Why Should the House Impeach President Obama? February 13, 2014
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: DOMA, Dr. Robert Owens, Fast and Furious, illegal actions of President Obama, Impeach Obama, Obama amnesty, Obama immigration, Obama impeachment, unconstitutional changes to affordable care act
4 comments
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that before presidents can assume their duties they must take the oath of office. Every president from George Washington to Barak Obama has placed their hand on a Bible and sworn,” I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
In America today just like in Lake Woebegone every child is above average and every child gets a trophy. We may score low in international grade comparisons but we rank number one in self-esteem. In other words American students may not be doing well but they think they are. Those of us old enough to remember how Dad could control the situation with a look and when you got in trouble in school your parents didn’t sue or contact the School Board you got in trouble at home too are also old enough to remember Watergate.
This scandal that the general public still does not understand brought down a president and led to the Watergate Congress which threw away the victory in Vietnam and solidified the Progressive control of Congress until 1994. Today we are confronted with contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law that makes the Watergate Scandal look like the tempest in a teapot that it actually was. How many people died as a result of the Watergate Scandal = 0. How many have died as a result of the Fast and Furious debacle = at least 200 and still counting including an American law enforcement officer. How did Richard Nixon disrespect, disregard or violate the Constitution in the Watergate Scandal = 0 (although his use of Executive privilege did spark a constitutional crisis). How many times has Barack Obama disrespected, disregarded or violated the Constitution during his time in office = at least three times as documented below by making recess appointments while Congress was still in session, by changing laws through executive orders without recourse to Congress and by refusing to enforce laws.
There is an old saying, “That’s good enough for government work.” This saying comes out of the big government make-work programs of the 1930s and has been used ever since as short hand for “Approximate is close enough,” which might as well be the new national motto. In societies that rob Peter to pay Paul the stage before all the Peters change their names to Paul is typified by government bean counters picking winners and losers. This process discourages producers and encourages non-producers assuring you get less of the former and more of the latter. As an educator I have a belief that if you don’t teach someone to do something right you teach them to do it wrong.
If Congress does not assert its place as a co-equal branch of government, the Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama will continue to usurp power. From recess appointments while Congress is in session to unilaterally changing laws to refusing to enforce the laws of the land this President is fundamentally transforming our system of government. Not through the amendment process, but through a campaign of unconstitutional and therefore illegal actions designed to advance the Progressive agenda and to influence the next election. Whether it is through the money laundering schemes that are government negotiations with public service unions, pork barrel payoffs to political donors, or back-door amnesty this is nothing more than a time-honored Chicago tradition buying votes. Combine this with a campaign to resist any attempt to verify who is voting and the stage is set for an emerging social re-make and elections that would make any managed society proud.
His supporters may call it the Audacity of Hope Campaign, but if it is successful it will be the audacity which crushes any hope of limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom. The dreams from his father will become the nightmares of our children and grandchildren. With no authority Mr. Obama is attempting to rule by decree. Executive orders have previously been used to direct the Executive Departments how to implement laws. Mr. Obama is using them to legislate, and that is in direct contravention to the separation of powers clearly outlined in the Constitution and are meant by his own admission to circumvent Congress.
President Obama has built a shadow government that parallels and is standing ready to supplant our constitutional government. Barely tipping his hat to the official Cabinet he has appointed more Czars than most of his predecessors and these Czars are not just advisers they are actually tasked with duties that under our traditional American governmental structure have been the responsibility of Cabinet Secretaries. These Czars are not confirmed; they are appointed, and none of them are accountable to anyone except the President. Even though Congress voted to defund his Czars, President Obama has said he will ignore that part of the Budget and keep them anyway. A cult of personality surrounds him typified by a compliant media which fawns over his every action and defends his every transgression.
As if to add icing to the cake the Obama Administration has invoked Executive Privilege to support Attorney General Holder in his refusal to surrender all requested documents in the Fast and Furious Scandal. What national security issues could there be in this matter? If the documents proved that the operation really did start under the Bush administration as Mr. Holder contends does anyone doubt they would have been on the table yesterday? Either the President is attempting to protect his Attorney General, some member of the White House staff or himself. Either way this may eventually provide a real similarity to the Watergate Scandal. Though in this case the cover-up could not be worse than the crime it could lead to enough fallout to make his own supporters leave a sinking ship to avoid the stigma of a failed presidency and a looming constitutional crisis.
