Let’s Raise a Hand against Socialism

This past Friday a question was asked to the debating Democrat candidates for the presidency. George Stephanopoulos said, “Let me just ask, is anyone else on the stage concerned about having a democratic socialist at the top of the Democratic ticket?” 

No hands were raised. Then Amy Klobuchar briefly raised her hand, but peer pressure pushed her hand back down. Then, when called on, she points out that socialism is divisive. So she doesn’t call herself that, but many of her policies do.

Amy Klobuchar, second from right, raises hand
screenshot from here

So let me translate for you: Whoever the Democrats nominate favors a radical shift to socialism, which is incompatible with our US Constitution. The Democrat Party will support socialism—and are cavalier about a simple majority overthrowing our Constitution.

That means that they do not understand our Constitution.

Last September I mentioned a list of questions I use to reveal whether a candidate understands and supports the Constitution, or has something else—namely, tyranny—in mind. I’m using this list as I work on my choices in local Republican Primary races. I wish Democrats were using this list as well.

Socialism would affect all three spheres: political, economic, and social. But in its simplicity, socialism is the replacement of a free market with a government centrally controlled economy. So I’m going to look at just the economic questions today.

And, while all the Democrat candidates lean socialist, Bernie Sanders, the most openly avowed socialist, claims to have held the same beliefs for many decades, and he has a website proclaiming his plans. So we’ll use him to answer our questions today. Maybe this exercise will help us see whether socialism leads to prosperity or to poverty.

Bernie Sanders during last Friday's debate
AP Photo by Patrick Semansky found here

First question.

What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes? And for the sake of discussion, let’s add, for what purposes should these taxes be spent? 

Here’s the short answer from Frank Sammartino, TaxPolicyCenter.com, concerning Bernie Sanders (2016 campaign): 

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes, and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family leave, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent historical experience in the US.

I didn’t get an actual answer, other than, no matter who you are, you need to pay more. Upper rates could reach beyond historic—which means confiscatory (at which levels, no one willingly pays, so tax revenue actually goes down). And that money will be spent for non-governmental powers, such as a non-choice healthcare system takeover, federal government controlled education, forcing businesses to pay family leave or avoid hiring parents. Plus, incidentally, paying for infrastructure projects that might qualify as of interstate interest.

I went to Bernie Sanders’ campaign site. It didn’t help getting my specific questions answered. There is, however, an overall sense that, no matter how much government takes, it’s not enough—and we’ll just keep taking from the evil rich until we run out of spending ideas. So, how much should be taken in taxes? Probably upwards of 80% of GDP. 

Next question.

What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

Let’s look at those 2008-2009 bailouts. Bernie Sanders was against them before he voted for them. His reasons for originally disapproving (besides their starting under a Bush administration) strike me as convoluted. But there’s a timeline from four years ago following debates against Hillary Clinton. You can see the FactCheck.org (not necessarily unbiased) analysis here. It looks to me as if, when he thinks about people being unemployed, maybe he’ll vote for a bailout, but if he thinks in terms of an evil large corporation or industry, he’s against helping them.

What about stimulating the economy? I think he thinks socialism will magically do that, even though it never has, and even though estimates are that his plans would decrease real income for wage-earners who happen to keep their jobs.

If you read the Constitution, however, you learn that government’s only role is safeguarding wealth; i.e., minting money, prosecuting theft and fraud, etc. As we’ve seen the last three years, the more government gets out of the way, the better the country’s economic health.

Next question.

What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

This is a good question for Bernie Sanders. He has an ad in which people redefine freedom in terms of having all their worries taken away, paid for by magic, or by some enslaved taxpayer—he doesn’t say. No mention of government’s control over their lives when that happens, so that’s pretty disingenuous. But there’s more on his website:

Here’s what he says on "Taxes on Extreme Wealth":

·         Establish an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.

·         Only apply to net worth of over $32 million and anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million, would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.

·         Will raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade and cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

·         Ensure that the wealthy are not able to evade the tax by implementing strong enforcement policies.

