The Constitution and B2 Strikes in Iran

With the recent bombing of Iran (and other events) the Constitution has become a hot a topic of general conversation these days. From the rights of illegal immigrants, to the call for “No Kings,” to the ending of nationwide injunctions, to due process denied to J6ers, along with the action in Iran, many of us seem to be greatly concerned that the Constitution is being violated. That concern is probably a good thing, if, that is, it means folks are actually reading and considering our six page founding document, and not just using it as an empty slogan.

On a personal note, I have been hoping for this day since 1964 when I was eleven years old. At that time, being a grieving yet gung ho devotee of the recently assassinated President Kennedy, I was shocked to learn that some folks were protesting against the Vietnam War. In the newspaper account, one of the protesters let it be known that if someone wanted to understand his opposition to the war, they should read the Constitution. That seemed a fair challenge, so I did read it, and found that it did indeed call for Congress to declare war, which had not been done. Even though the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was soon used as a fig leaf, it never, in my mind, satisfied that constitutional requirement.

In the years that soon followed, I was always disappointed to find that I was the only one at any anti war protest who was there to defend the Constitution. Others, mostly leftists, would inform me that it was an immoral war, to which I would respond that was why we would never have declared it if we had followed constitutional process. They didn't have an answer to that, but still didn't embrace the Constitution. Alas, there were also no conservatives, at that time, with the temerity to do so. As the years rolled along, I came to realize that most folks (wrongly) considered the Constitution as something that the government used to force the people to do something distasteful, kind of like taking nasty medicine (think the civil rights movement). The idea that the people should insist that the government adhere to the Constitution didn't even enter their minds.

Using the intervening years before the Kuwait War, I developed a rationale about why it is such a good idea to follow the Constitution, and declare war. By insisting war be declared before engaging in action, we force ourselves to come to clear minded thinking about the goals of said war, and to achieve a clear national consensus that the people actually do want to fight it. In short, following constitutional guidelines is a way to prevent needless war, and to win the ones we do decide to fight.

In August of 1990, following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, an opportunity came to present this thinking in public. I did so, sending it to my then US Representative Pat Schroeder, and calling in to various talk radio shows. In the end, she sponsored a bill using that rationale, which also appeared in the final Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

The war over Kuwait in 1991 was followed by the war in Afghanistan in 2001, and the (second) war in Iraq in 2003, both of which also gained Congress's approval of AUMF's (Authorization of the Use of Military Force). Such authorizations come short, in my opinion, of a declaration of war. There is, however, a little noted power in the Constitution that enables Congress to make military decisions short of declared war.

The pertinent constitutional passages are found in Article 1, section 8. In subsection, or paragraph, 11 is found the passage that empowers Congress to declare war. Just previous to that passage, in subsection 10, Congress has the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” This is the actual basis for Congress to authorize the use of force short of war.

This is a very important constitutional stipulation, especially in this era of irregular, asymmetrical warfare. By using this power effectively, we can be flexible enough to maintain our national security in a changing world, and yet remain faithful to our Constitution.. By making open and purposeful use of this power, we would make it to where the whole world would know when we are debating about our response to some foreign threat. They would know when we were just talking, and more importantly, they would know when we have made a decision and are moving into action. Certainly any operational details must be kept strictly confidential, but once the decision is made by our Congress, the Executive would be authorized to respond with military force, at a time of their choosing, within the limits of the resolution. What's more, these resolutions should probably have sunset provisions to prevent their misuse as some carte blanc permission for future administrations to wage forever wars.

This constitutional process could have been used to our advantage in the recent situation regarding Iran's plan to acquire nuclear weapons. Years ago we could have, and should have, agreed to authorize the President to take whatever steps might be necessary to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Their pursuit of such weapons is, first of all, a violation of the non proliferation treaty, so it is an offense against the law of nations. Secondly, given the suicidal martyr focus of that regime, them having nuclear weapons is a dire threat to our national (and the world's) security. We could have mustered a majority in Congress to vote for that authorization twenty years ago. Or even two months ago. It would have been best to get authorization in the President's hands a while back though, because waiting until the last minute removes the element of surprise

If we had done that, events might very well have played out exactly as they have, with some important improvements. President Trump could have had an even stronger hand in negotiations, with a clear understanding by all that our nation was behind him. Then, as now, the threat could have been minimized by the bombs, but the Constitution would have been properly applied, and thereby defended.

The second thing is that when we work our system the way it is designed, and truly debate when the threat of war looms, the deliberations of our Congress might carry great weight globally. By insisting on open public debate about any particular war, we could use that congressional debate, in a creative manner, as an effective enhancement of our negotiating strength. Some random congress person could say something that causes a foreign adversary to realize we see what they are doing, and thus modify their actions at that moment, obviating any need for a new law. Effectively using our constitution's stipulations in that manner might be a way to avoid waging a war at all.

That brings up one short, but vital, aside. A lot of folks have begun to lose faith in our system of government, but the eternal truth is that our system, like any system, only works when we work our system. Instead of feeling defeat and despair about what has been done to foul and degrade our system, we should envision how much we could gain by applying our system of self government, which has somehow miraculously survived, in the way that the founders designed it to be applied.

Back to the subject of war. Virtually any cause to use military force should be referred for congressional approval prior to kinetic action commencing. The only exception is in the case of surprise attack, when there might be no time for Congress to meet. That is the precise eventuality that the War Powers Act was intended to provide for.

That is how we could, and should, deal with war. The truth, however, is that we have forsaken the Constitution in this regard, and have instead, shamefully and unwittingly, embraced the dubious charms of militarism. Militarism is a term used with some hesitation, but it is nonetheless used accurately. Consider the case. Before we, as a nation, take kinetic military action, we aren't allowed to have public, or even congressional, debate about it. The fear must be, one assumes, that the information regarding the decision for war is just too sensitive.

After the action, and, God forbid, during any subsequent combat, our troops are engaged in the field, so any debate on the right or wrong of the policy must be muted, lest it further endanger or demoralize the troops. To sum up: We have a situation where those who control our military power are able to use it however and whenever they choose, for reasons that ought not be publicly opposed, either before or after the fact.

