with a focus on how intelligence really works when it’s working properly.

Just utter the word “intelligence” and most people conjure up images of spies, secret satellites peering down on foreign cities and terrorist camps, and rooms full of young technocrats reading private emails and listening to private conversations. These images are accurate, but they reflect the tools and techniques of our intelligence service, rather than its purpose. To understand its purpose, think of a jumbo jet flying at night through turbulent skies—thunder clouds, lightning, other airplanes streaking in all directions and at all altitudes. To navigate through this, the pilot and his crew rely on their radar—the instrument that paints a picture of their environment, enabling them to see what’s going on around them and what lies ahead so they can chart a safe course. Radar doesn’t tell the captain and his crew what to do, but it gives them the accurate information they’ll need to make good decisions.

Our intelligence service is our nation’s radar. Its purpose is to provide the president and his national security team with an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and what’s likely to happen in the days, months, and years ahead. The assumption is that if the president and his team have this information, they can chart a safe course for our country. And if they can see the distant future soon enough and clearly enough—and if they don’t like what they see—they can take steps to change the future before it happens.

Good intelligence is a combination of information and insight. Information is the raw material, while insight is the finished product. Sometimes this insight takes the form of a top secret report that alerts the president and his team to something that’s about to happen, such as a terrorist attack or the military invasion of one country by another. At other times it is a National Intelligence Estimate, whose purpose is to provide an overall assessment of a major issue—such as North Korea’s nuclear bomb program or the rapid growth of Africa’s middle class—along with a prediction of its future course.

The key to producing good intelligence lies in getting this combination of information and insight right. Intelligence work is like science. You don’t collect information randomly and then stare at it in hopes that something important will pop up. You start with a thesis—in other words, you decide what you want to know. Then you send your collectors out to get it. This is why the key to producing good intelligence lies in asking the right question, rather than in just poring over what’s been randomly collected in hopes that somewhere in the pile of reports and intercepts on your desk you’ll spot something important.

Let me give you an example of how this worked during the Reagan administration. From the end of World War II until 1981, every president’s objective had been not to lose the Cold War. If things were no worse when a president left office than when he took office, he’d done a good job. But President Reagan didn’t want to tread water—he wanted to win the Cold War. In other words, he switched from defense to offense. So Reagan’s great director of Central Intelligence, William Casey, asked the CIA’s Soviet Division two obvious questions: Where is the Soviet Union weak? and Where is it most vulnerable? The answer he received was: We don’t know. No one’s ever asked this before. Our spies had been so focused on Soviet strengths—infantry divisions, nuclear missiles, tanks, submarines, and so forth—that we had no intelligence on Soviet weaknesses, such as its imploding economy. Under Casey’s leadership, we refocused our collection efforts and, not surprisingly, found all sorts of Soviet vulnerabilities that hadn’t been grasped because no one had bothered looking for them. President Reagan used these weaknesses and vulnerabilities to put more and more pressure on the Kremlin. Eight years later the Berlin Wall came down, and two years after that the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

In the intelligence business, just as in scientific research, a thesis sometimes turns out to be wrong. The collectors can’t find what you want, because it isn’t there. When this happens—and it happens to even the best scientists and intelligence officials—you must abandon your flawed thesis and re-think the issue. If you refuse to do this, you’re like a scientist who continues to insist that the Earth is flat—or a president who continues to insist that ISIS is like a “junior varsity” team.

February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer

When the collectors have done their work—when they’ve told the analysts what they want to know—the intelligence process shifts from gathering information to creating insight. It’s the difference between shopping for food in the supermarket and actually cooking dinner.

Insight is the product of knowledge, experience, and, above all, good judgment. You cannot say something insightful, or even something intelligent, on a subject or issue about which you don’t know anything. So the most senior intelligence analysts must be among the world’s most knowledgeable individuals in their fields of expertise—the Mideast, Russia, China, nuclear weapons, economic development, etc. And they must have that one elusive and unquantifiable skill that so often brings success in every venture: the ability to spot a pattern with the fewest possible facts—the ability to look at what’s known and combine this with their own knowledge, experience, and good judgment, to come up with a new idea or insight. This is the skill we see in great scientists like Albert Einstein, in great entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, and in great intelligence chiefs like Bill Casey.

Back in January, when U.S. intelligence chiefs released an unclassified version of the briefing they gave to President-Elect Trump about Russian efforts to influence the November election, Americans learned a phrase that’s unique to the world of intelligence: key judgment. It was a key judgment that Russia had hacked into John Podesta’s email server, and a key judgment that Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. Since these key judgments understandably erupted into a nasty political brawl, let’s take a moment to understand what a key judgment really is. Simply put, it’s the conclusion reached by our most senior intelligence officials, based not only on the evidence they were able to collect, but also on the insights it enabled them to reach based on their knowledge and experience.

A key judgment isn’t the same as a jury verdict. A jury verdict is based solely on the evidence presented to it. In a murder trial, unless the prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you must vote for acquittal. But in a National Intelligence Estimate, you reach a key judgment by starting with the evidence, then combining it with your own knowledge and experience to reach a conclusion.

Precisely because key judgments go beyond evidence, an intelligence service must be trusted by policymakers to be effective. Policymakers may not always like what they’re told—as when the obvious implication of a National Intelligence Estimate is that a favorite policy is heading for catastrophe—but if they trust the intelligence service, they will know that what they’ve been told is likely true. And this trust needs to be earned.

This is how it was during the Reagan administration, because ev¬eryone from the President on down knew perfectly well that the intelligence official who not only had read the final version of an Estimate and signed off on it—but also played a major role in writing it—was the CIA director himself. Like every other member of the cabinet, Bill Casey was a busy man. But to Casey, being in charge of our intelligence service meant more than merely being its top administrator and dealing with budgets and bureaucracies. It meant that he himself was our country’s top intelligence analyst. When the final draft of an Estimate landed on his desk—more precisely, when I walked into his office and handed it to him—Casey would take that draft, pick up a pen and a yellow legal pad, and go through it word by word.

Sometimes he made a change that clarified a sentence. Other times he asked a question that forced us to go back and re-think what we’d written. When that happened, we either changed the draft or asked to meet with Casey to try and persuade him that the original version was better. He would listen and then make his decision. All of us who worked closely with Bill Casey—he insisted that everyone, including the CIA’s most junior analysts, call him Bill—were astounded by the amount of time he devoted to getting the final draft of an Estimate, or the final version of the President’s Daily Brief, just right. He did this by sitting quietly in his office, reading, writing, and—something that so few officials in Washington, D.C. set aside the time to do—thinking.

February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer

So why has our intelligence service suffered so many failures during the last decade or so, losing the trust of so many? Because it’s been run by career bureaucrats and administrators who rose to the top by managing intelligence rather than actually doing it. That’s like putting an airline executive with an MBA and a law degree into the cockpit of a jumbo jet. And like bureaucrats and administrators everywhere, our recent intelligence chiefs focused on structure rather than on people. Of course all organizations, including intelligence services, need the proper structure. But especially in an intelligence service, good structure is worthless without the right people—in this case world-class analysts who are deeply knowledgeable about the Mideast, China, Russia, terrorism, and all the rest. Make a list of our country’s leading experts on these subjects. How many of them have held top-level jobs in our intelligence service during the last dozen or so years? How often have the leaders of our intelligence service reached out to these people to seek their advice? The correct answers are: none and rarely.

We are still in the early days of the Trump administration, but to borrow an overused Washington cliché, we should be cautiously optimistic about the future of our intelligence service. Neither Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats nor Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo are professional bureaucrats. They’ve built their careers on substance rather than on management. Each of them has proven he can talk about the key issues that confront us with an impressive level of personal knowledge and insight. Each is capable of actually doing intelligence rather than merely overseeing it.

This will require restoring the correct balance between collection and analysis. Obviously, collecting information is crucially important work. Collecting information through technology—satellites, intercepts, and so forth—is intense to the point of exhaustion. Collecting information through espionage is dangerous and sometimes fatal. All of us owe these collectors a huge debt of gratitude. What they need now is guidance from the top—a clear sense of what to look for, rather than just being told to sweep in whatever information they can in hopes it will prove useful.

Turning this raw material into first-rate intelligence will require the active participation of our country’s best geo-strategic experts in think tanks, universities, corporations, and increasingly the blogosphere. Directors Coats and Pompeo should recruit the ones they can, and be in close touch with the others. This doesn’t mean agreeing with everything these experts say and write. It means listening to them and blending their information and insights with what’s been gathered covertly, in order to reach the clearest, most accurate conclusions about what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen in the future.

Finally, Coats and Pompeo will need to do the one thing their recent predecessors didn’t do, either because they didn’t recognize the need to do it or didn’t have the ability. They will need to set aside time—quite a bit of time—to sit quietly in their offices and think. Their objective must be to paint an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and of what’s likely to happen in the future. If they can do this, President Trump and his national security team will have what they need to see America safely through today’s global turbulence: radar.

March 10, 2017

Hanson angry reader reply, 10 Mar 17 [nc]

03/10/17
From an Angry Reader:

Mr. Hansen –

In this commentary, you appear to be engaging in sophistry. In other words, you appear to be decisively imparting falsehoods. First you fabricate a definition of the “American elite” comprised exclusively of progressives. Then you fabricate a reality where the mainstream press disseminates lies, where college campuses lack diversity and muzzle free speech and where progressives have fallen down in addressing the problems of the inner cities. Finally you fabricate an argument that the so-called elite have “titles, brands and buzz” but no “demonstrable knowledge or proven character”. This is a perfect example of deflection and psychological projection. You have, wittingly or not, described your populist hero Donald Trump, a man with “brands and buzz”, who disseminates lies, impugns minorities, muzzles the press, cares little about the inner cities and clearly lacks knowledge or character.

– Allan Cooper

Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:

Dear Angry Reader Allan Cooper

One of the themes of the Angry Reader column is the predictable use by Leftists such as yourself of personal invective (“sophistry”, “falsehoods”, “fabricate”, etc.) along with intellectual laziness.

Take your allegation that I wrote that elites are “comprised exclusively of progressives”.

How does that assertion square with my allusion in the column on elites to “many in the Republican Party as well” or to the “Bush or Clinton families”. Are the Bushes and the Republican Party progressives?

So it is hard to take you seriously when the first allegation you make is demonstrably false.

And it sadly it is all downhill from there:

1) Are you arguing for intellectual diversity on campus? I think the recent Middlebury and Berkeley violence highlights my suggestion that there is little intellectual tolerance on campus.

2) Are you suggesting that the media is not progressive? JournoList, Wikileaks, and the epidemic of fake news from Rathergate and Brian Williams to the MLK bust allegation or Trump’s supposed romps in a Moscow hotel room substantiate the unreliability of the press, which by all polls and its own admission is overwhelming liberal.

3) You doubt the nature of life in the inner city or its governance? The inner cities are in crisis; most have had Democratic mayors and councils for the last thirty years and more; again are you contending that fact?

Donald Trump is not “my populist hero”; can you find any indication that I wrote that?

More to the point: what Trump says and what he actually does are two different things. I will find him guilty of “muzzling the press” when his Justice Department hounds journalists of the Associated Press or taps the communications of a reporter in the fashion of Obama’s treatment of James Rosen, or expands the reach of the NSA and the dissemination of its intelligence or depends on fawning press coverage to advance his agenda in the fashion of the “god”, “smartest president ever” and leg-tingling Barack Obama.

There are various ways of defining knowledge and character.

Trump is, of course, a flawed individual like many of us; but his failings are transparent, quite unlike those of Barack Obama, to take one example (Hillary Clinton is another).

With Trump, what you see is what you get. With Obama and his subordinates we were given constant utopian platitudes about hope and change, but experienced quite different dangerous deeds: expansions of NSA electronic surveillance, lying under oath by Eric Holder and James Clapper, the warping of the IRS, scandals in the VA, GSA, Secret Service, EPA, etc., nullifications of federal law by executive order non-enforcement, the jailing of a video maker on the false narrative of culpability for Benghazi (about which lies were promulgated by Susan Rice), the “echo chamber” manipulation of the “know nothing” press, assassinations abroad of US citizens, bombing Libya without congressional consent, the likely illegal monitoring and leaking of communications of the Trump campaign (as reported by the NY Times, Washington Post, and BBC), constant mellifluous untruth (you can keep your doctor and health plan, the president will not by fiat grant amnesties, the mythologies of the Cairo Speech), and often bizarre references to foreign leaders (from the open mic promise to be more flexible with Putin but only after the election to the gratuitous insults of Netanyahu [“coward”, “chickenshit”]). I learned in farming early on that the loud and uncouth are easier to deal with than the glib and shifty-eyed; the former may assault you senses, but the latter your person and livelihood.

So I think you need to redefine the boundaries of wisdom; they are not just calibrated by “57 states”- and “corps-men”-like Columbia and Harvard degrees.

Surviving the Manhattan real estate cauldron may take more savvy and cunning than the sorts of identity-politics navigation in colleges and liberal circles as outlined in Dreams From My Father. I have spent most of my adult life in two pursuits: academia, often in the circle of those with impressive graduate degrees, and farming with those sometimes without high school diplomas.

I saw little difference among the two groups in terms of ethics, saw the less articulate often more direct and transparent, and could never quite tell which group was the smarter, although what I heard in the faculty lounge and academic senate was a few rings down on the intelligence scale from what I heard and saw when talking to well drillers, pump installers, and tractor mechanics.

Sincerely,

Victor Davis HansOn (Swedish not Danish)

February 10, 2017

Imprimis 9/16 – Restoring America’s Economic Mobility

Restoring America’s Economic Mobility
September 2016 • Volume 45, Number 9 • Frank Buckley
Frank Buckley
Author, The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America
________________________________________
Frank Buckley is a Foundation Professor at Scalia Law School at George Mason University, where he has taught since 1989. Previously he was a visiting Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and he has also taught at McGill Law School, the Sorbonne, and Sciences Po in Paris. He received his B.A. from McGill University and his LL.M. from Harvard University. He is a senior editor of The American Spectator and the author of several books, including The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America and The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America.
________________________________________

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on July 11, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that “the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.” Today the story of American politics is the story of class struggles. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. We didn’t think we were divided into different classes. Neither did Marx.

