With Same-Sex Marriage, America Has Officially Lost Its Collective Mind

With the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage last week, the fundamental building block of society is no longer affirmed by the rule of law. Rather, by judicial fiat, the legal doors have been thrown open for legitimization of literally any possible kind of relationship as viable and recognizable by the state.

Dr. Patrick Fagan, a sociologist and psychologist has said: “The family is the fundamental building block of society and predates the state and even the societies it builds… At the heart of the family is the mother and father who bring their children into existence.” This is a self-evident truth, regardless of who said it; and anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, politicians, and religious leaders have reiterated that very sentiment. The family is the building block of society and civilization; and the cornerstone to that foundation, or the genesis of it, is a mother and a father.

As evidence that the nation has collectively lost its mind, the highest court in the land has affirmed that “Adam and Steve” are as viable in creating the social building blocks of society as Adam and Eve were. But such convolution is unavoidable in a society where words no longer have literal meaning, but are only interpreted based on contemporary perceptions of “rights” and state-sanctioned privileges.

As logically bizarre as it is, the tenets of the 14th Amendment were used as justification. The Amendment was adopted following the Civil War to ensure that all citizens, regardless of color, were assured “equal protection of the laws.” The tenet was crucial to resolving issues related to race, and logically tenable. After all, no one has the ability to choose their race, their skin color, or other congenital features determined genetically. Nor can they arbitrarily choose their sex, which is why it’s also logically tenable for application of the Amendment in cases related to sexual discrimination.

But now, for the first time, “equal protection of the laws” is applied based on behavior and choice. For even if there are predilections, or a predisposition, to behave in a certain way, it is still ultimately a matter of choice whether each person acts on those inclinations. And with this caveat, application of the equal protection clause can now be legally, albeit illogically, applied to anything that is behaviorally based, or has an element of choice to it. Since the “right” to “marry” no longer has any legitimacy as an anthropological, biological, or social convention, as etymologically it has held for eons, everything and anything is game.

All “marriage” restrictions can now be revisited, reinterpreted, and re-adjudicated from the bench. Marriage will continue to be redefined since it is no longer based on natural law. There is no viable logical limitation that can be applied to prevent further morphing of the term. It will of necessity evolve to include everyone who loves anyone, or anything. The man who wanted to marry his horse a few years ago can no longer be logically proscribed, and the trio from Montana who said this week they want to be married are all viable. And all other barriers and restrictions will necessarily fall as well since the logic and the fundamental raison d’être behind marriage is now discarded in the dustbin of history.

The political leap from equal treatment of individuals under the law, to equal treatment of behavior and relationships under the law, is one of quantum proportions that defies logic.

And since equal protection now can be applied to behavior and choice, what’s to prevent the next fad group averring their presumed “constitutional rights” from requiring egalitarian application of the rule to income, aptitude tests, performance reviews, school exams, or any other “right” that some hair brained group claims they’re entitled to per “equality under the law”? Pandora’s legal box of horrors has now been thrown open!

No wonder the most logical and constitutionally sound justice on the court, Justice Antonin Scalia, ripped the majority opinion as mercilessly as he did. He called it a “judicial Putsch” that poses a “threat to American democracy.” He added that a “system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.” He said the Court’s “naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power bulldozed the right of the People to self-government.”

In a freaky, unconventional way, America has advanced in its claim to being the “land of the free.” We are now free from logic, common sense, and the literal rule of law. Welcome to the new Wild West, where laws can mean what they don’t literally say; the rights of the people as asserted by initiative and referendum are voided by five politicians in robes, posing as “judges” of the Constitution; and natural law, laws of biology and sociology, as well as language etymology, are all trash-canned to allow 1.5-2.5% of the population to have their lifestyle validated and affirmed.

In light of current judicial trends, no wonder Jefferson referred to the judicial branch as “the despotic branch.” Abraham Lincoln aptly described our current state: “If the policy of the Government upon vital questions…is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” Interestingly, he may have also provided the solution. “The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.”

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 – Equipping You With The Truth

Government Hegemony Expands To Meaning Of Words!

