The Anti-Federalists Were Right

It is taken as gospel in our country by both the political Left and Right that the Constitution, to one degree or another, is the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, I recently read about some of the concerns from those opposed to the original signing, who were known as the Anti-Federalists. What I read gave me chills up spine:

From the Introduction to "The Constitution of the Unites States with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation", by R.B. Bernstein

Anti-Federalists insisted that the Convention exceeded its mandate by writing a new Constitution instead of revising the Articles.

Anti-Federalists feared that the general government would swallow up the states, destroying the people's right of self-government.

Anti-Federalists denounced the Constitution's system of representation as inadequate. They mocked the House of Representatives and the Senate as too small by comparison with the large state legislatures. They argued that this unjust scheme of representation would limit service in Congress to powerful, wealthy men.

Anti-Federalists, distrusting the Presidency, charged that the President was not accountable, that impeachment was too difficult to use against him, and that he would work to ensure his repeated re-election for life.

Anti-Federalists denounced federal courts as unnecessary and expensive. They worried that federal courts would swallow up state courts, wiping out distinctions between state laws and leaving the people subject to a tyrannous federal bench.

Anti-Federalists found the Constitution's lack of a bill of rights their most powerful argument.

Anti-Federalists objected to the clause authorizing a permanent capital, which would become a citadel where the people's enemies would shelter themselves against the people's wrath.

New England Anti-Federalists denounced the Constitution's ban on religious tests for voting or holding office, fretting that a Jew, a Turk, or an infidel could become President.

Anti-Federalists in New England also denounced the Constitution's slavery clauses...

Reviewing these objections over the last 200+ years, taking them in order, we have Maybe, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes - even after the Bill of Rights was added it apparently didn't go far enough, Yes, I'm Not Going There, and Darn Yes.

Of course, each of these objections had very intelligent, possibly very well meaning retorts by the Federalists, which of course won the day. They also happened to be all very wrong. At the least, they were proven wrong over time.

But I hold out the possibility that it worked better than any other system for longer than any other system, until we have gotten to the point we are at today, which is right where Great Britain was back in 1776. Still, I think there is an even better possibility that a revised Articles of Confederation would have worked its way through the immediate crises of the time, and saved us all a lot of pain.

But what's to say that other Americans wouldn't have grabbed at power again when the next crisis hit, as they have for the last 200 years? We have a chance every 2 years to reduce the power of the Federal government, and I'm hard pressed to find more than 2 years in the last 200 where it actually happened. This is akin to going back to the Garden of Eden and trying to stop Adam and Eve from eating the fruit. Eventually, they were going to get a good bite!

The Three Year Old Politician

Recently I was listening to some political free speech about the actions of our federal government, in the course of which it was suggested "we the people" contact our representatives and yell at them for their bad behavior. Then I was struck by a thought. What if these same politicians actually Like to be yelled at? Of course! They want us to yell at them. That's what gives them their power. I know that our founders wanted to ensure we had the right to petition our government for our grievances, but I don't think this is what they had in mind (not all of them, anyways!), a system whereby the politicians can generate their own political capital at will.

Here's how this machina horribilus works. First the politician thinks of some action to take that will offend a good chunk of his electorate. This outrages people. He or she then apologizes, claims a mental health day and reverses course. People rejoice that they have had an effect on their representative, and feel genuinely grateful that he or she has listened them. The politician has just created "political capital" out of thin air, protecting people from him or herself! Its one of the oldest rackets in history, and is also know as "extortion." This bizarre attention getting behavior is exactly the sort practiced by my three year old child.

But the machine grows ever more horrible. What happens if we try to ignore this childish behavior? Alas, like the three year old, the actions get progressively worse until they Make you pay attention to them, darn the consequences. So in fact, the only way to deal with these children is to vote them out. Responding to their "altruistic" calls for "connecting with their constituents" just seems to increase their already enormously bloated power.

The same goes for the critics. Why should we give the politicians warning that we're displeased with them? They might reverse course and stay elected. If we're displeased, we should vote them out, period. If we all ignored them, we would only end up with politicians who actually had to govern by their own principles, and not by their moist finger poking out into the political winds. They might actually have to feel accountable for their actions. They might start following their campaign promises, and we might actually have to start listening to them.

