Obama’s War (s) May 31, 2010
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Afghanistan, Dr. Robert Owens, fundamentally transform America, Iran, Iraq
add a comment
A war here, a war there, everywhere it’s war, war, war. General Douglas MacArthur wanted to invade China because they offered a safe haven for our enemies during the Korean War. In testimony before the Senate the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Omar Bradley said, “It would be the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Today we face endless wars for elusive peace when we can’t secure our own borders. We’re committed to war in Iraq and Afghanistan; we’ve been rattling sabers in Iran’s direction for years and there’s one more war just for good measure.
The Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media have stopped covering the war in Iraq. Our Progressive leaders are throwing away the peace accomplished by the surge Senator Obama opposed. Our brave troops are withdrawing from hard-won positions as violence creates havoc and Al Qaeda seeks to spark a sectarian civil war. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, our strong man in Baghdad, seeks to steal an election he lost and Iraq is selling their oil to China. Candidate Obama promised that he would immediately begin bringing the troops home at the rate of one to two brigades a month. Obama also stated he’d call for a second constitutional convention in Iraq, this one run by his friends at the United Nations, which he wouldn’t allow to adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reached a new agreement on political reconciliation. The fruits of the surge thrown aside, the same people running the Iraqi government in the same way and endless garrison duty in Iraq look likely.
Then there’s Afghanistan, the war Candidate Obama told us was the right war in the right place, and the one we need to win, which we can only assume means there’re some wars we don’t need to win. While life goes on as normal here heroic volunteers are in harm’s way.
Since taking office, President Obama, after agonizing past recent election deadlines, has done what he opposed in Iraq: sending in a surge of troops to rescue a deteriorating situation. And for the first time in American history, or maybe in any history, he announced the surge while at the same time announcing the date of our withdrawal scheduled for July 2011? So as hard as our forces are fighting, as many victories as they gain since our leader has already announced we’re leaving on a date certain, do you think maybe the Taliban is waiting in the wings? Do you think anyone in Kandahar or Kabul might think about what the Taliban might do once we leave? Saying we’re going to persevere and not quit means little when we’ve already announced the date we’re going to quit. If we send them to fight we need to let them fight to win or bring them home. They aren’t chips in games played by diplomats over Champaign glasses. They are the cream-of-the-crop, and the best America has to offer.
To top off this no-win strategy, Afghan President Hamid Karzai the man we installed and continue to prop-up with dollars we don’t have and heroes we do honors the leader of Iran and says he might join the Taliban. He’s doing this either to save face since we’ve acknowledged he’s basically the Mayor of Kabul and at least related to the biggest drug dealer in the country, or he’s doing it to wring concessions from his handlers. The tragedy is we’re sending troops to fight and die for a surrender that’s already been announced.
Iran has offered to ship half their low-enriched uranium to Turkey. True, the deal wasn’t brokered or imposed by Hilary and her crew at State it was negotiated by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Lula da Silva, and though it lacks the Obama Imprimatur it’s basically the same deal he’s demanded. If President Obama doesn’t accept this deal he’s signaling to the rest of the world that it’s his administration seeking confrontation with Iran, it’s he who refuses to throttle back the avalanche to war. Are the neo-cons who stampeded Bush to war against an Iraq that never attacked us on track to lead us to war against an Iran that hasn’t attacked anyone in centuries?