This obviously fits the definition of militarism. In fact, if we care to look we can see a strain of militaristic thinking overriding constitutional thinking going clear back to 1950. There is an old saying that Rome was not built in a day. The pertinent addendum to that is that Rome did not fall in a day either. In fact, what we think of as the greatness of Rome, with the opulent wealth, the games, the extensive empire, the commerce and roads, mostly grew after the republic had fallen.

There is no doubt that a Ceasar, or a dictator, once in control of a failing republic, can muster, mobilize and coordinate the resources of the nation in a way that a republic, especially a failing republic, with its corruption and dysfunction, can't match.

The fatal flaw with this approach is that by ignoring and obviating the republic (in our case, the Constitution) the nation loses the citizenship, love of nation and republican virtues in the people which can thrive only in a living republic. So as time goes on, there are far fewer resources, especially human resources, for succeeding dictators to call upon. Eventually, no one is left who cares to defend the national frontiers, and barbarians destroy the remnants of the once glorious republic.

In the case of Rome, the true decline started when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, to, in an adversarial manner, assume command of the nation. In America, probably the first instance of our stumbling regarding constitutional war making was, as mentioned, in 1950 when President Truman ignored constitutional process while getting us into the Korean War. This is not a trivial matter either, because subverting our republic could well be the long term strategic goal of our enemies.

Foreign adversaries might have been outsmarting us then, and in like manner playing us today. In a battle of civilizations, any enemy of a republic would always see constitutional alienation as a most effective tactic.. Inducing us into misusing war powers will always look like a good plan to any Marxist, dictatorial or theocratic foe because of the way it alienates the American people from their own Constitution. Consider how this might have been planned in 1950.

The Russians always were a bunch of chess playing schemers. This scheme, if it is not just a conspiracy theory, is a fine example of a chess gambit. First, they concocted a reason to temporarily exit, to boycott, the UN. It was the choice of the USSR to do so in January of 1950, in protest of the fact that the UN admitted only Nationalist China, under Chiang Kai-Shek, and excluded Mainland Red China under Mao Zedong.

Then, in June of 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea. The USSR (which would have seen the invasion coming) was still boycotting the UN. President Truman was striving to gain the UN credence as a germinal world government. It was knowingly stated that it would probably take a couple of weeks for Congress to pass a Declaration of War. Truman knew that if he raised the issue in Congress, the USSR would be aware of it and walk back into the UN. They could then, as a permanent member of the Security Council, veto any UN commitment in Korea, thereby isolating America in its declared war in Korea.

So Truman went quickly to the UN, got virtually unanimous approval for war, and operated under that authority to conduct the war. Then, with UN authority in hand, he was embarrassed into denying the need for congressional approval, calling it not a war, but a “police action,” The American people were told that for some nebulous reason arising from modernism, we shouldn't actually declare war these days. But where, precisely, in the Constitution, is the President given the power to conduct Police Actions?

The point remains that foreign foes have every reason to try to mount challenges, through the asymmetrical means our military might forces them to choose, which are intended to stress our constitutional system and weaken us as a nation. This mistaken militaristic thinking, deciding that constitutional due process must be ignored, began with Truman in 1950, but it has been repeated many times since then. A plethora of wrong headed decisions to engage in military actions have been made, based on the so called conventional wisdom that the Constitution is somehow obsolete in this nuclear age, so we must go to war based on the impulses of one man. The antidote to this mistake, which is possibly an ongoing attack on our republic, is to redouble our fealty to the Constitution.

Even in this latest instance, while one can applaud the efficiency, precision, and minimal loss of life of the B2 strike on Iran, we could still do better. Even though President Trump could technically be considered for impeachment for this act, he won't be. Especially given the decades long history of other presidents doing the same kind of thing. But what he, and we, should consider is that some other person will occupy that office in just a few short years. The well thought out impact of this latest raid demonstrated that President Trump is sincerely a man of peace, who doesn't relish human death, nor does he seem to consider violence a preferred means of political resolution.

With that spirit guiding our national mind, we should hope he, and we, and the presidents and people who follow, will see that the surest way to minimize the future threat of America engaging in unnecessary death and war is to turn back to the Constitution. Whenever time allows, Congress should debate articles of war, or any military action short of war. Congress should soberly and publicly decide whether or not this greatest nation in human history will once again enter into the horrors of using our weaponry against other living, breathing human beings. That is the best way for us to minimize the use of force, and to preserve our precious Constitution. 

Death to Democracy

 

Horace Greeley once wrote, “There is no bigotry like 'free thought' run to seed.” We are currently living through the final and most threatening period of that “run to seed” process. The abominable philosophy of Postmodernism is being exposed down to its' vile totalitarian roots. All pretense and disguise is being stripped away.

Let's back up a minute to see how we got here. Modernism, the idea that logic and reason can be the tool by which humanity can fix its' problems, was itself a reaction to the much older European mindset which can only be called Christendom.

Christendom, or having society based on Christian thinking, succeeded the barbarism, paganism and pantheism which had previously dominated European thinking, going back to the mists of prehistory. Christianity came along, won the hearts and minds of the people, but then lost that allegiance because of the religious wars that accompanied the Protestant Reformation.

All the death and destruction of the religious wars caused people to lose faith that Christianity was the best path to good social order. The masses turned to logic, reason, and science as an alternative way of thinking, and the Renaissance was born.

The Renaissance moved the people further in the direction of reason. Even though folks retained some Christian beliefs, reason gradually became the guiding norm. By the late 1800's Nietzsche could accurately claim that God is dead, because almost no one mentioned God, or His will, in day to day conversation. Reason and logic had won out.

But then both World Wars happened, and the masses reacted with horror at seeing where logic and reason had led them. What's more, they also reacted with numb grief against the terrifying technology science had produced in fighting those secular wars. From that toxic stew Postmodernism was born in the hearts and minds of the masses.

Postmodernism, first of all rejects Modernism, with it's logic and reason. It also, however, rejects the earlier Christendom, so by a process of elimination, it came to the conclusion, finding a new basis of thinking: the idea that there is no objective truth. Some have referred to Postmodernism as nihilistic relativism, which means there is no belief, but everyone's ideas are as true as anyone else's. Nonetheless, it has always maintained an affinity for science, probably because science produces such nice toys. Also, science is not a worry to Postmodernism, because it can easily enough be rendered into “Scientism,” which is merely conducting “science” without being bound down by pesky things like objective, demonstrable truth.

