Tag Archives: nationalism

I Am America! NOT!

What is “America?”

A person? A race? A party? An idea?

i-am-america

For decades, leftists have redefined “American” into something else.

Reactions to Trump’s inaugural address reflect the disparate views of America: globalist vs. nationalist; American Exceptionalism vs. Ugly American.

Remember Obama’s apology presidency? He continually found fault with America and courted anti-American nations and tyrants.

The Alt-Right’s WASP America

But first, let’s address the Alt-Right and its identification as WASP.

The Alt-Right views real America as a race. Ann Coulter exemplifies that view. Coulter has asserted, “Most of us have a lot of British ancestry. … of course our two countries are very similar in culture, I mean, down to the genes.” (For years, Coulter has entertained the notion of WASP superiority – at a genetic level.)

While the Left embraces illegals and foreigners as “Americans,” Coulter and the Alt-Right contend that only WASPs descended from colonists are “true” Americans.

Indeed, Coulter sees Americanness as not only a race, but envisions it as a personherself. Coulter boasts “I’m a settler” and a “Native American.” Coulter cherishes her Pilgrim roots, making her a self-identified authority on all things American as well as moral, culturally, and genetically superior to the rest of us mere mortals.

Leftists tend to reject nationalism (and, thus, Americanism) in favor of a globalist, citizens of the world, paradigm. They look askance at patriotism, dismiss concerns for border control and enforcement of immigration laws, and reject the idea of American exceptionalism and the privilege of American citizenship.

In contrast, the Alt-Right holds a very constrictive, nativist view of citizenship.

The Left’s America

For the Left, America is a party as much as it is anything else. The “Women’s March on Washington” was a potpourri of far-left causes and ideologies – all to affirm that they are the real America.

The appropriately named actress America Ferrera inaugurated that anti-Trump event by claiming, “The president is not America. His Cabinet is not America. Congress is not America. We are America, and we are here to stay.”

“We are America” – the “We” being those Leftists who were sufficiently Left to be included in the protest.

As noted by National Review, “While no one claims that the president, his Cabinet, and Congress are in fact, ‘America,’ the president and the Congress (which includes many progressives presumably more congenial to Ferrera’s world view) are duly elected officials, chosen in accordance with our constitutional system. In that sense, they do represent ‘America’ – in the only way that counts in our democratic republic.”

But the Left’s America is, as Dennis Prager notes, “essentially a racist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, war-mongering, money-worshipping, moronically religious nation.”

Cultural Zeitgeist

Benjamin Weingarten, at Conservative Review, asked a series of questions which “speak to a fundamental cultural divide” in American. “How one answers reflects a certain cultural zeitgeist.” Weingarten suggests Trump’s platform “cut across party lines” to answer “some basic questions:”

“Do Americans believe in strength or weakness?”

“Do Americans believe in law and order or license and disorder?”

“Do Americans believe in brash politically incorrect candor or genteel political-speak?”

“Do Americans believe that their well-being is primary, or of secondary importance to the well-being of those of other nations?”

“Do Americans believe that America is the exceptional, indispensable nation, or conversely that it is the unique source of all that is ill in the world?”

Weingarten observed that “conservative policies serve populist ends because conservative policies are about protecting the littlest of “’little guys,’ the individual: His life, his liberty and his pursuit of happiness. Conservatism is about treating everyone equally under the law, ensuring an even playing field for all rather than conferring on individuals, groups or enterprises special benefits and privileges. Conservatism is about what is doing best for all Americans by holding as preeminent individual liberty and private property rights, thereby fostering a vibrant and dynamic culture and economy, and protecting our fundamental rights by way of an impartial justice system and a dominant defense.”

Real Americans

However, the Left would almost uniformly answer Weingarten’s questions choosing the second option – whichever choice accrued to America’s detriment or diminishing of stature and power.

