Back to Basics

This action tells us two things: What the Federal Government will try to do; and what local governments are willing to allow their own party to get away with!  While the pretext for this seems innocuous enough (allowing military planes to fly over an urban area), the much more salient point is that the Obama Administration is pushing to see how far it can go. Beyond that, they are conditioning citizens to accept such overreaches as normal and expedient. As Tip O’Neal famously noted, however, ”There are no coincidences in politics.” IOW, there is a reason behind everything that politicians do.

What starts out as a seemingly innocent and necessary infringement (like, say, a “background” check – unless, of course, one is the Commander in Chief – astonishingly, no background check or security clearance required in order to be trusted with the nuclear launch codes…) leads to consequences never envisioned by most people, but which were the ultimate design of the politicians all along. This is the way Constitutions are rendered meaningless. The People (and even well-meaning elected officials…if there still are such things) simply start allowing “small” things which are not authorized, and eventually they don’t even bother to consider the issue, as the precedent (of performing unconstitutional and thereby illegal “official” government acts) has long been set.

MOST of what our government does today – literally, the vast majority of it – is completely outside of the very limited authority (specifically enumerated powers) granted to it by the sovereign People, under the Constitution – the Supreme Law of the Land. Our system has been so turned on its head by our oligarchic rulers that while overreaching without our permission, and in opposition to the chains of the Constitution which were intended to bind their hands from committing such abuses into nearly every aspect of our lives, these petty tyrants (Congress, Executive, and Courts) also refuse to do the few things which they are authorized and expected to do under the authority of the Constitution: protect our lives (those of the unborn, as well as the living via our ever-so-porous borders), our liberties (which they now abuse by regulating us to a degree which would have scarcely been imaginable to the founders), and our property (which they now take at will through the extra-legal theft, and cavalier redistribution of the fruits of our labor to those who choose not to work). But it is even worse than that….

When we here in Arizona sought to do what the federal government has flatly refused to do – protect our borders – the absurdly-named “justice” department filed suit to prevent us from exercising our God-given right of protecting ourselves and our property. When states have sought to preserve the sanctity of the vote from blanket abuse and fraud – something no doubt required under federal law, Eric Holder has once again gone to court to prevent virtually every obvious, commonsense measure duly enacted by the People’s authorized representatives. Never have we witnessed or experienced such an egregious and brazen abuse of power since the days of King George, and his own abuses paled in comparison to those of our current illegitimate and “unenlightened” monarch!  The result is that we no longer live under the Rule of Law.

At the risk of appearing sacrilegious, I here employ the phrase used by Pontius Pilate to mock Christ shortly after He had been scourged by his Roman captors. I do so not to compare the person of whom I will here speak with the Redeemer of Israel, but for the same reason Pilate employed the phrase – to mock its intended recipient.  Indeed, Ken Bennett, has been anything but a “redeemer” in his accidental-but-potentially pivotal role. In fact, the far more apt comparison would be with the man who misguidedly first uttered the phrase: Pontius Pilate.  Behold the man!

The comparisons are significant.  Firstly, Pilate did not wish to be in the role in which he found himself.  It was thrust upon him by circumstances.  He was not a brave man, and he had no desire to step into the breach. Perhaps that could be said of most men, but unlike Pilate and his contemporary Sonoran Secretarial counterpart, true men throughout history have stepped forward and done what needed to be done – in spite of any initial reluctance to do so – either on their part or that of others…perhaps even all others!

As for the Answer from Arizona, having been in on the notorious email chain from its outset, I can attest firsthand that his reluctance was predictable.  Some on the feed were optimistic as a result of his willingness to engage, and to take any action at all, but I had little doubt from his responses that it was pure (impure, actually) political posturing. Albeit we continued to supply him with ample documentation from the Hawaii Revised Statutes, state and federal Rules of Evidence, and a September 2000 report by the Federal Government’s own Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (entitled Birth Certificate Fraud) in support of both his right and his responsibility to require proof of eligibility from the State of Hawaii for its obviously-favorite son.

