Oh My, Bill Nye

The intrusion of politics into science, as Galileo discovered, is regrettable and dangerous but, it’s when ideas like the following are proposed by, perhaps the most recognizable scientist in America to people under sixty, that the real danger of the politico-scientific community to America’s system of rational economic, scientific and artistic capitalism is revealed.

 Columnist Todd Starnes reports: “These days Dr. William Nye, better known to millions as TV’s Bill Nye, the Science Guy, hosts a series on Netflix – Bill Nye Saves the World. The other day – he pondered this question – should [America’s] people be penalized for having extra kids. Travis Rieder, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University, told Mr. Nye it was a good idea. “I do think that we should at least consider it,” he said. “Well, ‘at least consider it’ is like ‘do it,’” Nye replied.

 Their theory is that big American families are hurting the environment [more “global warming” insanity]. “One of the things that we could do that’s kind of (at) least policy-ish is we could encourage our culture and our norms to change, right?” Rieder said.

 Starnes opines: “It’s one of the most repulsive things I’ve heard in a long time – downright despicable – evil scientist stuff. Just who gets to decide how many children is too many? And who determines which child is the extra child? Also …  what would Mr. Nye consider to be an appropriate punishment? Additional taxes? Post-Birth abortions? Is it possible that families like the Brady Bunch and the Walton’s could one day be outlawed?”

 “It’s frightening to imagine a nation where parents are punished for having what the left considers too many babies. I thought liberals wanted the government out of our bedrooms – but now they want to deputize government agents to police American baby-making. Perhaps Netflix should consider producing a new television program – Bill Nye the Eugenics Guy.” [Margaret Sanger would be so proud. No wonder the PLDC is so high on legal abortions.]

 But wait, it gets worse. Bill Nye is actually on to something. Overpopulation is the biggest threat to humanity. The future numbers are staggering. The world’s population today is about 7.5 billion people. If world fertility remains constant – and why wouldn’t it in a world with The Bachelor and The Bachelorette garnering high TV ratings that leads to world syndication –the world’s population will reach 30 billion people in about 100 years. That’s a four-fold increase – doubling once, then doubling again!

 But, the United States is a minor player in world population calculations. There are almost 1.5 billion Chinese; about 1.3 Indians and a billion Africans. There are only one-third of a billion Americans – that’s 4% of the total. Even if America became home to a billion people – imagine that for a minute – we would actually be only 3+% of the 30 billion total!

 Why then would Bill Nye suggest that America needs to reduce our fertility rate. Because his is not a scientific judgement – it is a political one – one that favors big government control of every facet of our lives.

 The real scientist would be led by the available evidence to the real source of the problem – the developing world, where tribal culture and tradition drive fertility rates – not Western Civilization where fertility rates have been declining for generations. Nye, like so many of the world’s scientists, has begun his inquiry with an answer – his answer, not a question. His answer is that the needs and wants of human beings are the most significant source of global warming so, he must find evidence that supports that answer.

 According to this rationale, since the United States has the world’s largest economy, it must surely be the largest source of pollution. If there are fewer Americans, our contribution to global warming will be less. Right? Are there any scientific facts to back that up? No! In fact, America has reduced its pollution emissions by more than 70% since 1970. The three most harmful emissions have been reduced from 255 tons per year to less than 120 tons – 54% while our population has grown by over 56%. So obviously, a growing American population does not equate to more pollution.

 Additionally, the human contribution to pollution – in the form of CO2 – is about 4 billion tons per year while industry contributes more than 35 billion tons. Clearly, reducing industrial pollution is the key, not reducing American families.

 China emits almost twice the amount of greenhouse gases as the US, which it surpassed in 2006 as the world’s top contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Today, that country accounts for approximately 25 percent of all global CO2 emissions. The United States government estimates project that, barring major reform, China will double its emissions by 2040 to half of the world’s emissions, due to its heavy reliance on fossil fuels for steel production and electricity.

 And, China has had a “one-child-per-family” policy in place for decades! Oh my, Bill Nye.

 During the period from 1970 forward, the earth’s temperature has risen about 0.3°F per decade. During the previous 100 years, the average was about 0.2°F per decade. So, as America’s contribution to global warming, as measured by the components of air pollution, has decreased dramatically, the global warming rate has actually increased.

 The scientific conclusion should be that America’s contribution to global warming is not very significant since cutting our pollution numbers in half surely has not adversely effected the earth’s temperature change. Apparently, Bill Nye doesn’t want to be bothered by real facts – like the truth – nor apparently, is he able to understand the concept of correlation. Just sayin’.  

 Of course, the benighted sachems of science will strike out like predators, from their ivy-covered perches, at any criticism of their methods, findings or new “truths”. Their “how dare you” attitude is complemented by glib sarcasm and belittling of any “commoner” who has the gall to challenge them.

 But, as we have seen above, their claim to the truths about our world has been tarnished by the oldest of human motives – greed, jealousy and lust – for fame (at the expense of the more famous – classic jealousy). An example:

 Malcolm Gladwell is the author of enormously successful and noteworthy bestsellers The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers. His muchly credentialed critics in academia have described him as prone to over-simplification. The New Republic called the final chapter of Outliers, “impervious to all forms of critical thinking” and said Gladwell believes “a perfect anecdote proves a fatuous rule.” Gladwell has also been criticized for his emphasis on anecdotal evidence over research to support his conclusions. 

 [I cannot resist the question: Wouldn’t anecdotal evidence be preferable to peer reviewed lies?]

 Maureen Tkacik and Steven Pinker have challenged the integrity of Gladwell’s approach. Even while praising Gladwell’s writing style and content, Pinker summed up Gladwell as “a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning,” while accusing him of “cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies” in his book Outliers. 

 Referencing a Gladwell reporting mistake in which Gladwell refers to “eigenvalue” as “Igon Value”, Pinker criticizes his lack of expertise: “I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.” [Or, perhaps it’s an “autocorrect” problem and don’t get me started on Einstein’s spelling prowess.] 

 A writer in The Independent accused Gladwell of posing “obvious” insights.

The Register has accused Gladwell of making arguments by weak analogy and commented Gladwell has an “aversion for fact”, adding “Gladwell has made a career out of handing simple, vacuous truths to people and dressing them up with flowery language and an impressionistic take on the scientific method.” In that regard, The New Republic has called him “America’s Best-Paid Fairy-Tale Writer.” His approach was satirized by the online site “The Malcolm Gladwell Book Generator“.

 Such humor. My sides are splitting. In fact, these criticisms reveal a simple truth. Gladwell is a writer – something these self-described experts are not. They may be able to analyze statistical results of experiments in an unbiased manner – on occasion – but they have a difficult time conveying any useable information to any audience outside of their selected peers. Their reward is a good comment from a colleague that might help them get their next – taxpayer provided – grant.

 They could use the grant money to prove Gladwell wrong but, the shrillness of their barbs leads me to believe they might not be able to and, even if they could, they could not get anyone to read about it.

 In Gladwell, they see someone who has, on his own initiative, produced useful pieces of work – ones that inspire people to think for themselves – not be told what to think – the goal of these scientists’ most avid and vapid supporters – the PLDC. On top of that, he has gotten rich in the process – probably one of the “Top 1%”.

 I personally have tried to emulate Gladwell to some degree in this work in order to, hopefully, engage and embolden the People in the most critical debate in the history of our Republic.

 Now back to the general discussion about truth in the public square [a term popularized by Pastor and author Richard John Neuhaus in 1984].

 Democrat President Obama swept into office in 2009 with the promise to the voters to make his administration the most transparent and ethical in history:

  “… to close the revolving door that let’s lobbyists come into government freely and use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people.”

 Within days of his inauguration, he had violated his promise. USA Today reported that within the first week of his inauguration, President Obama had several dozen Democrat propaganda flaks to a meeting at the White House with senior administration officials, who would be instructed by the Administration to spin his policies to the compliant main-stream media.

 “Among them were six registered lobbyists or paid consultants who would return again and again to the White House with paying clients to horse-trade their influence with the willing media for laws and regulations favorable to their clients’ profit margins. By the summer of 2015, these six had brought more than 30 different clients for more than 55 meetings inside the White House with senior administration officials since the January 2009 meeting.

 Less than two months into his first term, the White House invited a group of Democrat strategists, including three registered lobbyists, to the West Wing for a meeting with the President’s guru David Axelrod to coordinate support for Obamacare. In print, online and on television, they defended everything from tax increases to his inaction against rising radical Islamic terrorism. There were more than sixteen of these types of White House meetings and countless telephone conferences with the same group.

 According to USA Today (hardly a conservative bastion), “…there is a quid pro quo of the White House getting a favor from the paid lobbyist (acting as a secret mouthpiece for the President’s policies) and then the paid lobbyist actually lobbying the White House on behalf of a client.”

 In return for flacking for the President, such lobbyist clients as:

 General Electric got tax breaks worth billions of dollars in 2012, paying their White House lobbyist $560,000.

Another, lobbying for a Kansas State University proposal for a biological research facility associated with homeland security, was paid $500,000 and ground was broken in May 2015.

DISH Network wanted more wireless airwave frequencies and paid their White House lobbyist more than $240,000 and got the additional frequencies it paid for.

An alliance of non-profit colleges wanted to weaken a Department of Education regulation that would cost the schools billions of dollars in federal financial aid. They paid their White House lobbyist $500,000 to escort them to a White House meeting with the result that they got their weaker regulation.

One final example had an Alaskan tribal corporation pushing for more oil drilling in Alaska. Despite the Obama administration’s loathing for oil drilling anywhere, after lobbying by one of the “elect” (politically protected groups), Obama ordered the Interior Department to expand drilling on the tribal lands.

There are many other examples.

 Amazingly, one participant in these meetings, who is not a lobbyist was concerned by the obvious practice, said he thought it crossed the ethical line.”

 President Obama’s favorite justification for his executive action in this and other areas was that “Congress failed to act.” No, Mr. President, Congress does not fail to act, it chooses not to act. There is a difference. A determination not to act is, by itself, a deliberate act. This is how the Framers constructed our system of government. Congress considers and debates a great many bills. Not all of them pass. This is not “failure” in the conventional, traditional, accepted use of the word, but decision by declination. It constitutes a prudent and calculated process. By the way, this is not an alternative fact, merely an intelligent and logical way to look at things, rather than an ignorant and emotional way.

 But, the PLDC beat goes on and the truth continues to suffer. Perhaps the most important issue of the post-Cold War era is the proliferation of nuclear weapons to unstable governments, especially those controlled by radical Islam, specifically Iran and its “axis-of-evil” co-conspirator, North Korea. Consider:

 “In a stunningly blunt interview, top Obama adviser Ben Rhodes asserted that the administration’s foreign policy team built an “echo chamber” of experts to help sell the controversial Iran nuclear arms deal. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes made the comments as part of an extensive profile in The New York Times Magazine in the Spring of 2016. The article detailed how Rhodes’ “war room” worked to influence [read: lie to] Capitol Hill lawmakers and reporters as the details of the Iranian nuclear deal were being hammered out in negotiations.

 “We created an echo chamber,” Rhodes said, when asked about [alleged] “arms-control experts [scientists]” who appeared at Washington think tanks and were then used as sources for hundreds of reporters – whom the article described as “clueless” [oddly, probably a true statement amid all of the lies]. Of those experts, Rhodes said: “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

 According to the article, Rhodes used groups like The Iran Project to help promote the nuclear deal, but also pushed back on the notion that they misled anybody. When asked about Rhodes’ comments, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration is proud of the “strong” and “principled” case made for the international agreement with Iran.

 The “echo chamber” remark was one of several revealing moments in the article. According to the piece, Rhodes also tried in January 2016 to keep Iran’s capture of American sailors out of the news until after President Obama’s State of the Union address. “They can’t keep a secret for two hours,” Rhodes was quoted saying – the news ended up breaking before the President’s address that night.

 Asked about those comments, Earnest told reporters “it is easier to resolve situations like this when they aren’t subject to intense media scrutiny. … I’m sure that was a factor in this situation.” He said anybody also would have realized “it was not going to stay secret for long, and that that certainly was true in this instance.”

 Rhodes, meanwhile, took a shot in the article at the modern media landscape, lamenting the closure of many newspapers’ foreign bureaus and the level of experience of many political reporters. “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing,” he said.”

 What a startling admission by a PLDC flack, who brags about the ability to rely on the press to carry out the persistent and pervasive attack on the truth that is the hallmark of the cabal.

 Recall my mention of Shakespeare above, as playing an important part of the human continuum in Western Civilization. His character Polonius in Hamlet says; “This above all, to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day. Thou canst not then be false to any man.” We can now add scientists to the cabal’s membership list – joining politicians, the courts, the press, the media, the unions, academia and the arts & entertainment industry. What a rogue’s gallery that is!

The progressive/liberal/Democrat cabal (PLDC) attack on truth (what is true) demonstrates that it is far out of the mainstream of Western Culture – our culture – and is damaging, demoralizing and destabilizing the very civilization itself. But, the most profound consequence of all will be to all of the associated members of the cabal if their dreams are realized – their freedom too, will be taken by the PLDC elite – that small coterie of puppeteers now pulling their strings for ephemeral favors. Merely look up the word “oligarchs” to see how a society constructed on deception becomes a state consummated in dread.

Will any of this discussion lead to a renewed interest in truth? Probably not but, eventually the People will take back the truth and it won’t be a happy day when they do. The betrayal of the People’s right to the truth by all of the players in the PLDC will be reckoned and truth will again lead the way.

Science v. Religion

“Now, Al Gore is no scientist, so he could claim that he was brainwashed or bamboozled into his scientific swiss-cheese opus. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of the world’s best known scientists – an astronomer by trade. Tyson is the television host of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, a sequel to the PBS program Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, hosted by Dr. Carl Sagan in 1980. Tyson, like Sagan, believes that the mindset needed for a healthy science understanding is the same mindset needed for a healthy democracy – don’t just accept what authority tells you, as intellectual and moral docility – is suicidal.

 It is, therefore puzzling, why he thinks Venus is the way it is due to the greenhouse effect – which is another way of saying global warming. Venus is almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit and the clouds are sulfuric acid. Even the most aggressive climate change models and their 20-foot ocean rises don’t predict that for Earth.

 We can allow that catchy buzzwords make something timely and that they are a snapshot of the culture of the period. For example, if this sequel to Cosmos had been made in 1989 the screenwriters of Cosmos would have invoked acid rain on Venus instead of global warming.

Regardless, CO2 did not cause the poisonous conditions on Venus; instead, CO2 is an effect of the poisonous conditions on Venus. Invoking the greenhouse effect when talking about Venus is like blaming ocean liners for inventing barnacles.

The controversy between science and faith was also brought to the front inadvertently by Tyson on Cosmos. Early in the fifth episode, Tyson discusses the ancient Chinese philosopher Mozi, whose ideas included “early stirrings of the scientific approach,” as well as innovative political theories encouraging peace, love, and egalitarian values. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mozi’s followers were later persecuted by a government that wanted power.

Tyson said that Mozi wrote a book titled Against Faith, as if Tyson intended to suggest that Mozi was some early anti-religious visionary. The actual title was Against Fate – according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which describes it as an essay rather than a book, titled “Rejecting Fatalism.”

So, what did Tyson actually say in the episode? Is this another historical inaccuracy in Cosmos? It could be argued that he says Mozi’s work was titled “Against Fate,” Certainly, the context has nothing to do with fate or fatalism, but it has everything to do with a supposed triumph of rational investigation over faith-based thinking.

These programs are of course taped and meticulously edited, so it’s not an unscripted live performance where verbal stumbles or ambiguities are unavoidable and difficult or impossible to correct. Perhaps Tyson made a Freudian slip. Whatever the case, it’s unfortunate because it means viewers will be misled into thinking Mozi opposed religion [which is not true].

One statement by Tyson that is clear comes when he praises Mozi for promoting a philosophy “against blind obedience to ritual and authority,” attempting to cast Mozi as some kind of a secular innovator. Once again, Tyson left out a crucial, inconvenient fact: Mozi was a monotheist whom, scholars have recognized, promoted a “Christian”- like view of God. You might even call Mozi an apologist for a form of monotheistic religion in his day.

As historian Klaus Schlichtmann puts it: Mozi advocated a monotheistic religion, in which God reigned as King in Heaven, a universalism based on principles of equality and justice, as well as the concept of “unbound (i.e., undifferentiated) love” (jian’ai), which was also said to be of “mutual utility,” quite similar to the Christian idea in many ways.

The Chinese scholar and reformer Hu Shi (1891-1962) remarked in 1919 that Mozi was “probably the only Chinese who had founded a religion” and “possibly one of the greatest spirits China ever produced.” Hu Shi came to the conclusion that “though it is to Confucius that his countrymen paid lip service, it is Meh Tse [Mozi] who has – unknown to them –  really molded their thought.

 Mozi’s practical philosophy contains elements of what one might call political science as well as fundamentals of a political and individual ethic. Among the main goals of his political ethic is the elevation of the welfare of the people and the general cultivation of law and good administration. The utilitarianism of the Mozi school is everywhere emphasized in the literature as a main characteristic: “His aim is the mutual balancing of needs, based on equality … The principle, however, that supports people’s relations to each other is, for Mozi, not blood relationships and not ritual, but love.”

 Far from being against faith, Mozi founded a monotheistic religion where a supreme and loving God reigned over the Earth from heaven. No wonder he also promoted scientific methodologies – after all it was also a monotheistic culture – a Christian one – that gave birth to science in the West, where people believed in one God who reigned supreme over the universe and gave it intelligible, discoverable laws.

 Once again, we see that monotheistic religion in conducive to science and democratic values. Tyson’s Cosmos not only ignores this, but seeks to give the [false] impression that religion and science stand opposed to each other.

 The connection between politics, specifically PLDC political correctness, and science in modern America was never more evident than when Tyson waded into the 9/11 issue in 2003. According to Tyson, in the days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush uttered the phrase, “Our God is the God who named the stars.” According to Tyson, the President made that claim as a way of segregating radical Islam from religions like Christianity or Judaism.