This past week, the Supreme Court struck another major blow to common sense and the English language. In a ruling upholding the subsidies afforded to policies purchased on the federal insurance exchange, the SCOTUS opened a veritable Pandora’s Box of legal interpretation, and expanded power not only of the judiciary, but of the federal government itself.

Seven times throughout the Affordable Care Act (ACA), references are made to policies or individuals who are “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…” In each case, the context is citing policies purchased through insurance exchanges established and operated by the respective states. But the court ruled the actual legal language, and even the context, didn’t matter. What mattered was the “intent” of the Congress. So reading “tea leaves” now has greater weight with our legal system than the literal words of legal documents!

To be clear, the case was brought to the court on that very issue, whether the literal meaning of the words of the statute were legally binding. The decision was not regarding the efficacy of the ACA, or whether it’s feasible. The decision was on whether the law could be interpreted to support federal subsidies for states with no insurance exchange or only those states that had established their own exchange.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, conceded that a strict reading of the Act clearly meant only policies purchased through individual state exchanges were eligible for federal subsidies. He wrote: “While the meaning of the phrase…may seem plain when viewed in isolation, such a reading turns out to be untenable in light of the statute as a whole. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

The Court has historically ruled on constitutionality of statute. With this decision, however, the Court has clearly become a proactive partner with Nancy Pelosi’s 111th Congress in writing the wholly inappropriately-named Affordable Care Act. Seven times, the Act described, in context, that subsidies would be available through Section 1311-sanctioned State Exchanges. Yet the Court by a 6-3 majority became a partner in writing the law, ex post facto, by redefining a key component of it.

Obviously, legislative intent is now more consequential than legal wording. This means that even legal documents generated by the government, which establish the rule of law by the selection and utilization of specific words and phrases, will not necessarily be judged based on what they actually say, but what the intent was. And since intent can be interpreted far beyond the scope of actual legalese, taking the government to court on any matter of law will now be a potentially arbitrary and spurious crapshoot.

To illustrate the absurdity of such a notion, imagine if the same principle applied to our legal documents regarding wills, property ownership, and child custody issues. If the Supreme Court’s logic, or illogic, were to be applied to our legal documents, what they say literally becomes inconsequential; for the intent is what is meaningful, not the words. We can claim that we didn’t intend to break the law when charged, but that doesn’t matter. But if we broke the law, what our intent was becomes inconsequential. Yet now, the government claims the plenipotentiary authority to claim that intent matters more than the actual law, and the language that created it. A government should never be able to do what an individual citizen can’t.

It’s common to take such a cavalier attitude towards what people or organizations say or write. They can say something, and then apologize for it, claiming that wasn’t their intent. But for government, this is a new low. It now has legal precedence to make the same claim with regard to statute and laws, if their intent was different than the actual wording of a law!

Justice Antonin Scalia illustrated the absurdity of the ruling in his dissent. “I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them…

“Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning needed to justify the Court’s interpretation, other contextual clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with, other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment of an Exchange by the Federal Government….Provisions such as these destroy any pretense that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established by a State…

“The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: ‘Exchange established by the State’ means what it looks like it means.”

This ruling is not dissimilar from the 2012 ruling upholding the mandate of Obamacare. That ruling sustained the Act by identifying the “mandate” as a “tax.” It would appear with two major SCOTUS decisions upholding the Act that the only way it can be deemed constitutional is by the Court’s new precedence of reinterpreting and changing what the words actually say, legally. In other words, jumping through logical and linguistic hoops to make it so. As Senator Rand Paul said, “This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head.”

The omnipotent authority of the government over individual lives is now complete, when words can mean whatever the government chooses to make them mean. Alexander Hamilton, upon the founding of the nation, declared: “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” When government can arbitrarily change, reinterpret, and alter statute, after the fact, it is no longer just, or limited. It is totalitarian and hegemonic!

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 – Equipping You With The Truth

What We Need From Our Next President

As the pool of aspiring presidential candidates grows by the day, one can’t help but hope that the electorate’s appetite for economic improvement under a term or two of a new president will likewise increase. After eight years of burgeoning government hegemony, diminution of personal liberty, and assault on the free enterprise system and middle class family incomes, the last thing we need is perpetuation of the stagnant and fiscally stifling policies of the Obama administration. Perhaps we should look back, as we look forward, determining the nation’s course under a new president.