Dismissing American exceptionalism and discrediting America’s Founding Fathers, progressives now champion a new countercultural figure: A female Muslim as representative of America.

An anti-Trump “We the People” campaign produced posters depicting “protagonist” groups “identified as vulnerable in the present political climate – Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, and LGBTQ people among them – using the tropes of patriotic American campaign posters.” A spokesperson claimed, “Our America is one of equal humanity that does not demean or discriminate.”

1364

Moreover, “These ideas are not partisan. They are the foundation of America, and on inauguration day, with your help, we will make sure everyone remembers them.”

Their campaign expressly excludes the mainstream, Christians, and Western Europeans. The countercultural 1960s are alive and well in the 2010s.

Contrary to their assertions, these propagandistic posters are purely partisan and further an expansive redefinition of what it means to be an American. As for the equality of all mankind, well …

Sharia Law

Linda Sarsour, one of the Women’s March organizers, wants sharia law in America. Sharia law is contrary to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. It is contrary to the Declaration’s proclamation of the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is contrary to America’s roots and ideals and everything which makes America America.

c2zdxdguuaaljws-jpg-large

Sarsour, a self-proclaimed, “racial justice and civil rights activist,” attacked freedom fighter Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who “was forced to suffer female genital mutilation when she was five years old in Somalia,” tweeting “Brigitte Gabriel=Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Nice. American.

c3hshchwcaaqgxz

Sarsour also tweeted, “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.”

American?

Contrary to Barack Obama’s assertion that Islam was part of the fabric of America at her founding, it wasn’t. Sharia is hostile to the freedoms proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution.

What leftists offer is the antithesis of the American ethos.

America – an Idea

Both the Alt-Right and the Far Left dismiss the notion that America is an idea when, in fact, America was birthed by an idea enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

The idea – freedom – is at the heart of the American Dream. That idea encompasses the biblical understanding that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Our forefathers – whether genetically or ideologically – took a virgin continent to create a New World. Not like Hitler’s Fatherland or Stalin’s Mother Russia. Theirs was not a blood and soil philosophy, but one which built upon the collected wisdom of Western Civilization, the principles and precepts of the Bible, and the surety of God’s Providence.

The Framers of our Constitution and Founders of our Republic created a nation and a government which maximized political, economic, and religious liberty to an extent never before seen.

America’s Founders believed in the idea of liberty and equality – not race! Abraham Lincoln eloquently spoke of the “proposition that all men are created equal.” A proposition is an idea or an ideal, not a race!

[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.]

Advertisements

Word Rage

Donald Trump’s presidency began with a bang.

Scary!

Leftists hated his words. And they will hate his actions even more.

word-rage

Trump actually puts America First! – and the Left has gone bonkers. Leftists recoiled in reactionary horror.

Trump has tapped into a patriotic fervor which terrifies the Left and exposes its anti-American values and anti-democratic impulses.

Trump’s (First) Inaugural Address

Trump’s inaugural address was short, a mere 1,459 (powerful) words. The longest address, at 8,460 words, was given by William Henry Harrison, who died 31 days later from complications due to pneumonia. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fourth address was the shortest at a meager 559 words.

In his address, Trump drew a line in the sand – a demarcation line between patriotism and globalism, between national sovereignty and cosmopolitanism, between American exceptionalism and obeisance to a New World Order.

Trump posits American primacy and polity above international diplomacy and appeasement. And Americans love it!

Charlie Kirk observed, “Donald Trump’s speech used the word ‘we’ 45 times and the word ‘I’ three times,” suggesting Trump’s ego may succumb to his new role as Commander-in-Chief.

(Will Trump’s new position as President transform Trump into a better man as he seeks to Make America Great Again? Will he grow into a selfless leader for a higher purpose? We can hope and pray.)

I tweeted: “Impressive #inaugural address: God country liberty fraternity TRUE hope & change #GodBlessAmerica.”

The Hartford Sentinel highlighted these inaugural words: “Will (40), America (17), American (12), people (9), nation (9), country (9), again (9).”

Patriotism. Nationalism.

Trump’s Dark, Dark, Dark Inaugural Address

Responses to Trump’s inaugural address varied: hysterical fear from the Left, jubilant enthusiasm from the #AmericaFirst crowd, and cautious optimism from formerly #NeverTrump.

Open borders enthusiasts like Forbes bemoaned “the most bellicose inaugural address ever given” with its “incendiary rhetoric,” “dark vision of America,” and “extraordinarily dark rhetoric.”

Hearkening back to the alleged “angry white males” of the Bill Clinton era, Forbes claimed: “Trump’s angry, determined, and take-no-prisoners speech was astonishingly dark in tone, matching his campaign speeches – and by far the darkest inaugural of the past half-century.”

(How would Leftists have responded if Forbes had used that very same dark language to describe any of Obama’s speeches?)

The Washington Post also lamented Trump’s dark choice of words, which included:

 “sprawl, ignored, windswept, overseas, tombstones, rusted-out, trapped, neighborhoods, landscape, flush, carnage, unrealized, robbed, stolen, likes, listening, hardships, transferring, politicians, reaped, stops, subsidized, disagreements, bedrock, Islamic, reinforce, solidarity, unstoppable, brown, mysteries, arrives, politicians, hire, infrastructure, trillions, depletion, allowing, disrepair, redistributed, tunnels, stealing, ravages, issuing, bleed.”

Zero Hedge similarly grumbled about Trump’s word choice, providing its own list of words never before used in a presidential inaugural address:

trump-speech-cloud_0

Many deplored Trump’s use of “carnage,” a word wholly appropriate and accurate in describing the violence in America’s Democrat-run metropolitan areas.

Trump testified to the blunt reality many Americans face from inner-city violence, race riots, terrorist attacks, and the consequences of the massive influx of illegal aliens.

Snowflakes want the whole world to be a safe space. Normal people in the real world want freedom.

(Quartz Media provides a database of every presidential inaugural, listing the most frequent words used in each one. Homework assignment: compare the inaugurals from Reagan to Trump.)

America First!

The most jarring moment for me was in Trump’s salutation: addressing and thanking, among others, the “people of the world.” That phrase, reminiscent of Obama’s “citizen of the world” rhetoric, ran counter to Trump’s America First! theme.

Trump’s appeal to the hearts of Americans – America First! –is neither unhealthy nor immoral.

Nevertheless, Leftists responded in typical fashion. Blue Virginia offered up an inaugural word cloud showing the predominance of America, American, country, and people in Trump’s speech.

trumpinauguralwordcloud

Blue Virginia also condemned the substance of Trump’s message, writing: “Donald Trump’s inaugural address: will go down in history as the infamous, hyper-nationalist, chest-thumping ‘America First’ speech, I bet.”

Even Bill O’Reilly called Trump’s speech “militant.” But it’s only divisive or militant if you disagree with the content.

Trump’s America First! Agenda

What does “America First!” mean?

Is it a nefarious plot to create a racist authoritarian state? Does it inspire national hubris? Or is it a response to the anti-American ethos of so many of America’s political, cultural, and economic elites?

In reality, American First! is both populist and conservative.

It is populist in that it is popular with the average America-loving American who believes in American exceptionalism, American values, and American ideals.

And it is conservative in seeking to restore and preserve the best of what America was and can be.

How will Trump translate his words into actions?

Trump proclaimed patriotism, protectionism, and nationalism. Patriotism and healthy nationalism are good things. Protectionism is not.

Unfortunately, in being America First!, Trump misapplies some American principles. His protectionist instincts are counterproductive and contradict the very principle of liberty upon which America is based. Free markets deserve to be free. Liberty necessitates the free exchange of ideas and of products.

Moreover, America is not an island and must not become isolationist.

