Jonathan Gruber: Lies And Glue

gruberglue

The recent revelations of statements by a professor from MIT named Jonathan Gruber, about how the Obama White House purposefully deceived the American people concerning the costs associated with Obamacare, are intriguing on a few levels.

Mr. Gruber’s statements about the deceptive intent of the drafters of the Affordable Care Act are, of course, outrageous and insulting on their face.

But it is interesting to note the attitude of Mr. Gruber and the apparent attitude of the audiences he addresses about the lies he and others told to get the bill passed.

There seems to be no amount of guilt or remorse for these deceptions at all.  On the contrary, the entire affect presented in the tone and attitude of Mr. Gruber and those who defend the deceptions reveals a blasé, smug, implicit pretext.

Simply stated, it goes like this:

We are the ruling class, and we will lie to you for your own good.  Further, if you catch us at it, it doesn’t matter at all.

We will have our way.  You will do our will. We will lie to you if it suits us.

The dangerous result of this approach is that truth — and truth telling — are no longer things that we can rely on when we deal with government.

This is most serious and most dangerous.

Why?

Because truth telling, and the reliance on truth telling, is the glue that holds a society together.

Without the “glue” of truth telling, our transactions and interactions with government (and with each other) become extremely burdensome and eventually impossible.

Frederic Bastiat, in his famous work “The Law”, wrote that “No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree.”  The way to make laws respected, Bastiat said, “is to make them respectable.”

But “when law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”

When those in authority show their contempt for truth-telling, as Jonathan Gruber and his boss at the White House have done, then the “glue” – the respect for lawful authority – cannot long survive.

If we can’t rely on those in authority to tell us the truth, then we will very soon lose faith in their leadership. When we lose faith in their leadership, we will stop following their dictates. To keep us following their orders, they must then resort to despotic, tyrannical force.

That’s why truth-telling is so important. That is why these revelations are so damning.

Mr. Obama said he was going to transform the country.  He is doing so by tearing it apart.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

“We Have Met The Enemy, And He Is Us”: A Look Back At FDR’s Second ‘Bill Of Rights’

fdr

This is, perhaps, the most remembered phrase attributed to the cartoon character Pogo in a syndicated cartoon strip of the same name. Pogo was the invention of cartoonist Walt Kelly and first appeared 66 years ago on October 4th, 1948.

The phrase “We have met the enemy, and he is us” pretty well sums up Kelly’s attitude toward the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition. Indeed, our fallen nature, if unaffected by God’s grace, leads us to harm ourselves.  We become our own enemy when we act in ways that are contrary to the immutable laws of the universe.

And just as this is true for persons, it is also true for nations. Here’s an example of what I mean:

Back in January 1944, just four years before Pogo first appeared, President Franklin Roosevelt, in his annual address to Congress, set the nation on a path that would destroy America as the founders envisioned it.  The plan he declared to the nation in that speech was destined, if not designed, to make America its own enemy. Here’s what FDR said in that speech:

“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable rights – among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.  They were our rights to life and liberty.”

Now, up to this point, Roosevelt has said nothing amiss.  He is describing the God-given rights that are the subject of the first ten amendments – the Bill of Rights.  But listen to what he says next:

“As our nation has grown in size and stature, however, — as our industrial economy expanded – these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness… So to speak, [we need] a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all…Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job…

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation…

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care…

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All these rights spell security.”

Please note that Roosevelt’s so called second bill of rights is not based on the same premise as the original.  In the American view, the purpose of government is to secure, to protect and defend God-given rights.  But God didn’t grant anyone the right to a decent home at the expense of others, nor to a remunerative job at the expense of others, nor to an education at the expense of others, nor to food and clothing and recreation paid for by others.  Likewise, the right to not be afraid of old age is nowhere granted by God.

So Roosevelt’s second “bill of rights” is really the enemy of the real Bill of Rights.   You see, in order for government to provide what the second bill of rights guarantees, it must necessarily violate the real Bill of Rights by stealing the money it needs to make the phony guarantees.

This second “bill of rights” is a fraud. The second “bill of rights” says that government force must be brought to bear to obtain equality of economic outcome. The second “bill of rights” reflects the premise and philosophy of the Communist Manifesto. The second “bill of rights” has led to Obamacare and Common Core. The second “bill of rights” has destroyed the First Bill of Rights.

Isn’t it time to abandon this dangerous course? Isn’t it time to return to the real Bill of Rights? As a nation, when we abandon what our Declaration of Independence refers to as “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, then we have met the enemy, and he is us.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Has Your State Legislature Forfeited Its Validity?

Has Your State Legislature Forfeited Its Validity?

For the past few years, the behavior of the legislature in my home state of Maryland raises the question of whether the people of Maryland may be justified in reaching the conclusion that what we call our “General Assembly” is no longer a valid legislative body.

And if the case can be made that the legislature of Maryland (or of your state) is not a valid body, then, it follows that no validity should be given to any of its enactments.

This is a serious thing to consider.

So let us consider it seriously and carefully.

Here’s the underlying problem, and it is a “legal” problem.

In order for an enactment of a legislative body, such as Maryland’s General Assembly, to be legally valid and legally enforceable, it must satisfy two standards.