The last time the U.S. floundered with such a moribund economy was when the misery index (inflation plus unemployment) spiked over 20 at the end of the Carter administration. With rather constrained inflation, and government underreporting of real unemployment (Department of Labor U6 is still over 10%), our misery index is nowhere near Carter’s abysmal economic mishandling. But the sluggish economy, declining median income, and negligible economic expansion are taking their toll not just on the middle class, but the whole country.

But looking back to 1980 and how a new president, with congressional help, was able to reverse the negative trends–as well as instill hope for the future–is an example that begs repeating. If we’re to have any hope for our children and grandchildren’s future, it’s an example that must be repeated!

Carter’s economic policies had perpetuated the inordinately high tax rates of the previous decade, limiting job growth and capital investment while generating less tax revenue due to the stagnant economy. Yet following the passage and implementation of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1982, unemployment dropped 45%; private domestic investment grew 77%, and economic growth averaged over 4.5% annually. The consumer price index, a measure of inflation, rose only 17% over the next ten years, far below the one-year peak of 13.5% the last year of the Carter term. Real income of every income bracket increased, while tax receipts doubled from 1980 to 1990, from $500 billion to over $1 trillion.

The Reagan administration deregulated many industries, reducing the cost of doing business significantly–including oil, making energy cheaper. A new U.S.-Canadian free trade agreement was inked, and savings and investment were encouraged by the creation of IRAs and 401(k) plans. A whole new investor class was created, as most Americans now had “skin in the game” of economic expansion. And they were richly rewarded, as the GDP increased by 77% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average more than doubled.

National debt continued to grow under Reagan, but that was more the culpability of a spendthrift congress headed by Speaker Tip O’Neil. Twice, Reagan sent balanced budget recommendations to Congress, both of which were carried to the capitol in an ambulance so Speaker O’Neil could declare them DOA (dead on arrival).

Spending on education, social services, and healthcare nearly doubled over eight years, while federal outlays on commerce, housing credits, and regional development were decreased by nearly 22%. The federal civilian workforce was reduced by 5% as well. The deficit, as a share of GDP, was cut more than in half, from 6.3% to 2.9% by the time Reagan left office. A vibrant, growing, and healthy economy made that possible, even with the spending increases.

National defense was a priority in the Reagan years, as exemplified by a near doubling of the annual military budget over his two terms. When told in a cabinet meeting that he couldn’t spend that much on the military, the president responded: “Look, I am the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief. My primary responsibility is the security of the United States. … If we don’t have security, we’ll have no need for social programs.”

The strengthened and expanded military validated Reagan’s defense mantra: peace through strength. Due to our significant military investment, the cold war never evolved to a hot one; and the Soviet state collapsed in part due to their inability to match our burgeoning military capabilities.

Researching the economic “report cards” of postwar presidents, Harvard economist Robert Barro claims, based on the raw data alone, that Reagan easily has the top scores. “Using the change each year in inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and growth in gross national product, Reagan ranks first. He engineered the largest reduction in the misery index in history—50 percent.”

This is not intended to heap adulation on a former president, but to illustrate what can happen nationally when tried and true principles are applied in governance. Rather than perpetuating the failed Obama doctrines intended to fundamentally transform America, a return to the economic principles that made the nation great will resurrect the indomitable free enterprise engine of America, unleashing our ability to work, produce, and compete, and hopefully get a handle on our out-of-control spending.

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 – Equipping You With The Truth

Is Another American Revolution Needed?

The number of Americans disgusted with the direction the nation is headed has been growing steadily over the past several years. And increasingly, abject frustration with the electoral process, which arguably has facilitated a fundamental transformation of America, leads a growing chorus calling for outright revolution. After all, the abuses of our own government far exceed what King George imposed on our revolutionary forebears.