Then there’s the war for good measure, the one against free enterprise, federalism and the traditional America we’ve known waged by a president who promised (or threatened) to fundamentally transform our nation. Those of us still clinging to our God and our traditions cannot ignore the one campaign our national community organizer seems intent on winning: the one against us. From Soros-backed front groups to pandering pundits of the captured media, from union bosses to academics and bureaucrats who’ve never held a regular job in their lives, day-by-day traditional America is being transformed before our eyes. The battle may seem long, the way may seem dark, but if we keep the faith and keep the peace we shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System. http://drrobertowens.com © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net
What Is Sovereignty and Who Has It May 16, 2010
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: 10th amendment, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Dr. Robert Owens, Progressives, sovereignty clause
add a comment
Sovereignty is accepted as absolute uncontested authority. This definition of the concept of sovereignty emerged along with the nation-state. The nation-state hasn’t always existed. Everyone tends to see the circumstances of their own times as the static normality of history. And contrary to the endless lectures of History teachers tied to politically correct text books and standardized tests, History is not static it’s dynamic, it changes every day. The concept of the nation-state emerged in the sixteenth century evolving from countries as the private property of monarchs, and however hard to envision the nation-state will someday be replaced by something else.
If that’s what sovereignty is who has it? In England it’s vested in Parliament. In China it’s vested in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. But in America sovereignty isn’t vested in any one place, which means there really isn’t any. No sovereignty? How can that be? Since sovereignty is an absolute, it either exists or it doesn’t and it’s a misapplied concept when striving to understand the American government.
This does not mean that the United States is not a sovereign nation. The Federal Government represents the United Sates on the world stage. To the other countries of the world the Federal Government is the sovereign power with which they must deal. However, domestically we face a different situation. In some areas the Federal Government is sovereign, in some areas the States are sovereign, and in some areas the people are sovereign. Since sovereignty by definition is an absolutist concept and not one of degrees, either something is sovereign or it is not. In the United States there is no one legitimate source or center of sovereignty. The revolutionary theory the Framers advanced into practice is that several centers of power prevents the formation of an authority vortex swallowing all legitimate authority and paralyzing decision making, thus establishing the world’s first viable system of disassociated sovereignty.
Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution as the foundational document and framework of organization of the United States, stated categorically in Article II, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” Nowhere in the Constitution is this retention of inherent sovereignty surrendered. The so-called sovereignty clause found in Article Six of the Constitution obviously gives precedence to the laws and treaties made by the Federal government it does not however expressly say anywhere in the document that the States surrendered or forfeited their inherent sovereignty. If it had it never would’ve been ratified. As expressly stated in the 10th Amendment neither the States nor the people surrendered their sovereignty to the Federal Government they delegated it. There is a difference between these two actions. To surrender is to give entirely and irrevocably to another while delegation is a temporary action based upon continued agreement between the parties involved.
Another strong argument can be made that since all governments are the products of a social contract between those who govern and those governed sovereignty ultimately resides in the people and governments are therefore merely agents of the people’s will. According to this line of thought all governments wield delegated powers and can have no more power in and of themselves than the moon has light without the sun.
Amendment is the only legitimate process for change under the Constitution. If the design calls for a decentralized diffused sovereignty in an asymmetrical system how was change achieved from that to the current system of highly centralized power and control? Was it by amendment or practice? Is it possible for an illegitimate practice to become a legitimate tradition? Is it possible for an illegitimate tradition to set a legitimate precedent?
All of these historically based academic discussions aside and for all intents and purposes the argument about who is sovereign was forever settled by Abraham Lincoln. When the South attempted to succeed, an action not prohibited by the Constitution they were beat back into submission to the Federal Government. Debate over. Question answered. The Federal Government is supreme. However, though this is the reality of our circumstance since the Civil War this is a reality imposed through the use of military force not to be confounded with the original condition based upon the voluntary agreement between the people, the states and the national government in Constitution.
