Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Left Behind

Donald Trump’s inauguration is hours away and the Left remains stupefied.

The Left remains stunned by Hillary Clinton’s defeat. (Snowflakes are melting.) Her defeat, and Obama’s legacy, augur ill for the progressive agenda.

left-behind

From Obama and Hillary to identity politics and bumper stickers, the Left is in need of not just a new messenger, but a new message.

Hillary Lost – Get Over It

Hillary, the worst candidate Democrats could have nominated, lost to the worst GOP candidate ever.

Analysis by Dan McLaughlin strongly suggests that Trump won despite himself and that a far more traditionally conservative GOP nominee “would have fared far better.” According to McLaughlin, “A candidate with nothing but the historical wind at his back would have fared far better than Trump. Only his singular underperformance of the historic trend kept this race even close.”

But Hillary still lost!

Hillary had “an astoundingly poor performance,” according to McLaughlin, winning “a majority of the popular vote in only thirteen states, the fewest of any major-party nominee since Bob Dole in 1996.” Indeed, though she faced the “deeply flawed” GOP candidate “that Democrats were visibly salivating over running against,” Hillary “carried a popular majority in half as many states as Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, barely more than half as many as Mitt Romney.”

Indeed, “Hillary managed the worst Democratic performance as a share of eligible voters over the past five elections in 17 states, almost all of them states with above-average white populations: West Virginia, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma, Iowa, Arkansas, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan, Rhode Island, Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, and New York.”

To whom did Hillary lose? Donald Trump.

McLaughlin observes, “All told, across the 765 counties in 28 states where Trump got fewer votes than the Republican candidate for Senate, he received 2.176 million fewer votes.” Moreover, in “counties Trump lost by 10,000 or more votes, we get a much longer list of 52 counties, in which more than 21 million votes were cast and Trump got 1,377,179 fewer votes than Republican Senate candidates.”

Trump was extremely unpopular; Hillary even more so.

Obama has Left Liberalism in Crisis

What was Hillary message? She as going to out-Obama Obama. America has rejected that agenda.

President Obama’s legacy is one which has actually left liberalism in crisis. Michael Barone points out: “Republicans have now won House majorities in 10 of the past 12 elections, leaving 2006 and 2008 as temporary aberrations.”

Barone continues:

“Republican success has been even greater in gubernatorial and state-legislature elections, to the point that Democrats hold both the governorship and legislative control only in California, Hawaii, Delaware, and Rhode Island. After eight years of the Obama presidency, Democrats hold fewer elective offices than at any time since the 1920s.”

Ramesh Ponnuru addresses the leftward momentum of the Left: “On criminal justice, on entitlements, on immigration, on abortion, on religious liberty, Democrats staked out positions and adopted rhetoric that were much less moderate than they had previously been. The new Democratic consensus included Hillary Clinton, who ran in 2016 as the heir to Obama rather than to her own husband.”

As Rich Lowry notes, Obama’s “favorite rhetorical crutch was to portray his positions as the centrist path between two extremes, although this was convincing only to people who already agreed with him. His inability or unwillingness to seriously compromise proved devastating to his party, which got wiped out in 2010, 2014, and most importantly 2016. This puts much of what he accomplished legislatively and unilaterally in jeopardy.”

Straightjacketed by Identity Politics

The Left has become straightjacketed by the identity politics for which both Obama and Hillary are poster children. The Year of the Woman failed in 2008 and 2016. Appealing to voters on the basis of race, gender, and class is becoming increasingly counterproductive.

Hillary and the Left lost in large measure due to the politically cancerous identity politics it is obsessed with and which taints everything the Left does.

The Million Woman March slated for the day after Trump’s inauguration epitomizes the nonsense that permeates the Left. Organizers for these protests in the name of all women actually exclude those who are neither liberal nor pro-choice. They also reject white women, claiming their oppression is significantly less than that of minority women.

Heather Wilhelm notes, “There are many different types of oppression, intersectional feminism teaches – based on race, class, sexual identity, and more  that layer upon each other. In the world of intersectionality, victimhood is sorted by category, tallied, and ultimately ranked.” Sounds a lot like those good old days of apartheid in South Africa.

“Apparently, at this point,” writes Wilhelm, “the way forward involves a cavalcade of left-wing causes – abortion, as usual, is taking top billing – buckets of vague platitudes, lots of hectoring, and endless, obsessive, identity-based infighting.” As usual in situations like this, the loudest bully wins, kind of like in Lord of the Flies.

Leftist Political Dynasties

Progressives are always seeking progress – moving forward. Hence their disdain for tradition, especially in traditional values, religious beliefs, and patriotic fervor. For them, we must get beyond the foibles of nationalism and embrace a globalist citizen-of-the-world ethos.