America was an exception to Marx’s theory of social progress. By that theory, societies were supposed to move from feudalism to capitalism to communism. But the America of the 1850s, the most capitalist society around, was not turning communist. Marx had an explanation for that. “True enough, the classes already exist,” he wrote of the United States, but they “are in constant flux and reflux, constantly changing their elements and yielding them up to one another.” In other words, when you have economic and social mobility, you don’t go communist.

That is the country in which some imagine we still live, Horatio Alger’s America—a country defined by the promise that whoever you are, you have the same chance as anyone else to rise, with pluck, industry, and talent. But they imagine wrong. The U.S. today lags behind many of its First World rivals in terms of mobility. A class society has inserted itself within the folds of what was once a classless country, and a dominant New Class—as social critic Christopher Lasch called it—has pulled up the ladder of social advancement behind it.

One can measure these things empirically by comparing the correlation between the earnings of fathers and sons. Pew’s Economic Mobility Project ranks Britain at 0.5, which means that if a father earns £100,000 more than the median, his son will earn £50,000 more than the average member of his cohort. That’s pretty aristocratic. On the other end of the scale, the most economically mobile society is Denmark, with a correlation of 0.15. The U.S. is at 0.47, almost as immobile as Britain.

A complacent Republican establishment denies this change has occurred. If they don’t get it, however, American voters do. For the first time, Americans don’t believe their children will be as well off as they have been. They see an economy that’s stalled, one in which jobs are moving offshore. In the first decade of this century, U.S. multinationals shed 2.9 million U.S. jobs while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. General Electric provides a striking example. Jeffrey Immelt became the company’s CEO in 2001, with a mission to advance stock price. He did this in part by reducing GE’s U.S. workforce by 34,000 jobs. During the same period, the company added 25,000 jobs overseas. Ironically, President Obama chose Immelt to head his Jobs Council.
According to establishment Repub¬licans, none of this can be helped. We are losing middle-class jobs because of the move to a high-tech world that creates jobs for a cognitive elite and destroys them for everyone else. But that doesn’t describe what’s happening. We are losing middle-class jobs, but lower-class jobs are expanding. Automation is changing the way we make cars, but the rich still need their maids and gardeners. Middle-class jobs are also lost as a result of regulatory and environmental barriers, especially in the energy sector. And the skills-based technological change argument is entirely implausible: countries that beat us hands down on mobility are just as technologically advanced. Folks in Denmark aren’t exactly living in the Stone Age.

This is why voters across the spectrum began to demand radical change. What did the Republican elite offer in response? At a time of maximal crisis they have been content with minimal goals, like Mitt Romney’s 59-point plan in 2012. How many Americans remember even one of those points? What we remember instead is Romney’s remark about 47 percent of Americans being takers. That was Romney’s way of recognizing the class divide—and in the election, Americans took notice and paid him back with interest.
Since 2012, establishment Republicans have continued to be less than concerned for the plight of ordinary Americans. Sure, they want economic growth, but it doesn’t seem to matter into whose pockets the money flows. There are even the “conservative” pundits who offer the pious hope that drug-addicted Trump supporters will hurry up and die. That’s one way to ameliorate the class struggle, but it doesn’t exactly endear anyone to the establishment.

The southern writer Flannery O’Connor once attended a dinner party in New York given for her and liberal intellectual Mary McCarthy. At one point the issue of Catholicism came up, and McCarthy offered the opinion that the Eucharist is “just a symbol,” albeit “a pretty one.” O’Connor, a pious Catholic, bristled: “Well, if it’s just a symbol, to Hell with it.” Likewise, the principles held up as sacrosanct by establishment Republicans might be logically unassailable, derived like theorems from a set of axioms based on a pure theory of natural rights. But if I don’t see them making people better off, I say to Hell with them. And so do the voters this year. What the establishment Republicans should ask themselves is Anton Chigurh’s question in No Country for Old Men: If you followed your principles, and your principles brought you to this, what good are your principles?

September 2016 • Volume 45, Number 9 • Frank Buckley

Had Marx been asked what would happen to America if it ever became economically immobile, we know what his answer would be: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And also Donald Trump. The anger expressed by the voters in 2016—their support for candidates from far outside the traditional political class—has little parallel in American history. We are accustomed to protest movements on the Left, but the wholesale repudiation of the establishment on the Right is something new. All that was solid has melted into air, and what has taken its place is a kind of right-wing Marxism, scornful of Washington power brokers and sneering pundits and repelled by America’s immobile, class-ridden society.

Establishment Republicans came up with the “right-wing Marxist” label when House Speaker John Boehner was deposed, and labels stick when they have the ring of truth. So it is with the right-wing Marxist. He is right-wing because he seeks to return to an America of economic mobility. He has seen how broken education and immigration systems, the decline of the rule of law, and the rise of a supercharged regulatory state serve as barriers to economic improvement. And he is a Marxist to the extent that he sees our current politics as the politics of class struggle, with an insurgent middle class that seeks to surmount the barriers to mobility erected by an aristocratic New Class. In his passion, he is also a revolutionary. He has little time for a Republican elite that smirks at his heroes—heroes who communicate through their brashness and rudeness the fact that our country is in a crisis. To his more polite critics, the right-wing Marxist says: We are not so nice as you!

The right-wing Marxist notes that establishment Republicans who decry crony capitalism are often surrounded by lobbyists and funded by the Chamber of Commerce. He is unpersuaded when they argue that government subsidies are needed for their friends. He does not believe that the federal bailouts of the 2008-2012 TARP program and the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest and quantitative easing policies were justified. He sees that they doubled the size of public debt over an eight-year period, and that our experiment in consumer protection for billionaires took the oxygen out of the economy and produced a jobless Wall Street recovery.

The right-wing Marxist’s vision of the good society is not so very different from that of the JFK-era liberal; it is a vision of a society where all have the opportunity to rise, where people are judged by the content of their character, and where class distinctions are a thing of the past. But for the right wing Marxist, the best way to reach the goal of a good society is through free markets, open competition, and the removal of wasteful government barriers.

Readers of Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose will have encountered the word palimpsest, used to describe a manuscript in which one text has been written over another, and in which traces of the original remain. So it is with Canada, a country that beats the U.S. hands down on economic mobility. Canada has the reputation of being more liberal than the U.S., but in reality it is more conservative because its liberal policies are written over a page of deep conservatism.

Whereas the U.S. comes in at a highly immobile 0.47 on the Pew mobility scale, Canada is at 0.19, very close to Denmark’s 0.15. What is further remarkable about Canada is that the difference is mostly at the top and bottom of the distribution. Between the tenth and 90th deciles there isn’t much difference between the two countries. The difference is in the bottom and top ten percent, where the poorest parents raise the poorest kids and the richest parents raise the richest kids.

September 2016 • Volume 45, Number 9 • Frank Buckley

For parents in the top U.S. decile, 46 percent of their kids will end up in the top two deciles and only 2 percent in the bottom decile. The members of the top decile comprise a New Class of lawyers, academics, trust-fund babies, and media types—a group that wields undue influence in both political parties and dominates our culture. These are the people who said yes, there is an immigration crisis—but it’s caused by our failure to give illegals a pathway to citizenship!

There’s a top ten percent in Canada, of course, but its children are far more likely to descend into the middle or lower classes. There’s also a bottom ten percent, but its children are far more likely to rise to the top. The country of opportunity, the country we’ve imagined ourselves to be, isn’t dead—it moved to Canada, a country that ranks higher than the U.S. on measures of economic freedom. Yes, Canada has its much-vaunted Medicare system, but cross-border differences in health care don’t explain the mobility levels. And when you add it all up, America has a more generous welfare system than Canada or just about anywhere else. To explain Canada’s higher mobility levels, one has to turn to differences in education systems, immigration laws, regulatory burdens, the rule of law, and corruption—on all of which counts, Canada is a more conservative country.

America’s K-12 public schools perform poorly, relative to the rest of the First World. Its universities are great fun for the kids, but many students emerge on graduation no better educated than when they arrived. What should be an elevator to the upper class is stalled on the ground floor. One study has concluded that if American public school students were magically raised to Canadian levels, the economic gain would amount to a 20 percent annual pay increase for the average American worker.

The U.S. has a two-tiered educational system: a superb set of schools and colleges for the upper classes and a mediocre set for everyone else. The best of our colleges are the best anywhere, but the average Canadian school is better than the average American one. At both the K-12 and college levels, Canadian schools have adhered more closely to a traditional, conservative set of offerings. For K-12, a principal reason for the difference is the greater competition offered in Canada, with its publicly-supported church-affiliated schools. With barriers like America’s Blaine Amendments—state laws preventing public funding of religious schools—lower-class students in the U.S. must enjoy the dubious blessing of a public school education.

What about immigration? Canada doesn’t have a problem with illegal aliens—it deports them. As for the legal intake, Canadian policies have a strong bias towards admitting immigrants who will confer a benefit on Canadian citizens. Even in absolute numbers, Canada admits more immigrants under economic categories than the U.S., where most legal immigrants qualify instead under family preference categories. As a result, on average, immigrants to the U.S. are less educated than U.S. natives, and unlike in Canada, second- and third-generation U.S. immigrants earn less than their native-born counterparts. In short, the U.S. immigration system imports inequality and immobility. If immigration isn’t an issue in Canada, that’s because it’s a system Trump voters would love.

For those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder who seek to rise, nothing is more important than the rule of law, property rights, and the sanctity of contract provided by a mature and efficient legal system. The alternative—in place today in America—is a network of elites whose personal bonds supply the trust that is needed before deals can be done and promises relied on. With its more traditional legal system, Canada better respects the sanctity of contract and is less likely to weaken property rights with an American-style civil justice system which at times resembles a slot machine of judicially-sanctioned theft. Americans are great at talking about the rule of law, but in reality we don’t have much standing to do so.

Then there’s corruption. As ranked by Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, America is considerably more corrupt than most of the rest of the First World. With our K Street lobbyists and our donor class, we’ve spawned the greatest concentration of money and influence ever. And corruption costs. In a regression model, the average family’s earnings would increase from $55,000 to $60,000 were we to ascend to Canada’s level of non-corruption, and to $68,000 if we moved to Denmark’s level.

In a corrupt country, trust is a rare commodity. That’s America today. Only 19 percent of Americans say they trust the government most of the time, down from 73 percent in 1958 according to the Pew Research Center. Sadly, that is a rational response to the way things are. America is a different country today, and a much nastier one. For politically engaged Republicans, the figure is six percent. That in a nutshell explains the Trump phenomenon and the disintegration of the Republican establishment. If the people don’t trust the government, tinkering with entitlement reform is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
American legal institutions are consistently more liberal than those in Canada, and they are biased towards a privileged class of insiders who are better educated and wealthier than the average American. That’s why America has become an aristocracy. By contrast, Canadian legal institutions aren’t slanted to an aristocracy.

The paradox is that Canadians employ conservative, free market means to achieve the liberal end of economic mobility. And that points to America’s way back: acknowledge that the promise of America has diminished, then emulate Canada.

November 10, 2016

Honor

Honor, get some tissues. I did a bunch of these when I was stationed at Camp LeJeune. I won’t compare to the gits rioting against the election.

http://tinyurl.com/zom68at

October 24, 2016

A Question on American History

Hillary Clinton keeps talking that all U.S. transfers of government have been peaceful.

Am I the only person who has ever heard of The American Civil War or aka The War of 1861 or did all of those teachers lie to me and Lincoln not assassinated????

I’m just sayin’.

September 1, 2016

Diversity: History’s Pathway to Chaos, victor hanson [nc]

Diversity: History’s Pathway to Chaos
September 1, 2016 12:02 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

America’s successful melting pot should not be replaced with discredited salad-bowl separatism.
By Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

Emphasizing diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength, of nations throughout history.

The Roman Empire worked as long as Iberians, Greeks, Jews, Gauls, and myriad other African, Asian, and European communities spoke Latin, cherished habeas corpus, and saw being Roman as preferable to identifying with their own particular tribe. By the fifth century, diversity had won out but would soon prove a fatal liability.

Rome disintegrated when it became unable to assimilate new influxes of northern European tribes. Newcomers had no intention of giving up their Gothic, Hunnish, or Vandal identities.

The propaganda of history’s multicultural empires — the Ottoman, the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian, the British, and the Soviet — was never the strength of their diversity. To avoid chaos, their governments bragged about the religious, ideological, or royal advantages of unity, not diversity.

Nor did more modern quagmires like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Rwanda, or Yugoslavia boast that they were “diverse.” Instead, their strongman leaders naturally claimed that they shared an all-encompassing commonality.

When such coerced harmony failed, these nations suffered the even worse consequences of diversity, as tribes and sects turned murderously upon each other.

For some reason, contemporary America believes that it can reject its uniquely successful melting pot to embrace a historically dangerous and discredited salad-bowl separatism.

Is there any evidence from the past that institutionalizing sects and ethnic grievances would ensure a nation’s security, prosperity, and freedom?

America’s melting pot is history’s sole exception of e pluribus unum inclusivity: a successful multiracial society bound by a common culture, language, and values. But this is a historic aberration with a future that is now in doubt.

Some students attending California’s Claremont College openly demand roommates of the same race. Racially segregated “safe spaces” are fixtures on college campuses.

We speak casually of bloc voting on the basis of skin color — as if a lockstep Asian, Latino, black, or white vote is a good thing.

We are reverting to the nihilism of the old Confederacy. The South’s “one-drop rule” has often been copied to assure employers or universities that one qualifies as a minority.