For years this question of who is sovereign has see-sawed back and forth. Today the Progressives and their two headed government party seek to make the exaltation of the central government permanent. If this stands unchallenged America has devolved from the defused model established under the Constitution to a centralized version reminiscent of its original absolutist definition. If this new normal is enshrined as reality it will become increasingly obvious as States strive to assert their rights and people seek to preserve their freedom. For if the central government is now absolutely sovereign it will eventually crush all rivals. If the people are sovereign in time they’ll find their voice, reassert their power, re-establish the federal system, and return to the social contract as ratified in the Constitution.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System. http://drrobertowens.com © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net
Government Funded Front Groups May 10, 2010
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Acorn, Dr. Robert Owens, Fannie and Freddie, Obama, Planned Parenthood, SEIU
add a comment
How many Progressive groups are in reality government supported entities masquerading as public interest lobbies? How many government agencies act as Progressive lobbies? Marx said “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” Is our hard-earned tax money being used to fulfill the words of the Progressive’s secular messiah? Another old saying goes, “The acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree.” If the tree is the Progressive clique that’s captured America the acorn is the government money used by various Progressive fronts, both public and private to advocate for more money from the treasury to buy more power. Or is that more rope?
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) says it’s collapsing without government funding . Perhaps it never was a broad-based grassroots social action organization. Instead it’s an off-the-books government funded agency dedicated to electing Democrats and pushing an agenda of Progressive economics through covert action.
Fannie and Freddie two reckless mortgage monsters and the fuse that lit the subprime bomb spent more than 170 million dollars influencing the Best Congress Money Can Buy during the decade preceding the crash. They both made the list of the top 20 lobbying organizations buying their way to success. Incidentally, during the same period they were also government backed and packed with hacks including President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. The leadership of both reads like a country club for retirees from Congress who looted the enterprises along the way. Before the crash, McCain and other Republicans including President Bush tried to warn Congress that the policies of these reckless lenders were dangerous. The Leviathans of Lending were defended by the same perpetually re-elected aristocrats that received the most money from them and who are the same arrogant Lords of the Legislature and their Glorious Leader who today lead the charge to clean up the mess they caused.
Planned Parenthood, one of America’s leading abortion providers is also the recipient of hundreds of millions of taxpayer donations every year. Planned Parenthood also vigorously supports Democrats including the current occupant of the Oval Office. A source of money and votes so potent the Illuminati of the Government Party feel it necessary to pay homage during every election cycle saluting the abortion flag and taking the pledge of loyalty.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is the government Union whose president boasts “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama – $60.7 million to be exact – and we’re proud of it.” Apparently they’ve reaped windfall profits from their investment. They’re the nation’s fastest growing union which isn’t surprising since under the Progressives the government is the only sector of the economy that’s growing. In fact, the number of government union members is now larger than private sector union members. In our corporatist government model unions are part of the power elite. They put money in and get jobs and union dues out.
Richard Posner, judge for the 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals pointed out the purpose of unions “The goal of unions is to redistribute wealth from the owners and managers of firms and from workers willing to work for very low wages, to the unionized workers and the union’s officers. … Unions, in other words, are worker cartels. … There is also a long history of union corruption. And some union activity is extortionate: the union and the employer tacitly agree that as long as the employer gives the workers a wage increase slightly above the union dues, the union will leave the employer alone.”
However, in President Obama’s fundamentally transformed America, the government union bosses don’t use wealth from private firms they redistribute taxpayer money. What do these servants of the working man do with the money they get from American taxpayers? Do they use it to fund the pensions of their members? No, that pension fund is upside down while the pension fund for SEIU officials is funded at more than 100%. Besides feathering their own nests what could be more important than taking care of the people who actually do the work? Apparently, it’s lobbying for larger government needing more workers thus growing SEIU. Who said perpetual motion was impossible?
If the incestuous relationship between the government and its in-house union isn’t bad enough the Progressive apparatus captured several government agencies which act as conduits for their lobbying activities.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) uses federal money to fund not only chocolate covered obscenities they also fund art designed to promote the agenda of President Obama an activity which in other countries we call propaganda. National Public Radio (NPR) using government funds and well chosen words to frame debates and shape opinion has long espoused the Progressive line from abortion to the man-made global warming hoax and the import-a-voter approach to immigration.