Firstly, the enactment must not violate what our Founders, in the Declaration of Independence, called “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”  Another way of saying this is that an enactment must not violate God’s law.  (For example, an enactment that allowed the taking of innocent life would violate God’s Commandment “Thou shalt not murder,” and would, therefore, not constitute a law – even if it were enacted and signed.)

Secondly, the enactment must not violate the limits placed on the government by the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of your State.  Another way of saying this is that the legislature of Maryland cannot do what it has no authority to do.

When we review the behavior of the Maryland legislature against this background, we are faced with overwhelming evidence that neither of these legal standards is followed by them, or even considered by them on a regular basis.

For example, in recent legislative sessions, they have, among other things:

  1. Tried to redefine “marriage,”
  2. Tried to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms (SB281),
  3. Declared that little girls must share bathrooms with older men who are “gender confused,”
  4. Placed a tax on the rain.

In earlier times, our Founders referred to such enactments as “pretended legislation.”

When the people of Maryland consider this pattern of behavior, are they justified in declaring that the Maryland legislature is no longer fit to do the job they are sworn to do?

Are they justified in declaring that the Maryland legislature has engaged in what the Declaration characterizes as a “long train of abuses and usurpations,” which is designed to reduce them to despotism?

Is it possible that those who are sworn to uphold the law, such as police and sheriffs and judges and prosecutors, may soon come to the conclusion that the enactments of this body should be ignored because they are based not in law, but in lawlessness?

Indeed what can the people do – what should the people do when those who are entrusted with making and enforcing the law actually become the lawbreakers?  What happens when they use the “law” to break the law?

Do you see that it is essential that the body of the people know and understand what law is and what it is not?  Do you see that, unless the people know the standards that establish legislative enactments as valid law or show them to be lawless frauds, they will not be able to hold a lawless legislature like the one we have in Maryland in check?

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

When Is A Law Law?

If you think that law is something that a judge can make just by deciding a case that comes before him, or if you think that law is something that a legislature can make just by passing a bill and sending it to a governor or a president for his approval, or if you think that a governor or a president can make law just by means of an executive order, then I would respectfully suggest that you are mistaken about the true source and nature of law.

What is law? Where does it come from and how can I know what it is and what it isn’t?

American law is based on the view that the moral law of the God of the Bible is controlling in all cases. In the Declaration of Independence, this moral law is referred to as “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

When human beings, God’s creatures, draw up constitutions and statutes and ordinances and regulations, these enactments are dependent for their validity on their being in harmony with the moral law I just mentioned. If these man-made actions conflict with God’s moral law, then they are not law at all.

Here’s how Sir William Blackstone put it in his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England:

“Upon these two foundations, the Law of Nature and the Law of Revelation (The Bible), depend all human laws: that is to say, no human law should be suffered to contradict these.”

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson used the words “pretended legislation” to describe such vain enactments.

When our local officials, including County Councilmen and Sheriffs, confront such “pretended legislation,” it is their duty to resist its implementation.

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Edward Snowden Obeyed The Word Of God AND The Constitution

I’ve been in a lot of airports lately, and airports are hard on me.

Nowadays, airports seem to be places where we get to see a preview of the latest loss of American liberty and the purposeful degradation of a once vibrant and decent culture.

Because airports are a natural checkpoint through which people must pass to exercise their God-given and constitutionally protected right to travel, the police state uses them to try out various methodologies by which Americans can be herded, abused, controlled, and, all the while, dehumanized.  All this is done, of course, for the ostensible purpose of safety.

Now, apparently, it’s not enough for the police state to spy on us.  Lately, I’ve seen signs and heard announcements seemingly designed to encourage us to spy on each other.

The announcements from the government agency they call the TSA says, “If you see something, say something.”

The message here is that you should be on the lookout for illegal or suspicious activity; and if you become aware of it, you have a duty to share it–toward the end that criminality can be exposed and addressed appropriately.

This all flashed through my mind last week when I watched the hour long interview of Edward Snowden.

Until about this time last year, Mr. Snowden worked as a System Administrator for a company known as Booz Allen Hamilton.  In the course of his work, he became aware of massive illegality on the part of his employer and the Federal Government.

Upon learning the details of purposeful government violations of the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy – the right to be left alone from government snooping without a probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed – he decided to reveal details of the criminal spying activity of the government.

As a result, he has found it necessary to flee the country.

The very government that he has charged with massive violations of its charter document, the Constitution, has charged him with, among other things, theft of government property.  Many in the press have vilified him as someone who violated his contract with his employer (and with the Feds).  They think he should be punished for failing to keep the government’s criminal activities secret.

But, in a sense, didn’t he just follow the advice of the government, itself?

Remember, “…if you see something, say something.”

Well, he sure saw something.  He saw massive criminality on the part of the government, itself.  And he said something.

Though he is vilified by many, I believe that Mr. Snowden is an American hero.

Let me briefly explain.

Mr. Snowden, and those for whom he worked, both in and out of government, whether they like it or not, are bound by the Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution.

His allegiance to that document, to the American people, and to God requires him to expose violations of the law.  I am grateful that he did so.

I can certainly understand the desire for the government and its lapdog media to demonize him, since this serves to deflect attention from their own wrongdoing.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom