The View From 1776

What a New New Deal Means For You

Socialism, the motivating ideology of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, is the opposite of the political state envisioned in the Bill of Rights.  Socialism requires that your individual liberties be subordinated to the needs of the political state.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/23 at 12:44 AM
  1. First, many in Christiandom, weren't acting like Christians and their abuses of workers and the rights of people led to their own downfall.

    It is true that the morality of the real Christian religion could be a uniting force but, nothing could overcome the abuse that led to the belief in a need for "something else." Since the people hurt the most are also the people who have not had the education in financial systems, how they are manipulated, the role of fraud in money supply policies by people not even in government, are who "man" the revolutions, it isn't surprising to see the rise of socialism which promises an impossible level of fairness.

    It is a sad fact that human nature, itself, not only leads a nation towards socialism but, is also what prevents it from being achievable in the long run.

    A hundred or two hundred years is not a long time in the life of a nation. Some say that even a short period of "fairness" is worth the efforts needed to bring socialism into power. But, why not shoot for a system that can last much longer. Why not have a system with checks and balances that not only prevent government abuse but the abuse of the majority of a socialist system that requires everyone working their hardest for the good of all instead of working only as much as needed to get state benefits?
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  04/23  at  01:53 AM
  2. Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables
    the present reality.

    Each individual human being possesses a unique, highly
    developed, and sensitive perception of variety. Thus
    aware, man is endowed with a natural capability for enact-
    ing internal mental and external physical selectivity.
    Quantitative and qualitative choice-making thus lends
    itself as the superior basis of an active intelligence.

    Human is earth's Choicemaker. His title describes
    his definitive and typifying characteristic. Recall
    that his other features are but vehicles of experi-
    ence intent on the development of perceptive
    awareness and the following acts of decision and
    choice. Note that the products of man cannot define
    him for they are the fruit of the discerning choice-
    making process and include the cognition of self,
    the utility of experience, the development of value-
    measuring systems and language, and the accultur-
    ation of civilization.

    The arts and the sciences of man, as with his habits,
    customs, and traditions, are the creative harvest of
    his perceptive and selective powers. Creativity, the
    creative process, is a choice-making process. His
    articles, constructs, and commodities, however
    marvelous to behold, deserve neither awe nor idol-
    atry, for man, not his contrivance, is earth's own
    highest expression of the creative process.

    Human is earth's Choicemaker. The sublime and
    significant act of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean
    fulcrum upon which man levers and redirects the
    forces of cause and effect to an elected level of qual-
    ity and diversity. Further, it orients him toward a
    natural environmental opportunity, freedom, and
    bestows earth's title, The Choicemaker, on his
    singular and plural brow.

    Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication
    by man from his natural role as earth's Choicemaker,
    inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of
    singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based
    system of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness
    of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the
    selective creative process, they are self-relegated to
    a passive and circular regression.

    Tampering with man's selective nature endangers his
    survival for it would render him impotent and obsolete
    by denying the tools of variety, individuality,
    perception, criteria, selectivity, and progress.
    Coercive attempts produce revulsion, for such acts
    are contrary to an indeterminate nature and nature's
    indeterminate off-spring, man the Choicemaker.

    Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just
    begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator,
    The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever
    learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
    The rejection of Creator-initiated standards relegates
    the mind of man to its own primitive, empirical, and
    delimited devices. It is thus that the human intellect
    cannot ascend and function at any level higher than the
    criteria by which it perceives and measures values.

    Additionally, such rejection of transcendent criteria
    self-denies man the vision and foresight essential to
    decision-making for survival and progression. He is left,
    instead, with the redundant wreckage of expensive hind-
    sight, including human institutions characterized by
    averages, mediocrity, and regression.