TYSON: [Sounding snarky – a popular PLDC style of speech when not addressing acolytes] Here’s what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they [sp – should be “them”—but, that’s a minor detail]. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish ‘we’ from ‘they’. And how does he do it?

He says, “Our God” — of course it’s actually the same God, but that’s a detail, let’s hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let’s hold that aside. He says, “Our God is the God” — he’s loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis — “Our God is the God who named the stars.”

Tyson’s story has three central claims: 1) Bush uttered that precise phrase, 2) in the days immediately after 9/11, 3) in order to distance American religion from that practiced by radical Muslims [and 4) that the Judeo/Christian God is the same being as the Islamic Allah – which we discuss in much detail elsewhere]. As you have probably already guessed, every single claim is false – as is Tyson’s aside that Bush’s quote was a “loose quote” of the book of Genesis.

Fact checkers could not find any account of Bush having said anything remotely resembling the quote in the days following 9/11, and Bush’s speechwriters deny this is something the President said.  There is, however, a short speech on Islam as a religion of peace, which takes a very different tack than that which Tyson suggests. The closest thing to the quote Tyson attributes to Bush is from remarks the President gave in 2003.

The only similar quote came in February of 2003 after the crash of the space shuttle Columbia, when the president said; “The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.” However, contrary to what Tyson has repeatedly claimed, the Columbia space shuttle comment – which was wholly different in purpose, content, and timing than the alleged 9/11 quote cited by Tyson – was meant to unite the nation following a horrible tragedy, not divide it based on religion.

And contrary to Tyson’s claim that the alleged quote was loosely taken from Genesis, the actual quote was taken from the book of Isaiah. A similar verse can also be found in Psalm 147. It is important to note that the claims are not casual remarks in conversation or responses to questions, but planned and repeated accounts.

Finally, a quote from famed astrophysicist, Dr. Lawrence Krause of Arizona State University, to illustrate the mindset and arrogance of the modern, secular scientific community in the Western Tradition and their bona fide (read the e-mails) conspiracy to derail the progress of our civilization for their own narrow-minded and self-centered interests. He states:

“The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems.”

What this statement actually reveals is the incapacity to conceive of thought greater than his own, apparently limited, mind can comprehend. How sad! Fortunately, most of Western Civilization has no problem with accepting the fact that there are things that they will never be able to comprehend – and that’s alright.”

In my humble opinion, the scientific method and its practitioners like Einstein, Hawking and Newton pale intellectually when compared to those seekers who are practitioners of faith – not religion – faith – like that set down by Paul of Tarsus, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas – who said that “…nature is a preamble to the gift of grace.” (Think about that concept for a minute, if you dare.) “Blessed are those who don’t see, and yet, believe”, said The Christ.

After all, isn’t what the secular scientific minds throughout history are merely doing is describing things that had already been created? Can you see gravity? Do you believe in its power? But, here’s the real question! Where did it come from? That’s the puzzle that secular scientists will never be able to explain with their equations.

To then just ignore this intellectual dilemma is small-minded – no, feeble-minded – indeed.

So, what is the point of this discussion about our secular savants Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Al Gore and the rest? It is to demonstrate that the line between science and politics has been breached and the sea of questionable science, or questionable judgement by renowned scientists or those posing as scientists before an adoring cabal, is pouring into America, threatening to drown us all in ocean of lies disguised as scientific truth.

When the most prominent scientific voices in America, the “go-to guys” about science (the quest for unambiguous truth) for the infotainment industry – pronounce on politics, faith, religion and science with impunity from the truth, we desperately need our own life (truth) preserver – and that is the real shame.

But the real danger comes when the power of government is employed to assist in the perpetuation of the lie. To wit, this absolutely stunning 2016 report:

 “TV journalist Doug McKelway reports that five Republican senators are fighting back against what they see as heavy-handed tactics by the Department of Justice to silence climate change skeptics.

 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., may have unintentionally shed light on the DOJ tactics at a Senate hearing in March when he pointedly told Attorney General Loretta Lynch, “Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme.” Lynch replied, “We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI.”

 Within days of that exchange, Democratic attorneys’ general from more than a dozen states fired off subpoenas seeking decades of records from climate change skeptics. Among them: university professors, scientists, corporations and think tanks including the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It’s already had a chilling effect since we got the subpoena 45 days ago,” said CEI’s Sam Kazman. “This was a subpoena issued by the attorney general of the Virgin Islands for some reason.” “It’s way more than a chilling effect, it’s an absolute freezer effect,” he added, citing outside legal fees CEI has paid to fight the subpoena.

 ExxonMobil was subpoenaed last year by New York Democrat Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is seeking the oil company’s 40-year-old in-house research about fossil fuels and climate. He told PBS’s “News Hour” on Nov. 10 that he believes ExxonMobil may have withheld information that could have hurt the company’s shareholder value. “We have to see what documents are in there, but certainly all of the claims would lie in some form of fraud,” Schneiderman said.

 The company’s shareholder value, of course, has nothing to do with this blatant witch hunt being perpetrated by Democrat government officials that are hell bent on completing a political agenda [while shredding the Constitutional protections against restraint of speech and unreasonable search and seizure – why would the government have any right to any professor’s or researcher’s privately funded work without cause?]

 When asked during the same program whether it defrauded the public, Kenneth Cohen, ExxonMobil’s vice president of public and government affairs, said, “The answer is a simple no.” Cohen added, “The discussions that have taken place inside our company, among our scientists mirror the discussions that have been taking place … by the broader scientific community.”

 While the recent actions involve state attorneys-general, five Republican senators wrote Lynch on May 25 demanding DOJ cease its “ongoing use of law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time – climate change.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), author of the letter, said: “I sent the letter because the attorney general of the United States should not be threatening criminal investigation with respect to someone who chooses to simply exercise their First Amendment rights.”

 First Amendment rights aside, accusations of distorting climate science for political advantage run both ways.  That was demonstrated when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club, over satellite data that is at sharp odds with predictions of a rapidly heating planet. “The computer models say there should be dramatic warming,” said Cruz, “and yet the satellite measurements don’t show any significant warming.”

 A flustered Mair responded, “But senator, 97 percent of scientists concur and agree there is global warming.” That 97 percent figure, like so much else about the science of global warming, is the subject of vigorous debate.

 Meanwhile, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is fighting back, asking a D.C. Court to fine the attorney general of the Virgin Islands for allegedly violating its First Amendment rights. In a small, unexpected victory for CEI, the Virgin Islands AG withdrew his subpoena two weeks later, but not before CEI had incurred considerable legal costs.”

 Finally, it is that statement that “97 percent of scientists concur and agree there is global warming [mainly caused by modern industry, most severely by the United States]” that is most troubling about the global warming debate. Scientists cannot even agree on the history of global climate change much less pretend to have the ability to predict the future of our climate. Once again, we refer to the facts:

 “Recent findings reveal that the Medieval Warm Period, a balmy season that Europe experienced from 950-1250 AD, was not felt elsewhere, including Greenland. Records show that Vikings first sailed from Iceland to Greenland in 985. They settled there in the 10th Century and anywhere from 3,000-5,000 settlers lived on Greenland, farming and harvesting walrus ivory.

 “It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global,” said lead author Nicolás Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “The concept is Eurocentric – that’s where the best-known observations were made. Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same.”

 The research not only challenges climate theories about the time when Greenland was settled by Vikings, it also calls into question long-held beliefs about the disappearance of the Viking settlers a handful of generations later. It was once believed that the colonies, which vanished sometime between 1360 and 1460, succumbed to a colder climate. The Vikings’ disappearance was thought to have followed the onset of the so-called Little Ice Age, which ran from about 1300-1850. Experts, however, have questioned this theory, noting the lack of early historical climate records from Greenland.

 While the disappearance of the colonies remains a mystery, other theories now include hostility with the native Inuit, a decline in ivory trade and soil erosion caused by the Vikings’ cattle.  “I do not like the simplistic argument that the Greenland people went there when it was warm, and then ‘it got cold and they died’,” said Astrid Ogilvie, a climate historian based at Iceland’s Akureyri University. “I think the Medieval Warm Period has been built on many false premises, but it still clings to the popular imagination.”

 Also, snow that began piling up 10,000 years ago in Antarctica is adding enough ice to offset the increased losses due to thinning glaciers, according to a NASA study. The latest findings appear to challenge other studies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 report, which found that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

 “We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30, 2015 in the Journal of Glaciology, said in a statement.

 “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”  Zwally said, adding that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

 According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. The mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year. [This data show a net overall gain in ice of 129 billion tonsper year over the entire continent of Antarctica between 1992 and 2008 or 2 trillion tons overall. What global warming?]

 To quantify whether ice sheets are growing or shrinking, scientists measure changes in surface height with satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

 To assess the amount of snow accumulation, the researchers used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores.

 “At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said. The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches per year.

 This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

 “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

 Earlier this year, a study in Nature Climate Change found that global sea levels were rising faster than previously thought. Researchers used satellite data combined with tidal gauge information and GPS measurements to overturn previous suggestions that rates had slowed in the past decade.

 Another study by Harvard University’s Carling Hay and his colleagues in Nature examined rates of sea level rise before 1990 and found they had been overestimated by about 30 percent. That means the acceleration in sea-level rise in the past two decades is greater than previously thought. Most researchers blamed the rising seas on melting ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica and shrinking glaciers, triggered by the rise in heat-trapping, greenhouse gas emissions.

But even if Antarctica isn’t part of the mix now, that could change in the future. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years – I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses,” said Zwally.”

 The Obama administration claimed that “global warming” caused by man-made activity was the greatest threat to America’s national security. I agree! But, not for the same reasons. The prostitution of America’s scientists for their own personal and professional gain will destroy our nation’s ability to lead the world’s democracies and ultimately defend ourselves from true scientific advances that may be used against us by non-politically correct nations.

There seems to be more chaos than consensus in the scientific community than the federal government’s “97 percent” would indicate! Just another classic example of the PLDC’s “Big Lie”.

Inconvenient Lies

But, by far, the greatest advocate of the global warming cottage-industry is former Senator, Clinton vice-president and failed presidential candidate in 2000 – Al Gore of Tennessee. The former vice-president has won plaudits around the world for his work on global warming, publicized in a best-selling book, an Oscar-winning movie, Power Point lectures, and the Nobel Peace Prize (to match Barack Obama’s – also awarded for nothing remotely associated with actual peace). Gore is at it again with The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change, another political polemic of the progressive/liberal recipe for success. Take care.

 The Nobel Prize announcement coincided with the conclusion of a months-long court case in Britain examining whether his book, An Inconvenient Truth, can be shown to British school children. The judge ruled that the movie can be shown in classrooms, but only if accompanied by teacher guidance notes balancing Gore’s “one-sided views.”

 “The judge’s nine objections to the Gore movie, which are as follows:

 1.       Burton found that Gore’s assertion of a rapid rise in sea-levels caused by the melting of icecaps in Antarctica was overly “alarmist.”

2.       Gore claimed that the disappearance of year-round snow from the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa was expressly attributable to global warming. The court was not convinced. According to Burton, the scientific “consensus” is that the reasons for the snow recession on Kilimanjaro cannot be established. In fact, “there was abundant evidence that the snow caps on Kilimanjaro had been in retreat decades before greenhouse gas emissions began to rise dramatically in the middle of the century.” 

3.       Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had drowned by “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice.” Evidence backing up this claim was not produced to the British court. The judge wrote that the only scientific study shown to him indicated “that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”

4.       Gore attributed the Hurricane Katrina devastation to global warming. The judge found that there was “insufficient evidence to show that.”

5.       The Gore movie depicted the drying up of Lake Chad in central Africa as a prime example of the effects of global warming. Expert testimony in front of the British court suggested that “far more likely causes” were “population increase, over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

6.       Gore suggested an “exact fit” between the rise in carbon dioxide levels and the rise in temperatures over a period of 650,000 years. According to the judge, scientists generally agree that there is “a connection,” between the two phenomena, but claims of an “exact fit” cannot be established.

7.       An Inconvenient Truth claimed that citizens of some low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “have all had to evacuate to New Zealand” because of the inundation of their islands caused by global warming. The judge said that he found no evidence of “any such evacuation having yet happened.”

8.       The movie suggested that global warming could shut down “the Ocean Conveyer,” a process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe. The judge cited a study by the Inter-

governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the co-winner of the Nobel Peace prize, which concluded that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyer would be shut down completely, although it might slow down.

9.       Gore argued that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge cited the IPCC view that it was difficult to separate the impact of stresses on coral reefs caused by climate change “from other stresses such as over-fishing and pollution.”

 Berit Kjos, fundamentalist Christian author writes that; “In spite of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, there’s no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. His claim that Greenland’s ice will melt, causing oceans to rise twenty feet, is science fiction, not reality. Unadulterated scientific facts show us that, since 2005, Greenland’s ice mass has been growing, not shrinking!” So has its population of polar bears.

 “During a medieval period of global warming (warmer than now) during the 11th and 12th Centuries, Norwegian explorers (Vikings) settled on Greenland’s grassy coast. But the climate cooled, and by 1350 AD, ice covered their fields and coastal waters. That “Little Ice Age” – a natural shift in the [numerous] revolving cycles of nature – wiped out the entire community. [No human remains have been found so, it is presumed that the settlers retuned from whence they came.]

 However, during that warming period – almost a millennium before the media would blame SUVs for warm days – the Atlantic coasts were not buried by rising oceans. In fact, any slight variation in ocean levels are naturally moderated by increased evaporation during warmer cycles. [Our Maker planned His creation well!]

 In spite of today’s deceptive propaganda, more than a hundred [capable] scientists (atmospheric physicists, climatologists, meteorologist, etc.) have dared to publicly disagree with the supposed “global warming” consensus. They warn us that the ominous media predictions are “based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models – and the unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.”

 But the liberal media turns a deaf ear to the rational voices. Mention global warming and the name most likely to come to mind is Al Gore. His 1992 book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit helps explain why his disciples defend his deceptive message with religious zeal. It IS religious! M. Scott Peck, the supposedly “Christian” author of The Road Less Traveled, called it a “holy book” that we “must have for our collective salvation.” [Imagine that – progressive/liberals invoking spirituality to make their secular point.]

 Notice the emphasis on earth-centered spirituality in the quotes below. Gore’s spiritual blend matches the UN demand for a universal, unifying spirituality based on systems “thinking” – a postmodern version of the timeless pantheistic belief that everything is interconnected. (Remember the story about the Asian butterfly whose flapping wings caused wind in America?) Contemporary change agents have stretched this philosophy to include all systems: political, economic, social, and spiritual.

 To help establish this earth-centered spirituality, Gore calls for “a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily.” Then he warns us that…

 “Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”

 Only a major crisis would persuade the masses to consent to such a “wrenching transformation” [keep the actual major crisis I am invoking, in this treatise, in mind when we talk about a Convention of the States]. Like Al Gore, the elite members of the Club of Rome knew that well. That’s why they concluded that “global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” Local abuses (polluted rivers, industrial waste, etc.) won’t suffice. Unlike “global warming” with its sensationalized consequences, local problems seldom capture the imagination of the global community. They just aren’t scary enough!

 To understand the politics behind the environmental movement and its persuasive propaganda, let’s look at the social ambitions that drive it. Its agenda was formed during the sixties, when four overlapping anti-establishment groups joined to form the Green Party in Germany: radical feminists, Marxists (the new Left), peace-niks (the anti-war movement), and hippies seeking spiritual enlightenment. [Sound familiar?]

 Militant U.S. “Greens” formed a similar agenda: radical population control, a global welfare system (replacing capitalism with socialism), planetary governance (including national disarmament), and earth-centered spirituality.

 The blend of these four counter-culture philosophies shows why pantheism and Marxism permeate environmentalism. Consider the sobering fact that William Reilly, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, stated that private ownership of land is a “quaint anachronism.” According to former Washington governor Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, he sought the “repeal of the Fifth Amendment to make it easier for government to seize private land.”

 But the undisputed leader of the environmental movement during the last three decades has been Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong. Though usually operating behind the scenes, Strong is no minor player in this global contest for the minds of the masses. He led the UN Environmental Programme, directed the 1972 and 1992 UN Conferences on the Environment and Development, founded Planetary Citizens, directed the World Future Society and founded and co-chaired the World Economic Forum. He has been a member of the Club of Rome, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen Institute, a member of the UN Commission on Global Governance (!!!), and the Senior Advisor to the World Bank as well as to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

 Mr. Strong also founded the Earth Council. Working closely with Steven Rockefeller, Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert Mueller, he oversaw the drafting of the UN Earth Charter, which is housed in the notorious Ark of Hope. If this Charter wins the consent of “the people,” it would only be a matter of time before its rules replace all rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.

 The Earth Charter opens with this declaration: “We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future….” It continues,

 “As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles…. This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global INTERdependence [systems thinking] and universal responsibility. … The partnership of government, civil society, and business [like what we currently have in the united States] is essential for effective governance.”

 This global contract clashes with Christianity. “Fundamental changes,” it tells us, “are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.” A new set of beliefs, values and behavior must unify “the one human family” to ensure lasting peace.

 This grand purpose not only demands favorable propaganda – the doomsday predictions that trade scientific facts for intentional deception. It also calls for unthinkable censorship. Contrary voices must be silenced. It’s happening in the UK. “Only a few years ago the Greens were merely a fringe group, today they are at the center of British politics,” wrote Paul Johnson in his Forbes Magazine article titled “The Menace of the Lobby:”

 “This is largely because of the backing they have received from a majority of scientists over the issue of global warming, especially the unproved theory that it is caused largely by human activities. The Royal Society, the most prestigious of British scientific institutions, has thrown its weight strongly behind the Greens. Scientists who are known to be skeptical of global warming find it hard to get academic jobs and impossible to receive university funding for their research … [just like in the United States].”’

 And there’s the rub. Scientists are selling their academic souls to the “green” movement and the politicians who prey on their constituent’s fears – fears amplified by scientific untruths promulgated by compromised scientists – in order to obtain funding for their research – research that they will sell to the highest bidder for more funding. It’s a shame – the shame – of the entire scientific community!