But progressives also like to anchor their progress and their victories in hero worship. Hence their love for political dynasties.

Leftist admiration for political dynasties is particularly undemocratic and peculiarly foreign to the precepts upon which America was founded. (Remember the Declaration of Independence?) Once leftists have power, they are loathe to give it up.

In the 1960s, the Left dreamed of a Kennedy dynasty (John, Bobby, Ted). Now they fervently desire an interwoven dynastic reign by Obamas and Clintons.

Lowry observes, Obama “will be remembered – and revered – by his admirers as his generation’s JFK. Lasting substantive achievements are beside the point when ascending to this iconic status.” As I pointed out, “At least JFK loved America, fought against communism, valued free market, tough on crime.”

One bumper sticker encapsulates this self-destructive pathology on the Left. It read: Hillary 2016, Michelle 2024, Chelsea 2032, Malia 2040, Sasha 2048.

What qualifies any of the (exclusively female) names on this list to be President of the United States?

Hillary’s singular accomplishment was to be more hated and less trusted than Donald Trump. HillaryCare bombed during her husband’s first administration. She was a lackluster senator and an abysmal Secretary of State who presided over the collapse of stability in the Middle East and the mushrooming of Islamism. Her singular achievement (apart from Benghazi and her secret email server) was setting a Guinness world record for frequent flyer miles.

Michelle Obama is indeed accomplished – at decimating public school lunch programs across America.

What are Chelsea Clinton’s accomplishments, credentials, and qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief? She received “an eye-popping $600,000 annual salary for an irregular stint as an NBC special correspondent.” Yes, she’s a “political heiress” engaged in crony capitalism.

Finally, in case it escaped anyone’s notice, Malia and Sasha Obama are children!

What do all these wonderful people have in common? They are all women and they all share the name of Clinton or Obama.

Obama’s Unraveling Legacy

Obama’s legacy is unravelling even as Trump prepares for his inauguration. Hillary’s political ambitions are effectively dead. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has again become her party’s standard-bearer in the House. Leftists continue to pursue their leftward momentum even as most Americans reject their policies.

President Obama’s “central case for government’s existence,” writes David Harsanyi, “rests on the notion of the state being society’s moral center, engine of prosperity, and arbiter of fairness. Obama speaks of government as a theocrat might speak of the Church, and his fans return the favor by treating him like a pope. This was true in 2008. And it’s true now. Just check out liberal Twitterdom.”

Some delusions die hard.

Advertisements

Whither Conservatism?

Donald Trump’s historic victory to the White House demands that liberals and conservatives alike reevaluate their paradigms for political persuasion and, ultimately, victory.

whither-conservatism

Conservatives are at a crossroads. The establishment GOP, as currently constituted, is dying. The Tea Party GOP emerged triumphant in down-ticket races. The Alt-Right coalesced with grassroots populists to form the New Trump Party, becoming its #TrumpTrain constituency.

In a Trump administration, who will wield the reins of power? Alt-Right? Constitutionalists? Statists? To whom will Trump turn for counsel? The president-elect’s choice of Stephen Bannon as chief strategist suggests the Alt-Right will have significant power in his White House.

I have always said that Trump is the only GOP candidate who could lose to Hillary Clinton. I stand by that claim. Any other GOP nominee would arguably have done better than Trump against the Democrats’ utterly abysmal nominee.

Hillary was the worst candidate the Democrats could have nominated for their party. She literally drove people away from her. The electorate repudiated her as a person and for her policies.

Had, for instance, Ted Cruz been the GOP nominee, he could have drawn a clear distinction between himself and Hillary – in both personal morals and public policies. Instead, Trump’s worst character traits and ugly behavior almost sabotaged his own campaign.

Trump’s consigliere, Ann Coulter, attempted to distinguish between Trump’s personal baggage and his positions on the issues. She said, “I’m talking about his issues. No-one is voting for Trump because of his personality.” (But, wait, didn’t her latest book praise Trump, the man?

Coulter hammered home her point, arguing, “Issues, issues, issues. He wins on the issues, that’s why he keeps being attacked on his personal baggage, but nobody is voting for Trump the man.”

The problem with Coulter’s reasoning is that few people really trust the man on the issues. Time and again, Trump has proven himself untrustworthy as a person and ignorant on the issues.

Hence the #NeverTrump movement.

Henceforward, we must all exercise wisdom as we navigate through these unchartered political waters.

From #NeverTrump to #VerifyTrump

Those who are #NeverTrump should support the Trump administration wherever possible, as long as it is in keeping with conservative principles and the Constitution. We must switch from being Never Trump to, as Ronald Reagan might have phrased it, Verify Trump.

