Tag Archives: European Parliament

CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens

[Part I – “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)[1] – highlighted Britain’s current rebellion against the European Union. Americans would do well to emulate their growing fervor for freedom.]

We have seen why so many Brits seek to flee the European Union, whose centralized, supranational government prevents Britain from protecting itself from the immigration crisis and terrorist threat contained therein.

CPAC2016-11

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Brussels (HQ of the EU), National Review noted the inescapable nexus between the E.U.’s policies and the fruit of those policies. The Editors wrote (emphasis added):

“In one part of the city reside EU bureaucrats who continue to promulgate their fanciful transnational ideals, increasingly against the evidence; in another part are roiling ghettos populated largely by Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East, many of whom have a very different vision for the future of Europe … A half century of effectively open borders, a refusal to require assimilation of immigrants into a robust notion of European culture, and an unyielding fidelity to multicultural pieties have resulted in cities fractured along ethnic lines and, as Brussels officials have admitted in the hours since Tuesday morning’s attack, overwhelmed by potential terror threats.”

Terrorism is not the only threat posed by edicts from the European Union. Freedom itself is at stake!

Prototype World Government

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, offered his insight into the dangers of a centralized government within a supranational context. Those insights are extremely relevant to the ongoing battle for power within the United States between the various branches of government as well as the struggle over federalism vs. statism. Hint: Liberty is losing.

According to Woolfe, the European Union has become a “super state in which control over the power of the laws is held in Brussels by unelected civil servants.” The bureaucratic state – unelected and unaccountable to the People – enjoys an ever-increasing degree of control over the lives of the citizens of the European Union.

I asked Woolfe how that came about. He explained, “After the Second World War, people quite rightly no longer wanted to have their children murdered in wars against each other. So they decided that they wanted to have an organization where countries come together to sort out their differences, a little bit like the United Nations.”

However, the founders of the European Union sought the abolition of “populist governments” who are elected by the people. To achieve that goal, they created “the European Union, in which the body called ‘The Commission,’ made of up civil servants, made the laws for the whole of Europe.”

Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic,[2] highlighted the consequence of these “two interrelated phenomena” (emphasis added): “the European integration process on the one hand, and the evolution of the European economic and social system on the other – both of which have been undergoing a fundamental change in the context of the ‘brave new world’ of our permissive, anti-market, redistributive society, a society that has forgotten the ideas on which the greatness of Europe was built.”

Woolfe added, “What they did over a period of forty years, they slowly took powers, through different treaties, from each of the nation-states.” Woolfe contends, “The European Union is becoming like a colonialist empire. It’s almost like the prototype of a world government.”

12938235_497864707067616_986690819924296611_n

The Unbridled Power of Bureaucrats

Who runs this proto-colonialist empire? Bureaucrats!

As Woolfe put it, “Imagine the idea that civil servants – not elected politicians – can make your laws. Imagine that those laws can never be changed, can never be repealed. Imagine that government lobbyists and government affairs are the ones that talk to these civil servants and tell them what laws to initiate. That’s exactly what happens in the European Union. There is no people power. It’s very much bureaucratic power.”

Woolfe argues that the European Union is in embryonic form what globalists have always wanted to achieve. Woolfe almost sounds like a Bernie Sanders because he discerns a collusion between corporate Europe and the bureaucrats who make the laws.

Woolfe put it this way: “Many of us would argue that the fact that you have the large corporations who can game the system by basically negotiating their own laws with civil servants who then pass it down to the nation-states to enact. And if you’re a citizen in Germany who wants to have controlled borders, as you can see people flooding into Europe from all over the world in the migration crisis that we have, you’ve got no one who can stop it because you have no governments who can control it. It’s the EU that does it. If you want to have lower taxation, if you want to have less regulation, you can’t change your politicians to do that because it’s the civil servants – the Commission – that is making those laws.”

Woolfe concluded with a warning to America, one that is, sadly, decades too late. He queried, “And just think how dangerous that is to the United States if this idea crosses the Atlantic.”

Origins of the Statist Welfare State  

In the 1870s, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the modern welfare state, with its byzantine bureaucracies and labyrinth of administrative laws. Bismarck’s model became the blueprint for Western European nations and also for progressives in the United States of America. At the heart of his model is centralized planning by elites made up of the self-anointed “best and brightest” who think that they know better than we do how to live our lives.

Philip Hamburger observed,[3] “This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.”

John Daniel Davidson has observed that “The father of American progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, saw this coming.” Wilson “thought the U.S. Constitution was outdated and that America needed a professional, Prussian-style administrative state, and that the chief hindrance to this in America was popular sovereignty.” Wilson believed that “expert administrators” were superior to the will of the People.

This is, of course, the antithesis of the individual liberty for which the Founding Fathers fought and the apotheosis for all those who oppose the Constitution and the framework of our Republic as envisioned by its Framers. Dennis Prager recently noted, “The size of the federal government and its far-reaching meddling in and control over Americans’ lives are the very thing America was founded to avoid.”

Either the rule of law by representative government or law by executive and administrative fiat will prevail. They cannot coexist. Peaceful coexistence is a myth.

Absolute Power Wielded by Statists

In contrast to statists who favor administrative law, our Founders and Framers opposed the exercise of absolute power. Hamburger noted, “They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights.”

Consequently, “Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.”

Administrative law, wrote Hamburger, is extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated. It is in defiance of our system of checks and balances which is expressly designed to limit and diffuse power. According to Hamburger (emphasis added):

  • “Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms – not through statutes but through regulations – and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications.”
  • “It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law – which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges.”
  • “And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – in administrative agencies.”

Hamburger added, “Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth.”

Power of the Pen, Phone, and Judicial Activism

Jonah Goldberg concurs, writing, “The growth of the administrative state and the encroachment of federal law into every nook and cranny of local life has been a century-long project of the Left.”

What President Obama couldn’t get passed in Congress he has sought to enact through the power of his pen and his phone. He has bypassed Congress through unconstitutional executive actions on immigration and other matters. Further, he has politicized the IRS, EPA, HHS, Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other federal agencies to target his political foes and implement his contra-Congress agenda (the will of the People be damned!).

Even before the advent of Obama administration, Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn lamented[4] that “We live in a more liberated age, the age of bureaucratic government. Here rules abound in such profusion that they seem to overbear the laws of nature themselves. So it is with honoring the Constitution these days. We honor it more avidly than ever in the breach of its restraints, but at the same time we pay it the respect of mandatory, hectic, and empty observance. Except for our dishonoring of it, we have never honored it so much.”

Moreover, for decades, several activist Justices have tilted the Supreme Court away from the Constitution and toward unbridled power by non-elected bureaucrats. Goldberg noted, “in many respects the Supreme Court is now more powerful than the presidency. It’s certainly far, far, far less democratic. We appoint justices for life and many of their decisions cannot be overturned by the Congress, or the people, short of a constitutional convention.”

Death of Federalism and Freedom by the Stroke of a 1,000 Pens

Obamacare exemplifies and is representative of all that is wrong with administrative law. Case in point: The whole power of the federal government is intractably opposed to and wielded against charitable work performed by the Little Sisters of the Poor.

David French pointed out (emphasis added) “it’s important to understand that the Sisters are not challenging a law passed by Congress. Instead, the contraception mandate is a rule concocted by bureaucrats. When Congress passed Obamacare it intentionally passed the statute with a number of vague directives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) interpreted and expanded through the regulatory rulemaking process. Thus, the Obamacare statute itself does not contain a contraceptive mandate. Instead, it merely requires employers to ‘provide coverage’ for ‘preventive services’ for women, including ‘preventive care.’”

These unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats have “exempted vast numbers of employers from its requirements – sometimes for mere convenience. It grandfathered existing plans that did not cover contraceptives, exempted small firms, and exempted ‘religious employers.’”

However, they define that term “so narrowly that it applied mainly to entities such as churches and synagogues, not to religious schools, hospitals, or charities – entities that are motivated by faith, often require employees to share the organization’s faith commitment, and ordinarily receive much the same level of religious-freedom protection as houses of worship.”

A Time for Choosing

Ronald Reagan’s famous 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing, should be revisited by all lovers of liberty. The 2016 election is of paramount importance and freedom itself hangs in the balance. Indeed, this election is about survival.[5] Will we elect a fraud and a mountebank, Donald Trump,[6] or an official Democrat candidate (Hillary Clinton[7] or Bernie Sanders) – statists all?