Even though he says he’s raising taxes only on those with accumulated wealth over $32 million, elsewhere he admits that everyone, even low-income earners, will pay higher taxes (that’s under his single-payer healthcare plan). So, let me translate. Tax on wealth means confiscation of wealth that taxes have been paid on in previous years.

Dr. Zhivago arrives home
screenshot from here

Remember that scene in Dr. Zhivago when he comes home to find his family mansion has been parceled out to multiple families, and he has been apportioned maybe a single room to use out of his whole house? That is socialism confiscating wealth. Government takes title if it deems you “own” too much. Bernie thinks he should be the one to decide whether you have earned more than you deserve—which goes against the Constitution’s mandate to protect wealth. He plans to steal it.

For a lesson in what this means today, try this PragerU video: “Does Bill Gates Pay His Fair Share?” 

Also, Bernie’s in favor of re-lowering the estate tax to affect estates over $3.5 million. In other words, a small-to-medium-sized business cannot be passed down from one generation to the next, even if the next generation has been working in that business for years to make it successful—because Bernie says that would be unfair.

Again, instead of protecting wealth, he plans to take it and use it as he sees fit, because he thinks that’s more fair than having the person who earned the wealth decide what to do with it.

Next question.

What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

Bernie believes some other taxpayer should pay for your healthcare, and that he should be able to decide what healthcare you’re allowed to buy, or what you must buy. And this would be $40 trillion added to the backs of working taxpayers.

He also believes some other taxpayer should be enslaved to work to pay for your education, whether that taxpayer has a college degree or not, because he thinks that’s fair. Plus, spending this $3 trillion will buy him younger voters. (My commentary, but his policy.)

He thinks government should enslave some working taxpayers to put government in the business of real estate, building housing that will be guaranteed at a low rate—because “the projects” have been such nice neighborhoods wherever they’ve already been tried.

He thinks government should enslave some working taxpayers to provide high-speed internet to every citizen, because (based on the history of the communications industry) he doesn’t see how a free market could ever innovate enough to provide those “needs.”

Government isn’t capable of charity. But Bernie feels very charitable with your hard-earned money. And you’re supposed to feel charitable when he demands that money from you.

Did we mention the $1.8 trillion Social Security expansion? Or the $16.3 trillion on a climate plan that will shut down the economy? Or the $30.1 trillion to guarantee every American a job paying $15 an hour plus benefits, working for the government if no one else hires them.  Remember, government doesn't create wealth, only spends it, so that money comes out of enslaved working taxpayers' pockets.

Next question.

What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

I don’t see an answer to this on his website. He seems to believe the federal government has the right—even the calling—to step in wherever he, the great dictator, has the urge to. Under “Revitalizing Rural America” this includes farmers, foresteers (does he mean foresters?), and ranchers in whichever state they may reside. And he plans to enslave working taxpayers to “reinvest” in rural areas where entrepreneurs have not been willing to invest.

The commerce clause in the Constitution is to make sure commerce can flow state-to-state. To make sure South Carolina wouldn’t embargo against North Carolina goods, for example. That is all that was granted. Anything else is usurping ungranted power.

Next question.

What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Bernie is in favor of auditing the Federal Reserve. So am I. But he doesn’t want to limit Federal Reserve power. He just wants to stick it to Wall Street (where most Americans have retirement investments). He plans to use executive orders to adjust ATM fees, and grant banking powers to post offices. While he’s at it, he’ll add a per-transaction tax to “restrict rapid-fire financial speculation.” I think he doesn’t like day traders? He certainly doesn’t like investors using their capital—their surplus wealth—to invest in projects that could produce more wealth.

Whether the Federal Reserve is constitutional or not—that’s irrelevant to him, since he intends to ignore the Constitution anyway.

Should we be afraid to have a socialist at the top of the ticket in a presidential election? Yes. Not because he can’t be defeated—he will be. But because the debate shouldn’t even include throwing out our Constitution. A party that would put forth such a candidate should be denounced as treasonous against our United States.

At least we will be able to clearly see the contrast between those who love freedom, prosperity, and civilization—and the entire other party who love tyranny, poverty, and savagery.

Status Report to the Stakeholders

Let’s say we’re going to look at the status of our nation, in a way similar to a report to the governing board of a corporation. Let’s say “We the People” are both the stakeholders and the board in this analogy, although technically it’s a report to the Congress as board. We have met together to hear the CEO report the status of what’s important to our “corporation.”

What is important to us? How are we doing on our mission? What are the relevant business results that show our level of success?

We need to know our mission, which is provided in our founding documents.

There’s the overall mission, from the Declaration of Independence, to protect life, liberty, and property.

There’s the granting of limited powers with which to accomplish that mission, summarized in the Preamble to the Constitution:

·         Establish justice

·         Insure domestic tranquility

·         Provide for the common defense

·         Promote the general welfare (well-being for all the states)

·         Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

We enable the government to do these things through certain enumerated powers, which are listed in the Constitution. (I’ve detailed them here.) And we’ve also delineated limitations to that power—boundaries—some of which are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

So if our “corporation” is doing well, we should be able to see that. There should be metrics that show it. The relevant business results are going to include things related to the economy, including economic growth, employment statistics, and meeting revenue and budget expectations.

There will also be national security metrics, concerning things such as peace vs. war, and boundary security. And our nation’s security will also include measures of judicial system success.

We will want to see that things are being run well, and that the good things will be perpetuated.

This is the kind of report that the State of the Union address is expected to be. It hasn’t always been that. Often it has been a list of goodies a president promises to pass out, pandering to as many constituencies as possible in order to secure their votes in the next election. The success of such a speech is based on how many constituencies got their gifts.

That’s not really ever acceptable. While there is some future-speak that might be acceptable when the SOTU comes up just weeks after a president’s inauguration—when he’s laying out plans but hasn’t had much chance to have anything take effect yet—during all other years the SOTU ought to be mainly a progress report.

President Donald Trump, State of the Union 2020
screenshot from here

So let’s look at the progress markers laid out Tuesday night. (I got the transcript here.) 

President Trump starts right in with an overview of the progress report to come:

Jobs are booming, incomes are soaring, poverty is plummeting, crime is falling, confidence is surging, and our country is thriving and highly respected again. America’s enemies are on the run, America’s fortunes are on the rise, and America’s future is blazing bright….

I am thrilled to report to you tonight that our economy is the best it has ever been. Our military is completely rebuilt, with its power being unmatched anywhere in the world — and it is not even close. Our borders are secure. Our families are flourishing. Our values are renewed. Our pride is restored. And for all these reasons, I say to the people of our great country, and to the Members of Congress before me: The State of our Union is stronger than ever before!

Sounds good. Is there data to back this up? A good presenter in a board meeting would have some.

I’m doing this as an exercise. The reported items in the speech come under three categories: economic, national security, and domestic culture. Some items have more hard data attached than others. And I’m sure the fact checkers are hard at work to parse them. I’m not doing that at this point. (When I do, I’ll be looking to JustFacts.com, which I trust more than the more biased media fact checkers.) If the president offers data, I’m assuming it’s essentially accurate. If he’s projecting something for the future, I try to identify it as a projection or promise.

Houston Chronicle front page, Feb 5, 2020

It was a long speech, 78 minutes. And I’m trying to be thorough in this exercise. So feel free to skim the lists. You can see at a glance, for example, that there’s a whopping amount of economic good news in this first list. I mostly offer the items in the order he gives them. Some might apply to more than one category, so in those cases I made a judgment call.

The Economy

Here’s the economic data he offers:

·         7 million new jobs—5 million more than government projections.

·         Unemployment rate is the lowest in over half a century.

·         Average unemployment rate lower than any administration in the history of our country.

·         Record low unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans.

·         Unemployment rate for women at 70 year low.

·         Unemployment rate for veterans dropped to record low.

·         Unemployment rate for disabled Americans reached all-time low.

·         Unemployment rate for workers without a high school diploma reached lowest rate in US history.

·         Women filled 72% of all new jobs added last year.

·         Record number of young Americans are now employed.

·         African-American poverty rate lowest ever recorded.

·         In contrast to the last administration, which added 10 million to food stamp rolls, 7 million have come off food stamps, and 10 million have been lifted off welfare.

·         In the last 8-year administration, 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce; in 3 years of this administration 3.5 million working age people have joined the workforce.

·         Net worth of bottom half of wage-earners increased by 47%—which is 3 times faster than increase for the top 1%.

·         Wages are at last rising—and rising fastest for low-income workers: 16% pay increase during 3 years of this administration.

·         Real median household income now at highest level ever recorded.

·         Stock markets have risen 70%—adding $12 trillion to the nation’s wealth.

·         Stock market rises has meant the millions of people with 401(k)s and pensions are doing better than ever, with increases of 60% to as high as 100%.

·         Stock market rises have allowed other countries to also do well.

·         Consumer confidence is high.

·         Tax breaks for designated Opportunity Zones have meant wealth from individuals and companies has been invested in 9000 previously neglected poor neighborhoods, creating jobs, energy, and excitement.

·         Regulatory reduction has led US to become number 1 producer of oil and natural gas.

·         America is now energy independent, and energy jobs are at a record high.

·         Under last two administrations 60,000 factories were lost; under this administration, 12,000 new factories added, with thousands more planned or being built.

·         Over half a million new manufacturing jobs created.

·         Companies that had left the US are returning.

·         USMCA signed 6 days ago, projected to create nearly 100,000 American auto jobs, and to boost exports for farmers, ranchers, and factory workers—with greater level of fairness and reciprocity.

·         Tariff strategy to confront China’s theft and product piracy has worked; days ago a new agreement was signed with China expected to protect our intellectual property, bring in billions of dollars to the treasury, and open up new markets for US products.

That’s a pretty good list—all of it on record, and nearly all of it already accomplished and measurable. Just a few are new with projections. Among the other good news, we’ll remain hopeful that those projections will become reality as well. But mostly, I just want to say, "Wow!"

 

Rush Limbaugh is given the Medal of Freedom during the speech
screenshot from here

National Security

Next comes national security, which includes America’s standing in the world, international relations, military, border security, and maintaining lawfulness. In this category, what he’s done can be listed as an accomplishment, but it may take some time for measurements (history) to show results.

·         Failed policies on Cuba have been reversed.

·         Policies now support restoring democracy for Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

·         US leads 59-nation diplomatic coalition against socialist dictator Maduro in Venezuela, and supporting legitimately elected president Juan Guaidó (who was present at the speech).

·         Investing $2.2 trillion in US military—for planes, missiles, rockets, ships, and equipment.

·         NATO contributions from allies has been raised by $400 billion; number of allies meeting their minimum obligations has more than doubled.

·         New branch of US Armed Forces has been created: The Space Force. This is the first since the creation of the Air Force 70+ years ago.

·         Over 100 miles of new border wall completed on southern border, projected to be over 500 miles by early next year, adding to “our already very-strongly guarded southern border.”

·         And as the wall goes up, drug seizures rise, and border crossings go down.

·         He supports ICE officers, who last year arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults, and 2,000 murders.

·         In the last 3 years ICE has arrested over 5,000 human traffickers; 9 pieces of legislation have been signed to stamp out human traffic here and globally.

·         He warns of damage caused by sanctuary city and state policies, and he supports passing the Senate’s Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act.

·         His administration has ended Catch-and-release policies for illegal aliens. We now have cooperation agreements with Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, resulting in a drop in illegal crossings: down 8 straight months, down 75% since May.

·         He is working on legislation to replace outdated and randomized immigration system with one based on merit, following the rules, contributing to our economy, and upholding our values.

·         The administration is restoring the rule of law; so far 187 new federal judges who will uphold the Constitution have been confirmed, including 2 Supreme Court Justices.

·         This administration defends religious liberty, including right to pray in public schools; we don’t ban symbols of faith or muzzle preachers and pastors.

·         He promises to always protect our 2^nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

·         This administration defends our national security and combats radical Islamic terrorism.

·         He announced a plan last week for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

·         Before this administration, ISIS held over 20,000 sq. miles in Iraq and Syria; today ISIS as territorial caliphate has been eliminated, and ISIS found Al-Baghdadi is dead.

·         We are willing to support the Iranian people if they ask for help against their oppressive regime, by easing sanctions.

·         Peace talks are underway in Afghanistan. We have no will to kill innocent Afghanis, and our military must either fight to win or not at all; we are working to bring our troops home.

He’s reporting that these policies are in place. The outcomes are mostly to be measured in the future. But, with what he’s already actually accomplished, the America First theme is persuasive.

Domestic Culture

Next come cultural things. How are the people doing in their lives? This is where the Constitution is mostly silent, and our government has overstepped. So I look for reduction of federal interference—there is some. And I look for encouraging state and local responsibility in place of a federal government that usurps powers not granted—and there is some of this as well. Still, this category is where I’m likely to have more things I disagree with. I’m pleased that at least the government giveaways list isn’t longer. I considered color-coding this list, but I’ll let you think through what is government overreach. Let’s see what he says:

·         Education is encouraged, so school choice is encouraged. He praises the 18 states that have created Opportunity Scholarship programs, with tens of thousands on waiting lists. He calls out Pennsylvania’s governor for vetoing school choice expansion for 50,000 children.

·         He calls on Congress to pass the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act to give one million children in failing schools the opportunity of school choice.

·         He praises the First Lady’s “Be Best” initiative—"to advance a safe, healthy, supportive, and drug-free life for the next generation, online, in school, and in our communities.”

·         Through Pledge to American Workers, over 400 companies have promised to provide new jobs and education opportunities to 15 million Americans.

·         He asks Congress to support his budget plan to offer vocational and technical education in every high school.

·         He touts achieving “record and permanent” funding for historically Black colleges.

·         In 5 years prior to this administration (once Obamacare was implemented), health insurance premiums more than doubled; new plans under this administration are 60% less expensive.

·         He pledges to protect patients with pre-existing conditions.

·         He promises to protect Medicare and Social Security.

·         He signed an executive order requiring price transparency in medical billing.

·         Pledges to protect Americans from socialist takeover of American healthcare—as has been endorsed, he says, “by 132 lawmakers in this room,” which would wipe out private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.

·         He warns that the plan endorsed by those 132 lawmakers would provide free taxpayer-funded healthcare to millions of illegal aliens, enticing unlawful border crossing, and raiding Medicare benefits to pay for that. He calls for legislation to prevent free healthcare to illegal aliens.

·         This administration has approved a record number of affordable generic drugs; medicines are being approved by the FDA faster than ever before.

·         Last year, first time in 51 years, costs of prescription drugs went down.

·         He calls for legislation to dramatically lower prescription drug prices.

·         Drug overdose deaths declined for first time in nearly 30 years. Hardest hit states down: Ohio down 22%, Pennsylvania down 18%, Wisconsin down 10%. Asserts commitment to beat the opioid epidemic.

·         The administration is coordinating with China to safeguard against Coronavirus outbreak; he pledges to safeguard our citizens.

·         His administration offers initiative to help with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health challenges.

·         Congressional funds he requested are being applied in pursuit of cures for childhood cancer and the AIDS epidemic within a decade.

·         He asks Congress for $50 million more to fund neonatal research, where 50% of very premature babies now survive.

·         He has offered Federal workforce paid family leave, as a model. He calls for Congress to pass Advancing Support for Working Families Act to extend family leave to American mothers and fathers.

·         40 million families receive an average $2,200 extra in child tax credit.

·         He has overseen historic funding increases for childcare, enabling 17 states to reduce or eliminate their waitlists, and he urges expansion of such funding.

·         Days ago he announced the One Trillion Trees Initiative, working with private sector to plant new trees in America and around the world, to help protect the environment.

·         He supports passing Senate infrastructure bill for new roads, bridges, and tunnels.

·         He commits to ensuring high-speed internet to every citizen, including rural America.

·         He asks for full funding of the Artemis program, returning American astronauts to the moon and going to Mars.

2-year-old survivor of very premature birth,
Ellie Schneider, with her mother, Robin
screenshot from here

There was a lot that was inspiring. No one but Reagan ever did the presentation this well—the show-rather-than-tell strategy. The guests in the gallery, from a 2-year-old survivor who was born at 21 weeks’ gestation; to a soldier who got to surprise his family with his return from deployment; to radio legend Rush Limbaugh being given the highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom; these were touching moments, with people who connected us to the otherwise abstract.

President Trump does ceremony well. He clearly loves and respects our great nation.

The speech wasn’t all data. It was often inspiring. Because there is something real that we call the American Dream, I want to share some inspiring words near the end of the speech:

The American Nation was carved out of the vast frontier by the toughest, strongest, fiercest, and most determined men and women ever to walk the face of the Earth. Our ancestors braved the unknown; tamed the wilderness; settled the Wild West; lifted millions from poverty, disease, and hunger; vanquished tyranny and fascism; ushered the world to new heights of science and medicine; laid down the railroads; dug out canals, raised up the skyscrapers—and, ladies and gentlemen, our ancestors built the most exceptional Republic ever to exist in all of human history. And we are making it greater than ever before.

This is our glorious and magnificent inheritance.

We are Americans. We are the pioneers. We are the pathfinders. We settled the new world; we built the modern world; and we changed history forever by embracing the eternal truth that everyone is made equal by the hand of Almighty God.

America is the place where anything can happen. America is the place where anyone can rise. And here, on this land, on this soil, on this continent, the most incredible dreams come true.

He did not mention the impeachment. Not a word. He did occasionally mention the failures of his predecessors, but not as much as he might have. This was a speech worth saving. Even if it must be in the ripped form the Speaker of the House left it in.

Behind President Trump, Speaker Pelosi rips up the speech
screenshot from here

As a report to the stakeholders, we ought to like the data. Our typically anti-conservative Houston Chronicle even admitted he’d made the case for a second term (photo above), although the article is pretty grudging about giving him any credit. 

As a stakeholder, though, I look especially at the economic and national security data above, and I really want more of that.

Dissolving the Political Bands

This past week was a historic time. The impeachment trial ended with a vote that there was no need for calling defense witnesses, or any prosecution witnesses in addition to the 18 testimonies given in the House. The official acquittal should happen Wednesday. It would be a good thing if some brave Democrat broke away from the pack, to at least make the acquittal bipartisan.

While that has been going on, the President signed the new USMCA treaty. He attended and spoke at the March for Life. He proposed a possibly workable peace solution in the Middle East. More Constitution-following judges have been appointed. Trade disputes with China seem to be working toward a better conclusion than expected. Economic news is good. There’s probably more good news—which we're sure to hear about in Tuesday night's State of the Union address. Imagine the good we might get done without the distraction of Democrats claiming he should be stopped.

But beyond our shores, the big news is the final deadline of Brexit. Friday was the last day that the UK was part of the European Union. It was a long time coming. The British people voted in favor of leaving the EU in 2016—almost four years ago. That’s a long time to get things lined up for what should be a fairly simple process.

Nigel Firage, final address to EU Parliament
screenshot from here

But the good thing is that it was accomplished—without bloodshed.

As we know from the Declaration of Independence,

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

Declaring the causes is what the rest of the Declaration of Independence does.

Here in Texas, we’re a month away from celebrating our declaration of independence from Mexico, which accomplished a similar purpose.

In these cases, as with Brexit, there was a necessity to separate, to dissolve the political bands. It’s a rare thing indeed to have this happen without bloodshed. Congratulations to the Brits.

Nigel Farage has been their minister to the EU parliament for some twenty years—all of that time attempting to work himself out of a job by exiting. As he said in his brief farewell address to that Parliament, a couple of days ahead of the deadline,

My mother and father signed up to a common market, not to a political union. Not to flags, anthems, presidents—and now you even want your own army.

The European Union was not sold as a “United States of Europe”; it was sold as a joint economic alliance. What it became was usurpation of power worthy of admiration from many a dictator. And the voice of the people has been squelched. As Farage pointed out,

In 2005 I saw the Constitution that had been drafted by Giscard and others. I saw it rejected by the French in a referendum. I saw it rejected by the Dutch in a referendum. And I saw you in these institutions ignore them, bring it back as a Lisbon Treaty and boast you could ram it through without there being referendums. Well, the Irish did have a vote, and did say no, and were forced to vote again. You’re very good at making people vote again.

But what we’ve proved is, the British are too big to bully—thank goodness!