Trump, like the Vladimir Putin he so admires, cannot be trusted. We cannot believe either his words or his promises. We must look to his actions. Verify Trump by verifying that his actions further what is truly best for America.

Examine his staff appointments, his judicial nominations, his executive orders, and the like. Keep him on his toes. Curtail his progressive inclinations. Prevent him from continuing Obama’s unconstitutional executive imperialism. Restrain his inner tyrant.

From #TrumpTrain to #TrainTrump

Trump devotees must do something similar. Jump off the Trump Train and climb aboard Train Trump. In other words, stop worshiping the man and treating his varied and conflicting promises as holy writ. Instead, train the man you have elected President of the United States.

Train Trump to do what is right for America (and not just himself). Train him in the Constitution and founding documents of this great nation. Train him in the benefits of the free market and limited government.

If those who were Never Trump and those who are on the Trump Train can unite to tame the untamable ego of the newly-elected Narcissist-in-Chief, perhaps America will not only survive, but thrive, under a Trump presidency.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #OnlyTrump movement and its Alt-Right constituency. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Hillary Lost by Every Measure

The worst possible Democrat candidate lost to the worst possible Republican candidate. For good or ill, President Trump is the outcome.

hillary-lost-by-every-measure

Some Democrats have gone berserk, claiming the will of the people is being thwarted by the nefarious Electoral College. Both history and logic elude them.

David French remarked on the historical nature and rationale for the Electoral College, arguing that it “is a wise and just way to elect the leader of 50 diverse states with different political cultures and different political needs. Giving voters in a few densely populated urban centers the power to swamp the electoral desires of the vast heartland in perpetuity would create its own form of instability. The Electoral College is a modest, though important, way to preserve a delicate balance of power between competing political constituencies.”

French also observes that the #NotMyPresident “protestors” actually engage a “absurd notion” because “neither candidate was playing [to win the popular vote game].” French notes, “Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes.”

Precisely correct. Both Trump and Hillary campaigned state by state for electoral votes, not the popular vote. They courted swing states, targeted battleground states, and sought to turn the color of one state into another. In other words, both candidates targeted states, not the electorate.

Their entire strategies were based upon the rules governing our election process. And Hillary lost. By those rules.

Hillary Also Lost the Popular Vote in More States

(The following is a Facebook post by Adele Bloom, used by permission, emphasis added.)

I’m seeing a lot of posts stating that Clinton won the popular vote hands down and we should, therefore, scrap the electoral college and go with popular vote only. These allegations are ludicrous and I am going to attempt to explain why using good old-fashioned math.

First, with regard to the electoral college, the process was established in 1787, shortly after the birth of this country, as a means to ensure that the less heavily populated parts of the country would receive equitable representation. A “popular vote” election process would give absolute power and control over the entire country to only those people living in the more heavily populated urban areas, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Atlanta, and Miami, just to name a few. How can people in those urban areas have any idea how to adequately determine what is good and beneficial for the dairy farmers in Wisconsin, or the ranchers in Wyoming, or the citrus growers in central Florida, or the grains farmers (wheat, corn, etc.) in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska? This is why the electoral college was established.

Second, Clinton did not win the popular vote by a landslide (some of the posts I’ve seen have indicated that Clinton had a million votes more than Trump). In reality, this election was very close in the popular vote (Trump 59,611,678 vs. Clinton 59,814,018, a difference of only 202,340), but not in the electoral college (Trump 279 vs. Clinton 228). In addition, there are 3 states that are still counting (Arizona – Trump is leading, Michigan – Trump is leading, and New Hampshire – Hillary is leading.) However, since we are a country divided by states and each state deserves equitable representation, without taking into account the electoral college’s guidelines of a certain number of delegates per state based on that state’s population but merely look at the percentage of votes received for each candidate in each state, the end result can be determined by some very simple calculations.

The following is the state-by-state breakdowns of the popular vote for each:

Alabama – Trump – 63% / 35% (won by 588,841)

Alaska – Trump – 53% / 38% (won by 37,408)

Arizona – Trump – 50% / 45% (winning by 84,526)

Arkansas – Trump – 60% / 34% (won by 299,175)

Florida – Trump – 49% / 48% (won by 119,770)

Georgia – Trump – 51% / 46% (won by 231,323)

Idaho – Trump – 59% / 28% (won by 217,522)

Indiana – Trump – 57% / 38% (won by 525,823)

Iowa – Trump – 52% / 42% (won by 148,133)

Kansas – Trump – 57% / 36% (won by 241,221)