Some public figures have sought to play up or invent diversity advantages. Sometimes, as in the cases of Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal, and Ward Churchill, the result is farce.

Given our racial fixations, we may soon have to undergo computer scans of our skin colors to rank competing claims of grievance.

How does one mete out the relative reparations for various atrocities of the past, such as slavery, the Holocaust, the American Indian wars, the Asian or Catholic exclusion laws, indentured servitude, or the mid-18th-century belief that the Irish were not quite human?

Sanctuary cities, in the manner of 1850s Richmond or Charleston invoking nullification, now openly declare themselves immune from federal law. Does that defiance ensure every city the right to ignore whatever federal laws it finds inconvenient, from the filing of 1040s to voting laws?

The diversity industry hinges on U.S. citizens still envisioning a shrinking white population as the “majority.” Yet “white” is now not always easily definable, given intermarriage and constructed identities.

In California, those who check “white” on Orwellian racial boxes are now a minority. Will white Californians soon nightmarishly declare themselves aggrieved minorities and thus demand affirmative action, encourage Viking-like names such as Ragnar or Odin, insert umlauts and diereses into their names to hype their European bona fides, seek segregated European-American dorms, and set up “Caucasian Studies” programs at universities?

Women now graduate from college at a higher rate than men. Will there be a male effort to ensure affirmative action for college admissions and graduation rates?

If the white vote reaches 70 percent for a particular candidate, is that really such a good thing, as it was considered to be when President Obama was praised for capturing 95 percent of the black vote?

It is time to step back from the apartheid brink.

Even onetime diversity advocate Oprah Winfrey has had second thoughts about the lack of commonality in America. She recently vowed to quit using the word “diversity” and now prefers “inclusion.”

A Latino-American undergraduate who is a student of Shakespeare is not “culturally appropriating” anyone’s white-European legacy, but instead seeking transcendence of ideas and a common humanity.

Asian-Americans are not “overrepresented” at premier campuses. Their high-profile presence should be praised as a model, not punished as aberrant by number-crunching bureaucrats.

African-Americans who excel in physics and engineering are not “acting white” but finding the proper pathways for their natural talents.

Being one-half Southeast Asian or three-quarters white is not the touchstone to one’s essence and is irrelevant to one’s character and conduct.

No one is impinging on anyone’s culture when blacks dye their hair blond, or when blondes prefer to wear cornrow braids.

Campuses desperately need unity czars, not diversity czars.

Otherwise, we will end up as 50 separate and rival nations — just like other failed states in history whose diverse tribes and races destroyed themselves in a Hobbesian dog-eat-dog war with one another.

August 11, 2016

Dick Morris’ bio of Hillary Clinton [nc]

Dick Morris is a nationally recognized political campaign adviser, analyst and author. He was the senior political adviser to Bill Clinton before and after his occupation of the White House. He was campaign manager of Clinton’s 1996 re-election, and the architect of his successful “triangulation” rhetorical ruse. Clinton’s communications director George Stephanopoulos said of Morris, “No single person had more power over [Bill Clinton].”

This week, in a message entitled “What Bill Left Out, Morris corrected the record regarding Clinton’s glowing remarks about Hillary Clinton, her personal attributes and professional achievements. Morris’s insights into the Clintons are priceless.

What follows is a transcript of Morris’s comments:

“Bill Clinton talked at length about Hillary’s idealistic work in college and law school, but he omits that she was defending the Black Panthers who killed security guards; they were on trial in New Haven. She monitored the trial while she was in law school to find evidence that could be grounds for reversal in the event they were convicted.

“That summer she went to work for the True-Haft (SP) law firm in CA, headed by True Haft who is the head of the CA Communist Party and that’s when she got involved with Saul Alinsky, who became something of a mentor for the rest of her life.

“Then Bill says that she went off to Massachusetts and he went to Arkansas, and eventually Hillary followed her heart to join him in Arkansas. He omits that she went to work for the Watergate Committee and was fired from that job for taking home evidence and hiding documents that they needed in the impeachment inquiry. Then she took the DC Bar exam and flunked it. She went to Arkansas because that is the only bar exam she could pass.

“He talked about how in the 1970’s she took all kinds of pro-bono cases to defend women and children. In her memoirs, she cites one which was a custody case and that’s it. In fact, in 1975 she represented a guy accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and got him off by claiming the girl had had fantasies of sex with an older man. In 1980 she gave an interview about it and she joked that she knew the guy was guilty but got him off anyway.

“Then Bill discusses Hillary’s legal career at the Rose Law firm. He doesn’t mention that she made partner when he was elected governor and was only hired when he got elected as attorney general.

“He makes as if it was a public service job — it wasn’t. Her main job was to get state business, and she got tens-of-millions of dollars of state business, then hid her participation and the fees by taking an extra share of non-state business to compensate for the fees on state business that she brought in. Her other job was to call the state banking commissioner any time one of her banks got into trouble to get them off.

“Bill speaks at length how Hillary was a mother, juggling career and family, taking Chelsea to soccer games and stuff — that’s nonsense. Hillary was a mother but Chelsea in the Arkansas governor’s mansion had a staff of nannies and agents to drive her around and people to be with her, and Hillary didn’t have to bother with any of that. All of that was paid for by the state.

“He says she became the warrior in chief over the family finances and that was true, and the result is she learned how to steal.

“She accepted a $100,000 bribe from the poultry industry in return for Bill going easy on regulating them, despite new standards. Jim Blair, the poultry lobbyist, gave her $1,000 to invest in the Futures Market and lined up seven to eight other investors and their winnings were all deposited into Hillary’s account. She made $100,000 in a year and she was out. That essentially was a bribe.

”[She did] a phony real-estate deal for Jim McDougal and the Madison Bank to deceive the federal regulators by pretending someone else was buying the property. She was called before a grand jury in 1995 about that but, conveniently, the billing records were lost, couldn’t be found and there wasn’t proof that she worked on it.

“Bill talks about her work on the health care task force but doesn’t say the reason it didn’t pass was the task force was discredited because the meetings were all held in secret. A federal judge forced them open and fined the task force several hundred thousand dollars because of their secrecy.

“He says that after the health care bill failed in 1994, Hillary went to work on adopting each piece of it piecemeal — mainly health insurance for children.

“That is completely the opposite of the truth. The fact is when that bill failed, I called Hillary and I suggested that she support a proposal by Republican Bob Dole that we cover children, and she said, ‘We can’t just cover one part of this. You have to change everything or change nothing.’ Then in 1997 when I repeated that advice to Bill Clinton, we worked together to pass the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I found a lot of the money for that in the tobacco settlement that my friend Dick Scruggs was negotiating.

“Then Bill extols her record in the U.S. Senate. In fact, she did practically nothing. There were seven or eight bills that she introduced that passed; almost all of which were symbolic — renaming a courthouse, congratulating a high school team on winning the championship. There was only one vaguely substantive bill, and that had a lot of co-sponsors of whom Hillary was just one.

“Then he goes to her record in the State Department and manages to tell that story without mentioning the word Benghazi, without mentioning her secret emails, without mentioning he was getting tens of millions — $220 million in speaking fees in return for favorable actions by the State Department.

“Also totally lacking in the speech was anything about the war on terror — terror is a word you don’t hear at the Democratic Convention.

“Bill says that Hillary passed tough sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program. The opposite is true.

“Every time a tough sanction bill was introduced by Senators Menendez or Kirk, Hillary would send Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman to Capital Hill to testify against it and urge it not to pass, and it was over Hillary’s objections that those sanctions were put into place.

”[Liberal columnist] Maureen Dowd called the speech by Bill Clinton “air brushed.”

“It was a hell of a lot more than that — it was fiction.

(Also see Morris’s comments after Clinton’s DNC acceptance speech. “Its strategy and message will be interdicted by reality at every turn. … She basically has no message. … Her entire campaign is, ‘I’m a woman and I am running against Donald Trump. … She began her speech by saying let’s compromise and work together. Is there any woman in the world less likely to compromise?”)

June 30, 2016

Freedom and Obligation, Clarence Thomas SCOTUS Associate Justice [nc]

Support Imprimis

Freedom and Obligation–2016 Commencement Address
June 2016 • Volume 45, Number 5/6 • Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court
________________________________________
Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Born in Pinpoint, Georgia, he is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and Yale Law School. Prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, he served as an assistant attorney general of Missouri, an attorney with the Monsanto Company, a legislative assistant to U.S. Senator John Danforth, assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education, chairman of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 2007, he published My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir.
________________________________________
• Facebook
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Print
• E-mail
• Download Issue

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 14, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s 164th Commencement ceremony.

President Arnn, members of the board of trustees, assembled faculty, families and friends, and, most important, members of the Hillsdale College Class of 2016, I am both honored and grateful to participate in these commencement exercises. It has been some years since my wife Virginia and I have been to Hillsdale together. Of course we have known Dr. and Mrs. Arnn for many, many years, and we have been quite close to Hillsdale throughout his tenure. We admire the work that is being done here to educate young men and women—one of whom, Hillsdale graduate David Morrell, a wonderful young man, served as one of my law clerks a few years back.

This has been a most difficult term at the Court. The difficulty is underscored by the sudden and tragic passing of my colleague and friend, Justice Antonin Scalia. I think it is fitting to say a few words about him. Many will focus on his intellect and his legal prowess. I do not demur on either count. But there is so much more than that. When I think of Justice Scalia, I think of the good man who I could instinctively trust during my first days on the Court. He was, in the tradition of the South of my youth, a man of his word, a man of character. Over the almost 25 years that we were together on the Court, I think we made it a better place for each other. I know that he did for me. He was kind to me when it mattered most. He is, and will be, sorely missed.

As the years since I attended college edge toward a half century, I feel a bit out of place talking with college students or recent graduates. So much has changed since I left college in 1971. Things that were considered firm have long since lost their vitality, and much that seemed inconceivable is now firmly or universally established. Hallmarks of my youth, such as patriotism and religion, seem more like outliers, if not afterthoughts. So in a sense, I feel woefully out of place speaking at commencement ceremonies. My words will perhaps seem somewhat vintage in character rather than current or up-to-date. In that context, I admit to being unapologetically Catholic, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically a constitutionalist.
In my youth, we had a small farm. I am convinced that the time I spent there had much to do with my firm resolve never to farm again. Work seemed to spring eternal, like the weeds that consumed so much of our time and efforts. One of the messages constantly conveyed in those days was our obligation to take care of the land and to use it to produce food for ourselves and for others. If there was to be independence, self-sufficiency, or freedom, then we first had to understand, accept, and discharge our responsibilities. The latter were the necessary (but not always sufficient) antecedents or precursors of the former. The only guarantee was that if you did not discharge your responsibilities, there could be no independence, no self-sufficiency, and no freedom.

In a broader context, we were obligated in our neighborhood to be good neighbors so that the neighborhood would thrive. Whether there was to be a clean, thriving neighborhood was directly connected to our efforts. So there was always, to our way of thinking, a connection between the things we valued most and our personal obligations or efforts. There could be no freedom without each of us discharging our responsibilities. When we heard the words duty, honor, and country, no more needed to be said. But that is a bygone era. Today, we rarely hear of our personal responsibilities in discussions of broad notions such as freedom or liberty. It is as though freedom and liberty exist wholly independent of anything we do, as if they are predestined.

Related to this, our era is one in which different treatment or different outcomes are inherently suspect. It is all too commonly thought that we all deserve the same reward or the same status, notwithstanding the differences in our efforts or in our abilities. This is why we hear so often about what is deserved or who is entitled. By this way of thinking, the student who treats spring break like a seven-day bacchanalia is entitled to the same success as the conscientious classmate who works and studies while he plays. And isn’t this same sense of entitlement often applied today to freedom?

At the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked what the gathering had accomplished. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.” Nearly a century later, in a two-minute speech at Gettysburg, President Lincoln spoke similarly. It is for the current generation, he said,

“to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
So many who have gone before us have done precisely that, dedicating their lives to preserving and enhancing our nation both in war and in peace, taking care that those who have given the last full measure of devotion have not done so in vain.”

Being at Hillsdale College, it is appropriate that we should reflect briefly on our ancestors’ understanding of what was to be earned and preserved. America’s Founders and many successive generations believed in natural rights. To establish a government based on the consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, they gave up only that portion of their rights necessary to create a limited government of the kind needed to secure all of their rights. The Founders then structured that government so that it could not jeopardize the liberty that flowed from natural rights. Even though this liberty is inherent, it is not guaranteed. Indeed, the founding documents of our country are an assertion of this liberty against the King of England—arguably the most powerful man in the world at the time—at the risk of the Founders’ lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Over the lifespan of our great country, many occasions have arisen that required this liberty, and the form of government that ensures it, to be defended if it was to survive.

At the risk of understating what is necessary to preserve liberty and our form of government, I think more and more that it depends on good citizens discharging their daily duties and obligations. Here I resist what seems to be the formulaic or standard fare at commencement exercises—a broad complaint about societal injustice and an exhortation to the young graduates to go out and solve the problem and change the world. Having been a young graduate myself, I think it is hard enough to solve your own problems, which can sometimes seem to defy solution. And in addressing your own obligations and responsibilities in the right way, you actually do an important part on behalf of liberty and free government.

Throughout my youth, even as the contradiction of segregation persisted, we revered the ideals of our great nation. We knew, of course, that our country was flawed, as are all human institutions. But we also knew that our best hope lay in the ideal of liberty. I watched with anguish as so many of the older people in my life groped and stumbled through the darkness of near or total illiteracy. Yet they desperately wanted to learn and gain knowledge, and they understood implicitly how important it was to enjoy the fullness of American citizenship. They had spent an aggregation of lifetimes standing on the edge of the dual citizenship that is at the heart of the 14th Amendment.