Postmodernism, in the typical way that any philosophy operates once it has been accepted by the intellectuals, slowly seeped into the real world, day to day, lives of the masses. It thus has become the basis for almost all our current social insanity. Postmodern based Relativism rules the day in our society, with its' slogan of, “I have my truth, and you have yours.” So called tolerance is our highest value, and judgmentalism our only agreed upon sin (except for racism).

This Postmodern relativism paves the way for the complete splintering of society. The entire LGBTQ agenda is based on it. So are the modern schools of libertarian and anarchist thinking, along with all the other variations of utopian thinking, with their unspoken reliance on big government socialism. That unacknowledged and therefore unchallenged reliance on government largess makes it easy to ignore the fact that the masses must be somehow brought to a much higher level of social consciousness than they now demonstrate for any of those idealistic theories to work.

Additionally, Postmodernism has crept into the Church, with the idea that the Bible has been changed, so one is justified in holding only to those parts of scripture one finds pleasing, and rejecting any that call one to change. Those equivocations, and all the other varying amalgamations of “spiritual” and social thinking, (the easy synchronicity so many delude themselves with) seem to answer all human concerns, but they do so by ignoring the failings of human nature, and more importantly, by ignoring the Truth.

That then is exactly where Postmodernism is completely anti-Christian, because its' central tenet is that there is no Truth. Postmodernists insist that all truth is a social construct which doesn't exist in any kind of objective sense. That's why the simple statement that 2+2 = 4 is such a devastating statement against them because they say that nothing exists as truth on its own; it only exists as truth because everybody agrees it's true. They say that if those in power insist that 2+2=5, then for at least that one day, 2+2=5.

The next tenet of postmodernism is just that; that truth is always dictated by those in power. That's where this kind of “free thought” drifts into dangerous, aggressive bigotry. Postmodernism persuades people that whoever has power gets to dictate truth. This acceptance of power instead of truth is, according to Postmodernism, not right or wrong, it's just how the world is,

That's the reason why, in all kinds of discussions and confrontations these days, people are so willing to let any semblance of civility go out the window. The thinking seems to be, “It is okay to do anything to win because I thereby get to impose my truth.” Consequently, interrupting, shouting down, and ignoring any logic or reason have become the common way to “win” modern arguments. Inciting blind fury in the other is considered good form.

Civility is not a virtue nor is it even a value recognized by a Postmodern mind. If they can use the law to manipulate the other side, they will use it to that purpose. But they deny the law any other purpose. They reject anything that will bind themselves, hence they insistently demand that we see ourselves as a democracy rather than as a republic.

That is why those on the left, with such resolute obtuseness, refuse to acknowledge that the founders specifically rejected democracy. No matter how many times you demonstrate this truth, either historically or philosophically, they will nod their heads, and simply continue to call our nation a democracy. Not everyone who mistakenly calls us a democracy do it with bad intentions, but those with a fully formed Postmodern mind do. They don't want the written words of the law to mean anything unless they can use it to manipulate others. As Postmodernists see it, at a bedrock level, being empowered to control what others say and think is the only point of getting power. The only point.

That's why interrupting people, preventing people from speaking, censoring and assaulting people have all become part of our “democracy.” Life becomes just a big never-ending battle of wills, which is what democracy has actually always been. The dynamic of democracy always devolves into mob rule. Not only does civility become impossible to a Postmodern mind, but civilization itself becomes impossible if we long remain trapped in this Postmodern mind. When everyone is given over to this thinking, of operating in the biblically warned against mode when, “every man does what is right in his own eyes,” nothing can work.

When everybody thinks they can do anything, it all becomes just a never-ending battle of wills with each other about everything at all times. It's been tried before. It's called barbarism. Furthermore, what we have today could get worse than barbarism ever was because people possessed of a Postmodern mindset will have trouble forming into even the most basic tribal units, which is what barbarism consists of.

This kind of thinking has never worked, and it can never work. It is a mental cancer. It has never worked on a small scale, on a medium scale, or on the largest scales. Think of the French Revolution and it's democratically driven “Reign of Terror”. A worldwide recurrence of that kind of terror would be the worst period in human history. Ever. Period. End of discussion.

That's how we go back to the stone age.

Observe the kind of society Postmodernism is leading us to. Note the mindless fighting we see in Walmarts, parks, airports, and even at Disneyland. All this violence among people who have no real reason to be fighting each other. Yet it seems that no disagreements get decided except by who can thrash the other. Our culture is declining to where most seem to once again embrace the ancient idea of trial by combat. What's more, the idea of a fair fight is long gone, with mobs assaulting individuals, and feeling triumphant by beating someone senseless. Whose streets? Our streets.

There is no denying that the Postmodern stance has real power. Somebody with that mindset can always force others to engage with them in violent competition. That, however, is why even when they win, they lose. While that process, of pitting all against all in a never ending hostile battle of wills might produce a few strong individuals, it will never bring us to being a decent and nurturing people.

Next, let's take another look at Friedrich Nietzsche, because so much of his thinking foreshadowed the thinking of Postmodernism. Virtually everything Nietzsche talked about, or at least that people took from him in the formation of Postmodern thinking, grows out of human minds that have been diseased and corrupted by the establishment of socialism.

The major themes in Nietzsche's writings, the ennui, the boredom, the alienation, lack of community, or purpose, up to and including the will to power and the denial of objective truth, all of it only comes up in a social matrix where the real challenges of life are provided by a distant, overweening government. People live and think that way only if everything is being provided for them; that is, they don't have to make things work. A working system is provided for them. While they might be required to perform some drudgerous task, they don't have to possess any working knowledge about how their food, shelter or safety are provided. They have only to accept it. This is very reminiscent of Alexis DeToqueville's warning about despotic democracy creating a timid, industrious, sheep like populace with government as the shepherd.

That starts to explain why the people who actually have to make things work don't buy into this blather. Such people tend to be much more conservative minded. The ideas of ordered liberty and the rule of law make much more sense to them, because they see free self government as a system which can work in the real world.