Admiral William F. “Bull” Halsey has famously noted that “There are no great men. Just great challenges which ordinary men, out of necessity, are forced by circumstances to meet.”  He might also have noted that those who fail to do so might indeed be considered “ordinary”, but can in no way be considered “great”…or be considered men at all, for that matter.

James Allen, in his classic monograph, As A Man Thinketh, correctly observed that “Circumstances do not make the man.  They reveal him to himself.”  (He had apparently read the Greek philosopher Epictetus who had observed the same thing some eighteen centuries before.)  So neither Pilate the Prefect, nor Bennett the Secretary (somewhat befittingly) can place the blame for their classic failures elsewhere.

Secondly, both Pilate and Bennett sought to wash their hands of their responsibility in their pivotal roles, or at the very least to minimize the significance of their betrayals. Pilate, of course, did so literally, becoming the classic example of any such futile attempt at self-acquittal.  In the case of the man who would be Arizona’s next governor, however, it didn’t stop there. The State of Arizona’s CAA (Chief Administrative Assistant) apologized that he’d even had to be involved, or been responsible, for his state’s involvement!

Let’s see if we can sort this out.

Dear Jeff,

You may recall our most recent meeting at the Red Mountain Tea Party,on April 2^nd…but then again,you may not.  So let me take just a moment to go over what took place.

You possibly recall my asking “What does your oath,to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic,mean to you?”

I must say that I found your response to be quite revealing,to wit:  “It means that I will support…policies…that give effect to that oath which I’ve taken;that I won’t do anything that…would…put me in a position where I’m violating that oath.  That’s what it means to me.”

In order to be fair,Jeff,perhaps we could review together exactly what that oath contains.  Here it is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,foreign and domestic;that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;that I take this obligation freely,without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:So help me God.

Oops!  Looks like I misspoke,Jeff.  I said “defend and protect,” when it actually reads “support and defend”!  How clumsy of me…but the meaning,of course,is identical!  There’s obviously more to it – “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” for example,and I presume that that is what you were referencing in your eloquent answer.

My question,however,clearly went to the first stipulation of that sacred oath (which you have now had administered to you by various Speakers five times over the past ten years.)  So I didn’t ask if you yourself would “support…policies…that give effect to that oath,” Jeff,but rather,“What…your oath,to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic, means to you….”

I don’t know if you were “reading ahead,” anticipating where I was going with that question,and thus avoided answering directly…or whether you had simply not considered that critical component of your oath…”So help [you] God.”   I’m sure you know the history of the oath you took,Jeff,starting with the oath taken by the very first Congress in 1779,but we’ll review it just the same.

The stipulation for such an oath was,of course (and still is,of course) contained in Article VI of the Constitution itself.  Here it is:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned,and the Members of the several State Legislatures,and all executive and judicial Officers,both of the United States and of the several States,shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,to support this Constitution….

Being very particular to follow the recently ratified Constitution,the first Congress which had sufficient Representatives present by April 1,1789,to form a quorum,appointed a committee on April 6 to draft a bill on how the oath of office was to be administered.  It was entitled An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths,and was signed into law on June 1,1789,becoming “Statute I,” the first official law in the “Laws of the United States.”  Here is the original language contained in the oath:

I,A. B. [a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof,] do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

Apparently,the position held by the various parties taking the oath was added at some point for clarification.

Not only did John Jay, Secretary of State at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and later First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as one of the three authors of The Federalists, originate the “natural-born citizen” requirement – by suggesting it in a letter to Convention President George Washington, on July 25, 1787, one day after the original draft was started by John Rutledge and his Committee of Detail – but he was joined by fellow Federalist authors, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who, as members of the Committee of Style and Arrangement, wrote it into the final draft some six weeks later. In other words, while it didn’t make it into the first draft, it was shepherded into the final document by the three central figures who championed the Constitution to the colonists for their subsequent ratification.