Or will we choose the only constitutional conservative in the race, Ted Cruz?[8]

[BrotherWatch has endorsed Ted Cruz[9] and the Cruz-Fiorina ticket.[10]]

Update: The current tyrannical nature of the Obama administration and its rule imposed by unelected bureaucrats to force the American people to adopt a radical agenda foisted on them is perfectly illustrated by the Justice Department’s edicts regarding transgender-friendly bathrooms. Rich Lowry calls it the Bathroom Putsch. Lowry decries “middling bureaucrats [who] impose their will on the nation,” writing, “The transgender edict is a perfect distillation of the Obama administration’s centralizing reflex, high-handed unilateral rule, and burning desire to push the boundaries of cultural change as far as practical in its remaining time in office.”

Update: The absurdity of the bureaucratic state is epitomized by federal, state and local governments who are currently waging a war on illegal lemonade stands run by children! Kevin Williamson notes, “We are ruled by power-mad buffoons.”

Update: Wesley J. Smith writes: “The political left loves the Bureaucratic State because it allows unelected and democratically unaccountable “experts” to be in control–for our own good, of course.” Smith exposes how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is invading your privacy and intruding into your health care!

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[2]               Vaclav Klaus, “The Crisis of the European Union: Causes and Significance,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, July/August 2011, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-crisis-of-the-european-union-causes-and-significance/.

[3]               Philip Hamburger, “The History and Danger of Administrative Law,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, September 2014, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/.

[4]               Larry P. Arnn, “A Return to the Constitution,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, November 2007, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/a-return-to-the-constitution/.

[5]               See “CPAC: This Election is About Survival” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dO.

[6]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[7]               See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[8]               See “CPAC: Ted Cruz in Control” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8b.

[9]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[10]             See “Cruz and Fiorina Are Dream Ticket” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eQ.

Advertisements

CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)

Many Brits seek independence from the European Union. Barack Obama and other statists oppose that effort. Why? Because they favors transnational, big government at the expense of national sovereignty and individual liberty.

CPAC2016-10

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, is leading the charge for British independence and freedom lovers everywhere should support him.

(Just prior to our interview, Woolfe had spoken with the chiefs of staff of both the Trump and Cruz campaigns.)

Woolfe told me that the “main concern in the United Kingdom is something we call Brexit [British exit], which is a referendum which is being held in the United Kingdom on June 23rd, to determine whether Britain will be a member of the European Union.” (The Daily Caller provides a handy reference regarding the Brexit referendum.)

National Sovereignty and National Security

Power, not economics, is at the core of the European Union and the reason so many Brits want to leave it. Woolfe explained, “Many American citizens think that the European Union is simply a group of all the countries of Europe coming together over free trade. There is nothing further from the truth.”

Woolfe continued, “The truth is, this is a new European Union super state in which control over the power of the laws is held in Brussels by unelected civil servants. People can’t vote for them, can’t remove them, but they have 75% of the laws. Control of your law, your freedom, your liberty, your democracy is in the hands of civil servants, not in the hands of politicians.”

John O’Sullivan observed that the issue of national sovereignty favors Brexit supporters since the U.K. only has “one-28th of the EU’s decision-making authority, and thus power.” Therefore, it is in the best interests of those who want more freedom and more say in how to live their own lives to pursue freedom from the European Union.

Moreover, per O’Sullivan, “former chancellor, Nigel Lawson, pointed out that on all the 72 occasions when an issue was voted on in the EU Council of Ministers, Britain had been outvoted every time.” In other words, national sovereignty has been subordinated to supranational authority.

Europe’s refugee crisis and the rise of terrorism on the continent are of major concern to the British people. The European Union’s present open-door policy is anathema to those who want to protect Britain. Woolfe links the escalating terrorism seen in Europe with the immigration crisis[1] which has deluged so many European nations. According to Woolfe, the European Union prevents Britain and other EU nations from securing their borders. He seeks a revamping of the current open-door system to “a managed migration system.”