This other stuff, this Postmodern drivel, can exist only within a protected socialist bubble. Within that bubble of socialism values are, as they say, nothing but artificial social constructs. But nature doesn't really allow us to live, and sustain, in artificial constructs. It's only when it's in a bubble like environment created by socialism that all this Postmodern stuff arises and resonates in peoples minds.

Consider someone like Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky). He graduated from MIT, received numerous patents, and ran a tech firm for years. Then he moved back to Kentucky and built his own house with wood cut on his own land. He lives a modern, off the grid life, and life looks good. He, and millions like him, have a good idea of what it takes to make things actually work. They know that 2+2=4, that there is a logical truth filled reality out there, which is ours to discover and use in an objective, reliable manner. Such do-ers tend to be conservatives, embracing our constitutional republic because it makes sense, it looks as though it can be made to work. It appears to be a sustainable way to conduct ourselves, as a nation, in the real world.

Postmodernism catapults us in a different direction. When we reject reason, logic, and 2+2=4, nothing we design will work. You're not gonna make it work whatever you do. That's why people are so given to these fanciful flights of political dreaming. They pretend like it's all just a game of who can come up with the best fiction about how things work and how things have to work. They know that nothing they are suggesting will ever be tried outside the bubble, so they are passionate about the bubble; it allows them to pretend.. It's not just young trans folks who are afflicted with this disease either. Many legislators, educators, administrators, and even corporate executives have bought into it.

In the current extreme scenario of this whole identity movement you can become whatever you want to become, and society has to accommodate and pay for it. How long until we have little girls, identifying as furrie dogs, competing and winning the Westminster dog show by demonstrating themselves to be more intelligent and obedient than the other dogs? Sticking to the Postmodern lies, it is impossible to say why that should not be allowed. One is compelled to ask: Where does this ridiculous insanity end?

The answer is that it ends when we get back to natural reality. We do that by getting back to the kind of government where people actually have to engage with reality to make things work. That's what it is about local community moral self government, the system our Constitution was designed to establish. By requiring most of the decisions of government to be made at the local level, it fully engages the intelligence and creativity of the human race in their own self governance. What's more, it is the only architecture of government that is likely to do that. The only way to achieve strong community spirit is if the community is truly self governing.

On a large scale, the socialism that is enabled by the machines combined with the ease our culture has built around itself allows people to live without really engaging in the necessities of their own survival. As an individual and then as a community, I (we) are to be provided with the necessities of life. Which is why such a system can easily lead to slavery, because those necessities are defined by the people in power, and can easily be changed, especially if done slowly. If the people are convinced they can no longer do anything on their own (and since they have rejected logic they truly can't) they can be driven to great oppression. Jonestown comes to mind. We might already be some distance down that road.

More importantly, and hopefully, when people are compelled to engage with the material world around them; To ensure the survival of themselves, their families, and their community, they will soon come to embrace the reality that there is objective Truth. Postmodernism will quickly wither and die in a free people.

But among a dependent and slavery bound people Postmodernism can take deep root and thrive. Then we will devolve into a never ending riotous battle of wills. No matter how bad it gets, however, those who feel their fanciful self identity must have the protection of that distant socialistic government will continue to clamor for ever more powerful distant government. Then the ongoing riotous behavior, and impossibility of civilized social cohesion will inevitably compel us to accept an authoritarian, totalitarian government. Democracy will inevitably end with either chaos or slavery.

Which is why I say, with tremendous conviction

Let us all declare war on Postmodernism

                and

                                         Death to democracy

Long live our Republic

Long live Liberty.

God bless America

                oh, and

                              2+2 actually does = 4.

Colorado's Transgender Theocracy

 

Unbelievably and horribly, the state of Colorado seems poised to enact some draconian laws based on the bizarre pseudo religion of transgenderism. The bills, which are moving through the legislature and will probably be signed by their governor, call for children to be removed from the care of parents who mis-gender, dead-name (call children by their given name), and or don't affirm the choice of a child to transition away from the sex they were born with. Additionally, there is a call to establish Colorado as a trans sanctuary state, where any trans-motivated child who ran away to the Centennial State would not be returned to any non transition affirming parents in other states.

While the state of Colorado does have legitimate power to follow any moral or religious course it wants to, at least under the First Amendment as it was intended to be used (how about we do that with other issues?), the course it seems to be pursuing is extreme, theocratic tending, high handed, openly hostile to other states, and quite simply dangerously wrong.

For those who object that transgenderism is not a religious movement, consider this. It operates like a religion, basing its principles on mere belief and not empirically demonstrable data. No trans gene has been identified. It insists that people believe it without having persuaded them, and it works to silence any contrary beliefs. Sounds pretty religious to an unbiased observer. The deep flaws in Colorado's thinking can be seen if we consider how wrong it would be if other states, using different religious assumptions, followed a similar course.

For instance, what if neighboring Oklahoma adopted a similarly aggressive policy of Christian evangelism. First of all, they, and many affiliated Christian organizations, could recruit and train teachers to infiltrate public schools, in Oklahoma, Colorado, and other states. Then, under the guise of teaching about the world's religions, those teachers could slyly persuade young children to be baptized without parental knowledge or approval. It is documented that trans activists do this in many public schools, sometimes with school board sanction.

Trans activist teachers do so based on the assertion that the kids are really already trans, and they are just helping them to become who they really are. Christians can take a similar stance, because it is a sincerely held Christian belief that each of us is predestined to have or not have faith. So by slyly proselytizing the young for Christ, a Christian activist can sincerely see themselves doing the Lord's work. Just like a trans activist who proselytizes for transgenderism.

Then, if the parents don't approve of the conversion, perhaps laws should be passed to remove children from the care of non believing parents. Just like the Colorado laws (and the laws of some other states) propose to do.

On top of that, once converted, the children can be easily enabled (via phone, email, social media) to maintain contact with the evangelistic team. Then, even if they live in another state, transportation can be arranged to get the child to Oklahoma, where there would be a sanctuary in place for believing children of non believing parents. So the runaway young believer does not have to go back to the non believing household.

Everything about the just presented scenario is honestly and directly analogous to what is being done with transgenderism in Colorado. Obviously, acting in that way would be a horrible attack on families and culture. Any Christian, whether as an individual or as a church, should not behave in such an unethical and immoral manner. But neither should those who believe in the religion of transgenderism.