Evil was allowed to fill the vacuum left by Obama’s retreat from world affairs. Obama’s “leading from behind” failed abysmally. Absent an American presence of strength in the world, evil will continue to grow and thrive, inevitably becoming an ever clearer and more present danger to this nation.

Trump also must not ignore the reality that America needs her allies and other relationships which are mutually beneficial. To neglect or discourage them would be disastrous. Fortunately, Trump pledged, “We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism.”

Trump appears to recognize that the United States is much more than an “I” – it’s also a “We.”

We, the People – with deep roots and relationships with our allies (e.g., Britain, Israel) and certain alliances (e.g., NATO). (In contrast, Trump is correct in diminishing – or abandoning – the United Nations, which is not an ally and is more often than not anti-American.)

Nevertheless, our new president’s prioritization of American interests at the head of the queue is both laudable and a necessary course correction from the previous administration and decades of progressive dominance in politics.

A Re-United States?

Michael Barone argues that Trump’s nationalism can ultimately reunite the American people, noting, “a healthy nationalism can bring people together.” Barone quotes Trump, who said, “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.”

For a strong America, we need to restore and strengthen the American identity, American values, American ideals, and American independence.

Trump concluded his address:

“Your voice, your hopes and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way. Together, we will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And yes, together, we will make America great again. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you. God bless America.”

As Captain Jean-Luc Picard was known to say: “Make it so.”

[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.]

Left Topsy-Turvy on American Revolution and Brexit

As America celebrates another birthday and the British people celebrated their Brexit vote for freedom from tyranny to a supranational bureaucracy, the heart and soul of the American Left again exposed itself as statist and globalist.

American Revolution & Brexit

Exhibit A: Steve Pincus. His recent Washington Post article attempts to paint Brexit supporters and the Republican Party as racist, anti-American xenophobes. In his introductory and subsequent paragraphs, Pincus inextricably links pro-Brexit forces with the agenda and sentiments of American conservatives and Pincus finds them wanting.

His headline asserts, “No, Brexit was not Britain’s ‘Declaration of Independence.’ It was the exact opposite.” Pincus couldn’t be more wrong.

His subheading: “The American founders would revile the pro-‘leave’ camp.” Again, his conclusion is contrary to everything we know about the Founding Fathers.

Nevertheless, Pincus contends, “But they’ve got America’s founding document exactly backward. The original American patriots would be horrified to hear their opus invoked in the service of Brexit.”

Pincus makes two striking, and strikingly wrong, claims.

Open vs. Controlled Borders

Pincus’ first strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution, favored open borders. Pincus claims, “The founders called for a government that would allow for free movement of goods and peoples.”

Actually, American colonists sought control over their own borders. They vehemently opposed a power across the Atlantic Ocean determining their fate and enacting laws without their consent and contrary to their wishes.

Pincus cites the Declaration: “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

No “open borders” here. What did the Founders actually seek? How do we interpret that portion of the Declaration? By what the Founders did. As noted by Heritage Foundation (emphasis added):

“Congress passed the first ‘uniform Rule of Naturalization’ under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed ‘any alien, being a free white person’ and ‘of good character’ who had resided in the United States for two years to become a ‘citizen of the United States’ by taking an oath in court ‘to support the constitution of the United States.’”

The very first Congress actually limited and circumscribed immigration by a clear set of criteria, looking for emigres from the Northwestern European nations which had settled America.

Heritage continues (emphasis added): “Key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a ‘good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States’; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.”

In contrast to the Founders’ wishes and the law of the land, today illegal aliens celebrate their Mexican holidays while burning the American flag and promoting the overthrow of the American government. Our Founders would have put a stop to this.

Activist vs. Limited Government

Pincus’ second strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution favored an activist government. (Hence the subtitle of his new book.[1])

According to Pincus, “America’s founders celebrated the creative potential of the state to promote the general welfare and happiness of the people; they wanted an activist government – one that would intervene in the economy to promote growth.”