Kentucky – Trump – 63% / 33% (won by 574,108)

Louisiana – Trump – 58% / 38% (won by 398,469)

Michigan – Trump – 48% / 47% (winning by 11,837)

Mississippi – Trump – 58% / 40% (won by 215,532)

Missouri – Trump – 57% / 38% (won by 530,864)

Montana – Trump – 57% / 36% (won by 99,447)

Nebraska – Trump – 60% / 34% (won by 211,961)

North Carolina – Trump – 51% / 47% (won by 177,529)

North Dakota – Trump – 64% / 28% (won by 122,607)

Ohio – Trump – 52% / 44% (won by 454,983)

Oklahoma – Trump – 65% / 29% (won by 528,146)

Pennsylvania – Trump – 49% / 48% (won by 68,236)

South Carolina – Trump – 55% / 41% (won by 294,142)

South Dakota – Trump – 62% / 32% (won by 110,259)

Tennessee – Trump – 61% / 35% (won by 650,292)

Texas – Trump – 53% / 43% (won by 813,774)

Utah – Trump – 47% / 28% (won by 152,148)

West Virginia – 69% / 26% (won by 298,741)

Wisconsin – 48% / 47% (won by 27,257)

Wyoming – Trump – 70% / 22% (won by 118,299)

In the 30 states that Trump won (or is winning), he averaged 56.6% of the total votes cast and Clinton averaged 37.5% of the total votes cast. (Trump had a total of 8,352,373 more votes than Clinton in these states.)

California – Clinton – 61% / 33% (won by 2,518,729)

Colorado – Clinton – 47% / 45% (won by 50,614)

Connecticut – Clinton – 54% / 42% (won by 185,441)

Delaware – Clinton – 53% / 42% (won by 50,478)

District of Columbia – Clinton – 93% / 4% (won by 248,670)

Hawaii – Clinton – 62% / 30% (won by 138,012)

Illinois – Clinton – 55% / 39% (won by 859,319)

Maine – Clinton – 48% / 45% (won by 19,894)

Maryland – Clinton – 61% / 35% (won by 624,305)

Massachusetts – Clinton – 61% / 34% (won by 881,699)

Minnesota – Clinton – 47% / 45% (won by 42,947)

Nevada – Clinton – 48% / 46% (won by 26,434)

New Hampshire – Clinton – 48% / 47% (winning by 1,437)

New Jersey – Clinton – 55% / 42% (won by 462,853)

New Mexico – Clinton – 48% / 40% (won by 64,849)

New York – Clinton – 59% / 37% (won by 1,505,863)

Oregon – Clinton – 52% / 41% (won by 192,125)

Rhode Island – 55% / 40% (won by 59,635)

Vermont – Clinton – 61% / 33% (won by 83,045)

Virginia – Clinton – 50% / 45% (won by 185,689)

Washington – Clinton – 56% / 38% (won by 380,388)

In the 51 states (D.C. is counted as a state for election purposes, although it isn’t officially a state) that Clinton won (or is winning), she averaged 55.9% of the total votes cast and Trump averaged 38.2% of the total votes cast. (Clinton had 8,582,426 more votes than Trump in these states.)

Based on percentages alone, with Trump getting 56.6% of the votes in the states he won and 38.2% of the votes in the states he lost, that gives him an average of 47.4% of the total votes cast in all states. Likewise, with Clinton getting 55.9% of the votes in the states she won and 37.5% of the votes in the states she lost, that gives her an average of 46.7% of the total votes cast. Therefore, based on the popular vote alone in a state-by-state analysis, although Clinton had more total number of votes (predominantly due to the heavy populations in California and New York), Trump had the highest average percentage of total votes cast per state overall.

However, as shown above, even when calculating the results on a state-by-state basis (without taking into consideration number of delegates per state based on the electoral college), the end result is the same. If the winner is, instead, determined by number of states won based solely on popular vote and not on delegates, then Trump had the majority of the votes in 30 states. Hillary had the majority of the votes in only 20 states, plus D.C.

Therefore, based on basic math, Trump still wins a state-by-state competition 30 to 21.

Liberty Died in Cleveland: America’s Establishment Coup

Liberty died in Cleveland on Tuesday.[1]

Liberty Died in Cleveland

The coronation of Donald Trump as the GOP nominee in 2016 further consolidated the power of establishment elites in Washington, DC. During this election cycle, establishment elites in both the Republican and Democrat parties have seized greater power while crushing their grassroots rivals.

Sanders supporters seem to grasp that establishment Democrats rigged their nominating process to coalesce behind Hillary Clinton.

Trump supporters, however, are blind to the reality that they are backing a purported anti-establishment nominee who has always been part of the establishment.