In this time of great moral and social upheaval, we, as a nation would find a lot of solutions by returning to an honest use of our constitutional system of government. For one thing, that would take all the issues of sexual identity out of federal hands, because such issues are not even mentioned in the Constitution, so where, with the 10^th Amendment as a guide, do we find any federal authority to legislate in such matters? Those powers are not delegated to the feds, so they should stay in the hands of the states.

Even then, as discussed about the proposed laws in Colorado, we should hesitate to try to impose our moral beliefs on the folks in other states. Even if we do allow various religious and moral systems to be established in the states, we should not go the way of imposing unwanted beliefs on those who disagree, or on the residents of other states.

That was the mistake the Supreme Court made in the Dred Scott decision, mandating that free states could no longer forbid slavery from operating in their states, and it led directly to the Civil War. Colorado's Governor Polis should consider that, and the other issues mention here, before he vetoes the very ill advised transgender laws that are probably soon coming to his desk.

Respect or Consideration

 

There was recently a well publicized case where one high school student stabbed another student to death in Frisco, TX. The stabber let it be known that the victim had “dis-respected” him, and therefore, in the stabber's mind, the victim had it coming. The sickening tragedy of this case sheds light on a much deeper problem afflicting our culture, which can be boiled down to love versus pride.

Pride is a mind set the world encourages us to have. We are told to be proud of our nation, our state, our sports teams, our community, and above all ourselves. With pride in our hearts, the next thing is to demand respect, the kind of respect that confirms our pride in ourselves. Then anyone who disrespects us must be forced to pay the price; to in some way acknowledge that our pride is justified.

Love, on the other hand, (at least the kind of love the bible defines) is something that is not focused on ourselves, but is instead focused on uplifting others. With love, at least in Christ, our own identity is grounded in God, so we can give of ourselves to others. Instead of demanding respect from others, or even just respecting those we consider deserve it, we can love even those we don't respect. In that perspective, the opposite of respect is the long neglected virtue of consideration. Actually considering the status and situation of the other person.

Jesus gave an unexpected response along these lines when the lawyer (Luke 10:29) asked him (as a way to dodge the obligation to love his neighbor) “Who is my neighbor?” It is clear the man was looking for ways to eliminate people who did not qualify to be loved, people he did not have to respect.

Jesus ignored the baiting question, and instead told the parable of the good Samaritan, which ended with him asking, “Who was a neighbor to the victim?” The obvious answer is that it was the good Samaritan, the one who showed loving consideration to the victim. With that parable Jesus flipped the script, revealing that, at least for those who claim to follow God, it is not a question of how we can rationalize our selfish pride, but do we see the wonderful opportunity we have to live out the will of our heavenly Father?

So it seems we must somehow renounce the worldly values, the two sided coin of pride and respect. If we want, that is, to grow out of the ongoing near riot and mayhem our culture is drifting into. We must instead pick up the two sided spiritual coin of love and consideration, and by wielding it effectively, we might slowly bring our culture back to sanity.

One word should be added about the long neglected virtue of consideration. Most folks will agree that we should love one another, and that consideration is part of that. But it must be emphasized that it is not just being sincere about offering loving consideration to others that is key. Consideration becomes truly alive, and a divine tool, when it is done in a thorough, deeply thoughtful and prayerful way. You know, like the deep and intense way we each consider our own needs. When we make that kind of considerate effort toward others, we are truly loving our neighbor as ourselves. Which is not just a good idea, it is the law.

2 B Honestly Constitutional

 

The mind boggling thing about our vicious national division is that people on both sides claim total devotion to our national Constitution, but that nearly unanimous (supposed) devotion has not, so far, led us to national unity. The fact that this nation of 350 million people can be split because we can't agree about what a six page document means is, indeed, mind boggling and hard to understand. In trying to understand it, we are driven to the conclusion that one side, or the other (or likely both) is not reading our founding document in an honest way.

By identifying one or two of the mistakes folks make in their reading of it, we might hope to move toward uniting America. Further, by conducting an honest examination of our misuse of our founding document, we will undoubtedly help educate ourselves, as a people, in how to properly embrace and use the Constitution we all claim to love.

One of the biggest issues we disagree with each other about is the functions and activities of the federal government. Many argue that the federal government has, over the decades, taken (usurped is the word) many of the powers and responsibilities of government from our state and local governments. Things like education, medical care, welfare, elderly care, drug laws, farm policy, and even such sacred cows as national forests and parks don't seem to have any proper constitutional basis to exist as federal agencies.

Folks on that side of the debate will point to the Tenth Amendment, with it's language that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the federal government is limited to engaging in things the Constitution empowers it to engage in. Since those listed issues, and many other powers now exercised by the federal government, were never properly delegated to it (which would require a new constitutional amendment to affect), those programs are unconstitutional. It is assumed in their argument that our Constitution was always intended to give us a limited federal government.

Those on the other side of this argument will bring up what they call the “supremacy clause” which is included in Article VI in the main body of the Constitution. It reads, in the second paragraph, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Those folks who are in favor of the federal government involving itself in anything it pleases point to this paragraph and say, “See, there it is, federal law is supreme over state law.” This is one of the misreadings that we set out to identify, so let's take a closer look at their position. Theirs is a two fold misreading of the Constitution, based on ignoring one important word. That word is “Pursuance.”

Let's introduce an analogy to explain. Pretend you are watching an automobile chase scene, cops pursuing robbers, in a movie or real life. When the criminals, hoping to elude capture, take a right turn at an intersection, and then the police cars come along and take a left turn at the same intersection, would you say the police cars are still pursuing the criminals? No, of course not.

The word “pursuance” means going in the same direction, or in the sense of a legal meaning, going in an agreeing direction, or even being in compliance with. In other words, when it is used, in Article VI, the founders intended that it limit the actions of the federal government to those things the Constitution empowered it to be involved in. They intended to found a constitutionally limited republic, which is how we should understand it. What's more, they capitalized those words which they intended to carry precise, and profound meaning, such as Law, and State. This faithful to the original quote shows that they intended “Pursuance” to carry extra weight when we interpret the document.