Those of us who treasure America as the land of the free and the home of the brave see contemporary statists, those who are actively engaged in expanding centralized governmental authority at the expense of personal liberty, as adulterators and enemies of freedom.  They are “fundamentally transforming America” into a fiercely potent centralized government that was never intended for this republic, a fascist police state that regulates, coerces, bullies, and spies on its citizens. In the past, they’ve done it surreptitiously, clandestinely, and dishonestly. Now, however, they do so blatantly and openly, yet classifying it as something else. The United States of America currently only slightly resembles the land of the free and home of the brave as founded and intended.

Even a cursory series of online searches reveals a growing chorus of classical-liberals calling for a “new revolution” against the tyranny of a federal government that resembles oligarchical fascism much more than the liberty-based republic we were given. Is such talk of a new revolution hyperbolic, or real? And if there was such a revolution, what might it look like? It could possibly resemble the plot of a new book, “Shadow Revolution: Code Name Operation Achilles,” by award winning columnist Bill Corbett, authored under the pseudonym ‘Will Edwinson.’ This is a major rewrite of his 2001 book, “Halcyon Revolution.”

As Bill describes it, “The self-reliant producers try for years to elect people to government that would stem the tide of the Progressive movement, but to no avail. The Progressives always manage to win, and the trend continues toward socialism. Titus Coppard and the revolutionists have finally had enough, and they start a quiet shadow (underground) revolution. The goal is for all the self-reliant like-minded people to exodus to eighteen Western states, get jobs, start businesses, get involved in politics to gain ideological control of the respective legislatures; and on a pre-determined date, secede in one block from the union of the United States and form the new nation of the Free States of North America.”

The new nation will be established according to the original Constitution: a republic of limited government ensuring individual liberty as the U.S. was founded 226 years ago.

For lovers of liberty, the speeches and teachings of Coppard, a fictional yet inspiring protagonist, are like reading Jefferson and the founding fathers. He explains the rationale behind the revolution. “The whole purpose of establishing this new nation is to encourage people to pursue their personal happiness by being as productive as they can. We will do this by cutting the shackles of regulation that prevent that productivity. We want new citizens to migrate to our country, but not for the purpose of a dole. If they are expecting that, they had better stay where they are, because, here, there will be no dole. Our credo will be that of President John F. Kennedy when he said in his inauguration speech: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.’”

When addressing the economics behind his plan, he sounds like Milton Friedman: “We hope to abolish all taxes on income and capital; or at least, make them minimal. We feel that those taxes are counter-productive. People should be allowed to keep all of what they earn and accumulate and be free to dispose of it as they see fit. We will have poor people, true. As Jesus said, ‘The poor will always be with us’, but we intend to retrain the mind-set of the citizens. We will work to instill in their belief system that it is not the responsibility of government to care for the poor, but rather, this should be left up to private citizens, churches, and charities.”

And he embodies the federalist ideals of James Madison when he explains: “There will be no mandates imposed on the several states by the federal government because we respect states’ rights as spelled out in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”

Some of Coppard’s suggestions for the Free States of North America will ring true regardless of ideological orientation on the political spectrum. Who could argue with a competency requirement for those seeking public office, or with term limits? As he explains: “Everyone running for president, vice-president, and service in the Congress—and I emphasize service, not career—must pass a comprehensive examination testing his knowledge and understanding of the Constitution in order to qualify him to run for office.” He then goes on to explain the term limits on congressmen and senators that would prevent the level of cronyism and amalgamation of power we see today.

Government is not the only difference in the new country. The basic culture must change as well. “Someone once said the miracle of America originally brought forth a breed of human being that was noted for its desire to do the right thing because common decency and common sense dictated common standards of conduct. Because of this, each generation rose higher and higher on the ladder of civilization with genuine and lasting results. We intend to recapture that philosophy. Basic honesty will be the governing rule,” Coppard explains. And while it may sound idyllic in today’s context, at one time it defined American culture.

For those of us who embrace the founding principles and documents of our republic, this story is one of reflection as well as possible inspiration for the future. After all, the classical-liberal ideals embedded into our founding documents made of us a great nation. We could be great yet again by returning to them. The existential question for each of us to ponder is whether it will come at the ballot box, or from a new revolution.

Note: Will Edwinson’s book is available online at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Shadow Revolutrin Front Cover

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 – Equipping You With The Truth

Is The U.S. Really More Respected Now?