Where are those who believe in limited government? Why do they allow Progressives to create these government funded interest groups? The government has become an interest group and they’re working for their interest not ours.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System. http://drrobertowens.com © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net
A Government of Fallible Men to Rule Fallible Men May 3, 2010
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Constitution, direct democracy, Dr. Robert Owens, Founders, living breathing document, Progressive Movement, Seventeenth Amendment
1 comment so far
In America today a debate rages concerning the legitimate role of government. Currently the Federal Government is controlled by a group of politicians who consider themselves the ideological descendants of the Progressive Movement. Beginning in the 1890’s the Progressives led by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson championed the idea that it was time to progress past America’s old ways of doing things. They felt the traditions, forms, and style of American governance and society should break-out of the mold provided by the Constitution by casting it as a “living Breathing Document” that could be remolded to meet the desires of every generation.
They believed, and their descendants still believe, it is the behavior of men that defines who they are. This contrasts with our Founders who believed that it is instead the nature of men that provides this definition. Our Founders expressly stated that they believed humanity has been endowed by the Creator with rights. They felt that these rights are inalienable, meaning they are humanity’s by virtue of existence. In other words, these rights have not been earned by man they’ve been given by God and since they haven’t been given by government, government can’t legitimately take them away. Instead of existing for its own right, the reason for government is to protect these natural rights. It’s the need for the order, security and liberty for the pursuit of happiness, which justifies the establishment and continuation of government.
Thus, a government of the people, by the people and for the people should be one based upon the nature of man. It’s in this context that the voice of the people could almost be called the voice of God for if the Creator implanted this nature and these rights within humanity the collective expression freely arrived at and freely expressed should bring to the fore those who will respect and guard these rights.
If this is true then the will of the majority should always be the surest way to ensure the continued existence of man’s natural rights. If we had a nation of perfect people this would be true; however, in establishing and maintaining government we don’t deal with perfect people we deal with people as they are with all the imperfections and prejudices nurture superimposes upon nature. People who don’t educate themselves enough to exercise self-leadership become the pawns of demagogues and the voice of God is perverted into the voice of the world.
Even the Founders, a grouping singular in the history of men concerning the brilliance of their intellects and the purity of their motives knew they couldn’t trust themselves to form or maintain a government of fallible men to rule over fallible men. They knew that history is filled with examples of charismatic leaders who’ve proven that while you can fool all of the people only some of the time it’s possible to fool enough people to take over a country. Then once you’ve fooled a plurality of voters to take over you can make fools of everyone doing whatever you like for as long as you like. This is why the protection of freedom is a limited government.
Power must be concentrated enough to provide order, security and liberty; however, if unrestrained power is given to a majority the opportunity exists for a faction to gain control and use it for purely partisan ends. Thus our Founders rejected direct democracy in favor of the federal model of divided sovereignty and the republican principle of both direct and in-direct representation. That the source of authority emanates from the people and the constituent States is demonstrated in several ways. The Constitution itself was referred to delegates chosen by the States. In the American government as initially designed the people were represented directly by the House of Representatives and the States by the Senate. The executive was elected indirectly by the people and the states through the Electoral College. The members of the judicial branch are appointed by the executive with the advice and consent of the Senate.
This process of allowing democratic choice within a framework of restraint was designed to create a government based upon the premise of inalienable rights yet cognizant of the fallible nature of mankind. A government powerful enough to ensure the security necessary to guarantee those rights, yet retrained enough not to trample them. Many of the Progressive innovations of the last 100 years have upset this delicate balance moving us from the government envisioned by the founders to the one we have today.
The Seventeenth Amendment mandates the direct election of the Senate. This left the States without any voice in the Federal Government. It also opened the door for a combination of factions acting as an unrestrained majority seeking the benefit of some at the expense of others. Often those who take the limits off government seek unlimited power for themselves. We must follow the guide of our ancestors for the good of our posterity. We must resist the temptation to seek security through government rather than security from government.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System. http://drrobertowens.com © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net
Dr. Robert Owens Chronicles the History of the Future 