Those who still want the Constitution to say what it doesn't say will likely continue to gloss over that one word,(it IS slightly difficult to understand) and still argue for an unlimited federal government. They will usually then assert that since Article VI is in the main body, and the Tenth Amendment is merely an amendment, it should take precedence.

They could not be more mistaken. Here I must insert some special knowledge, gained by independent research. Years ago, while investigating the wording of the First Amendment, I was reading through the “Congressional Record” from September of 1789. (Very interesting reading in general: there are found the debates in Congress after Madison introduced the “Bill of Rights“).

I stumbled upon the first reaction to the idea of the Tenth Amendment. One of the members objected that the subject of limiting the federal government was already covered in Article VI, so why was there a need for another such limitation? Others responded that the language in Article VI was too sparse, and that some folks might later misread it, and thus we needed further clarification. That, as subsequent policies proved, was a reasonable concern.

The Tenth Amendment was ultimately adopted, so we know how that debate ended. We also know that the 10^th wasn't intended to contradict Article VI, but rather to clarify it. And the 10^th came later, which would actually give it precedence if there WAS a conflict between the two.

That approach, simply ensuring we take every word seriously, ought to settle much of the division around our Constitution, providing us a way to move froward with it together. Sadly, that is not likely to happen, because the fall back position of those who want a powerful, unlimited federal government is to then assert that the Constitution is a “living document.” By that term they mean that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. So since the Supreme Court has never ruled, at least since 1937, that the Tenth Amendment limits the range of federal powers, then those limitations, although actually written in the document, no longer apply.

This issue, of who interprets the Constitution, has been around since at least the time of Thomas Jefferson. Since that power largely has to fall, in the interest of orderly government, to the Supreme Court, the question becomes how far we should let them drift from the original meaning in their reading of it.

Abraham Lincoln, who had been incensed by the Court's ruling in the Dred Scott decision, said this at his First inauguration, in front of Chief Justice Taney who had written that odious and racist decision.

”The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

With that quote in mind, let's conclude with two key points about how we, the people, should embrace our Constitution, and how that approach might lead us back to unity. While we must usually accept the constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court, we should always remember that they can and do get it wrong on occasion.

So first and foremost, we should familiarize ourselves with the Constitution, understanding what it actually means, and then behold how far we have strayed from it (To our great peril). Getting back to an honest use of it will take a great deal of effort, but we should be grateful that somehow, miraculously, such a revival is still within the realm of possibility. With that understanding, and the conviction that we should return to a strict originalist reading as much and as soon as possible, we as a people will be able to put effective pressure on the Court to read it as honestly as possible.

Secondly, for all of us who have to take an oath to the Constitution, from enlisted military personnel, to local and state officials, to presidents, and senators: ask yourself one question. Are you taking an oath to defend the Constitution, or are you taking an oath to defend the Supreme Court? If you want to pretend that they are the same thing, then you should read some more history, from Dred Scott, to Plessey v Ferguson, to as recently as the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court has often shown itself to be imperfect. The Supreme Court of the United States, and the Constitution of the United States, are not synonymous.

So we must present ourselves with one last proposition. Since we all, as citizens, and as oath taking officials in particular, are actually the first and last line of defense of the Constitution, something almost all of us profess a reverence for; How can we, with any degree of integrity take an oath to defend it if we never even read it and certainly don't understand it. Or worse yet, if we are eager to allow it to be clownishly twisted into incoherence by the dubious doctrine that it is a “living “ document?

In other words, isn't it high time, and way past time, that we once again studied it for ourselves and thereby started overcoming the mediocre education we have been subjected to about it for decades? By doing this we can start using our sincere and mutual love of our Constitution to regain our unity and rebuild our nation. That will undoubtedly work better than what we've been doing, which is throwing it at each other as a meaningless, infuriating insult.

Spiritual Humanism- A New Philosophy

 

This essay is presenting a new philosophy, one that might provide us the means to work our way out of the mind numbing, soul sapping dysfunctional corner that our current philosophy of government has painted us into. This new philosophy is called Spiritual Humanism. It is not, as some might fear, a religious philosophy, but carries the title of “Spiritual” to distinguish it from the “Material Humanism,” that we have now. It employees the term “spiritual” in a secular, or psychological sense, as will be explained in a bit..

While this is a philosophy, for the most part the terms and language of formal philosophy are not going to be used while explaining it. That is because this concept is about the people, all the people, and especially the common people, so it is best if it is presented in language that the common people can understand.

First, we must examine how we got to where we are. The philosopher Karl Marx borrowed from the philosopher Hegel and along with Engels developed what is called the dialectical materialism. This is a way of analyzing the status of the people by looking at the material conditions within which the people exist. Here they used the idea of thesis= stating the way something is, antithesis= stating some other idea of how the thing could be, and out of the resulting conflict developing some new synthesis, some new, and hopefully better, way of doing things. That synthesis then becomes the new thesis in a never ending process of development. The thing is, the only evidence admitted into this dialectical process is material evidence, that is, evidence that can be weighed and measured in the material world. Hence the name, dialectical materialism.

The Marxist thinking that followed has largely swept the world. That mode of thinking, that dialectical materialism, has, since coming into power with the rise of secular humanism, must, for lack of a better term, accurately be called Material Humanism. That is, when thinking about what is good for humanity, what is good for the people, Marx and those adherents who came after him, all focused on the material world which surrounds the people, as individuals and groups. The later adherents include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and actually even Hitler, Mussolini and Franklin Roosevelt. They all used that dialectical process, and confined it to material factors.

FDR is mentioned in this company because the welfare state he brought into being is focused like a laser beam on material factors. America since his time has paid empty lip service to things like freedom and religion. The real benchmark of our civilization, the thing which most of us think marks us as a superior nation, has long been our standard of living. In other words, our material well being.

With Material Humanism, governmental decisions, usually made at the federal level in America, are based almost exclusively on material factors. Following the guidelines of this philosophy, officials concentrate on ensuring the people have enough food, clean water, medical care, housing and clothing to have an adequate life, materially. While these policies do generally satisfy the requirements of Material Humanism, they are inadequate to deal with non material problems.

If any non material issues come up, such as mental illness, they are either dealt with in some material way, such as with some medications or by providing “professional” care, or they are largely ignored. This is just the way it is, because non material problems are difficult to measure, in a material way, and therefore defy the ability of Material Humanism to solve.