During the Second World War, they were willing to fight for the right to die on foreign soil to defend their country, even as their patriotic love went unreciprocated. They returned from that horrific war with dignity to face the indignity of discrimination. Yet the desire persisted to push our nation to live up to its ideals.

I often wondered why my grandparents remained such model citizens, even when our country’s failures were so obvious. In the arrogance of my early adult life, I challenged my grandfather and doubted America’s ideals. He bluntly asked: “So, where else would you live?” Though not a lettered man, he knew that our constitutional ideals remained our best hope, and that we should work to achieve them rather than undermine them. “Son,” he said, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” That is, don’t discard what is precious along with what is tainted.

Today, when it seems that grievance rather than responsibility is the main means of elevation, my grandfather’s beliefs may sound odd or discordant. But he and others like him at the time resolved to conduct themselves in a way consistent with America’s ideals. They were law-abiding, hardworking, and disciplined. They discharged their responsibilities to their families and neighbors as best they could. They taught us that despite unfair treatment, we were to be good citizens and good people. If we were to have a functioning neighborhood, we first had to be good neighbors. If we were to have a good city, state, and country, we first had to be good citizens. The same went for our school and our church. We were to keep in mind the corporal works of mercy and the great commandment: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Being wronged by others did not justify reciprocal conduct. Right was right, and two wrongs did not make a right. What we wanted to do did not define what was right—nor, I might add, did our capacious litany of wants define liberty. Rather, what was right defined what we were required to do and what we were permitted to do. It defined our duties and our responsibilities. Whether those duties meant cutting our neighbor’s lawn, visiting the sick, feeding the hungry, or going off to war as my brother did, we were to discharge them honorably.

Shortly before his death in 1983, I sought my grandfather’s advice about how to weather the first wave of harsh criticism directed at me, which I admit had somewhat unnerved me. His re-sponse was simple: “Son, you have to stand up for what you believe in.” To him, that was my obligation, my duty. Perhaps it is at times like that—when you lack strength and courage—that the clarity of our obligation supplies both: duty, honor, country.
As I admitted at the outset, I am of a different time. I knew no one, for example, who was surprised at President Kennedy’s famous exhortation in his 1961 Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” That sentiment was as common as saying the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the National Anthem, as pervasive as shopping at Army-Navy surplus stores. Today there is much more focus on our rights and on what we are owed, and much less on our obligations and duties—unless, of course, it is about our duty to submit to some new proposed policy.

My grandfather often reminded us that if we didn’t work, we didn’t eat, and that if we didn’t plant, we couldn’t harvest. There is always a relationship between responsibilities and benefits. In agrarian societies, that is more obvious. As society becomes more complex and specialized, it is more difficult to discern. But it is equally true. If you continue to run up charges on your credit card, at some point you reach your credit limit. If you continue to make withdrawals from your savings account, you eventually deplete your funds. Likewise, if we continue to consume the benefits of a free society without replenishing or nourishing that society, we will eventually deplete that as well. If we are content to let others do the work of replenishing and defending liberty while we consume the benefits, we will someday run out of other people’s willingness to sacrifice—or even out of courageous people willing to make the sacrifice.
But this is Hillsdale College, which is like a shining city on a hill. This College, in the words of your mission statement, “considers itself a trustee of a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.” The very existence of Hillsdale connotes independence, because Hillsdale, like America, was founded on the idea that liberty is an antecedent of government, not a benefit from government.

Let me offer you, this year’s graduates, a few brief suggestions about making your deposits in the account of liberty. Today is just the end of the beginning of your young lives, and the beginning, the commencement of the rest of your lives. There is much more to come, and it will not be with the guiding hands of your parents—indeed, they may someday need your hand to guide them. Some of you will most assuredly be called upon to do very hard things to preserve liberty. All of you will be called upon to provide a firm foundation of citizenship by carrying out your obligations in the way so many preceding generations have done. You are to be the example to others that those generations have been to us. And in being that example, what you do will matter far more than what you say.

As the years have moved swiftly by, I have often reflected on the important citizenship lessons of my life. For the most part, it was the unplanned array of small things. There was the kind gesture from a neighbor. There was my grandmother dividing our dinner because someone showed up unannounced. There was the stranger stopping to help us get our crops out of the field before a big storm. There were the nuns who believed in us and lived in our neighborhood. There was the librarian who brought books to Mass so that I would not be without reading on the farm. Small gestures such as these become large lessons about how to live our lives. We watched and learned what it means to be a good person, a good neighbor, a good citizen. Who will be watching you? And what will you be teaching them?

After this commencement ceremony ends, I implore you to take a few minutes to thank those who made it possible for you to come this far—your parents, your teachers, your pastor. These are the people who have shown you how to sacrifice for those you love, even when that sacrifice is not always appreciated. As you go through life, try to be a person whose actions teach others how to be better people and better citizens. Reach out to the shy person who is not so popular. Stand up for others when they’re being treated unfairly. Take the time to listen to the friend who’s having a difficult time. Do not hide your faith and your beliefs under a bushel basket, especially in this world that seems to have gone mad with political correctness. Treat others the way you would like to be treated if you stood in their shoes.

These small lessons become the unplanned syllabus for learning citizenship, and your efforts to live them will help to form the fabric of a civil society and a free and prosperous nation where inherent equality and liberty are inviolable. You are men and women of Hillsdale College, a school that has stood fast on its principles and its traditions at great sacrifice. If you don’t lead by example, who will?

I have every faith that you will be a beacon of light for others to follow, like “a city on a hill [that] cannot be hidden.” May God bless each of you now and throughout your lives, and may God bless America.

June 17, 2016

Open Response to Secession Conditions query

[The initial question posed was, how soon do I think that the conditions for revolution/secession be met? I responded with mid-to-late 2018 that the conditions listed by Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence 1776” will be met. The problem of actual secession and the saving of America, depends on the following:]

I think that the conditions that Jefferson listed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence will be met that soon. Whether or not the Red States will do anything at that time, I doubt. Too many disengaged sheeple. Over 1/3 of the population is drinking koolaid and supporting the Obamaites and Clintonites. The rich, who started and supported the 1776 secession, have protected and insulated themselves from the federal government.

The NRA has less than 5 million members. That membership is less than the number of people who subscribe to Playboy magazine, who is about to stop having pictures of nude women in it as the photos are limiting its appeal. Counting the illegals, there are over 330,000,000 people in the U.S. Nobody knows how well armed the illegal’s gangs are, but every major city 6 pm news has a crime report that includes them – look how many deaths in black ‘hoods that go unsolved, in K.C. I think that it is over 87%.

For all the sale of firearms, I see no interest in secession, just self-defense and the beginnings of a reform movement, the Tea Party having been suppressed. Federal government, by virtue of technology, is able to locate and destroy the seeds of serious dissent, note Ruby Ridge in Waco TX and how astoundingly excessive the FBI reacted, and this during the Clinton Administration and good economic times.

Veterans with combat skills, ie The American Legion and the VFW, are in groups run by NCO’s, officers having no interest in us or our organizations where they aren’t worshipped by us, have been co-opted by the feds and congressmen promising, but certainly not delivering, VA benefits, healthcare, financial support &c. Notice how even the VA Home Loan program created the FHA, HARP, &c. Note the VA scandals and how they’ve grown since the first limitation of healthcare to Viet Nam Vets in the 1970’s by Carter and Carter’s blanket amnesty to draft dodgers, of whom one was Bill Clinton thereby erasing his felony and allowing him access to the Oval Office.

So, conditions listed by Jefferson should be met, regardless of who wins the 2016 election, in mid to late 2018. Secession will actually depend upon the collapse of the economy into a complete global depression, coupled to Jihadist terrorism. Secession will, in my opinion, be the least violent and bloody of the alternatives if it happens before the riots.

New Orleans, Baltimore & Ferguson (and look at the futbol hooliganism riots in the E.U. as to their respect for law and order and how poor their controls are – and they are exacerbated by the Muslim “immigrants”) are the indicators on how bloody the Black Sub-Culture will make things, the actions at Mizzou by the sexist & racist students and the Black Lives Matter reaction to the Orlando terrorist murders of LGBT, the unconstitutional importation of millions of Muslims, and the rich being completely insulated from it all by virtue of their private militias and gated communities – just look at how the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia &c. have fallen into militia/gated anarchy – have created anarchy and economic chaos. Yellen continuing the no rate hike and jobs being continuing to be sent to China. Also, look at the riots around Trump Events, the attacks on Free Speech, and the attacks on Due Process especially as Due Process applies to the Second Amendment and firearms access.

Areas mentioned had/have survived because the U.S., the E.U., and the U.N., have sent trillions in aid to them. If the U.S. fails, and the E.U. will fail with the British Exit which is probable with next week’s vote, the global economy fails, and the entire current global support net fails. Look at some of the “News You’re Not Getting Elsewhere” posts to see how chaotic things are getting. What reason does Indonesia have to purchase Leopard MBT’s (Main Battle Tanks)? Whom are they going to use them against?

It will be bloody without secession. Secession, as written and posted on the blog, avoids the bloody revolution. Secession keeps all of our Christian-Protestant American values intact. It will force the Blue States to reform before the violence trigger is pulled, which in turn will force Europe to reform before it collapses completely, thus, Christian values will survive long enough to withstand the Muslim onslaught.

Otherwise, 5/6’s of the World’s population will be destroyed and/or enslaved. Mankind will fall into a Dark Ages from which it will not return. The probability of incurable diseases blossoming and destroying the remaining 1/6 is over 50% as shown by the presenting at Emergency Rooms in Europe of Muslims with TB, Syphillis, Gonorhea, polio, HIV/aids, &c. I posted a report by Britain’s National Health Service on Muslim presentiment and burden on the NHS.

If you’ve some idea of what to do other than scream at our elected elite to secede, I’m probably on board, so let me know.

I assume that YOU have a copy of the Declaration of Independence 1776, and can quickly read the conditions that Jefferson lists. And, can you really see the likes of Joe and Dennis actually coming out and facing the Federales? It’s you and me, the American Legion and the VFW, and maybe the NRA.

BTW I think that I included a copy of the 1860 Declaration of Independence in Albany Plan, if not, you should have gotten copies of Freehling’s “Secession” and “Nullification”. “Secession” not only has a copy of the 1860 but a collection of newspaper editorials similar to The Federalist Papers. Also, there may be a copy in “The South was Right” which I know that you have.

Also, get and read Thomas Sowell’s 1995 “The Vision of the Anointed”. He’s a brother Marine, Korea War Vet, and his viewpoint is similar to ours and worth reading for the info and for his conclusions and solutions. With the death of James Q. Wilson a few years ago, he’s the premier conservative philosopher alive.

May 16, 2016

Imprimis Apr 2016 V45#4 The Danger of “Black Lives Matter” [nc]

Imprimis
OVER 3,400,000 READERS MONTHLY
April 2016 • Volume 45, Number 4
A PUBLICATION OF HILLSDALE COLLEGE
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 27, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s
Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.,
as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
For almost
two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has
convulsed the nation. Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police
officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today. This belief has triggered
riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to
eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presi

dential task force on policing.
Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a
pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still
The Danger of the “Black Lives
Matter” Movement
Heather Mac Donald
A u t h o r,
The War on Cops
HEATHER MAC DONALD
is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute and a contributing editor of
City Journal
. She earned a B.A.
from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University,
and a J. D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers
and journals, including
The Wall Street Journal
,
The New York Times
,
The New Criterion
, and
Public Interest
, and is the author of three books,
including
Are Cops Racist?
and
The War on Cops: How The New Attack
on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe
(for t hc om i ng Ju ne 2 016).
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 1
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
2
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
venerated as a martyr. And now police offi

cers are backing off of proactive policing in
the face of the relentless venom directed at
them on the street and in the media. As a
result, violent crime is on the rise.
The need is urgent, therefore, to
examine the Black Lives Matter move

ment’s central thesis—that police pose
the greatest threat to young black men. I
propose two counter hypotheses: first,
that there is no government agency more
dedicated to the idea that black lives
matter than the police; and second, that
we have been talking obsessively about
alleged police racism over the last 20
years in order to avoid talking about a far
larger problem—black-on-black crime.
Let’s be clear at the outset: police
have an indefeasible obligation to treat
everyone with courtesy and respect, and
to act within the confines of the law. Too
often, officers develop a hardened, obnox

ious attitude. It is also true that being
stopped when you are innocent of any
wrongdoing is infuriating, humiliating,
and sometimes ter

rifying. And needless
to say, every unjusti

fied police shooting
of an unarmed civil

ian is a stomach-
churning tragedy.
Given the his

tory of racism in this
country and the com

plicity of the police
in that history, police
shootings of black
men are particularly
and understandably
fraught. That history
informs how many
people view the police.
But however intoler

able and inexcusable
every act of police
brutality is, and while
we need to make sure
that the police are
properly trained in
the Constitution and
in courtesy, there is a
larger reality behind
the issue of policing, crime, and race that
remains a taboo topic. The problem of
black-on-black crime is an uncomfortable
truth, but unless we acknowledge it, we
won’t get very far in understanding pat

terns of policing.
* * *
Every year, approximately 6,000
blacks are murdered. This is a number
greater than white and Hispanic homi

cide victims combined, even though
blacks are only 13 percent of the national
population. Blacks are killed at six times
the rate of whites and Hispanics com

bined. In Los Angeles, blacks between
the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30
times the national mean. Who is killing
them? Not the police, and not white civil

ians, but other blacks. The astronomical
black death-by-homicide rate is a func

tion of the black crime rate. Black males
between the ages of 14 and 17 commit
homicide at ten times the rate of white
and Hispanic male
teens combined. Blacks
of all ages commit
homicide at eight times
the rate of whites and
Hispanics combined,
and at eleven times the
rate of whites alone.
The police could
end all lethal uses
of force tomorrow
and it would have at
most a trivial effect
on the black death-
by-homicide rate.
The nation’s police
killed 987 civilians
in 2015, according to
a database compiled
by
The Washington
Post
. Whites were 50
percent—or 493—of
those victims, and
blacks were 26 per

cent—or 258. Most of
those victims of police
shootings, white and
black, were armed or
− ́
Imprimis
(im-pri-mis),
[Latin]: in the f irst place
EDITOR
Douglas A. Jeffrey
DEPUTY EDITORS
Matthew D. Bell
Timothy W. Caspar
COPY EDITOR
Monica VanDerWeide
ART DIRECTOR
Arthur Donley
MARKETING DIRECTOR
William Gray
PRODUCTION MANAGER
Lucinda Grimm
CIRCULATION MANAGER
Wanda Oxenger
S TAFF A SSIS TANT S
Robin Curtis
Kim Ellsworth
Kathy Smith
Mary Jo Von Ewegen
Copyright © 2016 Hillsdale College
The opinions expressed in
Imprimis
are not
necessarily the views of Hillsdale College.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
hereby granted, provided the following credit
line is used: “Reprinted by permission from
Imprimis
, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST.
ISSN 0277-8432
Imprimis
trademark registered in U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office #1563325.
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 2
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
3
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
otherwise threatening the officer with
potentially lethal force.
The black violent crime rate would
actually predict that
more
than 26 per

cent of police victims would be black.
Officer use of force will occur where the
police interact most often with violent
criminals, armed suspects, and those
resisting arrest, and that is in black neigh

borhoods. In America’s 75 largest coun

ties in 2009, for example, blacks consti

tuted 62 percent of all robbery defendants,
57 percent of all murder defendants, 45
percent of all assault defendants—but
only 15 percent of the population.
Moreover, 40 percent of all cop kill

ers have been black over the last decade.
And a larger proportion of white and
Hispanic homicide deaths are a result
of police killings than black homicide
deaths—but don’t expect to hear that
from the media or from the political
enablers of the Black Lives Matter move

ment. Twelve percent of all white and
Hispanic homicide victims are killed
by police officers, compared to four
percent of all black homicide victims.
If we’re going to have a “Lives Matter”
anti-police movement, it would be
more appropriately named “White and
Hispanic Lives Matter.”
Standard anti-cop ideology, whether
emanating from the ACLU or the acad

emy, holds that law enforcement actions
are racist if they don’t mirror popula

tion data. New York City illustrates why
that expectation is so misguided. Blacks
make up 23 percent of New York City’s
population, but they commit 75 percent
of all shootings, 70 percent of all robber

ies, and 66 percent of all violent crime,
according to victims and witnesses. Add
Hispanic shootings and you account for
98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the
city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s
population, but they commit fewer than
two percent of all shootings, four per

cent of all robberies, and five percent of
all violent crime. These disparities mean
that virtually every time the police
in New York are called out on a gun
run—meaning that someone has just
been shot—they are being summoned
to minority neighborhoods looking for
minority suspects.
Officers hope against hope that they
will receive descriptions of white shoot

ing suspects, but it almost never hap

pens. This incidence of crime means
that innocent black men have a much
higher chance than innocent white men
of being stopped by the police because
they match the description of a suspect.
This is not something the police choose.
It is a reality forced on them by the
facts of crime.
The geographic disparities are also
huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the
per capita shooting rate is 81 times
higher than in nearby Bay Ridge,
Brooklyn—the first neighborhood pre

dominantly black, the second neighbor

hood predominantly white and Asian.
As a result, police presence and use of
proactive tactics are much higher in
Brownsville than in Bay Ridge. Every
time there is a shooting, the police will
f lood the area looking to make stops
in order to avert a retaliatory shooting.
They are in Brownsville not because of
racism, but because they want to provide
protection to its many law-abiding resi

dents who deserve safety.
* * *
Who are some of the victims of
elevated urban crime? On March 11,
2015, as protesters were once again
converging on the Ferguson police head

quarters demanding the resignation of
the entire department, a six-year-old
boy named Marcus Johnson was killed
a few miles away in a St. Louis park, the
victim of a drive-by shooting. No one
protested his killing. Al Sharpton did
not demand a federal investigation. Few
people outside of his immediate com

munity know his name.
Ten children under the age of ten
were killed in Baltimore last year. In
Cleveland, three children five and
younger were killed in September.
A seven-year-old boy was killed in
Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend
by a bullet intended for his father. In
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 3
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
4
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
ALL-INCLUSIVE—
CALL TODAY FOR MORE INFORMATION!
(877) 242-6397 | hillsdalecollegecruise.com
Vancouver | Juneau | Hoonah | Hubbard Glacier
Skagway | Sitka | Ketchikan | Nanaimo
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
Larry P. Arnn
Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College
President, Hillsdale College
Author,
Author,
Churchill’s Trial
Churchill’s Trial
Michael Walsh
Michael Walsh
Contributor, National Review Online
Contributor, National Review Online
Author,
Author,
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace
John Steele Gordon
John Steele Gordon
Contributor,
Contributor,
Commentary
Commentary
Author,
Author,
Washington’s Monument
Washington’s Monument
David P. Goldman
David P. Goldman
Columnist,
Columnist,
Asia Times
Asia Times
Author,
Author,
How Civilizations Die
How Civilizations Die
Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson
Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College
Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College
Author,
Author,
The Savior Generals
The Savior Generals
Aboard the Crystal Serenity
ALL-INCLUSIVE!
HILLSDALE COLLEGE CRUISE
ALASKA
VANCOUVER ROUNDTRIP
JULY 27-
AUGUST 6, 2016
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 4
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
5
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
November, a nine-year-old in Chicago
was lured into an alley and killed by
his father’s gang enemies; the father
refused to cooperate with the police. In
August, a nine-year-old girl was doing
her homework on her mother’s bed in
Ferguson when a bullet fired into the
house killed her. In Cincinnati in July, a
four-year-old girl was shot in the head
and a six-year-old girl was left paralyzed
and partially blind from two separate
drive-by shootings. This mindless
violence seems almost to be regarded
as normal, given the lack of attention
it receives from the same people who
would be out in droves if any of these
had been police shootings. As horrific
as such stories are, crime rates were
much higher 20 years ago. In New York
City in 1990, for example, there were
2,245 homicides. In 2014 there were
333—a decrease of 85 percent. The drop
in New York’s crime rate is the steepest
in the nation, but crime has fallen at
a historic rate nationwide as well—by
about 40 percent—since the early 1990s.
The greatest beneficiaries of these
declining rates have been minorities.
Over 10,000 minority males alive today
in New York would be dead if the city’s
homicide rate had remained at its early
1990s level.
* * *
What is behind this historic crime
drop? A policing revolution that began
in New York and spread nationally, and
that is now being threatened. Starting
in 1994, the top brass of the NYPD
embraced the then-radical idea that the
police can actually prevent crime, not
just respond to it. They started gather

ing and analyzing crime data on a daily
and then hourly basis. They looked
for patterns, and strategized on tactics
to try to quell crime outbreaks as they
were emerging. Equally important, they
held commanders accountable for crime
in their jurisdictions. Department
leaders started meeting weekly with
precinct commanders to grill them on
crime patterns on their watch. These
weekly accountability sessions came to
be known as Compstat. They were
ruthless, high tension affairs. If a com

mander was not fully informed about
every local crime outbreak and ready
with a strategy to combat it, his career
was in jeopardy.
Compstat created a sense of urgency
about fighting crime that has never left
the NYPD. For decades, the rap against
the police was that they ignored crime
in minority neighborhoods. Compstat
keeps New York commanders focused
like a laser beam on where people are
being victimized most, and that is in
minority communities. Compstat spread
nationwide. Departments across the
country now send officers to emerging
crime hot spots to try to interrupt crimi

nal behavior before it happens.
In terms of economic stimulus alone,
no other government program has come
close to the success of data-driven polic

ing. In New York City, businesses that
had shunned previously drug-infested
areas now set up shop there, offering res

idents a choice in shopping and creating
a demand for workers. Senior citizens
felt safe to go to the store or to the post
office to pick up their Social Security
checks. Children could ride their bikes
on city sidewalks without their moth

ers worrying that they would be shot.
But the crime victories of the last two
decades, and the moral support on
which law and order depends, are now
in jeopardy thanks to the falsehoods of
the Black Lives Matter movement.
Police operating in inner-city neigh

borhoods now find themselves routinely
surrounded by cursing, jeering crowds
when they make a pedestrian stop or try
to arrest a suspect. Sometimes bottles
and rocks are thrown. Bystanders stick
cell phones in the officers’ faces, dar

ing them to proceed with their duties.
Officers are worried about becoming
the next racist cop of the week and pos

sibly losing their livelihood thanks to an
incomplete cell phone video that inevita

bly fails to show the antecedents to their
use of force. Officer use of force is never
pretty, but the public is clueless about
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 5
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
6
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
how hard it is to subdue a suspect who is
determined to resist arrest.
As a result of the anti-cop campaign
of the last two years and the resulting
push-back in the streets, officers in
urban areas are cutting back on precisely
the kind of policing that led to the crime
decline of the 1990s and 2000s. Arrests
and summons are down, particularly
for low-level offenses. Police officers
continue to rush to 911 calls when there
is already a victim. But when it comes
to making discretionary stops—such as
getting out of their cars and question

ing people hanging out on drug corners
at 1:00 a.m.—many cops worry that
doing so could put their careers on the
line. Police officers are, after all, human.
When they are repeatedly called racist
for stopping and questioning suspicious
individuals in high-crime areas, they
will perform less of those stops. That is
not only understandable—in a sense, it
is how things
should
work. Policing is
political. If a powerful political block
has denied the legitimacy of assertive
policing, we will get less of it.
On the other hand, the people
demanding that the police back off are
by no means representative of the entire
black community. Go to any police-
neighborhood meeting in Harlem, the
South Bronx, or South Central Los
Angeles, and you will invariably hear
variants of the following: “We want the
dealers off the corner.” “You arrest them
and they’re back the next day.” “There
are kids hanging out on my stoop. Why
can’t you arrest them for loitering?”
“I smell weed in my hallway. Can’t you
do something?” I met an elderly cancer
amputee in the Mount Hope section of
the Bronx who was terrified to go to her
lobby mailbox because of the young
men trespassing there and selling drugs.
The only time she felt safe was when the
police were there. “Please, Jesus,” she said
to me, “send more police!” The irony is
that the police cannot respond to these
heartfelt requests for order without gen

erating the racially disproportionate sta

tistics that will be used against them in
an ACLU or Justice Department lawsuit.
* * *
Unfortunately, when officers back
off in high crime neighborhoods, crime
shoots through the roof. Our country is
in the midst of the first sustained violent
crime spike in two decades. Murders
rose nearly 17 percent in the nation’s 50
largest cities in 2015, and it was in cities
with large black populations where the
violence increased the most. Baltimore’s
per capita homicide rate last year was the
highest in its history. Milwaukee had its
deadliest year in a decade, with a 72 per

cent increase in homicides. Homicides in
Cleveland increased 90 percent over the
previous year. Murders rose 83 percent
in Nashville, 54 percent in Washington,
D.C., and 61 percent in Minneapolis. In
Chicago, where pedestrian stops are
down by 90 percent, shootings were up
80 percent through March 2016.
I first identified the increase in vio

lent crime in May 2015 and dubbed it
“the Ferguson effect.” My diagnosis set
off a firestorm of controversy on the
HILLSDALE
HILLSDALE
COLLEGE
COLLEGE
offers free, not-for-credit,
offers free, not-for-credit,
online courses taught by its faculty. In addition to
online courses taught by its faculty. In addition to
weekly lectures, these courses feature readings,
weekly lectures, these courses feature readings,
quizzes, and discussion groups. Those who complete
quizzes, and discussion groups. Those who complete
them successfully receive certificates of completion.
them successfully receive certificates of completion.
To sign up for new and archived courses,
visit
onlin
e.hillsdal
e.ed
u
.
Hillsdale College
Online Learning
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 6
4/22/16 11:14 AM

March 17, 2016

ALL HANDS: Imprimis Feb 2016 V 45 #2

ALL HANDS: IMPRIMIS Feb 2016 Vol 45 #2

Hillsdale College, 33 E College St., Hillsdale MI 49292

Islam – Facts or Dreams, Andrew C. McCarthy J.D.

1. Imprimis is paid for by donations to the Imprimis program so it is free to you. We donate at http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis , you can too;
2. For decades I have written on this particular subject. In the February issue, a federal prosecutor writes his legal findings.

Y’all should get a free subscription.

Y’all should read this particular issue, then poke through the blog for supporting articles.

If you are a woman, or related to a woman, this is a MUST READ for you and her and them.

February 2, 2016

DHS & Illegals, by Joseph John, Capt USN [nc]

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 8:52 AM

Cong Ron DeSantis Question DHS On Its Failure to Pursue And Evict Nearly 500,000 Visa Overstays in 2015

By Capt Joseph R. John, on February 2, 2016
By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to view an endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, Cong Ron DeSantis, Lcdr-USNR (JAGC) (R-FL-6), who is currently running for the US Senate seat vacated by Senator Marco Rubio, who is questioning Ms Burriesci, DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Coordination, Office of Policy, who testified on Visa Overstays at a House Hearing, she appeared in lieu of the Secretary of Homeland Security, who refused to appear, and had her respond to questions about DHS’s failure to pursue nearly 500,000 Visa Overstays in 2015. By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to view the video taken during the hearing, that Congress was holding, in order to seek information about the massive number Visa Overstays who illegally remain in the United States each year.

During the week of January 18, 2016, a long-awaited report was sent to Congress by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), confirming that Visa Overstays are a significant source of Illegal Immigration. The report was published just in time to provide clarity on the issue for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held on January 20, 2016. DHS’ Center for Immigration Studies analysis concluded that additional resources must be directed toward deterring and removing overstays. Only 3% of ICE Enforcement resources are dedicated to address and enforce the departure of Visa Overstays.