President Obama this past week made a statement that caused more than a few eyebrows to rise. He averred that the United States is the “most respected country on earth,” and that his administration claimed credit for that accomplishment. Judging from most reactions to the statement, it would appear that more Americans would agree with Charles Krauthammer’s rhetorical question: “What planet is he living on?”

Speaking to about 70 community leaders from the nascent Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the president declared: “People don’t remember, when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China, barely above Russia. And today, once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth, and part of that I think is because of the work that we did to reengage the world and say that we want to work with you as partners, with mutual interests and mutual respect.”

But as the Investor’s Business Daily stated the next day, “The only problem with this narrative about winning respect is that it has no basis in reality. In fact, the very opposite is true.”

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer echoed IBD’s sentiments. “You wonder what world, what planet he’s living on and it’s not just as you enumerated, our enemies who have respect for us. The Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians of course, ISIS, you can go all the way down.”

Clearly, those who threaten global security and peace have no respect for the U.S. Russia invades the Ukraine, knowing U.S. leadership will do nothing. Putin’s assumptions are affirmed.

China builds manmade islands in international waters claiming sovereignty, and the assumption is obvious that the administration will do nothing. Again, the Chinese assumptions are affirmed.

Iran violates terms of the framework agreement regarding development of nuclear weapons, even before the tentative ink has a chance to dry; and again, the administration does nothing.

ISIS is running roughshod over Syria and Iraq, expanding and growing exponentially, in part due to the weaponry and equipment we left in the wake of our hasty and premature withdrawal from Iraq. We run a few token aerial sorties against the barbarians, but the administration ties its own hands by delineating everything we won’t do to rein them in.

Krauthammer continued with his rant against the president. “[How about] our allies. You think the Ukrainians respect us? Or the Poles? The Lithuanians? How about the Saudis? How about the Bahrainis? The King of Bahrain was supposed to come to the summit in Camp David with the President of the United States. He stiffs the President and the foreign ministry of Bahrain issues a statement saying that on that day, where was the king? At a horse show in England. Now, if that’s a sign of respect, we’ve got problems.”

Bahrain wasn’t alone. Actually, four Arab monarchs took a bye from the president’s summit on terrorism last month. And Saudi Arabia has so little regard for our policies and security measures in the Middle East that they initiated defensive measures against the insurgency in Yemen without even telling the administration. Clearly a measure of “incoherence” in our policies there, as NBC’s Richard Engel explained it.

Couple that with the “stream of leaks from anonymous White House operatives and public dismissals” against Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, before his appearance before a joint session of congress two months ago, and the lack of respect for Obama’s new America is even more glaring. Israel, supposedly our closest ally in the region, is pummeled with abuse while Iran, one of our most strident enemies, is treated amicably–and even apologetically–by the administration.

For the past forty years, Egypt has turned to the U.S. for leadership, support, and stability. Part of that was reliance on our military technology and arms. Yet just this spring, for the first time in decades, Egypt went to Russia looking for weaponry for their armed forces.

And we mustn’t forget how infuriated our allies, especially Germany and Brazil, were, after learning that the Obama administration had been spying on their leaders. The Edward Snowden revelations came not just as news to U.S. citizens, but to some of our closest global allies. And it was not welcome news.

It’s inconceivable to think that the world is impressed with the domestic unrest over alleged racism of our law enforcement agencies, and the rioting and looting which regularly assaults the global news airways. Violent crime is now rising dramatically in those cities that have had violent clashes between hired rioters and law enforcement.

Yet we’re to believe that somehow we’re more respected as a nation? Really, Mr. President. What’s to respect about what you’ve turned our nation into? Domestically or abroad? Our “friends” and allies don’t trust us. Our enemies don’t fear us, as the administration proves their impotence on a nearly daily basis. And our domestic scene is more polarized and riotous than it’s been in fifty years.

The only ones who likely think America is more respected now are probably those of warped moral relativistic ideology, who in some convoluted way think domestic Christian cake-bakers are more evil than the extremists and sovereign powers that want to destroy us!

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 – Equipping You With The Truth