To buttress his claim, Pincus cites the Second Continental Congress: “Government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.”

But what did the crafters of our Republic actually mean by “welfare?” The Founders sought to promote the “general welfare and happiness of the people” by securing liberty! They understood that a free people – being secured in their liberty and able to use their God-given gifts as they deemed best – could, in today’s parlance, “maximize their potential,” strengthen their local communities, and improve the general welfare of the nation.

Our Founding Fathers fought for freedom and limited government to preserve that freedom.

Pincus clearly regards FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” as superior to, and countermanding, our Founders’ original Bill of Rights. FDR’s progressive economic bill of rights seeks equality of outcome through government force while the Framers of our Constitution, with their political bill of rights, sought to maximize freedom and, thus, equality of opportunity.

Progressives like Pincus agree with President Obama’s assessment that America is fundamentally flawed[2] and, therefore, needs to be fundamentally transformed.[3] The Founders, Framers, and generations of Americans heartily disagree.[4] Middle America seeks to reclaim its heritage,[5] one built upon a Judeo-Christian ethos[6] which cherished liberty.

Similarly, progressives like Pincus, the Obamas, and the Clintons seek to eviscerate nationalism and elevate supranational and global institutions. In doing so, they willfully dismiss, like willing dupes,[7] the nexus between the immigration and terrorism crises.[8]

Progressives follow Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village (i.e., big government) when our great nation was founded on the premise that the primary duty of government is the protection of the People at home (law enforcement) and abroad (national defense) – and from government itself (Constitution).

Nationalism vs. Supra-nationalism

At heart, America as a Nation and a People matters little to these progressives who prefer to use American power and ideals against her in pursuit of their own globalist utopian goals.

Pincus equates “English First” pro-Brexit voters with the resurgence of contemporary America Firsters inspired by Donald Trump. To some degree he is correct, yet he regards that as a bad thing.

The heart and core of the Brexit Vote was to liberate the British people from the bureaucratic behemoth of the European Union’s usurpation of national sovereignty[9] and abrogation of the will of the People. Similarly, Middle America seeks its own independence from a draconian federal government[10] which serves its own needs and purposes while thwarting those whom they purportedly serve.

But Pincus again twists the historical record, asserting that late 18th-century Britons wanted the American colonists (legal settlers all) to pay their “fair share,” likening them to illegal aliens in America, today.

In reality, the American colonists – who were all self-supporting and obviously did not rely on a non-existent welfare state for survival – disagreed with the Mother Country and insisted upon, “No taxation without representation.” Our forefathers, like us, preferred a free market system without undue taxation and regulation, the very things Pincus and his lot pursue.

In his tract (and presumably in his forthcoming book as well), Pincus skirts this crucial reality: the majority of the colonists came from Britain and shared legal, linguistic, political, social, cultural, and spiritual similarities with the British realm.

Those brave men and women who gave birth to this great nation were brothers and sisters by blood who forged a new nation by creed. That creed – “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” – is central to our identity as Americans.

Individual rights, not collective rights; equality of opportunity, not of outcome; reverence for God, not for the State.

As Americans, we should celebrate the greatness of America as achieved by the Providence of God through the wisdom of the Founders and we should strive to return to our roots, to restore that vision of “government of the People, by the People, and for the People,” eschewing the liberty-denying statism of the Progressive vision.

Let us reinvigorate the American experiment that it may not perish from the earth.

God bless America!

Endnotes:

[1]              Pincus’ historical revisionism is apparent in the title to his forthcoming book, Heart of the Declaration: The Founders’ Case for an Activist Government.

[2]              See “Obama’s America – Fundamentally Flawed” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1h.

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

[4]              See “American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder” at http://t.co/UDFIbFm5hr.

[5]              See “Reclaiming America!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9V.

[6]              See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

[7]              See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

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

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

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

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.

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.