Citizens, Not Subjects

Back in the 1770s, American colonists had a disagreement with the King of England. The king insisted that he was to rule over them, because it was the right he was born to; and they were to be his subjects and were obligated to submit to his rule.

They believed they were born to be the same things as the king: men. They were not willing to be subject to a king the way a horse would be subject to a man.

Image found here

And they wrote clearly of their disagreements, and their intentions to defend themselves and their God-given rights. The king could have seen things their way and let them separate peacefully; he didn’t. That is why the Revolutionary War happened.

Freedom won.

Some years later the founders set up a system of limited government—so that God-given rights would be protected, and no one would have power to “rule” over another. Slavery took several more decades and a bloody civil war to eliminate—in order to align with the founding principle that all human beings are created equal before the law.

But there has been some forgetting, particularly over the past century, since around 1913.

Then-Congressman Mike Pence spoke at Hillsdale College in September 2010, which became an Imprimis publication the following month. He spoke on “The Presidency and the Constitution”:

Mike Pence
image from here

The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us; we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law, and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.

Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? Listen to the words of the leader of President Obama’s transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: “It’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” Or, more recently, the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate—the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—who wrote last Friday: “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again.”

“Take power. . .rule. . .leveling.” Though it is the model now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly, and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects; we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and—if I may remind you—we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?

I’m comforted, as we come at last to the end of Obama’s rule, that we have a vice-president who understands the constitutional limits of presidential power.

A week or so ago Valarie Jarrett asserted that one thing that can be said for the Obama administration was that it was essentially scandal-free.

Andrew Napolitano takes issue with that. The subheading on his Judge Napolitano Chambers is “Making Sure Government Is Not Our Master.” He takes the opportunity to contradict Valarie Jarrett with a few reminders in this video.

Back in 2013, the list of scandals was so long it was becoming a joke. You couldn’t just refer to the Obama administration scandal; that was too vague, because there were so many. Just to review, I’ll repost a joke from that time:

Multiple Scandals

Bob: "Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?"

Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6 Extortion 17?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the voter fraud?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president demoralizing and breaking down the military?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the Boston Bombing?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president wanting to kill Americans with drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, e-mails and everything else?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons and falsely blaming the sequester?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "HHS employees being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters stuck us again with the most corrupt administration in American history?"

Bob: "THAT'S THE ONE!"

And now we’ve had three more years.

We could add the purposeful(?) deterioration of race relations under our first black president (the timeline is offered here on The Daily Wire).

Whatever we have to look forward to, at least this administration is ending.

There is some fear and trepidation of what is to come. I share some of that; I was not a Trump supporter (and absolutely wasn’t a Hillary supporter). But much of the worry has been, not that he will be too authoritarian, but that he will be an unstable personality for a ruler.

Keith Olbermann, now a correspondent for fashion magazine GQ, offers a video of a supposed well-considered sane assessment—the irony of which ought to be striking, if you have followed his career. He says that you ought to admit that Trump is crazy and the best end for everyone is to remove him before something bad happens. The lack of self-awareness is amazing.

As I said well before the election (before the primary), we’ve had a narcissistic authoritarian; we don’t need to try that again. But here we are. And, while I still don’t like his style or personality, there is reason to rejoice that at least Trump is not anti-American and pro-socialism.

As Thomas Sowell pointed out recently, Trump has put together perhaps the best cabinet and staff, at this point in the process, of any president within memory. The thing we don’t know is what he will do as president. If he listens to these appointees, we have much reason to be hopeful; if he doesn’t listen and just does what he wants, that won’t be as good for America.

What we do know is that, whenever we hold fast to the Constitution, limiting government to its role of protecting our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, then we maximize our freedom, and set up the best situation for prosperity and thriving civilization as well.

Scandal Scramble

Name any three letters; chances are good they represent an agency of the federal government currently under scrutiny for scandal.

I came across a couple of funny collections over the past week I wanted to share—because laughter is one of the reactions we can choose under difficult circumstances.

Last Wednesday, June 19, Guy Benson and Mary Katharine Ham were filling in on radio for host Hugh Hewitt. This was a piece of their conversation:

NYT Crossword June 19

Guy Benson: Someone tweeted me during the break—this is funny, someone tweeted, New York Times Crossword Puzzle today [June 19, 2013]. It was the clue 65 down, three letters: “organization in 2013 scandal,” and I tweeted back all the possibilities for correct answers in the crossword puzzle: DOJ, NSA, DHS, IRS, EPA…. People are chiming in on twitter: ATF, FBI, CIA, HHS.

Mary Katharine Ham: It’s a very hard question.

Guy Benson: Apparently the correct answer was IRS. But it could have been any of those.

A day or two later (and several times since) on Facebook I came across this fictional conversation (I copied from Mitt Romney Central’s page, but I’d seen it elsewhere and can’t identify the original author):

Multiple Scandals 

Bob: "Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?"

Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6 Extortion 17?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the voter fraud?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president demoralizing and breaking down the military?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the Boston Bombing?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president wanting to kill Americans with drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, e-mails and everything else?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons and falsely blaming the sequester?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "HHS employees being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters stuck us again with the most corrupt administration in American history?"

Bob: "THAT'S THE ONE!" 

So far, here’s the difference between what’s happening here and third-world dictatorships or historical tyrannies: we are able to hear about these things and still speak openly about them (although not necessarily without reprisals). We may not be able to trust that there will be government solutions to disinfect, although congressional hearing abound. And mainstream media is mostly silent (except about the sweeping and specific spying on news reporters). But we nevertheless know about much of the violations of law by our government, and so far we can still talk about them in various alternative media outlets—including this one.

You Might Be Living Under Tyranny If... Part II

In Wednesday’s post we covered three scandals in the news right now revealing the tyrants running our federal government. I hadn’t planned on a part II, but there is some follow-up information on these scandals, as well as a couple of additional issues exemplifying the tyrannist attitude.

Romeike Family Update

You might be living under tyranny if the administration makes arbitrary decisions about who can be allowed to enter the country, regardless of the law or natural rights.

We talked about the Romeike family from Germany (recently on March 22 and earlier in October 2011), here in the US legally since 2008, based on seeking asylum when their native Germany severely fined and threatened the parents with jail time and loss of custody of their children. In 2010 a US circuit judge granted their asylum, along with a strong statement about parents having a right to make decisions like education and religion for their own children. Out of the blue (no apparent request from Germany), the DOJ insists on overturning the ruling and kicking this law-abiding family out of the country. Why? To declare to the American people and the world that there is no inherent right to parent your own children; government reserves the “right” to impose its decisions on parents and their children.

This should be an easy win for the family, as it had been the first time. But this week the ruling came out against the Romeikes; they lose their right to be in the US, because the judicial system has decided the threat of losing their right to parent and maintain custody of their children is not sufficient to gain asylum. To paraphrase, "We can’t go willy-nilly granting asylum to people just because they could lose their family and their freedom from imprisonment; bad stuff happens all over. We don’t want to encourage people to come here for freedom, or we’d get some kind of unmanageable influx."

Meanwhile, if someone comes here illegally, because economic conditions are inferior where they come from (or not), even if they commit a crime, the DOJ feels so strongly that they should be allowed to stay that it sues states (Arizona, for example) for any effort to protect its own borders.

The road hasn’t ended quite yet for the Romeikes. There are still a couple of levels of appeal. And then, if all continues to go against them, I hope they will be allowed to find another less tyrannical country that will accept them, rather than be turned over to the oppression facing them in Germany. 

Sibelius Obamacare Overreach

You might be living under tyranny if the government tries to control your health care decisions. The IRS, already proven untrustworthy, is put in charge of health care financing. (Note: a single judge decided the government had the right to force Americans to buy health insurance if you called it a tax, even though the monstrous bill passed by the slimmest of margins, following various shenanigans, only because of the insistence it was not a tax.) If things weren’t bad enough, the IRS happened to seize some 60 million personal health records.

Further, you’ve got the head of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius, pressuring health care industry providers, over which she has oversight, to do her bidding to recruit participation in Obamacare. This does not convince anyone of the intention to provide more and better health care at lower, fairer prices. Prices might actually be 100%-400% higher than predicted.  