    Humanism, mired in the circular and mundane egocentric
    predicament, is ill-equipped to produce transcendent
    criteria. Evidenced by those who do not perceive
    superiority and thus find themselves beset by the shifting
    winds of the carnal-ego; i.e., moods, feelings, desires,
    appetites, etc., the mind becomes subordinate: a mere
    device for excuse-making and rationalizing self-justifica-
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  04/23  at  08:52 AM
  3. I heard once someone state that capitalism is not outlined in the Constitution. I agreed. I also told the commenter that socialism was outlawed by the Constitution as the necessary encroachments by government to make socialism work (so to speak) were not allowed under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
    As my nom de plume , I'm heartened to see Texas take a militant stand regarding the 10th Amendment. Now, let's see if there are other Patrick henry's amongst the state legislatures.
    Posted by Amendment X  on  04/23  at  09:44 AM
  4. According to the Constitution, Staes and The People have more power in the United Staes than does the federal government. Its power is greatly denied and limited to exterior law & boundaries - and beyond.

    Where does O get his opinions? You know. Socialism, Communism, fascist, collectivism, and humanstic opinion.

    He is not authorized to do any of the things he is doing. Under these conditions, it is the Right of the States and the People.

    He is behaving as if he was never even born here...
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  04/23  at  05:56 PM
  5. Great little thumbnail on the roots of socialism and the motivation of those who run the system and the naivety of those who give them the power. Capitalism is not a system of top down design like socialism but a result of limited governmnet whose duty is acknowledged as the protector of the citizens natural rights. Capitalism develops organically in such an environment. Capital being nothing but ownership, protected in law, of one's labor, savings and intellectual faculties freely employed by the owners in improving the lives of themselves, their families and their communities. The state has little to do with the free exchange of goods and services other than prosecuting force and fraud or mucking it all up by misdirecting capital to serve it's own interests.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/23  at  06:22 PM
  6. Jim, that all changed in 1913 when we took power away from the states with the 16th and 17th amendments and also passed the Federal Reserve Act that allows a private corporation to regulate the money supply.

    Then in 1925, the Supreme Court began incorporation of the Bill of Rights on the states and they also changed (later during FDR's terms, I believe) the interpretation of the "general welfare" clause and gave social policy power to the Federal Government that use to be a State power.

    Since then, they have used "precedent" from that new interpretation and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to gradually expand the power of the Federal Government over the states.

    In another maneuver they also threaten states with the withholding of federal transportation funds or other tax revenues if they don't do what the Federal Government wants. They did this during the 55 mph mandate a few decades ago and more recently when they told Texas' legislature that blocking the NAFTA super corridor highway would cause highway funds to be withheld from Texas by the Dept. of Transportation.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  04/23  at  06:26 PM
  7. "Powers reserved to the States and to The People" can not be changed by Amendment to the Constitution except by the States and by The People.

    Anything else lacks Law.

    Thank the NEA, etc. etc. etc.

    They will all be "weighed in the balances of their own choosing and found wanting." selah
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  04/23  at  11:49 PM
  8. But they were due to interpretation that was never challenged and became precedent.

    Justice Scalia pointed out something interesting on this.

    The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868, but it was not until early this century that the incorporation doctrine took hold, ushering in the modern era of broadly enjoyed individual rights.

    "Without the incorporation doctrine, political debate would be a much more chancy thing," says Wake Forest University law professor Michael Curtis, an expert on the doctrine. "Most of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence would not exist."

    All of which lends significance to recent comments by Justice Antonin Scalia. During a talk at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis in January, Scalia was asked about the controlling power of the incorporation doctrine over the application of First Amendment law to the states.

    "I doubt whether that's an accurate interpretation of it, but that's what the court said," was Scalia's reply. "The court has interpreted that as essentially sucking up the Bill of Rights and applying the Bill of Rights against the states," said Scalia. "And not the whole Bill of Rights, just some of the Bill of Rights, essentially those provisions that we like." (It is true that the Supreme Court has only incorporated some but not all of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. The Fifth Amendment's requirement of grand juries in criminal cases and the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of jury trials in civil cases, for example, have not been applied to the states.)

    In the talk, Scalia also said the incorporation doctrine was responsible for some of the court's "strange" decisions. "You know, can you have a creche and a menorah? Is it okay to have both a creche and a menorah and a Christmas tree? Or what if you have a Christmas tree and not a menorah? We never had these weird cases before, because it was not a matter of federal law. The federal Constitution did not cover it."

    See how they just reinterpreted an existing amendment?
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  04/24  at  12:18 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.