 “How many Greens are there? It is assumed they number in the millions…. The environmental fervor of most Greens borders on fanatical. Some call for the denial of climate change to be made a criminal offense, along the lines of legislation in European countries that makes denial of the Holocaust unlawful…. As a result, a mass of legislation is being turned into law, subjecting any activities that increase greenhouse gas emissions or are seen as ‘crimes against nature’ to severe financial penalties…. It won’t be long before all households feel their effects.”

 America follows close behind. Under the banner of Sustainable Development, the UN/US plan for government control over all water, land, food and housing is progressing at full speed. Few Americans are even aware of the vast networks of regulatory agencies and community partnerships that are implementing the new system through Agenda 21 – often disguised as Smart Growth or other pleasing labels for this all-consuming UN agenda. While most of these new rules and regulation bypass Congress, some do not. A recent article titled, “Bill ties climate to national security” warns us that…

 “The CIA and Pentagon would for the first time be required to assess the national security implications of climate change under proposed legislation intended to elevate global warming to a national defense issue…. The measure also would order the Pentagon to undertake a series of war games to determine how global climate change could affect US security….

 “John J. Hamre, who served as deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, said global warming couched in security terms would make if far more difficult for politicians to ignore. ‘What makes this interesting is the clear effort to make the politics of global warming broader.'”

 Environmentalists and the Obama administration said the rules will improve public health and prove the U.S. is serious about fighting global warming. So the truth suffers for political priorities and science be damned. Fortunately, Obama’s successor pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, which would have severely hampered the struggling economy of the “Obama Recovery” while allowing China and India, the world’s largest polluters, to continue business as usual with no penalties.

 Recall the saying; “The fish rots from the head.” All of the Obama administration’s actions described above happen for one reason. The President himself allowed/ permitted/encouraged them because his personal moral and ethical compass points the way to corrupting the Constitutional system for his own political gain.

 Meanwhile, the evidence against massive man-made global warming is overwhelming. Here are just a few links that tell the “other” side:

 “Their experiments confirmed that cosmic rays, by ionizing molecular particles, provide nuclei for condensation of water vapor, thereby significantly influencing cloud cover on the planet. In periods of high electro-magnetic activity in the sun, such as occurred during the past century, cosmic rays are deflected, resulting in a reduction of clouds. This effect plus greater direct radiation from the sun [sun-spots, solar-flares] is likely a significant factor in global warming.”

 “The past, both recent and geologic, has seen large and rapid natural changes in temperature. Any onset of warmer temperatures [which increases the rate of evaporation] would be expected to produce a drop in sea level, not a rise.”

 “In almost a point-by-point refutation of Al Gore’s unsupportable rant that ‘the debate is over; man is warming the Earth’, courageous scientists explain technically but lucidly why nearly every cherry-picked fact in Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is contradicted by science…. Man is, in fact, all but irrelevant to global climate, as the sun and its accompanying solar system rule.”

 A short but amazing video clip backs this evidence. It shows the infinitely vast – and the inconceivably tiny – wonders of the universe we inhabit: Secret Worlds: The Universe Within. Please watch it, then ask yourself, “How could such an astounding universe simply evolve from nothing? How can man presume to manage it?”

 And how can Al Gore claim to have all the answers when honest scientists are just beginning to uncover the unfathomable mysteries of God’s creation? His shallow “certainties” ignore the cyclical forces and natural fluctuation that have influenced the earth’s warming and cooling phases through the ages. They include:

  • Sunspot activity (increased solar turbulence, which heat the earth in 9 to 13-year cycles). During the coldest years in the “Little Ice Age,” there were “virtually no sunspots at all…”
  • Major volcanic eruptions (can blast millions of tons of particles and gas into the stratosphere, blocking solar rays, and cooling the earth for years – see Krakatoa).
  • The gravitational pull of the moon (affects tidal forces and triggers volcanoes)
  • The annual decrease of stratospheric ozone each southern winter (our summer) when the sun’s seasonal absence prevents ultraviolet rays from interacting with oxygen and producing ozone.
  • The earth’s magnetic field (deflects storm tracks)

    In addition to the nine fallacies found by the British courts, here are some more that conflict with scientific fact:

  • Polar bears “dying”. Four bears died in a storm. Four. Meanwhile, there are 25,000 polar bears today compared to 5000 in 1940.
  • Coral reefs “bleaching”. It was caused by an unusual El Nino pattern, not global warming.
  • CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”. Gore overstates the effect of CO2 ten times greater than even the IPCC’s highest estimate.
  • Hurricane Caterina “man-made”. Air temperatures in the area were the coldest in 25 years, not warmest.
  • Japanese typhoons set “a new record”. Tropical cyclone frequency has fallen in the past 50 years.
  • Hurricanes “getting stronger”. They haven’t in 60 years.
  • Big storm insurances losses “increasing”. Comparable insured losses in hurricane-prone areas were lower in 2005 than 1905.
  • Mumbai “flooding”. There’s been no increase in rainfall over 48 years.
  • Severe tornadoes “more frequent”. Severe tornadoes have fallen in frequency for the last 50 years. Tropical storms are also at the lowest frequency in decades.
  • The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”. The ocean emits more heat than it receives from the sun.
  • Arctic “warming fastest”. It’s actually 1 degree cooler now than in 1940.
  • Greenland ice sheet “unstable”. The ice sheet did not break up during the last three times when the temperature was 5 degrees hotter than today.
  • Himalayan glacial-melt waters “failing”. The snow melt which provides water has not decreased in 40 years.
  • Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”. For the past 10,000 years the Peruvian ‘glacier’ region has been mostly ice free.
  • Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”. Human CO2 output has had no effect on the already-present glacier shortening trend.
  • Sahara Desert “drying”. In the past 25 years, the Sahara shrunk by 165,000 square miles due to increased rainfall.
  • West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”. Antarctic ice is at its thickest in nearly 30 years.
  • Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”. Gore concentrates on the 2% of Antarctica that is experiencing some warming, while consciously neglecting to mention the 98% of Antarctica that is cooling.
  • Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming’”. The ice shelfs have been breaking up for 10,000 years ago.
  • Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”. The graph says it all: Wrong.
  • Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming’”. None of the diseases quoted are tropical, none are affected by increasing temperature, and some even cause more harm at colder temperatures.
  • West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming’”. West Nile virus flourishes in any climate, from desert to ice.
  • Carbon dioxide is “pollution”. [Tell that to the trees.] Forests are thriving due to the increasing CO2 levels.
  • The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000”. Cold snaps kill people, but the IPCC does not include the number of lives that would be saved due to less cold weather.
  • Pied flycatchers “cannot feed their young”. A few tens of miles north, and there is no notable difference.
  • Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage. Gore plays fast and loose with falsely used images.
  • The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”. It is closed to retain tidal water in the Thames.
  • Gore states that “No fact…in dispute by anybody.” That’s just a lie!

Next time: Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s inconvenient truths.

Truth Takes a Holiday

 The actual joy in the press/media over the fall of Nixon also led to a new arrogance among members of the national press which contributed to the election of the unprepared, incapable and inept Jimmy Carter in 1976. Though totally unqualified for the office, Carter was running against Gerald Ford, the man who had pardoned Nixon to finally end “our national nightmare”. The press had wanted Nixon’s blood – his utter disgrace was not enough. That alone made Ford unacceptable according to the liberal orthodoxy. That was not the truth the American voter should have heard because – he wasn’t.

Alger Hiss and the PLDC

By early 1948, Chambers had become one of the best-known writer-editors at Time. First had come his scathing commentary “The Ghosts on the Roof” (March 5, 1945) on the Yalta Conference (in which Hiss partook). Subsequent cover-story essays profiled Marian Anderson, Arnold Toynbee, Rebecca West and Reinhold Niebuhr. The cover story on Marian Anderson (December 30, 1946) proved so popular that the magazine broke its rule of non-attribution in response to readers’ letters:

“Most Time cover stories are written and edited by the regular staffs of the section in which they appear. Certain cover stories, that present special difficulties or call for a special literary skill, are written by Senior Editor Whittaker Chambers.”

Chambers was at the height of his career as a highly regarded professional writer when the Hiss case broke later that year.

On August 3, 1948, Chambers was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Here he gave the names of individuals he said were part of the underground “Ware group” in the late 1930s, including Alger Hiss. He thus once again, as he had in 1939, named Hiss as a member of the Communist Party, but did not yet make any accusations of espionage.

In subsequent HUAC sessions, Hiss testified and initially denied that he knew anyone by the name of Chambers, but on seeing him in person (and after it became clear that Chambers knew details about Hiss’s life), said that he had known Chambers under the name “George Crosley”. Hiss denied that he had ever been a Communist, however.

Since Chambers still presented no evidence, the committee had initially been inclined to take the word of Hiss on the matter. However, committee member Richard Nixon

received secret information from the FBI files on Chambers which had led him to pursue the issue. When it issued its report, HUAC described Hiss’s testimony as “vague and evasive”.

The country quickly became divided over the Hiss – Chambers issue. President Harry S. Truman, not pleased with the allegation that the man who had presided over the United Nations Charter Conference was a Communist, dismissed the case as a “red herring” [pun not intended]. In the atmosphere of increasing anti-communism that would later be termed “McCarthyism”, many conservatives viewed the Hiss case as emblematic of what they saw as Democrats’ laxity towards the danger of communist infiltration and influence in the State Department.

Many liberals, in turn, saw the Hiss case as part of the desperation of the Republican Party to regain the office of president, having been out of power for 16 years. Truman also issued Executive Order 9835, which initiated a program of loyalty reviews for federal employees in 1947.

Hiss filed a $75,000 libel suit against Chambers on October 8, 1948. Under pressure from Hiss’s lawyers, Chambers finally retrieved his envelope of evidence and presented it to the HUAC after they subpoenaed them. It contained four notes in Alger Hiss’s handwriting, sixty-five typewritten copies of State Department documents and five strips of microfilm, some of which contained photographs of State Department documents. The press came to call these the “Pumpkin Papers” referring to the fact that Chambers had briefly hidden the microfilm in a hollowed-out pumpkin.

These documents indicated that Hiss knew Chambers long after mid-1936, when Hiss said he had last seen “Crosley,” and also that Hiss had engaged in espionage with Chambers. Chambers explained his delay in producing this evidence as an effort to spare an old friend from more trouble than necessary. [His altruism earned him no benefits from the progressive/liberals who would brand him as a homosexual liar. My, how times have changed!] His fear of Soviet reprisal may also have played a part in his reticence.

Until October 1948, Chambers had repeatedly stated that Hiss had not engaged in espionage, even when Chambers testified under oath. Chambers was forced to testify at the Hiss trials that he had committed this perjury several times, which reduced his credibility in the eyes of his critics.

The five rolls of 35 mm film known as the “pumpkin papers” were thought until late 1974 to be locked in HUAC files. Independent researcher Stephen W. Salant, an economist at the University of Michigan, sued the U.S. Justice Department in 1975 when his request for access to them under the Freedom of Information Act was denied.

On July 31, 1975, as a result of this lawsuit and follow-on suits filed by Peter Irons and by Alger Hiss and William Reuben, the Justice Department released copies of the “pumpkin papers” that had been used to implicate Hiss. According to The New York Times, one roll of film turned out to be totally blank due to overexposure, two others are faintly legible copies of non-classified Navy Department documents relating to such subjects as life rafts and fire extinguishers, and the remaining two are photographs of the State Department documents introduced by the prosecution at the two Hiss trials, relating to U.S./German relations in the late 1930s.

 This story, however, as reported by The New York Times, contains only a partial truth. The blank roll had been mentioned by Chambers in his autobiography Witness. But in addition to innocuous farm reports, etc., the documents on the other pumpkin patch microfilms also included “confidential memos sent from overseas embassies to diplomatic staff in Washington, D.C.”; worse, those memos had originally been transmitted in code, which, thanks to their (presumably) having both coded originals and the translations forwarded by Hiss, the Soviets now could easily understand and possibly use the code to break other, more damaging, documents.

Hiss could not be tried for espionage by this time, because the evidence indicated the offense had occurred more than ten years prior to that time, and the statute of limitations for espionage was five years. Instead, Hiss was indicted for two counts of perjury relating to testimony he had given before a federal grand jury the previous December. There he had denied giving any documents to Whittaker Chambers, and testified he had not seen Chambers after mid-1936.

Hiss was tried twice for perjury. The first trial, in June 1949, ended with the jury deadlocked eight to four for conviction. In addition to Chambers’s testimony, a government expert testified that other papers typed on a typewriter belonging to the Hiss family matched the secret papers produced by Chambers.

An impressive array of character witnesses appeared on behalf of Hiss: two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Felix Frankfurter and Stanley Reed, former Democratic presidential nominee John W. Davis and future Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson. Chambers, on the other hand, was attacked by Hiss’s attorneys as “an enemy of the Republic, a blasphemer of Christ, a disbeliever in God, with no respect for matrimony or motherhood”. In the second trial, Hiss’s defense produced a psychiatrist who characterized Chambers as a “psychopathic personality” and “a pathological liar“.

The second trial ended in January 1950 with Hiss found guilty on both counts of perjury. He was sentenced to five years in prison

In 1952, Chambers’s book Witness was published to widespread acclaim. The book was a combination of autobiography and a warning about the dangers of Communism. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it “a powerful book”. Ronald Reagan credited the book as the inspiration behind his conversion from a New Deal Democrat to a conservative Republican. Witness was a bestseller for more than a year and helped pay off Chambers’ legal debts, though bills lingered (“as Odysseus was beset by a ghost”).

In 1955, William F. Buckley, Jr. started the magazine National Review, and Chambers worked there as senior editor, publishing articles there for a little over a year and a half. The most widely cited article to date is a scathing review, “Big Sister is Watching You”, of my auntie’s opus.

In 1959, after resigning from National Review, Chambers and his wife visited Europe. That fall, he recommenced studies at Western Maryland College (new McDaniel College) in Westminster, Maryland. Chambers died of a heart attack on July 9, 1961, at his 300-acre farm in Westminster, Maryland. He had suffered from angina since the age of 38 and had had several heart attacks previously.

Cold Friday, his second memoir, was published posthumously in 1964 with the help of Duncan Norton-Taylor. The book priphetically predicted the fall of communism would start in the satellite states surrounding the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. A collection of his correspondence with William F. Buckley, Jr., Odyssey of a Friend, was published in 1968; a collection of his journalism – including several of his Time and National Review writings, was published in 1989 as Ghosts on the Roof: Selected Journalism of Whittaker Chambers.

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan posthumously awarded Chambers the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for his contribution to “the century’s epic struggle between freedom and totalitarianism”. In 1988, Interior Secretary Donald P. Hodel granted national landmark status to the Pipe Creek Farm. In 2001, members of the George W.  Bush Administration held a private ceremony to commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of Chambers’s birth. Speakers included William F. Buckley, Jr

 According to authors John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, “For nearly sixty years, Alger Hiss’s defenders have mounted one campaign after another to discredit the mountain of evidence that proves he spied for the Soviet Union. First, they tried to smear Hiss’s main accuser, Whittaker Chambers, as a fantasist, liar, and spurned homosexual. When that fell short, Hiss and his defenders invented any number of Baroque theories to rebut hard evidence, including “forgery by typewriter” to explain away portions of classified documents that had been typed on a Hiss-owned machine.

 Finally, they argued that the case against Hiss was a nefarious conspiracy, a Salem witch trial for the 1940s, orchestrated by such congenital anti-communists as Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover who had only one goal in mind: the destruction of New Deal liberalism, so as to pave the way for the Cold War abroad and domestic repression at home.

 The end of the Cold War brought new primary sources into play, and Hiss’s defenders – being true believers – raced to exploit these opportunities, initially thinking they could only redound to Hiss’s benefit. In 1992, John Lowenthal, Hiss’s long-time lawyer got a Russian general to issue a statement, asserting that Hiss was not registered in KGB documents as a recruited agent. Lowenthal promptly claimed this was tantamount to exoneration for his long-suffering client, except it was only a half-truth – a primary weapon of the propagandist. Within a matter of weeks, the general volunteered that his inquiry had not encompassed the GRU, the intelligence arm of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, and it was the GRU, not the KGB, that ran the spy Hiss.

 The next, unexpected, twist in the case came from U.S. archives. In 1995, the NSA released one of its most closely-held secrets: the VENONA intercepts, the name given to coded messages between the Soviet Union and KGB officers stationed in the United States who ran Moscow’s network of spies. Only a fraction of these messages were intercepted and deciphered by what is now known as the National Security Agency (NSA).

 Yet the VENONA intercepts were sufficient in number and substance to make it clear that Washington had not acted rashly or without reason in internal security investigations, but in response to positive evidence of a vast espionage effort orchestrated from Moscow. And one VENONA intercept, in particular, set Hiss’s shrinking band of defenders back on their heels. Nixon, Hoover and Senator Joe McCarthy had been vindicated in their belief, if not their tactics.

 Intercept Number 1822, dated 30 March 1945, was a partially decoded message from the KGB’s Washington station to Moscow headquarters. The cable referred to a well-placed American agent, code-named ALES (pronounced A’-lis), who had been spying for Moscow continuously since 1935. The details conveyed in the message matched in all particular known or knowable facts about Hiss.

 Most importantly, the message noted that ALES, identified as a GRU agent, had been at the recently concluded Yalta conference and had returned to the United States via Moscow. It turned out that only four State Department officials had gone from Yalta to Moscow for further consultations before coming home. One of them was Alger Hiss.

 In response, some students of the case, including Victor Navasky, then editorial director of The Nation, depicted VENONA as a sinister U.S. government project “to enlarge post-cold war intelligence gathering capability at the expense of civil liberty,” while the prominent radical lawyer and friend of Saul Alinsky, William Kunstler, insisted that the messages were forgeries.

 “One could go on and on enumerating all the evidence in the Hiss case, which proves his guilt as a Soviet spy from 1935 on, beyond any reasonable doubt. But the point ought to be clear that the ALES messages, while important and interesting, are but a few more stones on a large rock pile of evidence. Remove them and little changes in re Alger Hiss.” 