If the EU had been what it claimed originally to be, only an economic alliance, there would not be a Brexit. But the UK was fed up with their sovereignty being ignored. They were fed up with decisions important to them being overridden by some bureaucrats in a foreign city. They wanted to retake their sovereignty, to be their own country again. It was as simple as that.

Brexit supporters celebrate in London as the
clock reaches 11 PM on January 31, 2020
image found here

There are some complicated details, to reset trade negotiations that must change under the new circumstances, happening over the next 11 months. But as Farage summed it up:

Once we’ve left, we are never coming back, and the rest, frankly, is detail.

Congratulations to our friends! Like them, “We love Europe; we just hate the European Union.” We don’t hate a people, or a nation. We’re in opposition to a statist tyranny wherever we find it.

It occurs to me to ask the theoretical question of what it would take for such an exit in our indivisible United States. We are not the same type of project as the EU; we are not a simple economic agreement that morphed into a centralized total government. But it’s helpful to remember what we are and what we did not agree to.

Our government was created to join multiple sovereign states (which means actual self-governing nations, not provinces) under an umbrella central government with limited purposes. That government, according to the preamble to the Constitution, is to

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

There are enumerated powers granted to this federal government. Nothing else. And there’s a pretty solid list of what the federal government cannot do, just for clarity. (I listed the powers and restrictions here and here.)  We have this all written out in our Constitution. We are a people with the rule of law, rather than ruler’s law.

So, theoretically, as long as we have our Constitution protecting us, we are indivisible. But what happens if powers are usurped, and some ruler steps in dictatorially ignoring our Constitution?

We’ve had small-to-medium usurpations going on since the beginning. Andrew Jackson did some. Teddy Roosevelt did some. Woodrow Wilson did a lot, and he set things in motion for more and more usurpations. Franklin Roosevelt pushed the envelope further.

We had more than we could stomach under Obama. The Supreme Court struck down his attempts at rule-by-dictate 96 times. There were other times he got away with things—like Obamacare, which was the first time the government was allowed to force people to purchase a good or service against their will. But Obama was frequently checked by the courts, at a much higher rate than his predecessors. He lost 44 cases unanimously, which of course included his own appointees. 

But, now, we have an entire slate of Democrat presidential candidates who openly propose socialism as a replacement to our constitutional government and free market system.

Socialism is dictatorship. It is ruler’s law. Adding the word “democratic” before the term is akin to “democratic slavery,” which is what slavery was before we eliminated it in a bloody war. A majority voting to take liberty, life, or property from some minority may make it democratic, but it’s still slavery.

What if one of these openly socialist candidates were to win? Would this break the contract that unites our states? Not immediately—and the checks and balances in the Constitution are key. It would definitely be a problem if such a president were to be aligned with a socialist majority in both the House and the Senate. But for at least a time the judicial branch can rule against such a president’s edicts. We appreciate the success President Trump has had in appointing two read-the-law judges to the Supreme Court, and—well, here’s the count as of today according to Wikipedia:

As of February 3, 2020, the United States Senate has confirmed 187 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 50 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 133 judges for the United States District Courts, and 2 judges for the United States Court of International Trade. There are currently 18 nominations to Article III courts awaiting Senate action, including 1 for the Courts of Appeals, 16 for the District Courts and 1 for the Court of International Trade. There is currently 1 vacancy on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 72 vacancies on the U.S. District Courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade, and 7 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term (1 for the Courts of Appeals and 6 for District Courts). Trump has not made any recess appointments to the federal courts.

President Trump appoints Justice Neil Gorsuch
image from Wikipedia

That is significant for years to come. Whatever else he may have as a legacy, he will have this improvement in the judiciary for which we can be grateful.

There may someday come a time when an administration is supported by Congress, and not checked by a judiciary, in ruling by dictate and ignoring the Constitution. In such a circumstance, individual states could feel fully justified to “dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another.” But if that ever comes, let it be without bloodshed, as Brexit has been.

While it’s a scary thing to have an entire political party threatening us with a socialist takeover, we’re still, so far, guaranteed our freedoms by the rule of law—the Constitution. If, as Benjamin Franklin said, we can keep it.