Social Nationalism

I haven't actually read this article yet, but I was struck by the headline. I think Blankley is openly but cryptically calling Obama a Fascist. I think the term works well, "Collectivist Nationalism." National Collectivist might sound a little too much like National Socialism. State Capitalism is the most accurate, but nobody gets the reference; it sounds just as good to people today as to the Germans under Hitler. Maybe "Social Nationalism." It would take people a few moments to reverse it, and until they did they would think it sounded great!

He's not my President?

Okay, I admit I'm being a little contrary here.  I'm just tired of being bombarded by the constant refrain:  "he's President of ALL of us now" and "is he YOUR President?"  I feel like theSadducees & Pharisees are trying to trip me up by asking if it is right to pay taxes to Caesar.  So I'll try this answer:  The President is who he is.  Or perhaps, he is as much my President as George W Bush was yours.

Actually, to me he is nothing more than the person who presides over the Federal Government.  He is not my President because he does not Preside over me.  If I was a government employee, he would Preside over me and would be my President.  Sure, you can claim him as your President if you wish, that's your silly choice.  

But he was not elected god, or Emperor, or even King, where such an appellation might apply.  He was not even elected by the voters, he was elected by the states, and the electors as they so designated.  Which is to say, the position of President was not supposed to play such a role in our lives.  If it were to, we would vote for him or her directly, as we do our representatives (yet another reason to keep the electoral college, I don't want to have a directly elected President who can claim to Preside over me).

The President is simply a convenient way to organize the executive responsibilities of the Federal Government.  The position has a couple of well defined roles in the constitution, and everything else is delegated to it by Congress through legislation.  Now I grant that over the years Congress has seen fit to delegate a lot of responsibilities to the President that were not its to delegate in the first place.  This has imposed the Presidency on the citizens far more that it should.  So, to the extent that the President's powers have been forced on me beyond the original scope of presiding over the Federal Government, then I have to say, yes, he is my President.

But wait, that brings up a good question.  People keep asking, "is he your President?" or "will you say 'he is my president'?"  That implies a choice, no?  You mean, I actually have an option here?  Is there some other path beyond my attempted semantics to say "he's not my President?"  If you're really offering me a choice, I'll take the "no, he's not my President" option.  But, as I stated earlier, I don't think I really have a choice.

And so, maybe what is really being asked of me is some sort of loyalty test.  Should I say a Pledge of Allegiance to the President?  Last time I checked, my Pledge was to the Republic, not a Man.  As George Washington said, ours is a "nation of laws, not men."  Now I'm starting to feel like Nebuchadnezzer is asking me to swear fealty to him and his statue.

It feels like the President's supporters are looking to either find another reason to castigate those of a different persuasion (from a cynical point of view), or to build bridges (from a generous point of view).  More likely it is somewhere in between, a sort of lack of conficence in their own success.  They won!  Why do they need our support?  Our laws are made by the majority, not unanimously.  Go out and govern based on your ideas, and then we'll see if people like them and their results.  Why should you need our support, just to make you feel better about yourselves?  Is it to assuage your guilt over eight years of utter disrespect for the guy I voted for?

The Presidency is a political position.  If we disagree with the President philosophically, we shouldn't feel like we have to support him, anymore than we support each other as fellow Americans.  Like the "flair" scene from the move Office Space, if they want us to express ourselves more than they should make it a requirement.

So, back to the choice thing.  If asked if he's my President, and I say no, what then?  Or put another way, "What happens if I say No?"  I guess I'd just get called Un-american, for disrespecting the democratic process, even though as I've described aove it's I who am respecting the actual process.

Final thought.  As I've said, the President is elected not as Emperor, King, Dictator, or Tyrranous.   He or she is hired to be a manager over our Federal Bureacracy, not a manager over us.  He ior she cannot fundementally be my President.  At best he or she is my employee, however unwilling I was to hire him or her.  So, do I accept that this individual has been hired by the American Citizens, of which I am a part, to be our employee, the executive manager?  Well, when you put it like that, yes, I suppose so.

Asymmetrical bombing in Gaza—a view from Haifa

A good summary of the situation from Israel.

Asymmetrical bombing in Gaza—a view from Haifa

The Counter-Bureaucracy Revolution

I have an idea for the coming peaceful political revolution. It's called the Counter-Bureaucracy, and it works something like this:

Why should the government be the only one allowed to have a bureaucracy? Why should not the citizens have their own bureaucracy? Clearly, we avoid it like the plague, but that doesn't mean we can't have it and use it.