President Obama Weighs In

President Obama actually  threatened Britain should the British people leave the European Union. Obama said, “I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”

Members of the British Parliament and European Parliament beseeched Obama “to stay out of Britain’s referendum.” In a letter to the President, they wrote, “With so much at stake, it is imperative that the question of exiting the European Union is not one answered by foreign politicians or outside interests, but rather by the British people who must ultimately live with change or the status quo.” They rightly notes that “issues of national sovereignty must be decided exclusively by the people of the United Kingdom.”

Presidential Candidates Respond

Naturally, those who favor statism and the advancement of a big government agenda oppose Britain’s efforts to leave the E.U., while those who favor freedom, limited government, and national sovereignty support Britain’s desire for independence.

Hillary Clinton backed Obama. Her senior policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, said, “Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.”

Bernie Sanders waffled: “I think the European Union obviously is a very, very important institution. I would hope that they stay in, but that’s their decision.”

Donald Trump equivocated, saying that the Brits “may leave” the European Union but refused to say whether that would be good or bad.

In contrast, Ted Cruz sided with our allies, declaring, “This was nothing less than a slap in the face of British self-determination as the president, typically, elevated an international organization over the rights of a sovereign people.” Cruz pledged, “If Brexit takes place, Britain will be at the front of the line for a free trade deal with America, not at the back.”

Cruz added: “The British people will shape their destiny, and we will stand with them regardless of the outcome of the referendum. As president, I will work to ensure that our special relationship is reinvigorated – and the Obama doctrine of coddling tyrants while castigating democratic allies will finally be at an end.”

[BrotherWatch has endorsed Ted Cruz[2] and the Cruz-Fiorina ticket.[3]]

[Part II – “Death by a 1,000 Pens[4] –addresses the broader implications of the Brexit movement as it pertains to Americans and our own need for independence from an increasingly tyrannical government.]

Update: Congratulations to our cousins across the pond for their stunning victory for Liberty. Will Brexit mark the beginning of the demise of the European Union just as the Soviet Union, one by one, lost its satellite states?

Update: Good commentary by Ian Tuttle on the globalist worldview and animus of those just defeated by Brexit:

“Liberal cosmopolitanism, regnant since the end of the Cold War, has bought completely into its own rightness. It is entirely devoted to an increasingly borderless political future carefully managed by technocrats and tempered by ‘compassion’ and ‘tolerance’ – all of which aims at the maximal amount of material prosperity. It sees no other alternative than that we will all, eventually, be ‘citizens of the world,’ and assumes that everyone will be happier that way.”

“The inability of our political leaders to envision political futures other than the one to which they are wedded has facilitated the polarization, and the unresponsiveness, of our politics. That people are now looking for alternatives is, in fact, entirely reasonable.”

Brexit is a victory for freedom and a blow to progressive statism and supra-nationalism.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e8.

[2]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[3]               See “Cruz and Fiorina Are Dream Ticket” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eQ.

[4]               See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis

Terrorism strikes Brussels, puzzling the Left while validating the Right.

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, linked the escalating terrorism seen in Europe with the immigration crisis which has deluged so many European nations.

CPAC2016-09

Over a million unexpected migrants entered Europe last year, among them, criminals and also Islamists who seek to commit jihad in Europe. In an exclusive interview at CPAC, Woolfe warned, “it is the people traffickers – led by ISIS, Boca Haram, and gangsters – who are making over $2 billion a year at the moment.”

According to Woolfe, Europe desperately needs to end its “open-door [immigration] system that Angela Merkel from Germany permitted,” a system which has swamped Europe with millions of unassimilated people who drain the welfare state and potentially endanger the citizenry.

Woolfe would replace that “open-door” with “a managed migration system.” He acknowledges that “some immigration is useful for a country,” but argues that each nation in Europe should have the right to control its own borders based upon its own priorities.

While welcoming refugees from migration camps is one thing, European citizens are coming to see that unrestricted migration poses a clear and present danger to European citizens. Therefore, Woolfe proposes dramatically limiting the influx of refugees and other migrants, declaring that Europeans “must turn back the boats – back to Libya, back to Lebanon, back to Turkey – to ensure that this crisis stops.

The nexus between terrorism and “open-door” immigration is very real. It is, indeed, a major reason why Britain is seeking to leave the European Union. Woolfe supports a referendum, called Brexit [British exit], which will be “held in the United Kingdom on June 23rd, to determine whether Britain will be a member of the European Union.”