 Hiss died in 1996 at the age of 92 [after an unremarkable life]. The tortured defense of Hiss, the blatant bludgeoning of the truth and the slander of others by his progressive/ liberal defenders goes on to this day. And little has changed for the PLDC since the heady Hiss days, as the irrational and incoherent 21st Century defense of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame convincingly shows.

 Finally, Theodore White, a normally well-respected historian, later created one of the most enduring (and telling) myths of the PLDC.

A week after the death of philandering President John F. Kennedy, his wife Jacqueline Kennedy summoned White to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. MA to rescue her husband’s legacy. She proposed that White prepare an article for Life Magazine drawing a parallel between her husband and his administration to King Arthur and the mythical Camelot.

At the time, a musical of that name was being performed on Broadway and Jackie focused on the ending lyrics of an Alan Jay Lerner song, “Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot.” White, who had known the Kennedys from his time as a classmate of the late President’s deceased older brother, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., was happy to oblige.

He heeded some of Jackie’s suggestions while writing a 1,000-word essay that he dictated later that evening to his editors at Life. When they complained that the Camelot theme was overdone, Jackie objected to changes. By this telling, Kennedy’s time in office was transformed into a modern-day Camelot that represented, “a magic moment in American history, when gallant men danced with beautiful women, when great deeds were done, when artists, writers, and poets met at the White House, and the barbarians beyond the walls held back.”

Thus, was born one of the nation’s most enduring, and inaccurate, myths. White later described his comparison of JFK to Camelot as the result of kindness to a distraught widow of a just-assassinated leader, and wrote that his essay was a “misreading of history. The magic Camelot of John F. Kennedy never existed.”

 The press, academia, the courts, Democrat politicians and the infotainment industry did not forget the “transgressions” of Richard Nixon. From his first campaign after the Hiss hearings, a run for Senate in California against the popular Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950, the press and entertainment community in Hollywood were openly anti-Nixon, especially after he tried to saddle her with Communist sympathies – not surprising given his experiences during the Hiss hearings and, fair or not, not something unheard of in the entertainment community.

 Thereafter, the reaction of the press to a Nixon story was almost Pavlovian. From the Checkers speech to the Khrushchev “Kitchen Debate” in Moscow to the anti-American riots in South America, the press pummeled him with criticism. Nixon kept score.

 During the watershed election of 1960, the Kennedy/Nixon race transfixed the nation as television first played a defining role in presidential politics. The first presidential debates were televised and Nixon was accidently lighted to look almost sinister while Kennedy looked cool and carried the day, according to the press and media commentators.

 “At his aides’ urging, Nixon had applied … a drugstore pancake makeup he had used in the past to mask his five o’clock shadow. But when the candidate started sweating under the hot studio lights, the powder seemed to melt off his face, giving way to visible beads of perspiration. It didn’t help that Nixon had chosen a light gray suit for the occasion, which faded into the backdrop of the set and seemed to match his ashen skin tone.

 Reacting to the vice president’s on-air appearance, Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley reportedly said, “My God, they’ve embalmed him before he even died.” The following day, the Chicago Daily News ran the headline “Was Nixon Sabotaged by TV Makeup Artists?” The vice president cleaned up his act for the next three debates, but the damage had been done.

 Besides, Kennedy had a secret weapon in his quest to dazzle the American media: an equally picture-perfect wife who would soon charm the nation and the world. Six months pregnant with the couple’s second child, Jacqueline Kennedy hosted debate-watching parties at the family’s summer home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. The press and media fawned over every last detail, from Jackie’s fashionable maternity wear and distinguished guest list to her living room furnishings and choice of refreshments. When the first debate ended, the future first lady reportedly concluded, “I think my husband was brilliant.” Meanwhile, Nixon’s mother immediately called her son to ask if he was ill.” The “Age of Celebrity”, inaugurated by Roosevelt, had its “coming-out” party during the Camelot years beginning even before he was elected.

Historians have since admitted that while those watching on television thought that Kennedy had won the debate, those listening on radio were equally convinced that Nixon had a far stronger performance than Kennedy. This aspect received almost no press/media coverage when compared to the slobbering coverage of the photogenic Kennedys. Symbolism took the place of substance and, in this case, the eyes had it as Kennedy went on to win. Nixon lost the race for California’s governor in 1962, famously proclaiming to the press that “… you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.” He was mistaken.

 Nixon finally won the presidency in 1968 when the anti-war movement forced Lyndon Johnson to retire. He beat a darling of the progressive/liberal establishment, political heir to Robert Lafollette and sitting vice-president, Hubert Humphrey who wore the anti-war faction like an albatross round his neck. He never had a chance.

 So, in 1969, after almost a quarter-century of open warfare with progressives and their allies in the press, and flawed as a person, Nixon set about to get even with his tormentors. He surrounded himself with willing acolytes and systematically abused the Constitution, the law and the American people. His lawless and sometimes sinister behavior, when alluded to in the press and media, was accepted as truth by the majority of the public because it was seen in the context of the long, twilight battle Nixon had been having with the press since he entered the national spotlight in 1950.

 Even though Nixon was complicit with federal government coercion of American’s rights, as in the imposition of wage and price controls during the recession of the early 1970s, the dogged and sometimes maniacal quarter-century long pursuit of Nixon by the progressives/liberals and the press finally brought his illegal transgressions to light after his reelection in 1972, during which his campaign organization, unbeknownst to him, broke into the Washington campaign headquarters of his opponent, the pacifist Senator George McGovern.

 His presidency ended with his rightful resignation, for trying to cover it up, in 1974. When his old competitor, Hubert Humphrey, lay on his deathbed in 1978, the last person he talked with on the phone was Richard Nixon, calling to reminisce with an old friend.

 For all of the truly important accomplishments, especially in foreign policy, his legacy is that modern politicians, the press/media, academics, educators and entertainers have all adopted his penchant to take joy in the politics of personal destruction, a tactic he learned first-hand from apostles of the Progressive Movement.

 According to Professor Daryl A. Carter of our own Tennessee State University, Nixon’s legacy has led to “Our apathy and disinterest, along with our ever-increasing desire for revenge and hatred against those we disapprove of, [and] has created an environment where our social and political fabric is coming apart at the seams.”

 In the end, the enormously complex and defective President told his staff, upon leaving office in disgrace, “Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty, always remember others may hate you, but [they] don’t win unless you hate them and then you destroy yourself.” It doesn’t seem as if his enemies ever cared to really listen to the truth in those final words, or report them in a meaningful way, as things in America have only gotten worse. Their joy in his destruction overshadowed any worthwhile lessons.

Next time: The legacy of  Watergate.

Why the New Deal was a Bad Deal

“Now, the rest of the story” (Thank you, Paul Harvey.) about the “New Deal” – what did these members of the Roosevelt “brains trust” and the President actually accomplish over his first two terms and prior to the industrial explosion required to win the Second World War? In October 1929, before Black Friday, the unemployment rate was about 5% and the Dow-Jones Industrial Average stood at 343. Over the next several weeks the Dow lost 39% of its value. Three and a half years later, on Roosevelt’s Inauguration Day in March 1933, the unemployment rate was about 23% (it reached its Depression peak of 25% later that year) and the Dow was under 100. All this happened under Republican President Herbert Hoover, who had never expressed any sense of urgency to repair the economic damage that occurred in 1929.

 By August 1937, after many of the “First 100 Days” initiatives had run their course – mostly through Supreme Court debunking, the unemployment rate was about 13.5% and the Dow had recovered to 190 but then a strange thing happened.

 A new banking crisis developed with the same fear-of-failure that had accompanied the Crash of ’29 and which had dominated Roosevelt’s First 100 Days in 1933. By November 1937, the unemployment rate was approaching 19% and the Dow had fallen to 114 – a 40% drop in value! This was Roosevelt’s Stock Market Crash (somehow lost to history by corrupt progressive/liberal academics) and could not be blamed on Herbert Hoover. (For context, the stock market selloff experienced in October 1987 resulted in an economic loss of about 23% but fully recovered in only 22 months – not the 100 months and a world war it took to recover from Roosevelt’s crash in 1937.) Near the end of FDR’s second term in 1939, unemployment was still about 15% and the Dow was in the mid-100s. The Gross National Product (GDP) had just barely returned to pre-1929 crash levels.

 In summary, for all of the Federal Government spending and for all of the new and coercive projects created by the New Deal over the previous eight years, unemployment was reduced by only one-third and the economy, as measured by the Dow, had recovered only one-quarter of its lost value. By any measure, the New Deal was an abject economic failure and a Constitutional fiasco.

 This, of course, was considerably different from the fawning, glowing picture of the “Age of Roosevelt” painted by establishment liberals ever since. Roosevelt’s numerous intellectual/artistic make-work projects in his New Deal actually created a new phenomenon in America – formerly a nation of rugged individuals – the “Cult of Celebrity”. This phenomenon has come to dominate every facet of information production, processing and dissemination and can only exist with an audience of the uninformed, non-informed, ill-informed, misinformed and dis-informed and this is where the obsequious academics, intellectuals, artists, writers, celebrities and the press come into play.

 From the day the ailing Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs, Georgia, in the company of two of the three women (Lucy Mercer and Daisy Suckley) with which he had had long running, extraordinary and intimate relationships, these agents of propaganda began to inculcate their associates in their respective disciplines with modern day liberal canards about the alleged successes of the New Deal which still dominate Democrat social and political philosophy.

 One person I did not mention earlier as having come to one of my parent’s “salon” gatherings at our New York home in the years following the end of World War II was Eleanor Roosevelt herself. She came with Adlai Stevenson in the mid-1950s and I remember it was a big deal to have Mrs. Roosevelt to dinner, even for the other extraordinary people who were there.

 Looking back on her contribution to the nation and the world throughout some of the most trying times in history, I believe that of all of the major players in the Progressive movement from just after the Civil War until the American intelligentsia was fully compromised in the early 1960s, Eleanor Roosevelt was perhaps the one true believer in its ideals.

 Spared the political realities and responsibilities of most of the leading progressives of that period (because she was the keeper of the secrets and wife of Franklin Delano Roosevelt), she plunged headlong and headstrong into the worthy causes in which she believed – the plight of the poor and needy; the discrimination and exploitation of blacks in America; the status of women in an industrial society; the vulnerability of refugees in post-war society after both world wars, among others. (What would she think of the mess her Democrat Party has made of these issues since the Johnson administration?)

 Perhaps because of the psychological hardships she endured even though she was a child of privilege, she expressed a truly extraordinary empathy for the defenseless, the disenfranchised and the disheartened. After all, she had been a disappointment to her own mother because she was not born beautiful; she believed (as children do) that it was her fault that her mother disliked her before she died so young and, after his death from alcohol abuse, that she had somehow been responsible for her father’s death, also.

 “She also endured a long and difficult relationship with FDR’s mother, Sara Delano Roosevelt, second wife of his father, James. She was popularly characterized, after the success of Dore Schary’s Sunrise at Campobello, as the quintessential domineering mother-in-law who not only spoiled her son and grandchildren, but took every opportunity to undercut Eleanor’s confidence and authority. In fact, according to family, ‘the relationship between Sara and Eleanor varied from close to distant at different times.’

 Sara built Franklin and Eleanor a six-story house, on 65th Street, between Madison and Park Avenues in 1906, as a gift to her son and daughter-in-law. There was only one string attached. Her. ‘You were never quite sure when she would appear, day or night,’ Eleanor reminisced many years later. Sara, formidable and domineering, had seen to the installation of connecting doors, from her own home next door, to the second-floor drawing room and the children’s’ bedrooms on the fourth floor, allowing her to assert dominion over the fledgling household.

After the children were born, the relationship grew tense as the women differed and sometimes clashed over parenting issues. FDR’s affair with Lucy Mercer brought the women closer together as Sara was firmly in Eleanor’s corner. It is not known what Sara knew of FDR’s other dalliances or his continuing relationship with Lucy Mercer after his promise to Eleanor to end it.

Yet Sara’s strong disapproval of the activists, with whom Eleanor later grew close, soured their relationship. FDR, who refused to take sides and often refused to negotiate a truce, exacerbated the tensions. By the time Eleanor had become First Lady, she clearly felt Sara was more a critic than friend.”

I believe that the true nature of the relationship, and the domination of that relationship by Sara – perhaps a sad reminder of the strained relationship with her own mother – is revealed by the fact that Eleanor was never able to tell her mother-in-law to mind her own business, when required – and do so within the boundaries of a decorum to which they both adhered.

She was betrayed by her husband after delivering six children (five of whom survived) in the first decade of their marriage. His involvement with her private secretary, Lucy Mercer, began almost immediately after the birth of their last child in 1916. Eleanor discovered the affair in 1918. Franklin Roosevelt was planning to divorce Eleanor but was dissuaded by his mother. Their marriage, from then on, was purely a political one.

 There would be one final betrayal – after promising her in 1918 to never see Lucy Mercer again – he had maintained a secret (though distant) relationship with her throughout the years (he always sent her a secret invitation to his inaugurations) and it was she who was in his office with him in Warm Springs, GA when he died.

 It was truly admirable and inspirational of Eleanor, with all of her personal burdens, to spend virtually all of her energy in the service of the less fortunate in society and I believe she was the one person who most truly embodied the spirit of giving that the remarkable Roosevelt family took such pride in instilling in each generation.

 Now, without their demi-god – to the post-New Deal progressive/liberals – truth in academia, public education, the arts and the press was to be sacrificed to the new-god of liberalism. In the end, Roosevelt’s legacy is that he coerced – some would say seduced – much of the intelligentsia of this country into abandoning their independence from the federal government. Now his acolytes had a stake in the government’s coercion of rights from the People themselves.

 The truth was dead and here is another cautionary tale much like the one my “Auntie” proposed that began this discussion. Once the lure of favored status and access to power became irresistible, these intellectual groups began to play fast and loose with the truth, they abandoned their objectivity and betrayed the trust of the People. Shortly, their arrogance would enable a young Congressman from California to change the rules of the political game forever – as we shall soon see.

 I believe a few words about FDR’s last two terms, those dominated by world war, would be appropriate at this point.

 By the day of his third inauguration (the first held in January (1941) following the November 1940 election), he had been trying mightily, but in vain, to change American public opinion about the wars going on in Europe (since September 1, 1939) and in the Far East (since 1931). America, as a whole, was not interested primarily because they had been up-to-their-eyeballs in the Depression since 1929 and in the Dust Bowl since 1931. They were not ready to tackle another crisis.

 Although not with the passion he displayed about social initiatives but, with a practical sense, he persisted in making the case to the People in speeches and “fireside chats” and to Congress with legislation to supply England with war material. He had finally succeeded with his creative “lend-lease” program in March 1941 and then the Japanese Empire attacked our military facilities in Hawaii on December 7, 1941 – his famous “Day of Infamy”. He obtained a declaration of war from the Congress two days later.

 As a wartime leader, he was magnificent. One could say that he gave his life for his country because the strain of leading the most powerful nation on earth against two implacable foes destroyed his health and caused his premature death at age 64 in April of 1945.

 The war plans and aims he developed with Winston Churchill, England’s unwavering Prime minister and good friend (unconditional surrender first of Germany and then of Japan), were militarily sound and gave time for the industrial giant that was America to build the greatest war machine ever created to defeat two of history’s most powerful and brutal warlords, Hitler in Europe and Tojo in Japan.

 Perhaps not surprising in light of the presence of so many advisors who were, at the very least, sympathetic to Stalin’s Soviet Union, Roosevelt never really appreciated Stalin’s goal of domination over the European countries adjoining Russia. Over Churchill’s vehement objections, he agreed to Stalin’s proposal for a post-war division of Europe into spheres of influence, with Stalin controlling all of Eastern Europe. This, of course, led to the Cold War, 45 years of tension between East and West that produced a nuclear standoff between the two.

 Nevertheless, America could not have hoped for a better wartime President, Commander-in-Chief and inspirational leader than Franklin Roosevelt.

 The success of the shared struggle against Nazism led many liberals to expect that, after the war, Washington and Moscow would maintain friendly relations while the United States embarked on a fresh round of New Deal-style economic and social reforms with the assistance of the Export-Import Bank. These hopes went unfulfilled, and instead American liberals (the Roosevelt wing and the Truman wing) descended into a state of civil war. Now, rather than the anticipated postwar cooperation, US-Soviet relations became increasingly tense.

 At home, the vast majority of Americans proved to be far more inward looking and interested in building quiet, normal lives after fifteen years of war and economic Depression than they were in embarking on new strategic projects overseas. Faced with the questions of how to deal with Moscow and keep reform alive, liberals divided into two opposing camps.

 On the far-left were the Progressives, led by former Vice President Henry Wallace – at worst a secret Soviet sympathizer, at the very least a dupe who viewed Soviet intentions as benign – advocated reaching an accommodation with Moscow, and remained willing to work with American Communists on domestic issues. To their right (the near-left), but still near the center of the political spectrum, were moderate liberals – more committed to truth than their new adversaries. They supported President Truman and his 1947 policy of containing the Soviet Union. The next struggle between Progressives and the truth came in the early 1950s during the Alger Hiss espionage case.

 The Hiss case is, perhaps, the quintessential and defining episode in the battle between the truth and the progressive/liberal/Democrat cabal and illustrates clearly the passion of the cabal for supremacy in the flow of information to the American people. Understanding its truth is important to our discussion of the danger that the cabal presents to the Constitution.

 Briefly; in the late 1940s, an admitted former Communist agent, Whittaker Chambers, named Alger Hiss, at that time a well-respected, socially popular and fairly senior member of the State Department, as a fellow spy during the 1930s. Hiss denied all charges but was brought to trial after Congressional hearings chaired by a young Richard Nixon (R-CA). He was never found guilty of spying but of perjury and served time in prison. He spent the rest of his life working with various press/media/academia friends to clear his name of its communist and treasonous stain. The progressive/liberal consensus has always been and, amazingly and irrationally, continues to be, that he was framed. Chambers has been dismissed over the years by the cabal as a bumbling pervert and deceitful misfit. Here is the truth.