More disturbingly, with the officials in power guided by these standards, policies can become inadequate at dealing with real human problems, or they can become worse than inadequate. If the bureaucrats, sitting in front of their computers, and making all the decisions for everyone, think that their only obligation is to make sure everyone receives X amount of food (calories and protein), X amount of heat, clothing, water, and medical care, then the living situation could become bleak, hollow and desperate.

Issues like happiness, freedom, meaning, purpose of life, emotional and cultural well being are easily ignored. Such things can be hard to measure, and therefore, they almost never enter into the deliberations of Material Humanism. What's worse is the way Material Humanism HAS dealt with the non material aspects of culture. It usually comes to the dubious conclusion that such things are merely social constructs.

Things like, family, love of place, religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and other forms of self identity are, according to Material Humanism, merely social constructs. What's more, if such social constructs are interfering with the optimal system of Material Humanism, they can and should be reconstructed, by the elite authorities, to render humanity itself more conducive to efficient management. Thus the true threat of the Marxist so called “dictatorship of the proletariat”, the long hidden real agenda of Material Humanism, becomes clear. Material Humanism allows distant officials to decide what we should feel and think, and then empowers officials to change us, leveraging their control of material resources, according to their designs. We are to be remade and controlled, according to the dictates of distant, anonymous officials, to render us more easily controllable economic units.

Most disturbingly, the flaws of Material Humanism should be considered alongside the growth of centralized government. It is easy to then foresee a central world government using this flawed philosophy to enact its policies. Then we could find ourselves under the thumbs of distant bureaucrats, self satisfied that their work complies with every stricture of Material Humanism, as they administer a system which has essentially brought about slave ship earth.

Spiritual Humanism is a philosophy of government which might enable us to get out of this trap. It was first inspired by the writings of Simone Weil 1909-1943, a French philosopher, mystic and activist. In a relatively short passage in her book, “The Need for Roots,” she explored the spiritual aspects of work, bemoaning the alienated nature of modern work. She even mentioned that Marx touched on this subject, but that that part of his thinking got ignored by those who rule in his name.

She started by looking at the system of apprenticeship French chefs had been put through in olden times, what was called the Toure de France. In that system, the young cook would go to some various restaurants in other parts of France, working at each one for a year or two. After some years, the now accomplished chef would return to their hometown, to either work in an established restaurant, or start one of their own.

The now somewhat older culinary master would know how to set the business up, how to make a menu, and all that. Also, they would know how to make arrangements with local farmers to provide the basic ingredients for the food.

Additionally, and the most pertinent part for our purpose, they would see the importance of their work. They would see themselves as a vital, needed and appreciated contributor to the local community. In other words, they came to see meaning, purpose and fulfillment in their work, and in their place in the human community. Work then became not an alienated drudgery, as it is in most of our lives today, but rather an engaging and joyful part of their holistic lives. The spiritual aspects of work were enhanced and appreciated.

On reading this passage thirty or more years ago, this writer was immediately struck by the idea that her use of “spiritual, a use that means something more akin to feeling, or sense, than it does to anything religious, could be expanded to encompass all of human existence. Thus the idea of “Spiritual Humanism” was born, and left to simmer for decades.

Spiritual Humanism is first of all another school of Humanism; therefore it will always focus, by definition, on the greatest good, for the greatest number, of humans. It shares that basis with Material Humanism, but way the two diverge with respect to the natural world reveals how great the difference is. Environmental decay is of no concern to Material Humanism, unless such decay threatens the immediate material well being of humans. Spiritual Humanism does not, however, share that contemptuous attitude toward nature. That is because having a sense, or feeling, of being connected with nature is one of the tenets of Spiritual Humanism.

In fact, our sense or feelings about almost everything (our attitude or spirit about them) is the core tenet of Spiritual Humanism. With it we can take into account all the feelings, sensibilities, attitudes and spirits of all aspects of our lives. Instead of focusing on a never ending dialectical materialism, it will always ask, “How do the people actually feel about something, do they have a good sense of it, what spirit, or attitude is in the people about it?”

It asks; do people feel connected with each other? Do they feel a sense of material well being?(this can cover everything contained within Material Humanism) Do the people feel connected with nature? Do the people have a sense of connectedness with their work? Do they see their work as worthwhile, and their lives as being full of purpose and meaning?

Most important, it would ask the questions of: Do the people have a sense of self determination, as individuals and as a community? Do the individuals feel that their ideas, dreams, aspirations and concerns are really being taken into consideration by authorities and officials? Finally, (for this moment, because the list of subjects to which Spiritual Humanism will apply is inexhaustible), it would ask; Do the individuals in the system feel a sense, a spirit, of their own autonomy, their own agency, of being in control of their own lives?

When we start putting together governmental structures to carry out this philosophy, it will necessarily change our entire structure of government. If policies are to be based on how the people, as individuals, actually feel about things, then there has to be a way to determine what those feelings are. Simply launching more government studies, which is what the bureaucrats in Washington DC will likely propose, would never generate the kind of honest and in depth knowledge Spiritual Humanism would need.

The better way to attain that kind of information, to discern what goes on inside the head and heart of millions of people, is to simply ask them. Let their voices be encouraged and heard in the deliberations of government.

This highlights the key difference between Material Humanism, and Spiritual Humanism. With Material Humanism, people are seen primarily as economic beings, with both their oppression and liberation conceived as economic in nature. Thus material, economic analysis is all that is needed. With Spiritual Humanism, people are seen primarily as communicative beings, with communication (or lack of it) being the greatest factor in their oppression, and open communication being the key to their liberation.

When we take the philosophy of Spiritual Humanism seriously, and determine that the voices of all the people must be heard in the deliberations of government, we are driven by simple logic to turn to a form of government which will place almost all those deliberations in local or community governments. It is irrefutably true that the only way to engage the hearts and minds of the people in their own governance is to have their lives lived within vibrant communities. What's more, the only way to generate the kind of community spirit that will make that system work is if the local communities have real powers of self government.

Then the little people, the citizens in their communities, can feel that vital connection to their own self governance. Then all aspects of a thoroughgoing Spiritual Humanism can be brought into play, building a society which actually delivers the greatest good, for the greatest number, of all people.