So think of it, here we had ALL THREE of the writers (under the alias of Publius) of The Federalists – THE universally-recognized means of persuading the citizens of the various states to RATIFY the Constitution. One of them, Jay, recommended the requirment to our first Commander in Chief, and later first President, George Washington, and the other two wrote it into the Final Draft, where it was voted on, passed, and ratified…and remains to this day.

So two weeks ago, the good judge, Michael Malihi, in a Georgia State Court, cites some obscure ruling from an inferior court in Indiana, while failing to provide any explanation for dismissing the various points of law cited by the plaintiffs (other than that he did not find their witnesses credible – a laughable assertion given each of their substantial credentials), and making no mention of the original intent of the founders in establishing this high bar for anyone seeking to become “the Command in Chief of the American Army.” And what was their (Jay’s) stated reason?

“…to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”

Yet with the stroke of a pen, Judge Malihi wipes out any elevated requirement for becoming the possessor of the nuclear launch codes, and the Leader of the Free World, by declaring anyone born in the country, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, a “natural-born citizen.”

In doing so, he wilfully ignores (or, if ignorantly, it is flagrantly inexcusable) the firmly established definition of a “natural-born citizen,” by Emerich de Vattel, author of Law of Nations, about which Convention sage, Benjamon Franklin, said the following:

“It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult [it]. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress [the Constitutional Convention].”
And what, exactly, did Vattel have to say about “natural-born citizens” and the citizenship of their parents?

Well, here we are wrapping up the third year in our “fundamentally transformed” America…and all I can do is shake my head in disbelief, as well as displeasure!  Most of us have lived the better part of our lives in what was the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth.  Yes, we were aware that there were gross inequities – namely slavery, and the aftermath of racial prejudice and hatred left in its wake – coming from both sides.  It was ugly, and it was wrong.  Are there still racists?  Of course there are.  Are they all of one skin color?  Of course they are not.  Racism is simply one of countless expressions of man’s darker or more primitive self, and all enlightened people abhor it.

With that acknowledgement, I will repeat that this nation has produced more freedom and greater prosperity than any other nation in history.  Those nations which have pretended to be all for the “working man” and governmental control of the means of production, the market, and the economy, have with no known exception resulted in starvation, murder, and enslavement of entire populations – from Stallinist Russia, to Nazi Germany, to Fidel Castro’s “island paradise.”  Yes, those were wonderful experiments in destroying people’s God-given freedoms, and their sacred right to choose, for the ostensible purpose of “freeing” them from economic bondage…only to produce the worst kind of bondage – both economic and otherwise.  In a word, they have all failed…and failed miserably – without exception!

So where are we today?  We are madly doing everything we can to model our once-great nation after all of these colossal failures…all in the name of enlightenment and compassion.  We live in a country being ruled by a man and an administration which has no regard for our freedoms, for the Constitution, or for the Rule of Law.  The illegal occupant of the People’s House flaunts his illegality by mocking all as “carnival barkers” who dare assert the simple Constitutional requirement that he, our elected leader, be “natural-born.”  He has admitted that he is not, as his own website states that his father was a Kenyan (British) - not a U.S. – citizen.  (For any who doubt this, I refer them to my recently-released book, Oh Really, O’Reilly! – available through this website.)

Meanwhile, we have a “Republican-controlled” House, which is paralyzed with the fear of being criticized by an establishment media that has lost its readership and viewership to the point of near irrelevancy, while these same “leaders” ignorantly ignore the vast mainstream of the country who elected them.  And so, in their cowardly self-imposed paralysis, they refuse to do the simple work of demanding that the unidentified foreign occupant (UFO) of the Oval Office prove his legitimacy; nor will they demand that he cease to rule by Executive Order – including the sending of U.S. troops or the employing other military means to enter into “kinetic exercises” (military operations once referred to simply as “war”), without the consent of Congress.