“Whittaker Chambers was an American writer and editor. Chambers was born in Philadelphia in 1901. His family moved to Lynbrook, Long Island, where he grew up and attended school. Chambers described his childhood as troubled because of his parents’ separation and their need to care for their mentally ill grandmother. Chambers’ brother committed suicide shortly after withdrawing from his first year of college. Chambers would cite his brother’s troubled life and eventual suicide as one of many reasons that he was drawn to communism as a young man.

After graduating from high school in 1919, Chambers worked at a variety of jobs before attending  Williams College in 1920. He later enrolled as a day student at Columbia University (again, Columbia!). At Columbia his fellow students included Meyer Schapiro, Louis Zukofsky, Clifton Fadiman. John Gassner, Lionel Trilling (who later fictionalized him as a main character in his novel The Middle of the Journey), and Guy Endore. In the intellectual environment of Columbia he gained friends and respect. His professors and fellow students found him a talented writer and believed he might become a major poet or novelist.

Early in his sophomore year, Chambers wrote a play called A Play for Puppets [which satirized Christianity] for Columbia’s literary magazine The Morningside, which he edited. The work was deemed blasphemous by many students and administrators, and the controversy spread to New York City newspapers. [My, how times have changed!] Later, the play would be used against Chambers during his testimony against Alger Hiss. Disheartened over the controversy, Chambers left Columbia in 1925. 

From Columbia, Chambers also knew Isaiah Oggins, who had gone into the Soviet underground a few years earlier; Chambers’ wife, Esther Shemitz Chambers, knew Oggins’ wife, Nerma Berman Oggins, from the Rand School of Social Science, the ILGWU(International Ladies Garment Workers Union), and The World Tomorrow, a pacifist magazine.

In 1924, Chambers read Vladimir Lenin’s Soviets at Work and was deeply affected by it. He now saw the dysfunctional nature of his family, he would write, as “in miniature the whole crisis of the middle class”; a malaise from which Communism promised liberation. Chambers’ biographer Sam Tanenhaus wrote that Lenin’s authoritarianism was “precisely what attracts Chambers… He had at last found his church”; that is, he became a Marxist. In 1925, Chambers joined the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) (then known as the Workers Party of America).

 Chambers wrote and edited for Communist publications, including The Daily Worker  newspaper and The New Masses magazine. Combining his literary talents with his devotion to Communism, Chambers wrote four short stories in 1931 about  proletarian hardship and revolt, including Can You Make Out Their Voices?, considered by critics as one of the best pieces of fiction from the American Communist movement. 

 Hallie Flanagan co-adapted and produced it as a play entitled Can You Hear Their Voices? staged across America and in many other countries. Chambers also worked as a translator during this period; among his works was the English version of Felix Salten’s 1923 novel Bambi, A Life in the Woods – later made into the Disney classic animated film in 1942.

Chambers was recruited to join the “Communist underground” and began his career as a spy, working for a GRU apparatus headed by Alexander Ulanofsky (aka Ulrich). Later, his main controller in the underground was Josef Peters (whom CPUSA General Secretary Earl Browder later replaced with Rudy Baker).

In the early 1930s, Chambers married the young artist Esther Shemitz. Shemitz, who had studied at the Art Student League and integrated herself into New York City’s intellectual circles, met Chambers at the 1926 textile strike in Passaic, New Jersey. They then underwent a stormy courtship that faced resistance from their comrades, with Chambers having climbed through her window at five o’clock in the morning to propose. Shemitz has been identified as “a pacifist rather than a revolutionary.” 

The couple had two children, a son, John, and a daughter, Ellen, during the 1930s. Ellen had two sons, Steve and John. Communist leadership had demanded that the family abort the first pregnancy, but Chambers secretly refused. His decision marked a key point in his gradual disillusionment with communism. He regarded the birth of his first child as “the most miraculous thing that had ever happened in my life”.

Chambers claimed Peters introduced him to Harold Ware (although he later curiously denied he had ever been introduced to Ware), and that he was head of a Communist underground cell in Washington that reportedly included 17 members of the Roosevelt administration. Chambers worked in Washington as an organizer among Communists in the city and as a courier between New York and Washington for stolen documents which were delivered to Boris Bykov, the GRU station chief.

Using the codename “Karl” or “Carl”, Chambers served during the mid-1930s as a courier between various covert sources and Soviet intelligence. Chambers carried on his espionage activities from 1932 until 1937 or 1938 even while his faith in Communism was waning.

He became increasingly disturbed by Joseph Stalin’s Great Purge which began in 1936. He was also fearful for his own life, having noted the murder in Switzerland of Ignatz Reiss, a high-ranking Soviet spy who had broken with Stalin, and the disappearance of Chambers’ friend and fellow spy Juliet Poyntz in the United States.

Poyntz, who had been an ILGWU organizer and a teacher at Barnard College (sister school to Columbia University – Columbia, again!), had mysteriously vanished in June 1937, shortly after she had visited Moscow, witnessed Stalin’s purge of party faithful and returned disillusioned with the Communist cause. Discussions with confederates convinced Chambers that she had been kidnapped by Soviet secret agents and murdered.

Now fearful for himself, Chambers ignored several orders that he travel to Moscow, worried that he might be “purged.” He also started concealing some of the documents he collected from his sources. He planned to use these, along with several rolls of microfilm photographs of documents, as a “life preserver” to prevent the Soviets from killing him and his family.

In 1938, Chambers broke with Communism and took his family into hiding, storing the “life preserver” at the home of his nephew and his parents. Initially he had no plans to give information on his espionage activities to the U.S. government. His espionage contacts were his friends, and he had no desire to inform on them.

The August 1939 the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact, [known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, named after the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and the German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop] was a non-aggression pact signed between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in Moscow on August 23, 1939. The pact remained in force until the German government broke it by launching an attack on the Soviet positions in eastern Poland on June 22, 1941) drove Chambers to take action against the Soviet Union. 

In September 1939, at the urging of anti-Communist, Russian-born journalist Isaac Don Levine, Chambers and Levine met with Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle. Levine had introduced Chambers to Walter Krivitsky, who was already informing American and British authorities about Soviet agents who held posts in both governments. Krivitsky told Chambers it was their duty to inform. Chambers agreed to reveal what he knew on the condition of immunity from prosecution.

During the meeting, which took place at Berle’s home, Woodley Mansion in Washington, Chambers named 18 current and former government employees as spies or Communist sympathizers. Many names mentioned held relatively minor posts or were already under suspicion. Some names, however, were more significant and surprising: Alger Hiss, his brother Donald Hiss, and Laurence Duggan – who were all respected, mid-level officials in the State Department – and Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to Franklin Roosevelt. Another person named had worked on a top-secret [Norden] bombsight project at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds [one of the most tightly held secrets of the war].

Berle found Chambers’ information somewhat tentative, unclear, and uncorroborated but not dismissible, because there was no clear motive for Chambers to lie about all of the members of this disparate group. He took the information to the White House, but the President dismissed it out-of-hand, to which Berle made little, if any, objection. Berle kept his notes, however (later, evidence during Hiss’ perjury trials).

Berle notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of Chambers’s information in March 1940. In February 1941, Krivitsky was found dead in his hotel room. While police ruled the death a suicide, it was widely speculated that Krivitsky had been killed by Soviet intelligence. Worried that the Soviets might try to kill Chambers too, Berle again told the FBI about his interview with Chambers. Nevertheless, the FBI took no immediate action, in line with the political orientation of the United States, which viewed the potential threat from the USSR as minor, when compared to that of Nazi Germany.

By the time of the Berle meeting, Chambers had come out of hiding after a year and joined the staff of Time magazine  (April 1939). He landed a cover story within a month on James Joyce’s latest book, Finnegan’s Wake. He started at the back of the magazine, reviewing books and film with James Agee and then Calvin Fixx. When Fixx died in October 1942,  Wilder Hobson succeeded him as Chambers’ assistant editor in Arts & Entertainment. Other writers working for Chambers in that section included: novelist Nigel Dennis, future New York Times Book Review editor Harvey Breit, and poets Howard Moss and Weldon Kees. 

During this time, a struggle arose between those, like Theodore H. White and Richard Lauterbach – who raised criticism of what they saw as the elitism, corruption and ineptitude of Chiang Kai-shek‘s regime in China and advocated greater cooperation with Mao’s Communist Red Army in the struggle against Japanese imperialism – and Chambers and others like Willi Schlamm who adhered to a staunchly pro-Chiang, anti-communist perspective (and who both later joined the founding editorial board of William F. Buckley, Jr’s National Review). 

Time founder Henry R. Luce, who grew up in China and was a personal friend of Chiang and his wife, came down squarely on the side of Chambers to the point that White complained that his stories were being censored by the editors, and even suppressed in their entirety, and left Time shortly after the war as a result. 

With Luce’s blessing, Chambers received a promotion to senior editor in September 1943 and was made a member of Time’s “Senior Group”, which determined editorial policy, in December. Luce and Chambers’ prescient understanding of Mao’s designs for China was later vindicated.

(The FBI finally did interview Chambers in May 1942 and June 1945, without further action. Only in November 1945, when Elizabeth Bentley (with whom Chambers had no connection) defected and corroborated much of Chambers’s story, did the FBI begin to take Chambers seriously). During this period, Chambers and his family became Quakers, attending Pipe Creek Friends Meetinghouse near his Maryland farm.

Next time: The Hiss Affair.

The Real “New Deal”

“Franklin Roosevelt arrived at the Capitol in early 1933 with a peculiar belief that the Constitution of the United States began and ended with the preamble and that anything and everything was allowable to meet its provisions.” As we all should know, the Preamble reads:

 “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

                                                                                                                                                                     “In his First Inaugural Address Roosevelt told America that they “…have nothing to fear but fear itself.” That, of course, was nonsense but it did reveal the ethos of Roosevelt the man. When he was first stricken with polio, no one knew what was happening to him and he spent those first days terrified of the unknown – as anyone would. Fear was his constant companion and it was fear that he overcame in the years following. Thinking of himself now as the “father” to all Americans, he now transferred that experience, inappropriately, to the American people. More likely, American’s traditional rugged individualism governed three quarters of the people where fear might have influenced the remainder.

He defined a liberal (political) party (which he believed the Democrat Party must be) as one:

‘…which believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them.

The liberal party insists that the Government has the defined duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controls – to ensure to the average person the right to his own economic and political life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’

By inserting the words “social controls” and “political” into his definition, he condemned Americans to political interference from the federal government in every aspect of their lives, like it or not, which became the sine qua non for the massive expansion of federal power into every phase of national life during his presidency and under Democrat regimes ever since.

In reality, this is fundamentally different from the concept of the Founders who were one with the American people in believing that most of life could and should be confronted by themselves and their rugged individualist neighbors and that charity and government should be the very last resorts utilized to overcome ones problems.

By the time he was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, the country had been in the “Great Depression” for more than 3 ½ years! Unemployment was about 20% but the country was stable and calm. There were a substantial number of citizens without work, housing or food but under President Hoover’slaissez-faire policies, designed to allow the economy to recover under market forces, the economy was trudging along at about half-speed compared to the pre-meltdown period and the banks continued to be substantially stressed – perhaps in crisis. Like his famous cousin, Roosevelt was determined to “get action” and into action he went – with the Preamble as his solitary guide. Thus, the New Deal came to life.

 “Legislation passed during the New Deal era had three often conflicting or obstructing goals: Relief, Recovery, and Reform – to prevent the recurrence of the boom and bust cycle that was erroneously thought to have caused the Great Depression in the first place. Roosevelt called this first round of legislation “must legislation.” For the most part, he would disregard principles of the free-market capitalist economic system which was the engine that made America work – literally and figuratively.

 In his first days in office, Roosevelt declared a nationwide banking holiday from March 6–10, 1933, and halted all gold transactions in order to open the banks on a sounder basis. He also called the Democrat controlled Congress into special session – the “Hundred Days” and passed much of the legislation that formed the New Deal. Congressmen, infused with the sense of urgency that FDR had created with his inaugural speech, passed every bill that came their way [largely unaltered from its creation in the White House].

FDR crafted bills and strategies by intuition, always moving confidently even when it turned out to be in the wrong direction. Congress prepared the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 in [an incredible] eight hours, giving the President the authority to regulate banking transactions and reopen solvent banks.

FDR then turned to the power of the radio to deliver the first of his famous fireside chats. He assured an audience of over thirty-five million Americans over the weekend before the banks were to reopen that it was safer to keep their money in a bank rather than in their homes. Confidence in the banks ebbed back into the country. On the Monday when banks reopened their doors, deposits outranked withdrawals for the first time in months, thanks to the contagious optimism of the President.

The Hundred Days Congress also created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to insure individual deposits up to $5,000, a sum which was later raised [eventually to $100,000]. This legislation prevented a recurrence of the bank failure epidemic. FDR also ordered all private gold to be surrendered to the Treasury for paper, and took the nation off the gold standard. [But what if gold made someone happy? Too bad! In retrospect, this was an error since gold was valued at about $20 per ounce at the time and today is well over $1000 per ounce.]

Roosevelt also reduced the value of the gold content of the dollar from one-hundred to sixty cents, theorizing, with the help of various anonymous economic advisers, that changing the value of the currency would stimulate business through controlled inflation. Although prices did rise a little, they did not reflect the 40% change that FDR had made in the value of gold, and the purchasing power of the dollar actually went down, especially on imports. [Another error.]

Roosevelt’s next round of proposed legislation put into action his willingness (amid falling federal revenue) to spend federal money in order to jumpstart the economy. Other bills passed began with the Agricultural Adjustment Act on March 16. The measure was aimed at restoring farm income and reducing surpluses by using a tax on processors to fund subsidies for farmers who limited their acreage in production – while there were breadlines in almost all communities. [Another error.]

On March 21, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was created, putting over 250,000 young men to work on conservation projects under the guidance of the Army. This corps built some wonderful and useful projects but added no wealth to the country. Also, that day, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration was created and put under the leadership of Harry Hopkins, the former social worker who had been one of Roosevelt’s most trusted advisors since his time as Governor of New York. Hopkins allotted over three billion dollars in direct dole payments or wages for work to the States.

April 10, saw the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, probably the most visionary of the planned economy schemes of the New Deal, a long sought public [read federal government controlled] power project on the Tennessee River, which mushroomed in Congress into a development project for the entire watershed of 640,000 square miles.”

Through federal government officials’ extortion of electrical industry owners and threats to operators of existing power projects and grids, among other unconstitutional takings, the project brought low-cost electric power, along with employment, housing and the restoration of eroded soil and reforestation to a desperately poverty-stricken area. Though the TVA was a hugely successful project, its communist-like overtones prevented conservatives from ever allowing its expansion beyond the Tennessee River. [Another error.]

“The most complex product of the Hundred Days Congress was the National Industry Recovery Act (NIRA), which was meant to help labor, industry and the unemployed. Although Roosevelt insisted in his second fireside chat that the Act was only a partnership between business-and-industry and the national government, this legislation intruded into business far more than ever before. The bill was finally passed on June 16, 1933, after objections from the Senate, which insisted that the bill would only promote the concentration of wealth and power. The National Recovery Administration or NRA was to administer the Act.

The bill called for individual industries to write-up codes of fair competition, decide maximum hours of labor per person, and introduce minimum wages in order to spread work among the greatest number of people. The Act allowed local codes for trade to be written by private trade and industrial groups. The President could choose to give some codes the force of law. Labor was granted the right to collectively bargain and the right to choose its representatives for bargaining.

The NIRA was supported with much hoopla, with its blue-eagle symbol cheered all over the country at factories and schools. However, the NIRA called for industry to lower prices at the same time it was to increase wages [a fundamentally insane concept in a capitalist system], which, for many small businesses, was too much profit margin to give up and still stay in business. [Another error.]

In order to guarantee their future, businesses that placed the blue eagle in their windows would often secretly violate the codes. The Supreme Court later declared the codes unconstitutional in the famous (and revealing) Schechter v. United States (1935) decision.

The Schechter brothers were long-time kosher chicken wholesalers in Brooklyn, NY. The regulations at issue were promulgated under the authority of the NIRA of 1933. These included price and wage fixing, as well as requirements regarding the sale of whole chickens, including unhealthy ones. The federal government prosecutors claimed the Schechters sold sick poultry – which is an absurd charge under kosher tradition – probably the most regulated in the world.

Also encompassed in the decision were NIRA provisions regarding maximum work hours and a right of unions to organize workers. Among the eighteen charges against Schechter Poultry were “the sale to a butcher of an unfit chicken” and the sale of two uninspected chickens.

Ten charges were for violating codes requiring “straight killing.” Straight killing prohibited customers from selecting the chickens they wanted; instead a customer had to place his hand in the coop and select the first chicken that came to hand. [Talk about the “long arm of the law”!]

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in invalidating the industrial “codes of fair competition” which the NIRA enabled the President to issue. The Court held that the codes violated the constitutional separation of powers as an impermissible delegation of legislativepower to the Executive. The Court also held that the NIRA provisions were in excess of congressional power under the Commerce Clausecontained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3of the Constitution.

The Court distinguished between direct effects on interstate commerce, which Congress could lawfully regulate, and indirect effects, which were purely matters of State law. Though the raising and sale of poultry was an interstate industry, the Court found that the “stream of interstate commerce” had stopped in this case – Schechter’s slaughterhouses’ chickens were sold exclusively to intrastate buyers. Any interstate effect of Schechter was indirect, and therefore beyond federal reach.

Though many considered the NIRA a “dead statute” at this point in the New Deal scheme, the Court used its invalidation as an opportunity to affirm constitutional limits on congressional power, for fear that it could otherwise reach virtually anything that could be said to “affect” interstate commerce and intrude on many areas of legitimate State power.

The court ruled that the law violated the 10th Amendment. The court believed that “to permit Congress to regulate the wages and hours in a tiny slaughterhouse because of remote effects on interstate commerce would leave nothing for the Tenth Amendment to reserve. [to the States].”

Speaking to aides of Roosevelt, Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that, “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the President that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything.” After the decision was announced, newspapers reported that 500 other cases of alleged NIRA code violations were going to be dropped.

A descendent of the Schechters, said that the brothers probably voted for Roosevelt in all four of his presidential campaigns. Their main political concern in the 1930s was anti-Semitism.”