Imagine the following scenario: You go to your local public school to enroll your child. As the administrators are taking down your information you stop them and say, "wait, you haven't signed my form yet!" They look surprised as you pull out your own form, and start asking them for their information. They are even more shocked when you ask them to sign the bottom of the page, below a disclaimer reading something to the effect of "I understand that I am providing a service to the parents of this child in educating them, in return for the taxes being paid by said parents. I recognize the parents as the final arbiter of my conduct as the child's educator. I also recognize that the parent has the final responsibility for this child, not the state." And perhaps also, at the end, "I recognize that the parents do not have to choose public schooling for their child, and I appreciate them choosing our school to provide this service."

Or perhaps this scenario: The Child Protective Services decides to forcibly enter your house, because a neighbor complained you were homeschooling your children (because the public school refused to sign your form). You stop them at the door and say, "you can't come in until this form is completed," and hand them a "Proper Conduct Upon Forcible Entry Form 12/34-5." This form states that every 5 seconds of time spent within the premises incurs a $50 charge, for each person. Furthermore, upon the determination of unlawful forceful entry (as determined by the Home Office Review Board, a.k.a. the Parents), the state will be fined an additional $5,000,000 for each child inconvenienced by the event. If they actually sign the form, you hand it back to them and tell them it needs to be notarized.

Of course, no government agency or agent would ever sign such a document. But that's the point, isn't it? When they refuse to sign your document, you simply refuse to sign theirs.

The Other Problem with Socialism

As if there were not enough problems already with the evils of Socialism, there's this gem that I discovered this morning: Socialism not only views its own actions as a morally correct path, it defines them as the morally correct path. And not to follow that path is conversely morally evil. I don't see how you could see it any other way. So, when George W. Bush does not use the power he has to bring about Socialist policies, he is in fact committing evil, though all he has done is chosen not to steal from one person to give to another.

I hit on this perspective while considering the tipping point for various peoples to reject their government, after watching the movie "Valkyrie" last night. This is a dicey topic, to say the least, and I in no way reject our government beyond any of the legal political mechanisms that our founders were so kind enough to set in place. The fact that I had to spell that out is a sign of our times.

But my connection between the two topics was made by blogersations (conversations in the blogosphere) with a liberal friend of mine. We argued about the election, and about the abject hate directed at Bush. She said it was justified based on Bush's actions. Given that these people were comparing Bush to Hitler (not in passing, not in jest, but actually really giving them the same standing), I think we had better start examining EXACTLY what those actions are, what Hitler's actions were, and what actions we truly think ought to spark a revolution.

Again, this was from the words of a liberal friend of mine, who thought the comparison was justified. Maybe they don't understand what making that comparison means. Maybe after watching the movie I just watched they'll understand. What I think it means, although I think there was a lot of smoke being blown as well, was that they thought some kind of non-political revolution might be justified, particularly if Bush was not gotten out of office (and a political-clone was not put in to replace him). But, that is the beauty of our political system, that we can blow lots of smoke and have it exorcised when we vote. Even if we lose, there's a certain catharsis to having at least cast our vote.

Finally, the point is that Socialism's tipping point in determining the evils of a president or leader is not in terms of whether he thought torture was good, or had some personal scandal of monumental sin (boy, Bill Clinton proved that!), but in whether they implemented Socialst policy. If he had used his power to advance Socialism, then all would have been forgiven about the War on Terror, etc. (As if he needed to apologize for what the Terrorists did to us). If they thought he was trying to bring about Socialist utopia to Iraq, and the far off reaches of the earth, the conflict would be justified. But to bring about anything less, then forget it, no dice, no pass, you're Hitler.

I leave you with one final thought, a topic for another article another day. Since I as a conservative believe that Bush has embraced Socialism, at least tentatively, where does that leave the Socialist Left? Their anger was predicated on his lack of Socialism, but here at the end he has given them everything they wanted and more. If this had happened at the beginning, would things be different?

"Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear." - I Peter 1:17

Pro-Homosexual Arguments Against Sodom

It has been argued by Christian proponents of the Homosexual movement that the sin for which Sodom (& Gomorrah) was destroyed was not the sin of homosexual immorality, but rather the sin of greed. This argument in itself presupposes an argument against homosexuality, that because of the homosexual nature of the inhabitants of Sodom, God saw fit to destroy it.