And why?  One presumes because the president-elect is at least partially of African descent.  And so, with clearly the most lawless Department of “Justice” and Attorney General in our nation’s history, we are told that his only opposition stems from objections to the color of his skin…and the U.S. House quivers in its boots.

So, what are the “particulars” regarding the lapse of confidence on the part of Republican “leadership” addressed in my last post? Let me make this simple. The biggest failure on the part of Cantor, Boehner, and Ryan is their absolute hesitancy (paralysis) in attacking the tough issues head on. These include the impotent concessions (even sought) in exchange for “continuing resolutions” to fund the government, their total trepidation over “shutting down the government” (being blamed for it), the refusal to make any of the details of their proposed budget public (much less discuss them openly with their supporters), and their complete silence on the colossal looming issue of the debt ceiling.

While I have listed four fairly major issues, the more telling issues are the ones not listed – and not addressed – starting with the $103,000,000,000 in funding that was somehow included in the presumed non-appropriations Healthcare Bill.

I’ll be honest here, I don’t know what the “House Rules” or procedures are, but it seems quite clear that this action on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the previous Congress was highly irregular, if not strictly illegal.  The point being that with Boehner and Cantor in charge, they could easily call the Democrats on this “below the belt” tactic which they employed in passing the single largest entitlement legislation in our nation’s history.  Boehner’s pathetic, and sophomoric (if not freshman!) response was that he “had made it clear” that they were going to follow standard procedure – no doubt in contrast to the underhanded approach taken by his predecessor.

Meanwhile, Earth to John:  “On a scale of 1 to 10, the issue of ‘following standard procedure’ would rank well below a 1.”  Translation:  We care nothing about that miniscule issue.  We’re in an idiological war…but while we’re on such frivolities, if Boehner and company  think that we elected them  in hopes that they would “sit together” during the State of the Union, they are more clueless than we had imagined!  (Given that they did just that, they obviously are clueless as to what we elected them to do – or, more precisely, exactly who elected them!)  What we elected them to do was to uphold the Constitution and to restore the Rule of Law…and we do not care if they get along with those who have no regard for either, nor for the clearly expressed will of the American people.  In fact, Eric and John, that would be nowhere on any of our lists…but you apparently don’t get it!

And truly that is the crux of the matter:  They don’t get it!  They think that they need to go on CNN or MSNBC’s Meet the Press to convince “the American people” of the rightness of their (timid) efforts!  In the first place, only a fraction of those most responsible for their election (and the second largest legislative turnover in our nation’s history) would even dream of watching those networks; and in the second place, the establishment media absolutely oppose virtually every position that we elected the Republicans to take – so to try to convince them is an absolute waste of time.  Their entire purpose is to defeat us, so why even pretend that they are “fair and balanced.”?  What is more, however, it is entirely unnecessary.  The old guard media no longer speak for the country.  The simple problem is that almost none of the establishment (incumbent) Republicans get this.  Almost none. (Notable exceptions would be Bachman and DeMint.)

Bottom line:  They have simply been there (in DC) too long…which brings up the final point (the real bottom line, but a discussion for another day):  because John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan want to be right where they are for the rest of their lives, they simply cannot (will not) do the right thing – the bold thing, and the thing that any true leader would do  - because they have convinced themselves that “the American people” won’t buy it.

That is the worst thing a sports team (or individual sportsman) can do in the heat of battle? The worst thing any team or individual can do is to play “not to lose”…and yet, even the most seasoned of coaches and commentators (as well as fans) will almost unanimously conclude (in the “heat of the battle”) that the team with ever so slight a lead must now “manage the clock” in the remaining minutes – or even for the whole final quarter – of a game. And what does that mean? Translation: It means to play not to lose!

Now for those who haven’t analyzed the psychology of sporting events, it may have been lost on them that winning is largely a matter of what we call “momentum.” The team who gains or maintains the momentum – which includes getting or keeping the crowd in (or out of) the game – is the team that typically wins.