[That may have been the motivation for the charges all along. Again, the law of unintended consequences]

Associate Justice Cardozo felt that in this case, Schechter was simply too small a player to be relevant to interstate commerce. This is the real, historical significance of this case. The entire weight of the federal government was brought to bear on a tiny, private, essentially religious, business for a questionable violation of selling two “unfit chickens”!

This was the real fear in the “New Deal”.

Although FDR had felt a need to be liked from his youth in Hyde Park, he also prided himself in his inscrutability. To assure he would know all sides of an argument or issue, he often had two or three advisors investigating the same issues without their mutual knowledge. He would often respond to arguments with a noncommittal nod, leaving family members, legislators and aides alike frustrated with their efforts. His Cabinet became cumbersome and inefficient as a result.

The White House during the first term was constantly abuzz with activity. The President, Eleanor, the children, grandchildren, Missy LeHand, Louis Howe, and a rotating set of advisors and visitors all had their lodgings in the White House. The President was very informal and addressed all the White House staff by their first names.”

The modern Democrat Party began in Roosevelt’s Oval Office. Identity-centered politics – the “factions” that the Founders, especially Jefferson and Madison, had feared so much that they had constructed a new and intricate Constitutional form of government to constrain their power – now took center stage. The wisdom of Greek solons, Roman senators, English parliaments and American congresses, inspired by such great minds as Paul of Tarsus, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More and William Shakespeare, by Johnson, Locke, Hobbes, Burke, Wollstonecraft and Mill and by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, was now replaced with what amounted to an authoritarian regime of unaccountable academics and political hacks. It was now big v. little, rich v. poor, capitalists v. socialists, Republican v. Democrat. A colossal error for America.

 The United States became vassal States, beholden to the federal government dole for their needy citizens and powerless to resist new laws, regulations and unfunded mandates, allegedly by the supremacy clause in the Constitution. The Congress, in the hands of the Democrats, became a rubber stamp and the Supreme Court was a nuisance, at best. The President, declaring a national emergency, after the emergency had already passed, became the American government for all practical purposes. (The emergency should have been declared by Hoover at the end of 1929.)

 Through regulations promulgated by a leviathan bureaucracy and through newly appointed local federal prosecutors and lower federal courts packed with his nominees, essentially legislating from the bench, FDR consolidated the entirety of federal power in the office of the President. For now, the wisdom and work of the American people would be replaced by the whims of the President.

 His justification was the plight of the factions, which he sometimes pitted against each other. The victims were defined as the poor, the unemployed, the young, the women (with Eleanor’s prodding), the ignorant, the black community, etc. The villains in all this were the rich (his peers), the industrialists, the bankers, the financiers, the denizens of Wall Street – even kosher-chicken sellers – and a myriad of others who had succeeded in our capitalist economy.

 As with most progressives (most of whom were theoreticians and had never created a job or run a competitive business in the free market), Roosevelt failed to appreciate that his villains, the capitalists of the Industrial Revolution in America (and their progeny), functioned in the “wild west” of early modern capitalism – with “good guys” and “bad guys” everywhere, although none pure as the driven snow – as Wyatt Earp would tell you.

 Famed historian Fredrick Jackson Turner’s “frontier”, as he pointed out, was not merely a physical one; it was also an economic one as well as a psychological one. After all, the frontier, after 1869, was conquered using the railroads, the greatest economic symbol of the industrial revolution of them all (and central to my “auntie’s” opus). Capitalist “gunslingers” on both sides of the law roamed the wilds of the industrial landscape, but now the biggest gunslinger of them all was the President himself – with all of the “firepower” of the federal government backing him up. As in the Old West, “might-makes-right” was again the law both east and west of the Pecos (with props to Judge Roy Bean).

 Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal also ushered in a new wave of government propaganda. Under the guise of putting people back to work, hundreds of thousands of jobs were created by the federal government – many specifically to witness the history of the New Deal. Of course, as Roosevelt acolytes owing their employment to the President, they wrote in glowing terms about the successes of his initiatives.

 As a result of this calculated plan (and FDR was nothing if not calculating), “New Deal propagandists seared into popular culture the images of sharecroppers fleeing the Dust Bowl, lines of unemployed, ‘forgotten men’ selling apples on the street for a chance to put food on the table, and ex-college professors, now vagabonds huddling around campfires in ‘Hoovervilles’. In actuality, the average, middle class American in the suburbs or small towns saw little of this.”

 The truth is – and the historical facts show definitively – that “The Great Depression was the best of times – if you had a steady job – and 75% of American breadwinners were employed. For the typical person with a good job, the 1930s were good times: prices were stable; crime was low after prohibition had been repealed and signs of progress were everywhere. Many homes now had radios, phonographs, telephones, electricity, washing machines, a family car, milk delivered on the doorstep, unlocked doors, and indoor plumbing.

 There was much to do in leisure time, with triple feature movies in the new luxurious cinemas of Hollywood titans Adolph Zukor and Marcus Loew for fifteen cents, piano lessons for the kids, interesting articles in the Saturday Evening Post, photographic essays in Life magazine, and the Book of the Month Club and Reader’s Digest that delivered the latest exciting, uplifting books to your home.

 For many Americans, never having been entrepreneurs and with no hope or wish of ever going into business, but instead dependent upon a ‘good job’ for a livelihood, Roosevelt seemed to offer security. Even if he failed to conquer unemployment, at least he seemed to be trying. He gave the impression of being a man of action, willing to do anything for the good of the workers. Many Americans believed that capitalism had failed and that a new system must be found. The dominant propaganda theme of the Democratic Party was ‘Gloom is good’.”

 Whereas the Nazis and Soviets (already having achieved dictatorial power) were pushing their own Big Lie, making posters of happy worker-slaves, Roosevelt’s New Dealers (still seeking an excuse for greater power) made a virtue of failure. New Deal propaganda worked exceedingly well and has been repeated in various forms by the Democrat Party for generations ever since.

 Although Roosevelt’s economic policies did not succeed in getting America out of the Depression – let me repeat that – Roosevelt’s economic policies did not succeed in getting America out of the Depression – he was totally victorious in using public funds to buy the lifelong loyalty of academics, intellectuals, artists, writers, labor unions, celebrities and the press – thereby institutionalizing for succeeding generations – federal government coercion of the truth (to which the People are actually and legally entitled) in public information.

 “He started by flattering the universities, boasting of a ‘brains trust’, which was more fiction than fact. He never brought together a standing panel of reputable economists and business people to provide him with reasoned, impartial, coherent advice on how to attack the Depression – nor would he have listened to them if he had assembled such a team.

 Instead, as we have seen, “…he was guided by hard-core, political operatives and influence peddlers, like Chase and Tugwell, Hopkins and Harold Ickes, while occasionally consulting with an odd and disordered assortment of college professors (predominantly from Columbia and Harvard), social workers, Soviet agents (like Alger Hiss, Lauchlin Currie, perhaps Henry Wallace and, as recently revealed, Harry Hopkins himself), fascist sympathizers (like Joseph Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh) and intellectuals of various persuasions, all of whom were flattered by Presidential attention and wooed by the sweet scent of power.”

 One of the most discerning observers of the day, H. L. Mencken, perceived Roosevelt to be “surrounded by ‘an astonishing rabble of impudent nobodies, a gang of half-educated pedagogues, non-constitutional lawyers, starry-eyed uplifters, and other such sorry wizards.’  His New Deal was a ‘political racket’, a ‘series of stupendous bogus miracles,’ with its ‘constant appeals to class envy and hatred,’ treating government as ‘a milch-cow with one hundred twenty-five million teats’ and marked by ‘frequent repudiations of categorical pledges.’” (A History of the American People, Paul Johnson, p. 762.)

Next time: The rest of the New Deal mythology.

Atlas Stands

 

                                                       The War Against the PLDC

 Or, The Destruction of America’s Public Enemy #1,

The Progressive, Liberal, Democrat Cabal

 J.T. GALT

 Here we begin Volume 3 of the Atlas Trilogy. The original volume was, of course, my “auntie’s” magnum opus from the middle of the 20th Century. It was a cautionary tale of the power of the central government to destroy the American Dream and lead the country into deadly chaos, despite the efforts of the best and brightest among us – in this case, “John Galt” and “Dagney Taggert” – the imaginary doppelgangers for my parents. Fictional at its publishing, it has proven prophetic in the first decade and a half of the 21st Century.

 Volume 2, Atlas Speaks, is a treatise about how virtually all of her predictions came to pass in the last one-hundred years – from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama and the rest of the progressive/liberal/Democrat Cabal – the PLDC. Its voice is that of the son of “John Galt” and “Dagney Taggert”, who has lived through the post-World War II period when the major damage to our constitutional republic has occurred and paints an historically exhaustive picture of who, what, where, why, when and how it happened.

 Volume 3, Atlas Stands, proposes a remedy for what ails the United States of America – a solution centered on restoring political power to the People so that they can reclaim the rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution – which have been surreptitiously and unconstitutionally usurped from them over the last century by a long list of persons – in politics, the courts, the federal bureaucracy, academia, the press/media and the infotainment industry who all sought to substitute their personal desires for the altruistic desires the Founders. The time has come for all real Americans to stand up and be counted!

 Confederation to Coup d’état:

 The presidential campaign of 2016, which resulted in the election of a political outsider with no loyalty to the political power brokers in the federal government, caused the PLDC to reveal itself in a new and more sinister form – clandestine assets planted deep within the federal bureaucracy (now popularly called the “deep state” or the “dark state”), secretly and illegally collecting bits and pieces of personal and private information through eavesdropping on the communications platforms of American citizens who happened to be political enemies, for the purpose of bringing down the new, independent administration of Donald J. Trump in cooperation with and coordination by the other elements of the PLDC.

 Immediately after the inauguration of the new President, the press/media, the courts, university professors across the country and numerous Hollywood and New York City elites rallied their traditional allies (teacher’s unions, abortioneers, feminists, the ACLU, professional protesters, etc.) and activated new clandestine progressive/liberal allies in the intelligence community (with access to all surreptitiously collected and classified private communications information of America’s citizens) to the call of the Democrat Party to distribute, debate and demonstrate in support of the propaganda produced by their hidden assets in the government.

 The purpose was to force it into the template they had created of a corrupt Republican campaign, directed and supported by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, purportedly a close friend of the Republican candidate, who had allegedly hacked into the Democrat National Committee computers and stolen secret e-mails of Hillary Clinton to be used to destroy her candidacy.

 Subsequently, an entirely new avenue of investigation came to light with the murder of a senior Democrat National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, in July 2016, just before tens of thousands of classified e-mails belonging to Hillary Clinton were published by WikiLeaks.

 “The chief of the government accountability group Judicial Watch contends there’s “credible evidence” that needs to be addressed in the murder investigation of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.

Private investigators who believe Rich may have been the source of the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks have claimed the investigation has been corrupted by political influence.

Judicial Watch’s President Tom Fitton notes the claims that Rich was involved in the leak of the DNC emails and that the probe has been compromised.  “I don’t know whether any of that’s true,” Fitton says. “WikiLeaks strongly suggests it’s true.”

But he says there’s “enough credible information out in the media … to suggest there was some hanky-panky.” Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA with the D.C. police department and the mayor’s office. “We’re not going to be cowed … we’re going to ask the questions.”

Rich was murdered July 10, 2016, in his affluent neighborhood in Washington, D.C. He was shot in the back with a handgun at at 4:18 a.m., a block from his home and although the police reported it as a robbery, nothing was taken from him. He was transported to a local hospital and was pronounced dead at 5:57 a.m.

On July 22, 2016, just 12 days after Rich’s death and days before the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from DNC officials that had been stored on computers in the DNC’s Washington office.

The office of Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser issued a statement asserting Rich was killed in an attempted robbery. The statement came amid a claim by private investigators that the Metropolitan Police Department had been directed by Bowser to tone down its investigation.

“This is a robbery that ended tragically. Any homicide in the District of Columbia gets the full attention of the Metropolitan Police Department,” Bowser’s deputy press secretary, Susana Castillo said. “In fact, MPD has a cold-case unit that focuses on solving homicides in D.C. no matter how old they are.”

Private investigators are certain Bowser has ordered a halt to the investigation. Jack Burkman, the head of the Washington, D.C.-based Profiling Project investigative team, believes D.C. police officials have colluded with the mayor to suspended the investigation. He said police are refusing to cooperate with anyone involved and are withholding key evidence from the public and obstructing the investigation for political purposes.

“I very strongly believe that the D.C. police and the D.C. mayor, for her own political reasons, want this ended,” he said. “This is going to become an issue in the mayor’s race, and this is really going to hurt her politics. This is a real black eye. This is becoming a real big thing – it’s on its way to becoming an O.J., and it could derail the mayor’s re-election.”

Burkman said the evidence indicates it was not a robbery, and he said the Rich family is also doubtful that Rich, whose body was found with his valuables, was murdered during a robbery.

“If it was a robbery – it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money, he still has his credit cards, still had his phone – so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,” Joel Rich, Seth’s father, acknowledged days after his son was killed.

Private investigator Rod Wheeler, who was hired by Rich’s parents in March to find their son’s killer, suspects Rich’s death is linked to his work at the DNC and explained why there is no evidence to support the police’s assertion he was murdered during a “botched” robbery.

“I’ve been hitting the ground out there talking with people – typical things we do in a homicide investigation. I haven’t found anything to support the theory that this was a street robbery.” 

After months of investigating Rich’s murder, the Rich family revealed to the veteran homicide detective on May 15 that former DNC Chair Donna Brazille contacted the Washington, DC police department after he inquired with homicide detectives for information on Rich’s case.

[This information brings new issues about the scope of interference in the investigation – raising it to the national level because of the insertion of a most influential Democrat operative into the process. Donna Brazile was already heavily invested in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

A WikiLeaks release revealed that interim DNC Chair and CNN contributor Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016 emailobtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders’ deputy national press secretary, announcing a Twitter storm from Sanders’ African-American outreach team. “FYI” Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff. “Thank you for the heads up on this Donna,” replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod.”

“The former interim chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee also admitted that she fed Hillary Clintona question that would be asked during a televised town hall debate last year. Although she initially denied sending emails to a Clinton staffer about the question, the long-time Democratic Party operative now writes in Time magazine that it ‘was a mistake I will forever regret.’

 ‘[Allegedly hacked emails] revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and DNC Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim DNC Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign,’ Brazile writes.

 ‘I had been working behind the scenes to add more town hall events and debates to the primary calendar, and I helped ensure those events included diverse moderators and addressed topics vital to minority communities.’

‘My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.’

 On March 12, 2016, one day before the CNN-moderated Democratic debate between Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Brazile sent an email about the death penalty to Clinton staffer Jennifer Palmieri with the subject: ‘From time to time I get the questions in advance,’ according to emails obtained by WikiLeaks [whatever that means]

 The death penalty question was repeated verbatim in an email that debate co-host Roland Martin sent to CNN producers the next day, and the question was asked using similar wording during the event in Columbus, Ohio.

 Brazile’s message was among the emails from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s account that were [allegedly] hacked by an unknown agent and then published by WikiLeaks.

Initially, Brazile denied sending the emails [and the typical obfuscation began]. During an appearance on Fox News, she claimed that the hacked emails which were published by WikiLeaks were altered.

 When Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly confronted Brazile on October 19 asking how she got the question in advance, Brazile said she refused to be ‘persecuted’ before adding:

‘I am not going to try to validate falsified information.’ ‘I have my documents. I have my files. Thank god I haven’t had my emails ripped off from me and stolen and given to some criminal to come back altered.’ ‘As a Christian woman, I understand persecution but I will not stand here and be persecuted because your information is totally false.’ ‘Podesta’s emails were stolen. You’re so interested in talking about stolen material, you’re like a thief that wants to bring into the night the things that you found that was in the gutter.’

Additionally, Seth Rich’s personal computer was retreived from his residence by the Metro DC police at the time of the murder. To date, that computer has not been made available for analysis by any reputable agency – like the FBI. Curious.]

Wheeler has been incessantly repudiated by Brad Bauman – the Rich family’s spokes- man, who has been allegedly “assigned” by the Democratic National Committee to represent the family – for not ruling out the possibility that Rich’s death may be related to the DNC emails turned over to WikiLeaks.

Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, told CNN Wednesday: “My fear is our constant focusing on the Russians is deflecting away from some other things that we need to be investigating. There’s still some question as to whether the intrusion of the DNC server was an insider job or whether or not it was the Russians.”

For anyone who has read Atlas Speaks, this all sounds sickeningly familiar. Does the name Vince Foster ring a bell?

The ultimate aim of this effort was to be a silent coup d’état of the new administration but, in the course of the countless investigations, inquiries, special counsels and investigative reports, it has been revealed that the PLDC effort to regain political power has compromised the nation’s intelligence apparatus and the Federal Bureau of Investigation – leaving the American people blind, deaf, dumb and distrustful of the truth about both foreign and domestic interests that intend to do harm to our Constitutional republic.

 So, what the heck happened over the past 70 years, culminating in the most recent attacks upon Constitutional freedoms? Quite frankly, we lost faith – faith in the Almighty as our protector, faith in the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which this nation was founded, faith in the wisdom the Founders passed down to us in the Constitution (Drafters and Ratifiers alike), which encompassed all the wisdom gathered from the struggles and triumphs of Western Civilization, and faith in ourselves and each other. I call these the Five Pillars of Freedom.

                      Loss of:                                                                 Casualty:

             Faith in the Almighty                                           truth

             Faith in our institutions                                     universal education, government

             Faith in ourselves                                                American exceptionalism

             Faith in the wisdom the Founders                   personal responsibility

             Faith in our neighbors                                       respect

 The first casualty of this loss of faith has been truth (synonymous with fact – something which is the case – either physical or intellectual, that is processed by the human mind). Therefore, truth must be the first principle restor

 Truth

 Iconic English author George Orwell once said: “The further society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

 In America, we are guaranteed by incontrovertible writings that we are, each of us, sovereign persons and therefore are granted by our Creator the inalienable rights to life, liberty and those things that make us happy. Inherent, rational, logical and also inalienable within these rights is the right to truth so that we may remain secure by preserving these rights within a government that was designed by the Founders, deriving its’ just powers from the consent of the governed – the People, through the vote – but operated by fallible human beings.