I reject the first argument, and therefore the response by the pro-Homosexual movement. My view is that it was not only homosexuality that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but rather a host of sins, including homosexuality, greed among them. I firmly believe that sin does not exist in a vacuum, but rather where there is one sin, you are very likely to find many sins. Which came first, greed, then sexual immorality (of all types, I'm sure)? Probably. The point is, it's preposterous to try to claim that when the cities were destroyed it could not have had anything to do with homosexual behavior.

At the very least, we must conclude that it was possibly the reason, and perhaps continue to look for guidance on the matter, perhaps from other Leviticul sources. It is also dangerous to think that there was only one sin for which the cities were destroyed, and that somehow by avoiding that one sin we too can avoid destruction.

2008 Federal Election Position Paper

This post is a little late, a little obsolete. But, not completely so. I believe in putting things down for the record, for myself if no one else. I don't believe time ends when an election is over, so it's really not too late to put down my position on election. So, that said:

Caveats / Preface

I. COMMUNISM / SOCIALISM

I have decided that Socialism, whether National or International, Violent or Non-violent, is morally wrong, like Communism and Marxism in all its derivative forms. I cannot find anything in this vein of philosophy that justifies forcing the transfer of one person's blood, sweat, and treasure into the hands of another person. I cannot accept the premise that the ends justify the means. The means of all forms of socialism is stealing, which I believe to be morally wrong.

Why is it that we don't think it is okay to take things from our Neighbor to give to someone we feel is more deserving, but we do think it is okay to authorize our government to do the same? Also, why is it that we make a distinction between so-called peaceful Socialism, and its more violent cousin Communism? Can I opt out of either system? Am I allowed to refuse to contribute to either system? Will the police not come and arrest me for refusing to be stolen from, or not supporting a system that will steal from others just the same under Socialism as with Communism? Not only do the ends not justify the means, but the means do not justify the ends, when the ends are themselves morally wrong.

Socialism takes away my choice, my freedom, to give of my own accord. It assumes I am not compassionate, and forces it upon me. It takes away my own ability to decide who is deserving, who is needy, and gives that authority to, who? Is it given to some vastly greater alien intelligence, who is unaffected by the human condition? No, the authority is given to other humans, politicians who consistently demonstrate the principle that all humans are corruptible, that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The moniker of government does not erase their humanity, it enhances it through the addition of power and authority.

Socialism, et Al., seeks to erase a human condition through force that in fact can only be erased through the changing of people's hearts and minds.

Barack Obama is a socialist. His voting record, his associations and political alliances, and his own words all bear this out. And Joe Biden? See section II. John McCain is not a socialist, although he tolerates socialism in the interest of being bi-partisan (ick). Sarah Palin is not a socialist.

II. VIETNAM

The salient point here is this: Not long after John McCain was rotting in a North Vietnamese prison cell, Joe Biden was voting to suspend all aid to South Vietnam, dooming them to slavery under Communism (and everyone else in the region not protected by a good size chunk of ocean). Also about this time, Barack Obama was being introduced to a highly regarded Communist intellectual in Hawaii.

The sheer fact that Biden and Obama were involved with undermining what McCain was fighting for and being mentored and tutored by the cause that McCain was fighting against, is enough to boil my blood and pull the lever for McCain.

III. TAXES

See section I., Socialism.

IV. CONCLUSION

McCain is possibly my last choice for a Presidential selection, at least on the Republican side. However, given the overt proclivities of Obama / Biden towards all things socialist, I have to make the statement against them by voting for McCain. Even then, I do not think I could do so if not for Sarah Palin. As McCain has taken her as a political hostage, I feel compelled to bargain for her political life by voting for her, even though it means voting for McCain as well.

In addition, I find myself in the position of not being able to "Not Vote," which would truly be my preference, as I do not feel I have a viable alternative. As always, I pray for the best result, and I cast my vote asking that God will bless it, and use it for his purposes.

Okay, I wrapped this up way sooner than I wanted. I just have too many other things to do! I had several other pages on Vietnam, which I guess I'll post another time. Darn the inherent slowness in converting thoughts to words on a page. Of course, I can't read all the stuff I want to as it is, so I guess that's a good thing in the end.