Today hundreds of “Sanctuary Cities” and several “Sanctuary States” boast that they refuse to cooperate with the US Immigration Service, in the enforcement of US Federal Immigration Laws. Those cities and states are engaged in harboring and shielding Illegal Aliens and Visa Overstays, illegally present in the US, and they are protecting those Visa Overstays from ICE Agents who are trying to locate and enforce their departure. Sanctuary Cities induce, encourage, aid, and abet Illegal Aliens and Visa Overstays to remain in the United States, without authority, in violation of US Federal Immigration Laws. Those actions constitute a felony under provisions of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens and Visa Overstay). Sanctuary Cities continue to violate US Federal Immigration Laws by harboring Visa Overstay and preventing ICE Agents with enforcing US Federal Immigration Laws, making it virtually impossible for ICE to track and enforce the departure of Visa Overstays.

“If we do not track and enforce departures, then we have open borders. It’s as simple as that,” said Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who questioned Department of Homeland Security officials at a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Hearing on January 20th. “There is no border at all if you don’t enforce our visa rules” said Senator Sessions.

Jessica Vaughan, of the Center’s Director of Policy Studies, stated, “Lawmakers and the public should be tremendously concerned that DHS identified 482,781 foreign visitors who did not depart in 2015 as required by Federal Immigration Laws, and those Visa Overstays apparently joined the huge population of Illegal Aliens in the United States. More than 12,000 of the Visa Overstays came from countries associated with terrorism. Clearly, our immigration controls are not sufficient to protect Americans. Those violations of Federal Immigration Laws are encouraged by the Obama administration’s appalling neglect of interior enforcement and overly generous visa policies.”

According to a new report from the US Border Patrol, 482,781 individuals who entered the US on tourist or business visas and were still believed to be illegally present in the United States at the end of FY 2015. A review of the report revealed that B-Visa Overstays were from the following predominately Muslim countries: 219 from Afghanistan, 681 from Iraq, 564 from Iran, 1,397 from Jordan, 913 from Kuwait, 56 from Libya, 1,435 from Pakistan, 440 from Syria, 965 from Saudi Arabia, 2,227 from Turkey, 219 from Yemen, and 6,781 overstays from Nigeria, half of whom are Muslims. DHS does not know how many of the roughly 157,000 foreign students from predominantly Muslim countries have overstayed their visas. In 2014, ABC News discovered that 58,000 foreign nationals had overstayed their student visas, of which 6,000 represented a “heightened concern.” Again, those numbers only include foreign students.

The report identified just over 527,000 foreign visitors who apparently did not depart as required when their authorized stays expired in 2015. Approximately 482,781 were presumed to still be in the United States at the end of 2015, and 416,500 had not departed as of January 4, 2016.

The Center’s analysis of the DHS complete report can be viewed by clicking on the link: http://www.cis.org/vaughan/dhs-reports-huge-number-visitors-overstayed-2015

Of the total number of visitors Visa Overstaying, 43 percent had entered on a business or tourist visa, 29 percent had entered under the controversial Visa Waiver Program (VWP), and 28 percent had entered by air or sea from Canada or Mexico.

DHS did not examine the records of visitors who entered by land, which is more than three-quarters of all admissions to the United States. Nor did it track the records of visitors granted visas for purposes other than business or pleasure, such as students, guest workers, or exchange visitors. These categories represent a smaller share of all annual arrivals, but still account for several million admissions per year. Some of those visitor categories have been found to have significant Visa Overstay and status violation rates in the past, and have been exploited by terrorists.

Despite a total estimated population of 4 to 5.5 million Visa Overstays in the United States, only about 8,000 are removed annually by the Obama appointees at DHS; for the most part they look the other way.

Over the last 7 years, Obama’s appointees at DHS have long sought to suppress the above listed Visa Overstay information; instead of controlling and preventing the entry of Illegal Aliens. Obama’s DHS has turned into an agency that supports and turns a blind eye toward Illegal Immigration and Visa Overstays. The report was only released in January 2016, because the massive $1.2 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill passed by the Republican Leadership in Congress in December 2015, included a provision that would have withheld $13 million from the DHS Secretary’s Office, if the report was not released to Congress by January 19. Without that threat the Congress would never have received the information on Visa Overstays listed above.

The State Department learned that 9,500 Middle East Muslim entrants who they issued entry visas to the United States, had terrorist ties, then after issuing the visas, they revoked those visas because they realized they had terrorist ties, but when they realized those entrants had terrorist ties, the State Department had no idea where those entrants with terrorist ties were, and couldn’t evict them——–they therefore covered it up!! Those 9,500 entrants with terrorist ties are now Visa Overstays. The FBI is specifically concerned with those 9,500 Visa Overstays, and about the new Americans citizens admitted thru Obama’s Fast-Track citizenship program for Middle Eastern and African UN Muslim Refugees who flew to Iraq and Africa to train & fight with the ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists to kill Christians. They are now freely returning to the US, and not being arrested, charged with terrorism, having their passports withheld, and tried as terrorists by the Obama administration.

Local, County, State, and Federal Law Enforcement agencies, have informed Congress that their ability to properly protect the Homeland from the threats of Radical Islamic Terrorists has been seriously compromised. The hundreds of thousands UN Muslim Refugees being resettled in the US by the Obama administration, that cannot be vetted to determine if they have terrorist ties, the 250 returning former refugees who were previously Fast-Tracked by Obama to becomes American citizens then joined ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists to kill Christians in Iraq, and the 9500 Middle East Visa Overstays referred to above, that the State Department stated have terrorist ties are all serious threats to the Republic. Over the last 7 years, the National Security of the Republic has been seriously compromised by the continued flagrant violations of US Immigration Laws by the Obama administration.

Copyright 2016, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without permission from the author

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

January 19, 2016

Ann Corcoran video on Hijra [c]

[secession – and, y’all wonder why the Texas governor wants a constitutional convention. FYI the U.S. constitution is NOT subordinate to the U.N. charter, as much as Carter, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Boehner, McConnell, Sanders, Pelosi &c claim.]

October 7, 2015

Guns, from Earl [c]

This is worth the read
No matter how you feel about guns, you should find this most interesting.
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States , who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.
SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Remember: Guns don’t kill people, Democrats kill people.

A LITTLE BIT OF GUN HISTORY……….
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control:
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control: From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
——————————
Germany established
gun control in 1938: From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and
others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.
——————————
China established
gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964: From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
—- ————- ————-
Uganda
established gun control in 1970: From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956: From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
—————————–
56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control!
——————————

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens
save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only
the law-abiding citizens.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’; without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WW II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED! Gun owners in the USA are the largest
armed forces in the world!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES A GUN TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND TRAINS EVERY ADULT IN THE USE OF A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward this.

If you’re not a believer, please reconsider the true facts. This is
history; not the BS that’s being shown on TV, sanctioned by our
illustrious leaders in Washington.
________________________________________

[I have not been able to verify the first section regarding Democrats, but I know for certain that most of it has been reported as true by the news media. The second section is historical fact that was once taught in high schools throughout the U.S.A. Further, there is a section of federal law which defines the unorganized militia of the United States of America to be all healthy males, except those in certain government positions, between the ages of 16 and 48 and certain females, as the Unorganized Militia of the United States of American, and that those who meet the definition are required, as are the Swiss, to own and know how to use, a rifle.]

August 3, 2015

U.S. History Curriculum being Corrupted by Obama’s HEW, Joseph John [c]

[Check out the 1885 8th grade final exam posted on this blog for a comparison.]

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 8:47 AM

US History Curriculum Corrupted by Obama’s Department HEW

By Capt Joseph R. John, August 3, 2015

In President Ronald Reagan’s administration, and for 212 years prior to his Presidency, the amazing and unique US History of the Republic was taught to the nation’s youth in grammar, junior high, and high schools, using US History text school books that documented an accurate record of the Founding Fathers principles and the true US History of the Republic. Under the Obama administration, the “positive lessons” previously taught about US History, extolling America’s support for human rights, freedom of religion, the value of the Second Amendment, the importance of the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the independence of man from an oppressive government bureaucracy, have been effectively eliminated from US History text books.

Many of the positive events that highlighted the greatness of America’s Founding Fathers, that were previously taught to the nation’s youth in US History classes are no longer taught in the nation’s schools. The new redacted US History curriculum developed by the Obama administration presents a critical view of the Republic and the Founding Fathers. An inaccurate version of US History is being force fed to the nation’s youth, at the direction of the Progressive, Left-wing Ideologues, Socialists, and Communists in the Obama administration who now control the education agenda. They use the power of the purse to control the content of the curriculum in all 50 states, to force the purchase of newly produced inaccurate US History text books on school systems across the nation, and they demand compliance of the 50 State Departments of Education, before they will contribute the federal assistance funds to the 50 state’s Departments of Education.

The Obama administration’s has nationalized school curriculums, and did so without the need to seek a single vote to make such a dramatic change in the politically correct version of US History being taught in schools nationally. The Obama Department of HEW has effectively redacted and/or changed the US History text books and curriculums once taught in the nation’s schools, and over the last 6 ½ years there has been no attempts by the Republican Leadership in Congress, to demand that the Obama Department of HEW restore the accuracy and exceptionalism of the Republic’s US History curriculum being taught in the nation’s schools. Progressives, Left-wing, Ideologues, Socialists, and Communists appointed to positions of leadership in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare have “CHANGED” US History text books by eliminating many accurate facts, redacting information, instituted politically correct version of US History, while minimizing the exceptionalism of the Republic’s US History in newly developed text books, and in the curriculum being taught. Foremost in the Founding Father’s minds when they were creating the US Constitution, was the lesson they learned from their study of world history, of how the Republican form of government in Rome fell to the dictatorship of Caesar, and how “Self-Government of the People” and liberty of the United States would be threatened if the lessons of the Founding Father’s principles were not taught in US History classes. The Socialist, Left-wing Ideologues, Progressives, and Communists have always been intent on “Changing” America, by sweeping aside US History, and destroying The Free Enterprise System.

For the most part, teacher no longer focus on promoting Patriotism as they once did in the 1940s. The courageous stories of how the Founding Fathers quest for freedom from the heavy taxation, imposed upon the Colonists by the English Monarch, and how they had to put their lives at risk to draft and sign the Declaration of Independence, is no longer taught in the Obama administration’s nationalized and politically correct US History curriculum. Today, students are not taught the details about the content of the US Constitution, about importance & content of The Bill of Rights, the details of the American Revolution War of Independence, the details of the Civil War, they are not taught that the United States was the “first country in the world” to free its slaves, that the US entered WWI and WWII to free millions of oppressed & enslaved people from Nazi Socialism, Italian Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, and Communist Socialism. Much of the “Traditional Story of America”, the Republic’s unique US History, and the true story of its quest for & the defense of individual freedoms, has been effectively eliminated from grammar, junior high, and high schools US History text books and Civics courses.

America’s best and brightest high school students are now required to take the controversial new Advanced Placement US History (APUSH) test, crafted by many of the same left-wing ideologues — including David Coleman — who birthed the unpopular Common Core standards for Math and English. Scholarly critics of the APUSH framework are waking up to the dangers of the 70 or more pages of framework demanded to be used for teaching US History by the College Boards in 2012. That rework of US History testing by the College Boards is designed to replace the original five pages framework and general topics for US History that were previously used for teaching the under-girding and foundation for US History to the nation’s youth.

The Progressives, Left-wing Ideologues, Socialists, and Communists in the Obama Administration have been instituting programs to teach the nation’s youth “A corrupted version of American History that is no longer accurate, not thorough in detail, and not complementary about the principles that have guided the Republic for 239 years. Any adult who doesn’t believe that statement should simply read any US History book being force fed to students in grammar, junior high, and high schools today; those text books eliminate a great deal of the US History once taught in the nation’s schools.

By applying pressure, the Department of Health Education and Welfare, was able to get the College Board Advanced Placement US History Test changed, as discussed above, and eliminate many of the questions about US History that were once the hallmark of the College Board Exams. David Coleman, the President of the College Board, has authorized the changes to the Advancement Placement US History Tests given to students about American’s History—the modified answers force students to accept a very Progressive and corrupted point of view, instead of the accurate version of US History and the “Traditional Story of America.” Over the last 6 ½ years, by using the new modified, politically correct, and redacted version of US History in newly published US History text books, while teaching the corrupted Obama administration’s version of its US History curriculum, the nation’s youth no longer know much about the true US History of the Republic.

The story of America’s exceptionalism in US History, in the view of Left-wing Ideologues, and Progressives, is that it is a quaint and excessively positive notion that must be discredited through their programs of re-education of US History, that is being force fed to grammar, junior high, and high school students. The Left-wing Ideologues believe that, without proper re-training and re-education of a politically correct version of US History, American’s youth will exhibit excessive bias and hostility against those who try to degrade American exceptionalism and Patriotism. Left-wing ideologues decry the Patriotism that emanates from teaching the nation’s youth the previous accurate record of the US History of the Republic, of highlighting Patriotism in the classroom, pointing out American exceptionalism, and underlining the importance of individual freedoms guaranteed to every American citizen in The Bill of Rights.

“Stanley Kurtz, a scholar, author, and social critic from Pittsburgh, PA, who obtained his Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from Harvard University, won numerous teaching awards and has written several books. He was initially one of the liberal professors who shifted his views and became more conservative after observing numerous wrenching instances of hypocrisy and oppressive political correctness being forces upon students by other professors, while he was on the faculty of Harvard University and the University of Chicago. Kurtz argues that “Progressives have been working to undercut the “Traditional Story of American,” and they have been trying to cover up the understanding of how the principles of liberty and equality have worked well for over 239 years to unify American citizens who came from various backgrounds. Instead of teaching the “Traditional Story of American”, Progressives have instead focused on oppression and hyper sensitivities about issues concerning race, gender and class that have been intentionally dividing Americans by race, gender, and class since the Obama administration came to power, creating bigotry and hatred in the United States (that destabilizing agenda has been led by the senior staff members of the occupant in the Oval Office for the last 6 ½ years).