And what happens the minute a team or individual starts to play “not to lose”? Very simple…they stop playing to win, stop attacking the defense, and essentially start focusing on ”not messing up,” not making mistakes. And what happens next? Invariably they get exactly what they have chosen to focus on (and to not focus on): they will stop scoring, and start making all of the mistakes they are now consumed with avoiding!

And what happens to the momentum that they had which gave them the lead? It starts to shift, and now, even though they may still be ahead by a considerable margin, they are back on their heels, and their opponent begins to score, and  to seize the momentum…and then, often, panic sets in; and before they know it, they have blown their lead, and very often the game itself.

That may well be “conventional wisdom“…but it is not leadership! It is the antithesis of leadership. And when the ultimate paralysis sets in, and those on the field of battle (or in the game of life) are seized with fear – the fear of losing, whatever the contest may be – that is when the failure to lead, the failure to stand and fight for what one believes in, regardless of the odds – or the potential costs – becomes not just a lack of leadership, but what both Generals Patton and Washington would have unhesitatingly called cowardice! And that, I believe, is exactly what we are witnessing in the House of Representatives today!

I debated whether to make that title what it is or its reverse: The Tea Party vs. The Republicans. I settled on the former because while the Tea Party and its supporters (the majority of the American people) were responsible for the unprecedented national electoral victory five weeks ago today, the Republican “leadership” has already turned on the Tea Party, violating not only their “pledge,” but their historic mandate.

A caller to Rush this morning summed it up thusly: “When President Obama was elected [in 2008, with a 53% (52.9) to 46% (45.7) margin of 7% (7.2)] all we heard about was the President’s ‘mandate.’ Now that the Republicans have won with a huge margin, we hear no talk of a mandate, but only talk of the need for compromise.”

So, we, the people, deliver 63 seats to the Republicans in the House of Representatives, 9 seats in the Senate, five (net) state governorships (11 won and 6 lost), and some 680 state legislative seats (along with two-thirds of all leaders in state legislative bodies -http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=21634), and our message is clear: Repeal National Health Care, cut spending, and stop ignoring those of us who elected you!

Just three short weeks later our “leadership” in the House emerge from a “let’s all get along” meeting in the Oval Office, to announce a “compromise” with the President. Here it is:

1. We will only continue the current tax rates for only two years – not enough for capital investments which are often based on 10-15 year ROI’s (return on investments).

2. We will extend unemployment from an already egregious 99 weeks to a mind-boggling 155 weeks (56 weeks more) – taking what has “always” been (in recent memory, at least) the period for receiving this benefit from 26 weeks (6 months) to just 10 weeks shy of 3 years!

3. We will reinstate the Death Tax at 35%. (It has been at 0%.)

4. Payroll Taxes (Social Security) would be reduced by 2%, saving a family earning $50,000 gross, $1,000 per year ($83 per month). “The government would borrow about $112 billion to make Social Security whole.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101212/ap_on_bi_ge/us_payroll_tax_
holiday)

Of course when soon-to-be Majority Whip, Eric Cantor, and Speaker, John Boehner emerged from their warm and fuzzy huddle with the President, they were all smiles for the photo op. Am I the only one that is no longer the least bit impressed when I see my so-called “representatives” smiling? They should be angry and defiant, as reckless government spending spirals out of control, unchecked even by those who claim to be conservative (CRINO’s, if you will). They should stand on principle.

They just came off of the largest electoral mandate in our lifetime, and, perhaps, the largest in the country’s history, and the first thing they do is violate their ninety-day-old “pledge” (to not vote for any new spending increase) by adding another $33,000,000,000 ($33 Billion) to the ballooning deficit (now over $200 Trillion, in reality – not the $13.8 Trillion reported – http://www.minyanville.com/assets/File/Kotlikoff_USBankruptcy_paper%5B1%5D.pdf).