Targeting for Political Reasons

You already know you’re living under tyranny when you’re a target for being a patriot. Targeting of organizations because of their pro-Constitution (and therefore presumably anti-regime) beliefs, is bigger than the IRS policy of tagging organizations applying for 501(c)4 status. Individuals have been targeted for IRS audit as well. And corporations have also been targeted—being forced to publicly announce any of their political or issue-related donations. The purpose here is the chilling of First Amendment freedom to express ideas.

I wanted to point out that 501(c)4 status implies that there will be political and issue advocacy purposes, including lobbying related to the organization’s mission. Donations to such an organization are not tax deductible. The advantage is only to the organization; it has a cultural, social, or educational benefit and purpose rather than making a profit, and therefore it does not have to pay taxes on money going through the organization. This is the kind of organization Obama spent his career years creating. So he knows what they can accomplish—and that is why he wants to ensure that those he considers ideological enemies are prevented from succeeding in their missions.

screen shot from Glenn Beck's 5-15-2013 show

Glenn Beck sought input to name the combination of scandals. His news people will start saying “Intimigate,” but for his purposes, he is changing the spelling to “IntimOgate,” with the O being the Obama logo. 

Implausible Deniability

You might be living under tyranny if your tyrant combines a claim of leadership skill with a claim of unawareness of the behaviors of rogue underlings. Why would the underlings so frequently behave in tyrannical ways, if the tyrant’s leadership didn’t create the spoken or unspoken understanding that oppression against the enemy is acceptable, even expected—as long as you don’t get caught?

Thursday the president held a brief and pointless press conference, repeating that he knew nothing about the IRS problem. Actually, what he specifically said was, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report.” He didn’t say he didn’t know about the policy or practice of targeting political enemies. He specifically denies knowing only the findings in the report. And his swift action to hold people accountable? Accept the resignation of the acting IRS Commissioner, who was stepping down in June anyway. Take that, IRS! That is what the wrath of an outraged president feels like, when he’s out to protect our freedoms.

Oh, and in case you didn’t know, that division that targeted Tea Party groups the last couple of years? Their leader was promoted to run the Obamacare office of the IRS—because Obama was so outraged. Yeah, that’s it.

He didn’t know what happened in Benghazi. And his Secretary of State was out of touch as well, both of them unaware it wasn’t a spontaneous response to an internet video, even though all the rest of us knew it was a terrorist attack.

His DOJ head didn’t know about the AP phone record overreach either. (And of course can’t be blamed for the collection of data related to phonecalls from the AP that just happened to connect to the legislative branch.) He knew it was in response to one of the most crucial leaks of classified information in our lifetimes, a clear danger to the American people, and therefore worth getting the legal permissions for the invasive move. But it wasn’t important enough to mention such a threat to the president, who remained unaware entirely until he heard about it on the news. Nor did Attorney General Eric Holder remember any details, because he recused himself from the case early on, for reasons that he couldn’t recall.

Did we mention that this administration, in five years, has prosecuted more whistleblowers (for leaking classified information that endangers the country?) than all of the previous presidencies combined? It’s an everyday event for the DOJ, but the AG wouldn’t know about that.

If any more scandals pop up in the coming days, be assured the president will hear about it on the news, just like the rest of us. Comedian/commentator Jon Stewart put together a collection of the president’s new favorite buck-stops-somewhere-else explanation about knowing nothing before the news reports. It’s a 5-minute clip; the part about the president getting his briefings by the news starts at about 2:40 in:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

 

This much scandal is upsetting. But it also could be a good thing. We’re hearing about the news. In such a flood that it’s hard to take in, but at least these things are being reported. And, because of the AP scandal, some news sources might actually begin to make assumptions other than, “those are just right-wing conspiracies,” and think, “maybe the president hasn’t been entirely truthful up till now.”

All along it has been my hope we could have clarity. Let truth prevail, and not deception. I still believe people who know the truth choose freedom and civilization, rather than tyranny and savagery.

Scandal Response

Last night I got the following response on my facebook wall, to yesterday's post about the Weiner scandal:

I can’t seem to be able to post on your blog site, but I needed to say this. I just want you to be fair when you look at these scandals. It is not just the Democrats, the Republicans have plenty of their own. David Vitter, Mark Foley, John Ensign, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, Arnold Schwartzenegger, and Chris Lee. Also, not to defend Anthony Weiner, but his pictures were not nude, he was wearing underwear. There is no evidence of him being nude in his photos.