Commenting on the narratives that had been driven in the Ferguson race riots and the gang rape hoax at the University of Virginia, Kurtz says, “young people who are coming out of their Progressive US History classes, are being primed for those kinds of bogus crusades against American exceptionalism” being taught a false narrative of oppression, by liberal professors, who don’t like or support the “Traditional Story of America”, the teachings by those liberal professors actually trump facts. As for what citizens can do, Kurtz recommends more criticism of the APUSH framework by more scholars who are learning of the inaccurate US history being taught in schools, and have become alarmed by Obama’s nationalization of America’s education. Grassroots activists are encouraged by Kurtz to have their state legislators pass resolutions condemning the new 70 page corrupted College Board framework recommended for teaching US History and are should ask them to reinstate the accurate tests of the true versions of US History, in order to avoid corrupted, politically correct, and Progressive version of College Board test answers. (From “The Daily Caller”, by Gini Thomas)

With the help of the left of center liberal media establishment, the Obama administration has tried to “CHANGE” the view of America citizens from that of supporting US Sovereignty to modify their views so they will become “Global Citizens”. Obama has pushed many global and UN initiatives to accomplish that goal, such as his repeated attempts to force the UN’s Small Arms Treaty to be accepted by the US Congress which Secretary Kerry signed even though Congress rejected it (the UN Small Arms Treaty violates the Second Amendment), by forcing the nation to abide by the TPP/TPA Law that abandons US Sovereignty in favor of abiding by the rule of International Tribunals (allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter the US from 50 countries without checking their backgrounds for terrorist ties), by Obama’s recent push to by-passing of the US Congress in seeking to first gain the UN’s vote of approval of the Iranian International Nuclear Weapons Treaty before Congress has an opportunity to vote on it (an International Treaty improperly called an Agreement because of the inept leaders in Congress who let that occur), by encouraging hundreds of thousands Muslim refugees to enter the US via the UN Resettlement Program which excludes the entry of Christians refugees (allowing that to continue without checking their backgrounds for potential terrorist ties) The FBI now estimates that upwards of 250 of those entering Muslims have traveled or tried to travel to Iraq to kill Syrian and Assyrian Christians in the ISIS current genocide of Christians. With the acquiescence of the leaders in Congress, for 6 ½ years, Obama has kept the southern border wide open and unsecure, so hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from Central American, Mexico, and the Middle East (including Radical Islamic Terrorists) have been able to simply walk across the wide open border, and enter the US unimpeded.

By opening US to the UN Resettlement Program to include only Muslims (the US has resettled more Muslim refugees that all the nations in the world combined), and by effectively eliminating all US borders with the TPP/TPA Law, that will permit millions of illegal immigrants from 50 nations to enter the US without security checks to determine if they have terrorist ties, Obama has been promoting trans-globalism. He has been trying to “CHANGE” the US population from that of Patriotic American citizens to “Global Citizens,” from many nations with no allegiance to the principles the Republic was founded on. Obama support for all these programs over the last 6 ½ years have been antithesis to America’s democratic form of government. If the US were not to continue to be the sovereign independent Republic the Founding Fathers created, its citizens would not be free. The Obama administration has been trying to move the Republic away from its independence and sovereignty toward trans-global governance abiding and governed by UN International Treaties and UN Regulations.

The Republican Leadership in Congress have not safe guarded “Self-Government by the People’—they just gave the American citizens government by International Tribunes with the TPP/TPSA Law that they ramrodded thru Congress. Asked about the Obama administration’s emphasis on creating “Global Citizens” as opposed to understanding the Founding Fathers principles of “Self-Government by the People”, America, conservative scholars say, Progressives, Left-wing Ideologues, Socialists, and Communists in the Obama administration decry American exceptionalism and belittle “Self-Government by the People.” Instead, they value trans-globalism, open borders, the US abiding by all United Nations Treaties & Regulations, and expanding the welfare state to CHANGE the Republic into a Socialist State.

By clicking on the below listed link “country knowledge “, you will be able to take a US History test created by Bill O’Reilly the National News Anchor on the FOX News Network. He did America a favor, by developing this very simple test to bring home the point, that even simple history questions can no longer be answered by the nation’s youth—in the 1950s the nation’s youth would have easily answered every question of his test correctly. We encourage you to take the below listed US History test, then give it to your children and grandchildren, and pass it on to those in your address book who would want the youth of the nation to be taught an accurate version of the US History and the “Traditional Story of America”. By viewing the results of the test taken by the youth in your family, you will fully appreciate just how completely Obama has nationalized and corrupted the US History curriculums being taught in the nation’s schools. The Republican leaders in Congress have done nothing to try to restore the true and accurate US History being taught in the nation’s schools.

The “Traditional Story of America”, the details of the US Constitution, and The Bill of Rights should be taught to the students in schools across the nation, not the current corrupted version of US History driven by the Progressives in the Obama administration. The “Traditional Story of America” is what has set the United States of America apart from other nations for 239 years, and why since 1776, over 1.3 million members of the US Armed Forces have made their last full measure of devotion in combat in the defense of the Republic.

Copyright 2015, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THIS IS A TEST MADE UP BY BILL O’REILLY. IF YOU DON’T DO WELL, BETTER GET OUT A HISTORY BOOK, ‘ CAUSE YOU NEED MORE SCHOOLING. GIVE IT TO YOUR KIDS & GRANDKIDS — MIGHT BE A RUDE AWAKENING !!!!

Have you had your “schooling?”

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it” Mark Twain

There are no trick questions. You should get at least 15 to pass. See how well you do.

Answer 15 correctly to pass… Country Knowledge

July 30, 2015

The Truth About Western “Colonialism”, by Bruce S. Thornton [nc]

The Truth About Western “Colonialism”
July 29, 2015 10:35 am / 12 Comments / victorhanson
How the misuse of a term legitimizes the jihadist myth of Western guilt.

by Bruce S. Thornton // Defining Ideas
Photo via Front Page Magazine

Photo via Front Page Magazine

Language is the first casualty of wars over foreign policy. To paraphrase Thucydides, during ideological conflict, words have to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which is now given them.

One word that has been central to our foreign policy for over a century is “colonialism.” Rather than describing a historical phenomenon––with all the complexity, mixture of good and evil, and conflicting motives found on every page of history––“colonialism” is now an ideological artifact that functions as a crude epithet. As a result, our foreign policy decisions are deformed by self-loathing and guilt eagerly exploited by our adversaries.

The great scholar of Soviet terror, Robert Conquest, noted this linguistic corruption decades ago. Historical terms like “imperialism” and “colonialism,” Conquest wrote, now refer to “a malign force with no program but the subjugation and exploitation of innocent people.” As such, these terms are verbal “mind-blockers and thought-extinguishers,” which serve “mainly to confuse, and of course to replace, the complex and needed process of understanding with the simple and unneeded process of inflammation.” Particularly in the Middle East, “colonialism” has been used to obscure the factual history that accounts for that region’s chronic dysfunctions, and has legitimized policies doomed to fail because they are founded on distortions of that history.

The simplistic discrediting of colonialism and its evil twin imperialism became prominent in the early twentieth century. In 1902 J.A. Hobson’s influential Imperialism: A Study reduced colonialism to a malign economic phenomenon, the instrument of capitalism’s “economic parasites,” as Hobson called them, who sought resources, markets, and profits abroad. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin, faced with the failure of classical Marxism’s historical predictions of the proletarian revolution, in 1917 built on Hobson’s ideas in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Now the indigenous colonized peoples would perform the historical role of destroying capitalism that the European proletariat had failed to fulfill.

These ideas influenced the anti-colonial movements after World War II. John-Paul Sartre, in his introduction to Franz Fanon’s anti-colonial screed The Wretched of the Earth, wrote, “Natives of the underdeveloped countries unite!” substituting the Third World for classic Marxism’s “workers of the world.” This leftist idealization of the colonial Third World and its demonization of the capitalist West have survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of Marxism, and have become received wisdom both in academe and popular culture. It has underwritten the reflexive guilt of the West, the idea that “every Westerner is presumed guilty until proven innocent,” as French philosopher Pascal Bruckner writes, for the West contains an “essential evil that must be atoned for,” colonialism and imperialism.

This leftist interpretation of words like colonialism and imperialism transforms them into ideologically loaded terms that ultimately distort the tragic truths of history. They imply that Europe’s explorations and conquests constituted a new order of evil. In reality, the movements of peoples in search of resources, as well as the destruction of those already in possession of them, is the perennial dynamic of history.

Whether it was the Romans in Gaul, the Arabs throughout the Mediterranean and Southern Asia, the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Mongols in China, the Turks in the Middle East and the Balkans, the Bantu in southern Africa, the Khmer in East Asia, the Aztecs in Mexico, the Iroquois in the Northeast, or the Sioux throughout the Great Plains, human history has been stained by man’s continual use of brutal violence to acquire land and resources and destroy or replace those possessing them. Scholars may find subtle nuances of evil in the European version of this ubiquitous aggression, but for the victims such fine discriminations are irrelevant.

Yet this ideologically loaded and historically challenged use of words like “colonial” and “colonialist” remains rife in analyses of the century-long disorder in the Middle East. Both Islamists and Arab nationalists, with sympathy from the Western left, have blamed the European “colonialists” for the lack of development, political thuggery, and endemic violence whose roots lie mainly in tribal culture, illiberal shari’a law, and sectarian conflicts.

Moreover, it is blatant hypocrisy for Arab Muslims to complain about imperialism and colonialism. As Middle East historian Efraim Karsh documents in Islamic Imperialism, “The Arab conquerors acted in a typically imperialist fashion from the start, subjugating indigenous populations, colonizing their lands, and expropriating their wealth, resources, and labor.” Indeed, if one wants to find a culture defined by imperialist ambitions, Islam fits the bill much better than do Europeans and Americans, latecomers to the great game of imperial domination that Muslims successfully played for a thousand years.

“From the first Arab-Islamic empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire,” Karsh writes, “the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams.”

A recent example of this confusion caused by careless language can be found in commentary about the on-going dissolution of Iraq caused by sectarian and ethnic conflicts. There is a growing consensus that the creation of new nations in the region after World War I sowed the seeds of the current disorder. Ignoring those ethnic and sectarian differences, the British fashioned the nation of Iraq out of three Ottoman provinces that had roughly concentrated Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a in individual provinces.

There is much of value to be learned from this history, but even intelligent commentators obscure that value with misleading words like “colonial.” Wall Street Journal writer Jaroslav Trofimov, for example, recently writing about the creation of the Middle Eastern nations, described France and England as “colonial powers.” Similarly, columnist Charles Krauthammer on the same topic used the phrase “colonial borders.” In both instances, the adjectives are historically misleading.

France and England, of course, were “colonial powers,” but their colonies were not in the Middle East. The region had for centuries been under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. Thus Western “colonialism” was not responsible for the region’s dysfunctions. Rather, it was the incompetent policies and imperialist fantasies of the Ottoman leadership during the century before World War I, which culminated in the disastrous decision to enter the war on the side of Germany, that bear much of the responsibility for the chaos that followed the defeat of the Central Powers.

Another important factor was the questionable desire of the British to create an Arab national homeland in the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, and to gratify the imperial pretensions of their ally the Hashemite clan, who shrewdly convinced the British that their self-serving and marginal actions during the war had been important in fighting the Turks.

Obviously, the European powers wanted to influence these new nations in order to protect their geopolitical and economic interests, but they had no desire to colonize them. Idealists may decry that interference, or see it as unjust, but it is not “colonialism” rightly understood.

No more accurate is Krauthammer’s use of “colonial borders” to describe the region’s nations. Like all combatants in a great struggle, in anticipation of the defeat of the Central Powers, the British and French began planning the settlement of the region in 1916 in a meeting that produced the Sykes-Picot agreement later that year. But there is nothing unexceptional or untoward in this. In February 1945, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met in Yalta to negotiate their spheres of influence in Germany and Eastern Europe after the war. It would be strange if the Entente powers had notlaid out their plans for the territories of the defeated enemy.

Thus as part of the peace treaties and conferences after World War I, the French and British were given, under the authority of negotiated treaties and the supervision of the League of Nations, the “mandates” over the former Ottoman territories lying between Egypt and Turkey. In 1924 the goal of the mandates was spelled out in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant: “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

Thus the nations created in the old Ottoman territory were sanctioned by international law as the legitimate prerogative of the victorious Entente powers. There was nothing “colonial” about the borders of the new nations.

One can legitimately challenge the true motives of the mandatory powers, doubt their sincerity in protesting their concern for the region’s peoples, or criticize their borders for serving European interests rather than those of the peoples living there. But whatever their designs, colonizing was not one of them. Indeed, by 1924 colonialism had long been coming into question for many in the West, and at the time of the post-war settlement the reigning ideal was not colonialism, but ethnic self-determination as embodied in the nation-state, as Woodrow Wilson had called for in February 1918: “National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent.” The Anglo-French Declaration issued a few days before the war ended on November 11, 1918 agreed, stating that their aims in the former Ottoman territories were “the establishment of National Governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.”

Again, one can question the wisdom of trying to create Western nation-states and political orders in a region still intensely tribal, with a religion in which the secular nation is an alien import. That incompatibility continues to be an ongoing problem nearly a century later, as we watch the failure of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hopes of the Arab Spring dashed in the violence and disorder of the Arab Winter.

But whatever the sins of the Europeans in the Middle East, colonialism is not one of them. The misuse of the term may sound trivial, but it legitimizes the jihadist narrative of Western guilt and justified Muslim payback through terrorist violence, now perfumed as “anticolonial resistance.” It reinforces what Middle East scholar J.B. Kelly called the “preemptive cringe,” the willingness of the West to blame itself for the region’s problems, as President Obama did in his 2009 Cairo speech when he condemned the “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims.”