 Nowhere in the Great Document did we, the People, grant the Federal government the power to alter or withhold, or allow others associated in any way with the government or the functioning of our constitutional republic, to alter or withhold the whole truth from the People as a matter of course as our judicial oath commands – but that is what is happening on the grandest of scales. (There are understandable exceptions for national security and ongoing legal proceedings.) What has happened to truth in America since our one shining moment? That, too, is a long story.

 Throughout our history as a nation there have been instances where truth was stretched, Washington Irving’s wildly inaccurate biography of the first President being the best example. Writings about Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt are also instances of historical mythology – part truth, part fabrication. For the most part, our free press kept the government honest because of the sheer volume of news sources in the country, the quest for the “story” by ambitious editors and reporters and the lingering distrust of government amongst the people.

 In the politics of the day in the 19th Century, innuendo, rumor, insinuation, gossip, half-truth and the-big-lie were common currency in the press but people were more cautious when these musings came from politicians or their henchmen. If readers smelled a rat in a government influenced daily (mostly big city papers), they would and did move quickly to a competitor. These were never orchestrated campaigns but simply individuals exercising their right to have access to truthful free speech. Today, voters literally cannot trust most information peddled in the public square despite valiant efforts by a small minority who suffer outrageous personal attacks from the PLDC – the politics of personal destruction on full display.

 Actual government control of information through an orchestrated campaign across the entire spectrum of outlets for public information, with a new level of scope and sophistication, began with the arrival of progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson in the Presidency in 1915. The executive branch effectively took control of the truth during the First World War through the coercion of and cooperation by the press and the deception of the People.

 Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information (CPI) was created to influence American public opinion toward supporting U.S. participation in World War I via a prolonged propaganda campaign in America and overseas. The CPI used material that was loosely based on fact, but spun it to present an upbeat picture of the American war effort.

 Propaganda may be defined as the attempt to manipulate public opinion for the purpose of helping or hurting a particular cause, individual or group. The propagandist seeks to control thought rather than to inform. It is the antithesis of truth and the free press but, apparently of no consequence to the first Progressive President.

“The committee used the press, posters, radio, telegraph, cable and movies to broadcast its message. It recruited about 75,000 “Four-Minute Men,” volunteers who spoke about the war at social events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human attention-span was judged at the time to be four minutes.

 It was estimated that by the end of the war, they had made more than 7.5 million speeches to 314 million people in 5,200 communities. The CPI staged events designed for specific ethnic groups. For instance, famous Irish-American tenor John McCormack sang at Mount Vernon before an audience representing Irish-American organizations. The Committee also targeted the American worker and, endorsed by unionist Samuel Gompers, filled factories and offices with posters designed to promote the critical role of American labor in the success of the war effort.

 In a typical American family, every item of war news they saw – in newsreels at the movies, in the small-town dailies and weeklies, in magazines, or in the city daily – was not merely officially approved information but precisely the same information that millions of their fellow citizens were getting at the same moment. Every war story had been censored somewhere along the line – at the source, in transit, or in the newspaper offices in accordance with ‘voluntary’ rules established by the CPI.”

 This was propaganda on a massive scale, breaking faith with the American people who believed in a free press and a government that they believed trusted their collective judgment. The CPI was disbanded in mid-1919 but its effectiveness was not lost on the losers in the war. It would be resurrected in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

 Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on the other hand, was a completely different animal. He was born an only child in 1882 into a wealthy New York State family that was known as the Duchess County (north of NYC) Branch of the Roosevelt’s. He was a fifth cousin of Republican President Theodore Roosevelt – who was a member of the Oyster Bay (Long Island) Branch of the family. His mother was Sarah Delano, whose family had made their fortune from the China Trade – especially the opium trade – earlier in the 19th Century.

 “He was fawned over and adored by his mother all of his life. This led to a need to be the center of attention and, preferably, worshipped by those close to him. Of course, this caused problems when he went off to Groton Academy and Harvard University (as all Roosevelt boys did). He came across as thinking of himself as superior to his peers which led to occasional social ostracism and may have sparked lifelong bouts of depression and opportunities for retribution against [his peers in] the privileged classes. No hypocrisy there.

 More importantly, this need led to infidelity in his marriage to Eleanor Roosevelt, the daughter of Theodore Roosevelt’s younger brother Elliot and Anna (Livingston) Hall, born in NYC in 1884. She was orphaned at age 9 in 1894, both of her parents having died less than two years apart, and was raised by her maternal grandmother. She and FDR married in 1905 and remained married (eventually in name only) until his death in 1945.

 Three women: Lucy Mercer (Eleanor’s private secretary), Missy LeHand (FDR’s private secretary) and Margaret (Daisy) Suckley (FDR’s sixth cousin) all shared FDR’s private life for almost 30 years and provided him with the intimacy, adoration and devotion he required in order to function. Eleanor Roosevelt was not oblivious to their liaisons.

 One other adoring individual was an influential advisor from his first run for office until the end of his first presidential term. He was a Democrat political operative from Saratoga Springs, NY – Louis Howe.

 FDR idolized both his father, James, and his cousin “Teddy” and modeled his career after him. He served in the New York state legislature, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (under Wilson), as his party’s (Democrat) vice-presidential candidate and as Governor of New York just like his famous cousin had done. Being elected president in 1932 was all part of the plan.”

 It might never have happened though, had not Franklin Roosevelt had a truly remarkable and iron will to accomplish whatever he set out to do – that was instilled in him by his mother (in addition to the great good fortune that followed him most of his life). In 1920, he contracted infantile paralysis – polio – while vacationing on Campobello Island, Canada (across a tiny bridge from Lebec, Maine – the eastern-most community in the United States). His fierce, courageous and inspiring determination to overcome his physical afflictions (also reminiscent of TR) enabled him to resume public life later in the decade and, in 1932, made a run for the presidency possible. Next time:FDR’s 100Day assault on the Constitution.

 

Within your earshot, there are squads of soldiers, armed with the modern, automatic weapons, possessing the latest intelligence on the enemy, conducting search and destroy missions, killing their enemies ruthlessly and efficiently, then returning to their well-defended base of operations to await further orders or to respond individually to provocations as they have been trained to do. Their campaign has been in progress for years, the territory they control constantly expanding and the local populace continues to live in terror and despair of rescue. Where are you? Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Somalia? The Congo? No. You’re in Chicago – USA – a war zone! That’s the truth and no one is telling you the facts.

 But why is truth and fact so important? It is because the ways in which we use them define us as human. At some point in time the primates – who eventually became us – developed the ability to categorize sensory input and predict its accuracy or proximity as threat or not, as beneficial or harmful, as pleasant or painful, as good or bad. It was the interaction of input with outcome that developed the concept we know as truth – the input being the facts and the outcome being predictable and consistent meaning. See the lion, either climb the tree or be eaten. Coherent human responses to sensory input allowed physically limited homo-sapiens to survive, civilization to appear and freedom to eventually flourish.

 Predictably, naturally creative and competitive humans learned that if the sensory input could be modified, other humans’ responses could be manipulated. For instance, wearing wildly decorated masks could scare an enemy in battle and magicians (wizards?) learned to be masters of the things people thought they saw. When writing was developed it became easy to produce something humans could see and react to that might not be factual and thereby influence them to act in a manner they would not otherwise. As civilization developed to the level of nation-states, this predilection developed into something more sinister, perhaps evil – propaganda – the scourge of modern America and the modern world.

 What are the facts and truths we must know? They are the immutable principles of our constitutional republic. They are enumerated in the two enshrining documents of our founding – the consolidated wisdom of the Founders written down in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. These sacred words conveyed the meanings of the day and the ratification discussion led to the understanding, by the People who ratified the Constitution, of the meaning and context of the Framers’ words, not bastardized meanings created out of whole cloth that continually find their way into contemporary constitutional opinions.

 The fatal error in this practice is that every one of the court opinions that breaks new legal ground or finds or creates a new right has been rendered to specifically benefit a special-interest group of one sort or another at the expense of other groups – defying the meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment – one of three amendments forged in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers during the Civil War – that every citizen has a right to equal protection of their inalienable rights under the law – to religion, speech, press, assembly, petition, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in their persons and their homes and to vote – among many others.

 Throughout the whole history of civilization, as governments developed, rose and fell, as benevolents and tyrants ruled, as congresses of the privileged came and went – there was one shining moment, as the song goes. That moment was not the legendary Camelot – it was at the founding of the United States of America where the most enlightened, educated, astute and dedicated group ever assembled, met to create a sovereign government that was as immune from the frailties and failures of history and humanity as human beings were capable of devising.

 The Founders didn’t deal with convenient or inconvenient truths – they dealt with experienced truth that they had witnessed first-hand – facts about tyranny, facts about governments, facts about war, facts about citizens, facts about neighbors, facts about humanity, facts about human strengths and human weaknesses, facts about the evils, great and small, that men can inflict upon each other.

 Their creation was then given to the People, in whom the ultimate human sovereignty resides, for their approval. The facts, the learned truths, the debates and discussions were laid out in public, by the likes of Jefferson, Hamilton and Jay in The Federalist, and other written publications and printings and the universal truths expressed in the Constitution were endorsed by intellectual and illiterate alike.

 Recall that these People weren’t elitists. Most were illiterate. If they could read, it was from the Bible or church songbooks. But they had the experience of learning about the world from the best teacher of all – real life! As a group, they had been learning about and discussing liberty for almost one hundred and seventy years by the time they were asked to ratify their Constitution. Compared to today’s average citizen, they were learned indeed. They didn’t do too badly – they created the Bill of Rights.

 So, before we are able to design the process necessary to restore the great principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which we have seen under attack for the last one hundred years, we must understand what went wrong with America in the last century. When we finally do meet in convention, like our forefathers, we’ll call our document the “Bill of Restoration”.

 So, what the heck just happened (over the past 70 years)? Quite frankly, we lost faith – faith in the Almighty as our protector, faith in the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which this nation was founded, faith in the wisdom the Founders passed down to us in the Constitution (Drafters and Ratifiers alike), which encompassed all the wisdom gathered from the struggles and triumphs of Western Civilization, and faith in ourselves and each other. I call these the America’s Five Pillars of Freedom.

                                 Loss of:                                                          Pillar:

                        Faith in the Almighty                                      truth

                        Faith in our institutions                                 universal education, government

                        Faith in ourselves                                            American exceptionalism

                        Faith in the wisdom the Founders               personal responsibility

                        Faith in our neighbors                                    respect

 With questions on original words, meanings, intentions, understandings, interpretations and implementation hanging in the air, and with Ragove’s recitation of the musings of Madison and Jefferson long after their service in the Founding – that it was then and shall forever be – the experience the nation has had with governing under the Judeo-Christian ethic – the lessons learned that when those in government do not recognize a higher power, the government becomes the ultimate authority – the triumphs and tragedies of the momentous Supreme Court decisions as well as the successes and failures of the great amendments and the contributions, great and small, good or bad, of those Americans called to service of the country – that must carry the weight in the debate on great issues and this entire prologue must animate us and motivate us when we ask the question at the quarter-millennium mark of our extraordinary and exceptional history

 

 What the Heck Just Happened?

 My Auntie’s book depicts a dystopian America somewhere mid-20th Century wherein, upon seeing that “the greater the effort, the heavier the system bore down on their shoulders”, many of society’s most prominent and successful inventors, scientists, engineers, financiers and industrialists – those who knew how to make the entire capitalist system work – abandoned their careers, in many cases their fortunes and public life itself, in response to hostile, destructive, despotic, anti-capitalistic new federal government regulations, whereupon the nation’s vital industries collapse and the country descended into economic and social chaos – not unlike the Revolutionary generation, many of whom sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for liberty.

It was intended “…to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them” and to portray “…what happens to a world without them”. “What if I went on strike? What if all the creative minds of the world went on strike?”, she asked.

The theme of the book is “the role that man’s mind plays in existence” – whether to accept things as they are or change the circumstances – and it expresses the advocacy of reason, individualism, capitalism and the predictable failures of governmental coercion. The book received largely negative reviews from the progressive liberals after its publication, but achieved enduring popularity and consistent sales in the following decades. But what is most remarkable – and frightening – about the book is that it was written as apocryphal fiction and now has become literal non-fiction.

Auntie’s book dealt mainly with captains-of-industry – the dreamers, the schemers and the job creators and was primarily a journey of the mind. She didn’t have a great familiarity with the working middle class – the heart and soul of America, the People, the builders, the movers, the “protect-and-servers” whose journey is one of blood, sweat and tears – with apologies to Winston Churchill. While in Auntie’s book, the capitalists left the scene of chaos, the People have no intention of going anywhere. Like Americans of all generations, they will stand and fight. They just need justification for their sacrifice. That justification is what this treatise is all about.

Even though Auntie’s book was conceived when the individual tax rate for America’s most successful capitalists – captains of industry, mass communication as well as entertainment – was 90%, the current state of taxation and regulation on capitalists – the people who actually create jobs (the engine of capitalism) – is again becoming intolerable.

 Although Republican President Ronald Reagan lowered the individual rate to the low 30%’s in the 1980s, it has crept back up to where maximum federal, state and local taxes are approaching 75% – individual max = 56%; plus 12.4% for social security, 3.8% for Medicare and 4% for state and local taxes. Then there’s the corporate tax rate of 40%, one of the highest in the world.

 These real-life capitalists haven’t gone on strike. In recent years, a number of significant and successful American companies (as many as 35 since 2009, while 43 companies did so in the previous 25 years) have simply relocated outside U.S. borders, usually through mergers with or purchases of a foreign company. One impact of changing their business addresses: They’re no longer subject to U.S. corporate taxes, and onerous, punitive and occasionally ridiculous government rules and regulations. It’s a process commonly known as a tax inversion.

 Some successful capitalists have gone so far as to move to more tax friendly countries and renounce their American citizenship. There’s a vote of confidence for the PLDC!

 So, the answer to the question posed above, as we have unambiguously shown, is that the privileged American Political Left happened – self-important theoreticians, lurking in the shadows as war ended, peculiarly enamored of Communism’s economic model, profoundly, willfully ignorant or stunningly, stubbornly stupid about the American Constitution and Main Street culture and with a perverse sense of superiority and entitlement – and then, for the next seventy years, creating social and cultural chaos at home and an absence of power and influence for good abroad! Their obvious aim was to change the American ethos from what developed over the millennia into Western Civilization as we know it. Somehow, to them, We, the People are wrong. So, that’s where we are and how we got here. It begs the obvious question.

 What happened specifically? A grand failure in leadership from the progressive/liberal end of the political spectrum – to put it in plain English. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina profoundly defines leadership as; “… not about power, [but] about unlocking the potential of others.” For one hundred years some Americans have been pursuing leadership positions for the power that conveys to them personally and not for the good they can do for the People. With power comes celebrity but, if conscience is lacking, chaos will follow because celebrity is ephemeral – empty.

 The Romans knew this over two thousand years ago. Legendary World War II Army General and military historian George S. Patton tells us that when a victorious Roman general would return to the Capital to be feted for his triumphs, a slave would be assigned to his chariot as he was paraded through the streets to receive the cheers of the adoring crowd on his way to the Palatine to be celebrated by the Emperor. It was the duty of this slave to whisper continuously into the general’s ear to remind him that “All fame is fleeting.” And so it is but, what may be left behind is chaos, as the Romans also showed us – with Caligula and Nero as prime examples.

 The People consented to be governed under the Constitution as it was written and understood – law was established by act of Congress, vetted for Constitutionality (if asked) by the Supreme Court and enforced consistently and uniformly by the Executive – not the abomination that it has become through Constitutional desecration by cynical politicians and a malleable and compliant federal court. The People gave their consent. It is time to take it back!

 To summarize;

 We began as religious and economic chartered colonies of Great Britain;

We became the united COLONIES to fight for our independence with Philadelphia, PA as our capital;

We established the united STATES of America after the Revolutionary War with New York, NY as our capital;

We became the UNITED STATES of America after the Civil War with Washington, DC as our capital;

We became the united states of America during the Wilson administration with WASHINGTON, DC as our capital.

Back when this sea-change occurred, we were a nation of anxious families who had listened to our fathers and grandfathers tell first-hand stories of the carnage of the Civil War as we waited for word from our loved ones overseas engaged in “the war to end all wars”. We then sprinted headlong into the “Roaring ‘20s”, perhaps the most optimistic decade in our history, where everything and anything was possible and life was lived to its fullest.

 Of course, excess led to economic collapse and a “Great Depression”, only ending because of a second world war – after which another decade of cautious optimism and unlimited possibilities into which I was born – again to end in another depression – this one psychological – due to the death of an American icon, President John Kennedy, and then an unpopular war for which his successor had failed to prepare the American public – which was followed by a corrupt presidency and the truly depressing presidency of Jimmy Carter.

 This depression only ended when we elected the supreme optimist, Ronald Reagan, as President in 1980 and the start of another period of possibilities reinforced when Reagan’s victory over the Soviet Union ended America’s longest war, the Cold War, which had been fought in the twilight of the nation’s consciousness for 45 years.

 This dynamic period ended on September 11, 2001, when the permissiveness of President Bill Clinton – when it came to International Radical Islamic Terrorism during his administration – emboldened jihadists to attack the American homeland shortly after his successor, George W. Bush had taken office. Bush’s response, like Franklin Roosevelt’s after the Japanese attack on the homeland on December 7, 1941, was to launch unconditional warfare on the enemies’ “homeland” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 Lightning quick military victories were unfortunately followed by an ill-defined and poorly financed and executed effort to establish democracy in those previously despotic countries (as had successfully happened after World War II in Germany and Japan) – chiefly because the Bush White House was convinced that the State Department bureaucracy, which had not supported the military campaigns that freed almost 50 million people from murderous despots in both Iraq and Afghanistan, would not effectively support the nation-building effort that would be required and for which they would be responsible. With the resultant chaos in both countries requiring additional military operations, called “surges”, the two countries were finally stabilized by the end of the Bush presidency.