To do so, they obstructed the campaign of the only truly anti-establishment candidate in this race:[2] Ted Cruz. Indeed, at the convention, they cheered when the Republican establishment squashed efforts to allow delegates to vote their conscience and they booed when Ted Cruz urged American citizens to vote their conscience.

When did heeding your conscience become a bad thing?

Barack Obama ruthlessly wields his pen and phone to circumvent the Constitution[3] and thwart the will of the People. Hillary Clinton[4] is self-evidently a statist averse to the rule of law and wants to further transform America in even more fundamental ways.[5]

Donald Trump, also a statist, is an authoritarian[6] bully[7] to boot, and he has proven his propensity to use his boots to stamp on human faces forever,[8] as so vividly pictured by George Orwell.

That more people hate their respective party’s candidates than like them shows the extent to which the establishment opposes the will of the People to pursue their own ends. Both Hillary and Trump are anathema to lovers of Liberty and America.[9]

Even though the establishment Left & Right have seized control and consolidated their power, the fight must go on for Liberty.[10] The American spirit can only succeed when it is committed and engaged in the fight.

Let us fight for Liberty!

Endnotes:

[1]               See “The End of the American Experiment?” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eZ.

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

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

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

[5]               See “Flags Depict Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America and the World” at http://t.co/xjupplSWD1.

[6]               See “Why Brad Thor is #NeverTrump! Litmus test is liberty!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-fb.

[7]               See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-cY.

[8]               See “Will Ann Coulter Apologize to Michelle Fields?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-di.

[9]               See “Stop Insisting I Vote!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-f5.

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

Stop Insisting I Vote!

The #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary contingents exist because their respective presumptive nominees are anathema to them.

Voting

Trump supporters insist that a refusal to vote for Trump is actually vote for Hillary. Hillary supporters make the mirror claim. Both claims are nonsense.

A Non-Vote Is NOT a Vote for Other Candidate

A non-vote never adds to another candidate’s vote tally.

Moreover, each group of supporters impugns the motives of the Never groups. It is not a matter of pique over a preferred candidate losing. Rather, it is a principled response to a candidate whose character, values, or agenda is contrary to their own. Indeed, in both camps, the presumptive nominee is abhorrent to a huge swath of their own party.

Myth of “Lesser of Two Evils”

I (and others) have posited this moral dilemma: If the only two choices on a ballot were Hitler and Stalin, whom would you vote for?

Pro-Trumpers have skirted my question, claiming that Hillary would be worse than The Donald. That was not the question. If your only choices were Hitler or Stalin, whom would you choose? Whom would you vote for?

That is the operative question. Any vote is ultimately a vote for someone. In voting for a particular candidate, you assume responsibility for the consequences of that person’s election.

Had you – out of some misguided obligation to “vote for the lesser of two evils” – picked Stalin, you would be culpable for his purges and gulags; or Hitler, his Holocaust.

If you choose the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil.

But, You Must Vote

But isn’t voting a civic obligation? As noted above, not necessarily. We have the right to vote, but are not obligated to vote. Especially if doing so would violate our consciences. (Obama wants to force everyone to vote. Sounds kind of tyrannical, doesn’t it?)

A hilarious scene from Third Rock ably depicts the anguished dilemma facing many Americans this election cycle. John Lithgow is agonizingly distraught over his choices and, finally, casts his reluctant vote. Leaving the voting booth, he blurts out in despair, “O God, I hope I did the right thing!”

When two candidates are equally repulsive, albeit in different but overlapping ways, then not voting may be the best way to appease your conscience.

Anything less is affirming the evil you abhor.

The End of the American Experiment?

In Indiana, Trump won and America lost.

A Trump or Hillary presidency is almost a fait accompli.

American Experiment

However, the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary movements remain unalterably opposed to the presumptive nominees of their respective parties (as they should be!).

Both candidates are statists who are averse to constitutional restraints.

Both candidates would wield a pen and a phone as ruthlessly as Barack Obama.

Neither candidate is trusted or trustworthy.

Each feels entitled to be president, as if they had a divine right to the presidency, and either would rule like a philosopher-king, with the governing philosophy being “What do I want to do today?”

In office, either would exercise a will to power and dictatorial designs beyond what the current president has attempted. Moreover, Congress would be impotent before them.

A Trump or Clinton presidency would continue and accelerate Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of America, perhaps irreversibly.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

If America elects either Clinton or Trump, America as we knew it is gone and tyranny will reign.

America has ceased to be great because we have ceased to be good. We have turned our backs on God and He is giving us what we deserve.

Lord, have mercy on us!

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.