There is no immediate suggestions for how we can bring this about. This is just an initial assertion of a new philosophical perspective, and should be received as such. It is left to others, or to all of us together, to determine how best to give political embodiment to this philosophy.

Time for Revolution

 

With the election of Donald Trump to his second term, many of us conservative, Constitution loving Americans are tempted to think we have finally won the day. We have but to sit back and let Trump and his administration, and the Republican dominated legislature, fix what ails our nation. Nothing could be further from the truth, because while Trump's election has given us a reprieve, our national decline is so extreme, and been going on so long, that what we really need is a revolution.

The dictionary informs us that a revolution is a rotating or turning around some other object, such as a planet has a revolution around the sun. It can also be used in regard to a machine cycling around, such as a car's engine can run at some revolutions per minute. That same sense of the word applies to political revolutions; it merely means a turning, from one government to another. It can be a turning from the entire system of government and attaining a new one, or it can be simply exchanging one leader for another, a non violent revolution.

Even with that harmless sounding definition, the idea of having a revolution is still very frightening. That fear of revolution is easy to understand because so many times of violence and war, calling themselves revolutions, have totally failed to turn their societies in a better direction. This has happened in so many nations that they are too numerous to list here. They generally call themselves revolutions, but are in reality just one local dictator, or war lord, overthrowing and replacing an older dictator.

Some of the larger, and more well known of these kinds of revolutions were the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution under Mao, and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. What all of those revolutions have in common is that they began in a time of great crisis, and because of that chaotic birth, never developed the kind of social dynamic which marks successful revolutions. They were born in times of great social and material upheaval, and consequently when the people turned away from the existing order they had to make that change while chaos and disorder prevailed. The foundations of a new order, chosen in such conditions, proved to not be stable and enduring.

The American Revolution had a different genesis. While it undoubtedly started with a war for independence from Great Britain, the leaders who launched it were not under immediate physical threat when they did so.

Even in 1776 they could take the time to consider the best way to form together as a nation. Later, after the War of Independence was over, they could take even more time, although they did have to move with deliberate haste, to put a truly workable system of self government together.

Thus was our constitutionally limited democratic republic born, out of a time of orderly revolution. Since the Founders could take time to incorporate many lessons from history in their plan, it has proven much more durable than other revolutions.

So as we think about revolution, it is good to note that revolutions which start for ideological reasons, in times of relative peace, tend to last longer and have better effect, than revolutions that start in rushed chaos, with a need to patch something together quickly. The rule of thumb seems to be that crisis driven revolutions are bad, and ideologically driven revolutions are good.

With that in mind, we should proceed with our revolution, because we are not in a time of immediate crisis. Things aren't coming down around our ears, and if we do conduct a successful revolution, there won't be a crisis. We simply have to ensure it is the good kind of revolution, the ideological kind.

Now we can come up with a new definition for revolution, or at least a new technique with which to conduct a good revolution. Basically, it should consist of taking a long, honest look at history; Figure out what we did wrong, and quit doing it: Figure out what we did right, and do more of it, and then carry on. By carrying on is meant that these deliberations have to go from just the merely ideological to actually being implemented in the real world.

The most important thing about having a discussion to separate the good from the bad in our history is that it has to be both honest and thorough. Take, for instance, how we must address that most difficult of subjects: “racism.” If we allow a superficial opinion to dominate, we will never come to a good result. The quick, easy and wrong opinion would be to say that racism is something really bad that White people do. The solution, if we adopt that view, is to squelch and discriminate against White people.

That will never work, because it is not the truth. The truth is that racism permeates all of humanity, and has been manifested in every group in this nation. While it is true that it manifested as a worse problem among White people, it wasn't exclusively their problem, so curing that disease can't focus solely on that one group. Rather, the problem of racism should be dealt with like a contagious disease, and attacked with equal honest fervor wherever it manifests.

That then is an example of the kind of thinking our new American revolution must employee if it is to be successful. It has to be, and can be, a thorough and honest long term conversation about what kind of nation we want to be.

Some might scoff and say that if we don't have a time of a real shoot em up, violent war, it isn't a revolution. Think about it though. If we can arrive at that time of an open hearted, honest dialogue, would that not accomplish a true turning in another direction of our society, even if we got there without a lot of people dying.

On the other hand, if we did have some kind of major bloody struggle, and never actually got to that time of honest dialogue, would it really turn us in another direction? Would it not probably just install some even more corrupt regime on us, and we continue on the same down ward path. Needless to say, we would have to continue with even more death, maiming, resentment, and hate.

In a lot of ways, we should realize that this is just calling us back to being true Americans. Our revolution merely commenced with the Declaration of Independence, with its call for liberty and justice for all, and for governments to have the consent of the governed. Those were undoubtedly revolutionary sentiments, but our revolution actually got fired up later, in 1787. At that time our Founding Fathers got together to formulate our constitutional government. Admittedly, some of them were rich enough to be considered potential oligarchs, as some accuse them of, but they were oligarchs with a difference. The difference was that this particular group of oligarchs knew that their necks were on the line. If they didn't formulate a government that was strong and stable enough to endure, the British were very likely to return and gather back up their empire, one state at a time. The Founders would then have undoubtedly been hung for their troubles. What's more, this particular set of oligarchs also knew that any government they devised would have to gain the acceptance of the people. The American people at the time were the most astute and politically engaged people on Earth. So the Founders knew they had to do a good job.

Therefore, they started our Republic on a revolutionary basis, looking at the long sweep of world history, as they could see it, and incorporating what had worked well in the past, and rejecting what had not worked well. Truly revolutionary thinking.

Then, the American Revolution really got started, once the people as a whole began to wrestle with the concepts of self government. Not only did we decide to end the scourge of slavery withing our first ninety years, but we ended property requirements for voting, established schools and universities, and accomplished many other revolutionary goals. In fact, while we have lost much of that early revolutionary zeal, it is still with us, and needs merely to be infused with new life.

The next American revolution, the one we must initiate now, also promises to be a years, if not decades, long process. Let it be. It is long past time that the people, the citizens of this nation, reclaimed their revolutionary zeal, and started to engage in the revolutionary debates that this nation, indeed this whole planet, so desperately needs.