This apologetic stance has characterized our foreign policy and emboldened our enemies for half a century. Today the region is in more danger of collapse into widespread violence and more of a threat to our national interests than at any time in the last fifty years. Perhaps we should start crafting our foreign policy on the foundations of historical truth and precise language.

July 16, 2015

Martial Law in the U.S., by Robert Richardson [nc]

Martial Law in the United States: How Likely is it, and What will happen under Martial law?
Filed under Man-made Disasters, Preparedness, Threats
Posted by: Robert Richardson

The march towards martial law is something that is often ignored by the general public, often labeled as Quackery or something belonging on conspiracy websites. But what’s happening in this country is exactly what our founders warned us about, and martial law is something they took very, very seriously.
What is martial law?

If you’re looking for a definition, then Martial Law basically means using state or national military force to enforce the will of the government on the people.

Under a declaration of martial law, Constitutional freedoms and liberties are suspended, and civilians are no longer entitled to their civil rights. It basically allows the government, or a tyrannical politician, to shred the Constitution and impose its will through military force.
History of Martial Law in the United States of America

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”
Winston Churchill

In one way or another there have always been tyrants who have used the power of government to suppress and control the public. But if we are looking for specific examples of Martial Law being used inside the United States, we don’t have to look very hard or far to find them.

Using the strictest definition of the term, we can see the roots of martial law in America take hold during the lead up to the Revolutionary war. Although there were many reasons for the war, including resistance to taxes imposed by the British parliament, the main catalyst was England’s decision to use military troops to enforce everyday law throughout the colonies.
The beginning of the end? The Civil War Ushers in a Strong Central Government through Martial Law Enforcement

Civil War Soldiers

Flash forward a hundred years, and many of the most egregious examples of martial law can be found throughout the civil war. While today’s history books largely ignore the real reasons for the war, or the many atrocities committed by President Lincoln, the facts of what really happened cannot be disputed.

The reason we have lost so many of our liberties can be tied directly to the civil war.

On September 15, 1863, President Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. While history contends the war was fought to end slavery, the truth is, Lincoln by his own admission never really cared about freeing slaves. In fact, Lincoln never intended to abolish slavery, his main interest was centralizing government power and using the federal government to exert complete control over all citizens. The abolishment of slavery was only a byproduct of the war; it actually took the 13th amendment to end slavery, since Lincoln actually only freed Southern slaves, not slaves in states loyal to the Union.

During the Civil War, Lincoln continually violated the Constitution, in some cases suspending the entire Constitution that he swore to uphold.

He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus without the consent of congress.
He shutdown newspapers whose writers displayed any dissent to Union policy or spoke out against him.
He raised troops without the consent of Congress.
He closed courts by force.
He even imprisoned citizens, newspaper owners and elected officials without cause and without a trail.

Our founders were very wary of using the military to enforce public policy, and concerns about this type of abuse date back to, and largely influenced, the creation of the Constitution. The founders continually warned about using military force to uphold law and order; unfortunately, most Americans are rather ignorant of history and are even more ignorant to what our actual founders intended when they created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What will happen under Martial law?

Military Style SWAT Team Raid

The actual words martial law will probably never be used.

The first thing you will likely see is a declaration of a “State of Emergency”. This may be done nationally, in cases of war or a large-scale terrorist attacks; or it may happen locally, as witnessed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

In August of 2005, New Orleans was declared a disaster area and a state of emergency was declared by the governor. This allowed state officials to order evacuations and forcefully remove residents from their homes, suspend certain laws, confiscate firearms, and suspend the sale of items like liquor, firearms and ammunition.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans police, the U.S. Marshalls office, and the Louisiana National Guard forcibly confiscated over 1,000 legal firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Depending on the reasons behind the declaration you may also see:

The suspension of the Constitution, probably starting with the first and second amendment.
Confiscation of firearms; it has happened and it will happen again.
Suspension of Habeas corpus: Imprisonment without due process and without a trail.
Travel Restrictions, including road closures and possibly even quarantine zones.
Mandatory Curfews and Mandatory Identification.
Automatic search and seizures without warrant.

When can Martial Law be enacted?

Military Force

When Martial Law can be enacted is a pretty touchy subject, largely because our founders never intended the federal government or a standing army be permitted to take such actions. Unfortunately, most people accept these unconstitutional activities, and are more than willing to give up their essential liberties in exchange for peace of mind and not having to think for themselves.

This is something Benjamin Franklin warned about when he famously wrote,
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

How likely is martial law in the United States?

Let’s face it, this country is a ticking time bomb. From widespread social unrest, crime and violence to a growing national debt which includes an entire subset of our population that depends on government assistance to exist, the writing is on the wall: Trouble is Coming.

Riots in the Streets of America

In my opinion, we are already under a form of martial law. The founders never intended standing armies policing the citizens of the United States; sadly that is exactly what we have.

Drones, armored vehicles with high power weapons, tanks, and battlefield helicopters are no longer something that you see on some foreign battlefield; it’s now standard operating procedure at police stations throughout the country. Our federal government has poured billions of dollars into militarizing and taking over our country’s local police forces, in what can only be described as a domestic military force or standing army meant to enforce federal law.

President Bush Expands Martial Law Authority

George Bush Signing Bill

On September 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122). The law expanded the President’s authority to declare Martial Law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and actually allowed the President to take charge of National Guard troops without state governor authorization.

While certain aspects of the bill were rolled back in 2008, President Obama used the 2012 NDAA to further strengthen the Executive offices ability to declare Martial Law, and added provisions that would allow military troops to detain U.S. citizens without a trial.

President Obama Forms National Police Task Force; Uses Social unrest as Justification.

Obama Signing Bill

In March of 2015, the Obama administration put together a task force that outlined rules for our nation’s police.

In his Task Force on 21st century policing report, he outlined the formation of a National Policing Practices and Accountability Division within the federal government. The report went on to describe how the Department of Homeland Security could be used to “ensure that community policing tactics in state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are incorporated into their role in homeland security.”

Increasing number of Joint Police/Military Drills are using American Citizens as Theoretical Threats.

Military Style Police Force

From the Jade Helm Military drills that classified Texas and Utah as hostile zones, to National Guard troops in California using crisis actors to portray “right-wing” U.S. citizens in their training exercises, there is a growing number of military style drills that are portraying American citizens as the perceived threat.

Back in 2012, an army report about the future use of the military as a police force within the United States looked at theoretical situations where the U.S. Army could be used against Tea Party “insurrectionists” who take over U.S. cities. During that same time period, the Department of Homeland Security released a report titled, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States,” where they outlined who the federal government sees as the largest terrorist threat in the country – that threat was U.S. citizens with extreme “right-wing” views.

The United Stated of America that our Founders created is gone; it’s been replaced by a system that has grown so powerful that most people don’t even realize they’ve become enslaved by that very system.

So how likely is Martial Law in the United States? Well, it’s already here; unfortunately, most people will choose to ignore the reality of the situation.

June 30, 2015

The Black Dilemma, Ian Duncan of The Baltimore Sun [nc]

The Black Dilemma – Baltimore Sun Editorial 5-30-15

The Black Dilemma

Ian Duncan, The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015

�The Baltimore Sun� is definitely not known as a Conservative newspaper, so this very well written assessment of the situation in the USA comes as something of a surprise.

The Black Dilemma

“For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn’t mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country’s violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess.
*They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others – but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

Our leaders don’t seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don’t understand that white people aren’t out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.* The elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point.”—

“You can’t legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don’t have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Ian Duncan
The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015

June 17, 2015

Postcolonial Rot Spreads Beyond Middle East Studies, by Bruce. S. Thornton, [nc]

The Postcolonial Rot Spreads Beyond Middle East Studies
June 17, 2015 3:06 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine

middle-east-scholarshipsIn theory, Middle East Studies programs are a good idea. One of the biggest impediments to countering modern jihadism has been the lack of historical knowledge about the region and Islam. But even the attention and urgency that followed the terrorist attacks on 9/11 have not led to such knowledge. The result has been policies pursued both by Republicans and Democrats that are doomed to fail, as the current chaos in the region attests.

Rather than enlightening citizens and policy-makers, Middle Eastern Studies programs have darkened our understanding. As Martin Kramer documented in his important 2002 study Ivory Towers on Sand [3], most programs have become purveyors not of knowledge but of ideology. Under the influence of literary critic Edward Said’s historically challenged book Orientalism––“a work,” historian Robert Irwin has written [4], “of malignant charlatanry, in which it is hard to distinguish honest mistakes from willful misrepresentations”­­––Middle East Studies programs, Kramer writes, “came under a take-no-prisoners assault, which rejected the idea of objective standards, disguised the vice of politicization as the virtue of commitment, and replaced proficiency with ideology.” The ideology, of course, comprised the old Marxist narrative of Western colonial and imperial crimes, a Third Worldism that idealizes the dark-skinned, innocent “other” victimized by Western depredations, and the juvenile romance of revolutionary violence.

Yet Said’s baleful influence has not been limited to Middle East Studies programs, one of which has been created at my campus of the California State University, replete with theproblems [5] Kramer catalogues. It has insidiously corrupted much of the humanities and social sciences, operating under the innocuous rubric of “postcolonial” studies, which to the unwary suggests a historical rather than an ideological category. Through General Education courses that serve students across the university, and in departments like English that train primary and secondary school teachers, Saidian postcolonial ideology has been shaping the attitudes and presumed knowledge of Islam and the Middle East far beyond the reach of Middle East Studies programs.

Said’s dubious argument in Orientalism is that the work of Western scholars on the Middle East embodied “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient,” thus creating the intellectual infrastructure for justifying colonialism and imperialism. As such, every European scholar perforce was “a racist, an imperialist, and totally ethnocentric.” For social science and humanities departments committed totally to the multiculturalist melodrama of white racism and oppression of the dark-skinned “other,” Said’s work seemingly provides scholarly bona fides to ideas that are in fact expressive of illiberal grievance politics.

English departments have been particularly vulnerable to Said’s work, for he overlaid his bad history with watered down Foucauldian ideas about the relationship of power to discourse. Thus English professors seduced by the poststructuralist theory ascendant in 1978 when Orientalism was published found in that book a seemingly sophisticated theoretical paradigm that shared both poststructuralism’s disdain for objectivity and truth, and its “hermeneutics of suspicion,” the notion that the apparent meaning of a discourse is a mask for the sinister machinations of power at the expense of the excluded “other.”

More important, postcolonialism is a politically activist theory, bound up as it is in the politics of the Middle East, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now English professors could avoid the legitimate charge that poststructuralism, despite its patina of leftist ideology, was in fact an evasion of politics, a “symbolic politics,” as historian Russell Jacoby put it, “a replacement for, and a diversion from, the gritty politics of the community and the street.” On the contrary, the purveyors of postcolonialism were on the barricades, struggling to liberate Palestinians and other Muslims oppressed by a neo-imperialist America and its puppet Israel. Rather than pampered elitists guaranteed jobs for life, now the professors could fancy themselves freedom fighters and champions of the ex-colonial brown peoples still exploited and oppressed by the capitalist, racist West.

Finally, the dogma of multicultural “diversity” now firmly enshrined in American universities likewise has found Saidian postcolonialism a useful tool for interpreting and teaching literature, one that exposes the Western literary canon’s hidden racism and oppression. Moreover, in a university like Fresno State, half of whose students are minorities, a postcolonial perspective can establish a rapport with minority students who are encouraged to interpret their own experiences through the same lens of unjust exclusion and hurtful distortions of their culture and identity. At the same time white students are schooled in their privilege and guilt, minorities can be comforted by a narrative that privileges them as victims of historical oppression, one masked by the unearned prestige of the classics written by “dead white males.” Now minority students learn that Shakespeare’s Caliban is the true hero the Tempest with whom they should identify, the displaced victim of rapacious colonialists and slavers like Prospero who unjustly define the indigenous peoples as savages and cannibals in order to justify the brutal appropriation of their lands and labor.

Over the thirty years I have taught in the California State University, I have seen this transformation of the English department. Reading lists dominated by contemporary ethnic writers are increasingly displacing the classics of English literature, and even when traditional works are on the list, the books are often taught from the postcolonial perspective. New hires more and more comprise those Ph.D.’s whose specialties lie in ethnic or “world” literature, replacing the Shakespeare scholars and others trained to teach the traditional English and American literary canon. The traditional content of a liberal education––“the best which has been thought and said in the world,” as Matthew Arnold wrote––is disappearing, replaced by multicultural melodramas of Western crime and guilt.

More important for the culture at large, many of these students will go on to earn teaching credentials and staff public schools. They will carry the postcolonial ideology into their own classrooms, influencing yet another generation and reinforcing a received wisdom that will shape their students’ understanding of the important threats to our national security and interests emanating from the Middle East, especially jihadism. And it will encourage ordinary citizens to assent to the demonization of our most valuable regional ally, Israel, currently battling the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement that can more easily gain traction among those who from grade school to university have been exposed to the postcolonial ideology.

The damage done to our foreign policy by Middle East Studies is obvious. The influence of the godfather of such programs, Edward Said, on the social sciences and humanities departments like English is more insidious and subtle. But it is no less dangerous.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/bruce-thornton/the-postcolonial-rot-spreads-beyond-middle-east-studies/

URLs in this post:

[2] Middle East Forum: http://www.meforum.org/

[3] Ivory Towers on Sand: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/IvoryTowers.pdf

[4] written: http://www.amazon.com/Lust-Knowing-Orientalists-Their-Enemies/dp/0140289232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434065002&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+irwin+for+lust+of+knowing

[5] problems: http://www.campus-watch.org/survey.php/id/70

Copyright © 2015 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.