To comment, you have to sign in to Blogger. I welcome civil comments. This one comes from someone I know, who reads my blog probably only because she loves me and cares about me, not because we agree. And I refrain usually from commenting on her political facebook posts as well because I love her and care about her more than I care about defending my views to her. But this, today, I think will be instructive beyond our personal conversations.

Let’s start with Weiner. He started out denying; in fact, he claimed to have been hacked. Further, he claimed to have been hacked by Andrew Breitbart. He wasn’t, of course. Eventually he confessed. In the meantime, Breitbart had been defamed. But he is not without resources; he has (I heard this on radio—have not searched to see for myself, nor have I seen any of the infamous Weiner photos) not just the lewd underwear shots but nude photos purportedly sent by Weiner. So, while it may appear I was exaggerating the story, from my point of view I was not. That said, I hope you agree that sending any lewd photos, even partially clothed ones, is far below acceptable behavior for a leader we are expected to refer to as the Honorable.

The point I made yesterday was not that Republicans are sin-free and Democrats are sinful. I am deeply disturbed every time an elected official is caught in a scandal. I feel personally hurt and betrayed by their breach of trust. But my point about Democrats yesterday was their disturbing acceptance of the scandal. So let’s look at the list you sent, and see if I made an unfair point.

• David Vitter, R. LA, caught in scandal involving a prostitute. He succeeded a Republican representative who stepped down following an adultery scandal, ironically. He has faced primary opposition each time, but being in a safe Republican district did not believe he would be ousted by voters, so he did not step down. I do not know why he was not pressured to step down by colleagues in the House, unless it is because he was accused but not convicted. His behavior is despicable. All I can say is, Louisiana is practically immune, since corruption is a way of life there. I have had hopes that Gov. Bobby Jindal could make some improvements. He has, but not enough yet.
• Mark Foley, R, FL, was caught sending illicit emails and other messages to pages. He stepped down the same month the news broke, in part leading to a Democrat majority in the House in November 2006. 
• Larry Craig, R. Sen. from Idaho, was arrested for lewd conduct in a men’s restroom in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. He claimed innocence but pleaded guilty to lesser charges of disorderly conduct, and at first refused to step down. Under pressure from Republicans in the Senate (which was opposed by Senate Democrats), Craig finally agreed to step down, less than three months after the scandal broke.
• Mark Sanford, R., Gov. SC, was caught in adulterous affair with an Argentine woman, which came to light when he went missing for over a week. Republicans immediately insisted he step down as head of the Republican Governors association. Republicans in his state pressured him to step down. Twice they attempted to bring forth impeachment proceedings but were thwarted by state Democrats. Eventually he was censured by the legislature as a whole but was allowed to finish the final year of his term, at which time his political career ended.
• John Ensign, R. NV, was caught in an adultery scandal and immediately stepped down.
• Arnold Schwarzenegger, R., Gov. CA, was caught in adultery scandal after leaving office. His political career is over—unless he changes parties, which would be not much of a leap for him.
• Chris Lee, R. NY, was caught sending a bare-chested photo of himself to a woman he met online; he is married and a father. He immediately stepped down. No charges were filed.
• Let’s add Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House at the time he was caught in an adultery scandal. He immediately stepped down. He married the woman he was involved with and has, by his reports, found religion. He was always articulate on conservative principles, so I believe he has rehabilitated himself enough over a decade and a half to have an occasional article read. I don’t think he is rehabilitated enough to run successfully for office. So, in essence, his political career ended with the scandal.

So, what we see, with the exception of Vitter, is that Republicans step down, or are pressured and then step down, and as quickly as Republicans can accomplish it, their political careers are ended because of the scandal. 

Democrats, on the other hand, have kept Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Anthony Wiener, and a long list of sexual and corruption scandal-ridden leaders. They deny; they claim everybody does it; they claim this is their private life only; they stay despite the scandal.  

So your comment, rather than showing I was unfair, actually strengthens my point. Uncivilized behavior in our leaders can’t be tolerated. Those who tolerate it for political reasons are uncivilized. Republicans, while unacceptably scandal-ridden, have not been tolerating the scandalous behavior. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has a lot to answer for.