 However, the chaos had enabled a new radical Islamist enemy to grow in the Middle East – ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – which is fighting all of Western Civilization in order to reestablish the Caliphate across the entire region – perhaps even the entire world.

 Then came the over-inflated ego, under-inflated patriotism and abject apologetics, for America’s contribution to peace and freedom for the past century, of Barrack Obama, elected in 2008 after promising to end America’s involvement in both theaters. But, rather than victory (stable, secure, functioning elected governments and supportive nations), Obama opted for date-certain military withdrawals despite conditions on the ground, all the while bleating about “containment” and “bringing the perpetrators to justice”. This, of course, led to worldwide chaos and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists – whom he refused to even acknowledge.

 It would be more appropriate for Obama to have apologized for desecrating the sacrifices of more than 500,000 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who died in defense of freedom for, literally, billions of people around the globe over the past 120 years.

 So, just as Wilson was incapable of leading America by disarming after the holocaust of World War I and Franklin Roosevelt was incapable of leading America by rearming to prevent the holocaust of World War II and Truman was incapable of leading America by disarming America again after the holocaust of World War II and inviting Communist aggression in Korea and Johnson was incapable of leading America to avoid the holocaust of the Vietnam War and Carter proved incapable of preventing the scourge of Radical Islamic Terrorism from taking root and Clinton was incapable of leading America to confront worldwide radical Islamic jihad against Americans, thereby inviting 9/11, Obama was proven to be just as incapable of leading America by inviting a holocaust in the Middle East, unless one considers it “leadership” to unilaterally and precipitously withdraw from our preeminent position as the world’s only hope for stability, security and safety in a chaotic world.

 What we have seen throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st is the same script with different actors, yet an expectation of different endings.

 We need to return to being the UNITED STATES of America with Washington, DC as our capital and the People, again, in charge. In this way – and only in this way – can we end the era of federal insanity at home and worldwide chaos abroad.

 So, once again inspired by the words of Lincoln:

 “The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Those “better angels” are still living amongst us and are fully capable of bringing our Union together again. Now begins our journey in rebuttal to the PLDC, Atlas Strikes.

The Decline of the States

Now that we have looked briefly at how the Founders got to America and how they settled the colonies and the frontier, we should look more closely at who they were as a people who, once freedom was won, became the People.

They were predominantly from Western and Northern Europe – products of Western Civilization, the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. They were primarily from the British Isles – England, Scotland and Ireland with some Dutch from New Amsterdam mixed in. But, who were they culturally?

The British Isles had been occupied by Celtic speaking peoples well before the Romans arrived in the 1st Century BC. According to one theory, the common root of the Celtic languages, the Proto-Celtic language, arose in the Late Bronze Age Urnfield culture of Central Europe, which flourished from around 1200 BC along the Upper Rhine and Danube rivers. 

In addition, according to a theory proposed in the 19th Century, the first people to adopt cultural characteristics regarded as Celtic were the people of the Iron Age Hallstatt culture in central Europe (c. 800–450 BC), named for the rich grave finds in Hallstatt, Austria. Thus, this area is sometimes called the ‘Celtic homeland’, which separated the Germanic tribes to the North from the Romans to the South.

By or during the later La Tene period (c. 450 BC up to the Roman conquest), this Celtic culture was supposed to have expanded by trans-cultural diffusion [inter-marrying or migration to the British Isles (Insular Celts). 

 As the Roman Empire decayed and then collapsed between 100-450 AD, tribes from Northern and Western Europe – the Northern frontier of the Roman Empire – invaded the British Isles. They included the Celtic Angles and Saxons and the Germanic Jutes from what are now called the “Low Countries” of The Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark, respectively. Another group came several centuries later – the Norse – the Vikings.

The history of the Nordic people begins in Central Asia and the Russian steppe when the Indo-Europeans [IE] started migrating west into modern-day Europe. During the great migration, a branch of the IE split off and moved into present day Scandinavia and became isolated most likely due to climate disruptions.

 Human beings have occupied Scandinavia for at least 7000 years. It is in the forest and frozen mountains that the Nordic people get the distinct cultural/linguistic identity known as Germanic. After developing a unique culture the Germanic people began moving south for less turbulent weather and cross the Baltic and North seas into modern-day Germany, Poland and Denmark. The migration-age tribes founded the modern Nordic countries we know today as Scandinavia (Norway-Sweden-Denmark-Finland).

 The culture of the Norse was already over 1000 years old when the Viking age began and a new wave of Germanic people again started crossing into Europe and Britain carrying largely the same migration age culture, legal systems, Runic codex (language) and religious beliefs as the previous migrating tribes.

 Some of the identifying markers of Nordic culture is complicated knot work, exceptional metal/wood work, seafaring/boat building and design, metaphoric poetry and spoken word, grand feasting halls, ancestral worship and equal rights for women.

 We use the term Norse as a general description of the larger Germanic culture from its Dutch origin “Noors” “People from the north” because Germanic culture originated in Scandinavia/Denmark.

 But, by the end of the 1st Millennium, Britain began to take form as a united and sovereign nation.

 ‘The King went into Cumberland and ravaged very nearly all of it; and his ships went out round Chester and should have come to meet him, but they could not. Then they ravaged the Isle of Man. And the enemy fleet had gone to Richard’s kingdom that summer.’

 “This entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 1000 is an epitome of the political history of Britain at the time. The king in question was Æthelred II, misnamed ‘the Unready’ (r. 978-1016), and seen here in a decidedly ‘ready’ mood. He was not indulging in mindless destruction for the sake of it, but furthering a process begun by his forebears: forging of a united kingdom of the English.

 A century earlier, his great-great-grandfather, Alfred, had defended the kingdom of Wessex from Viking assault and won the loyalty of all the English people ‘except those who were under the power of the Danes’. Alfred’s heirs, his son Edward, king of the West Saxons, and his daughter Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, overran the southern Danish settlements and absorbed them into a ‘greater Wessex’. Edward’s son, Æthelstan, conquered the Viking kingdom of York, and became the first ‘king of the English’ and Æthestan’s brothers, Edmund and Eadred, consolidated his work.

 Edmund’s sons, Eadwig and Edgar, ruled over an English kingdom which stretched northwards from the Channel to the Tweed in the north east and to Stainmore in the north-west. This kingdom was the inheritance of Æthelred, Edgar’s younger son, who received it after the murder of his half-brother Edward the Martyr at Corfe in Dorset in 978. The making of England was the achievement of the West Saxon kings.”

 Over the next half-millennium, the concepts of inalienable rights for citizens and constitutional law for governments were established in spite of the claimed “Divine Right” of monarchy and by the late 16th Century, Englishmen were bringing their concept of government by the people to the world.

 Those ideas and ideals would not be wasted by the North American colonists. These were not the cultural descendants of Latins (from the Mediterranean basin) or the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe and the steppes or of Asian and South Asian peoples or the peoples of Africa or Arabia.

 These were Northern Europeans, the intellectual children of Christianity, the Northern Renaissance and the Enlightenment and they would establish their sovereign nation upon those principles.

 And they would set those principles rights and powers in proverbial stone and would call it the Constitution of the United States.

 The Constitution of the United States provides for three types of power to the national government:

 “DELEGATED (sometimes called enumerated or expressed) powers are specifically granted to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This includes the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office. In all, the Constitution delegates 27 powers specifically to the federal government.

INHERENT POWERS are not specifically listed in the Constitution, but they grow out of the very existence of the national government. For example, the United States has the power to acquire territory by exploration and/or occupancy, primarily because most governments in general claim that right.

 IMPLIED POWERS are not specifically stated in the Constitution, but may be inferred from the elastic (or “necessary and proper”) clause (Article I, Section 8). This provision gives Congress the right “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the underlying powers, and other powers (delegated and inherent) vested in the government of the United States.” Since these powers are not explicit, the courts are often left to decide what constitutes an implied power

The Constitution also identifies RESERVED POWERS, which are set aside for the States. Unlike delegated powers, they are not listed specifically, but are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Some traditional reserved powers include regulating trade within a State, establishing local government, and conducting elections. The Supreme Court occasionally will “find” a reason to have the federal government acquire a long standing Reserved Power (see Roe v. Wade).

 Some powers of federal and state governments overlap. For example, both may — and do — levy taxes, make and enforce laws, and borrow money. These CONCURRENT POWERS are not granted exclusively to the national government, nor are they denied the states. But, if a power is not specifically identified as a delegated power, or granted under the inherent or implied concept, including the limitation on implied powers that constrains them to their association with a specific and identified delegated or inherent power, it is reserved to the States.

 For example; Roe v. Wade was decided upon the “discovery” of a federal right to privacy – a concept not found in any delegated, inherent or implied power. Any right to privacy must therefore be reserved to the States – where it had resided from the beginning.

TRADEMARKS are protected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, established to “promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries,” as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

 PROHIBITED POWERS are denied either to the national government, State governments, or both (Article I, Section 9.) For example, the national government cannot constitutionally exercise its powers in such a way as to interfere with the States’ abilities to perform their responsibilities – even though it does so on a massive scale. States cannot tax imports or exports, nor can they coin money or issue bills of credit.

 States also have responsibilities to one another, as explained in Article IV of the Constitution. One provision is that each state must give “FULL FAITH AND CREDIT” to the public acts, records, and civil judicial proceedings of every other State. Business contracts, then, are recognized by all States, as are marriages. Extradition, the legal process in which an accused criminal is returned to the State were the crime was committed, is also required by Article IV.

The Founders very carefully divided powers between federal and State governments. They were responding to both the colonial aversion to the tyranny of King George III as well as the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Their careful separating and blending of State and national powers guarded against tyranny, allowed for more citizen “good faith” participation in government and provided a mechanism for incorporating new policies and programs.

Unfortunately, the officials who work in the federal government have been deliberately eroding States’ powers for more than a century. The first, best example of this is the imposition of a federal income tax without the justification of a national emergency – as Lincoln had done during the Civil War. The Founders never envisioned the taxing of income and only excise taxes appear in the Constitution. Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks and in many other cases.

Did the Congress have the implied or inherent power to create an income tax? Of course. Could the Supreme Court uphold the constitutionality of the Amendment? Yes. Those are not germane questions. The essential question is – should they have imposed a permanent tax on the individual effort, creativity, determination, fortitude, commitment, perseverance, ingenuity, imagination and genius of the American People?

Based upon the unintended consequences of their actions – a bloated, wasteful, detached monstrosity of a federal bureaucracy, a politicized and petrifying lethal Internal Revenue Service, a 75,000 page tax code, a squandered $500 million/year expense on the economy just to comply with the code, the distrust and revulsion of two-thirds of the American people for their government’s ability to spend wisely – they should not have taken that road without more justification than “the rich are rich enough to pay”.

Rather than punish accomplishment, a better purpose would have been to discover how to enable every American to succeed economically. Instead, the government went to war in partnership with organized labor against those who knew how to create wealth, never learned their “mysteries” (little more than working hard and working smart) and thereby allowed the financial and fiscal excesses of the 1920s to lead to the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929. And so, the wealth redistribution movement was created and still thrives today.

“Until 1913, customs duties (tariffs) and excise taxes were the primary sources of federal revenue. The Congress did introduce an income tax to fund the Civil War through the Revenue Act of 1861 without much controversy. It levied a flat tax of three percent on annual income above $800. This act was replaced the following year with the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a graduated tax of three to five percent on income above $600 and specified a termination of income taxation in 1866.

The Civil War income taxes, which expired in 1872, proved to be both highly lucrative – drawing mostly from the more industrialized states. During the two decades following the expiration of the Civil War income tax, the Greenback movement, the Labor Reform Party, the Populist Party, the Democratic Party and other progressives (what a surprise) called for a graduated income tax.

The Socialist-Labor Party advocated a graduated income tax in 1887. The Populist Party “demand[ed] a graduated income tax” in its 1892 platform. In 1896, the Democrat Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894, and proposed an income tax in its 1908 platform.

In 1894, an amendment was attached to the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act that attempted to impose a federal tax of two percent on incomes over $4,000 (equal to $109,000 in 2014 dollars). The federal income tax was strongly favored in the South, and it was moderately supported in the eastern North Central states, but it was strongly opposed in the Far West and the Northeastern States (with the exception of New Jersey). The tax was derided as “un-democratic, inquisitorial [in that it required citizens of the States to disclose their income to the federal government], and wrong in principle.”

In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), the U.S. Supreme Court declared certain taxes on incomes — such as those on property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on “property by reason of its ownership” and so should be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks, and so forth, burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on “property by reason of its ownership” burdened that property.

After Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends, and rental income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be “direct” (and thus required constitutionally to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, “indirect” (and thus constitutionally required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity). Members of Congress responded to Pollock by expressing widespread concern that many of the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power. Sound familiar?

In his famous “Cross of Gold” speech at the 1896 Democrat presidential convention, Bryan declared:

 “The income tax is a just law. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democrat [Party] idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

What we oppose in that [Democrat Party Platform] plank is the life tenure that is being built up in Washington which establishes an office-holding class and excludes from participation in the benefits the humbler members of our society…”

“…we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic Coast; but those hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose—those pioneers away out there, rearing their children near to nature’s heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds—out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead—are as deserving of the consideration of this party as any people in this country.”

How ironic that the Democrats now refer to those pioneers as living in “fly-over country” between the two coasts.

The “Cross of Gold” speech came amid the national debate about whether to endorse the free coinage of silver at a ratio of silver to gold of 16 to 1. (16 ounces of silver would be worth 1 ounce of gold). Because the actual value ratio was about 32 to 1 at the time, most economists warned that the cheaper silver would drive the more expensive gold out of circulation.

Everyone agreed that free silver would raise prices. This inflationary measure would have increased the amount of money in circulation and aided cash-poor and debt-burdened farmers. The question was whether or not this inflationary measure would be beneficial to the country. The issue peaked from 1893 to 1896, when the economy was in a severe depression—called the Panic of 1893—characterized by falling prices (deflation), high unemployment in industrial areas, and severe distress for farmers.

The debate pitted the pro-gold financial establishment of the Northeast, along with railroads, factories and businessmen, who were the job creators and creditors, against poor farmers who would benefit from higher prices for their crops resulting from the prospective expansion of the money supply by allowing silver to also circulate as money. More money chasing the same amount of goods results in higher prices.

Free silver was especially popular among farmers in the wheat belt (the western Midwest) and the cotton belts (the Deep South), as well as silver miners in the West. It had little support among farmers in the Northeast and the Corn Belt (the eastern Midwest). Free silver was the central issue for Democrats in the presidential election of 1896 and that of 1900. In major elections free silver was consistently defeated, and after 1896 the nation moved to the gold standard.

To rouse the Democrat faithful for the campaign, Bryan ended his famous speech with one of the greatest lines in American political history:

“If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

On June 16, 1909, Republican President Wiliam Howard Taft, in an address to the Sixty-first Congress, proposed a two percent federal income tax on corporations by way of an excise tax and a constitutional amendment to allow the previously enacted income tax “…upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity (the corporation and the trust) and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.”

An income tax amendment to the Constitution was first proposed by Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. The amendment proposal finally accepted was Senate Joint Resolution No. 40, introduced by Senator Nelson A. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Senate majority leader and Finance CommitteeChairman. On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Congress

 From well before 1894, Democrats, Progressives, Populists and other left-oriented parties argued that tariffs disproportionately affected the poor, interfered with prices, were unpredictable, and were an intrinsically limited source of revenue. The South and the West tended to support income taxes because their residents were generally less prosperous, more agricultural and more sensitive to fluctuations in commodity prices.

A sharp rise in the cost of living (the economic boom resulting in rising income chasing a fairly constant increase in goods) between 1897 and 1913 greatly increased support for the idea of income taxes, including in the urban Northeast. A growing number of Republicans also began supporting the idea, notably Theodore Roosevelt and the “Insurgent” Republicans (who would go on to form the Progressive Party).

The Democrats won both houses and the Presidency (Woodrow Wilson) in 1912 and the country was generally in a left-leaning mood, with the Socialist Party winning a seat in the House in 1910 and polling six percent of the popular presidential vote in 1912.

Three advocates for a federal income tax ran in the presidential election of 1912 – William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt and the winner, Woodrow Wilson. On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the States and so had become part of the Constitution.  The Revenue Act of 1913 – implementing the amendment – was enacted shortly thereafter.

From Professor Boris Bittker, who was a tax law professor at Yale Law School:

“As construed by the Supreme Court in the Brushaber case, the power of Congress to tax income derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution rather than from the Sixteenth Amendment; the latter simply eliminated the requirement that an income tax, to the extent that it is a direct tax, must be apportioned among the states. A corollary of this conclusion is that any direct tax that is not imposed on “income” remains subject to the rule of apportionment. Because the Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to define the term “direct tax,” the scope of that constitutional phrase remains as debatable as it was before 1913; but the practical significance of the issue was greatly reduced once income taxes, even if direct, were relieved from the requirement of apportionment.”

 With this explanation in mind, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution reads: “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” Notice the absence of the word “income”. The 10th Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated [specifically] to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, not prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 The federal income tax is progressive and the discriminations and inequalities created by the tax code should render the tax unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law. Such arguments have been ruled without merit under contemporary jurisprudence even though, in Redfield v. Fisher (1930), the Supreme Court wrote that “…the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Go figure.

 As we have seen, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal accelerated the usurpation of federal power at the expense of the States which was continued under his successor, Democrat Harry Truman. By the end of the Obama presidency, the States had been relegated to mere bystander status as the federal government selectively chose which laws to enforce, which to ignore or when to choose to thwart State efforts to enforce federal law in their respective States – as well as to literally steal (a “taking” in Constitutional terms) State lands for new national parks and monuments. The final nail in the coffin of State sovereignty came from the United States Supreme Court who chose, on numerous occasions, to redefine common and ordinary words in the English language in order to create new found rights not vested in the original text of the Constitution.

 The entire flow of power incorporated into the Constitution has been reversed, the States have become irrelevant (except during presidential campaigns) and the People now are compelled to prostrate themselves at the pleasure of the federal government. Where once the States were sovereign, they now lie, supine before an all-powerful federal government. Next time: Confederation to Coup d’etat.