In the Benghazi Scandal the memories of 4 dead Americans including our Ambassador the Obama administration first attempted to blame a video. This video wasn’t translated into Arabic until after the attacks that it supposedly inspired. There was mounting violence against Western Diplomats and Western interests in Benghazi before this that was ignored. Then during his recent re-election campaign President Obama re-invented the truth when he said that he labeled it a terrorist action from day one. Yet in Congressional investigations the stonewalling continues to protect the White House and the State department from accepting the blame for what was clearly a massive security collapse. To this day the only one jailed for this deadly failure has been the producer of the erroneously blamed video. Then again as Secretary of State Clinton quipped, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
In perhaps the most telling evidence for impeachment so far the Speaker of the House has declared that it is meaningless to pass legislation when based upon President Obama’s past practices there is no guarantee that the President will enforce the law. This is a stunning admission. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. In the Constitution as the chief executive the President is supposed to enforce and execute the laws. Having reached the point where the Speaker of the House can no longer trust that the President will enforce laws we have reached the place where this is no longer a nation of laws it is a nation of men. This is the opposite of what our Founders said that America should be.
Then there is the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare as it is popularly known. The President seems to believe he can rewrite this law in any way and at any time he chooses without regard to the fact that it was passed by Congress and signed into law. One conservative pundit compares President Obama’s serial re-writes of this law without the benefit of legislation as the actions of a banana republic. While a progressive pundit says that even though he was a supporter of the law these many changes and the blatant polarization of the law by delaying so many of its negative impacts until after the next election make it nearly impossible to defend.
The assaults upon the rule of law come on a daily basis. As if he is almost trying to add fuel to the flames or to rub his actions in everyone’s face President Obama said to French President Hollande as they strolled through the grounds of Jefferson’s Monticello “That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want”
If this slide into tyranny is not stopped it will continue. If it is not protested it will be accepted. I know there are not enough Senators to convict. As shown in the Clinton impeachment trial the Democrats vote as a block and the Progressive Republicans join with them ensuring there would be no conviction no matter what the charge. If these blatant attacks upon the checks and balances are not punished, at least by the shame and reproach of an Impeachment Resolution, they are being silently condoned. Speaker Boehner stand up and lead the House! Don’t just make a speech; present a case. Don’t just give us a photo op; give us a fighting chance to save this great experiment in human freedom.
If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. America it is time to stand up to this Southside Chicago bully. We need to let him know he can’t have our lunch money anymore, and he can’t subvert our Republic either at least not without us protesting and using every legal means available to stop him and preserve limited government.
We, the lovers of freedom and the supporters of limited government cannot merely wait the clock out on the Obama presidency. After winning a second term on a campaign based upon class warfare and the redistribution of wealth he and his statist backers act as if they have won a mandate for more of these unconstitutional power-grabs. An oligarchy of the perpetually re-elected veneered over a permanent nomenclature of federal bureaucrats easily falls in line behind a complacent and complicit media to cheer the new order as the soft tyranny of the central planners tell us what is best for us and then forces us to say thank you.
Protest the lawless Progressive counter-revolution! Contact you Representative and demand an impeachment hearing to investigate President Obama for the High Crimes of subverting the Constitution. He should be investigated for:
- Making recess appointments while Congress was still in session
- Ignoring his obligation to enforce the laws of the land in the areas of Immigration and the Defense of Marriage Act
- Incorrectly using a claim of Executive Privilege to cover up reckless and possibly criminal activity in the Fast and Furious scandal.
- Repeatedly changing the Affordable Care Act without the approval of Congress
- Using Executive Orders to circumvent the clearly spoken will of Congress as in the imposition of the Dream Act and Cap-N-Trade regulations after both of these were defeated in Congress
Act today! Contact your Representative and let them know patriotic Americans want this tyranny ended and limited government restored.
Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Why Can’t We Change? February 7, 2014
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: Amendment Process, Article V Convention, Articles of Confederation, conservative agenda, Constitution, Dr. Robert Owens, Progressive agenda, the constitution failed
1 comment so far
Paths with no obstacles usually lead nowhere.
Among those who hallow the Constitution you will find no more loyal devotee to this document that helped continue the limited government established under the Article of Confederation. There is no one who believes more passionately than the author of this article that the Constitution provided the space for the individual freedom, personal liberty, and economic opportunity needed to foster the growth of the greatest nation this world has ever seen
However, it is only necessary to read The Gilded Age by Mark Twain to see how corruption and greed, crony capitalism and lobbyists have been building their own kingdoms since before any of us were born. And just as it doesn’t take a weather man to know which way the wind blows it doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to know at this time and in this place the Constitution has failed.
Look at the path America is on. Do you think our current leaders or our current policies will lead to a renewing of America or to its slide into the second tier of nations? Think about the directions laid out for us.
We are told by the Progressives who lead us that perpetual continuation of unemployment payments for the long-term unemployed is good for the economy and good for jobs.
If unemployment creates jobs and is good for the economy why don’t we just give it to everyone who doesn’t have a job in perpetuity, and make it a thousand dollars a week for good measure?
Increase the minimum wage to $10.10. This will create jobs and help the economy. Our leaders say there are just too many people laboring for the current starvation wage of $7.25. While according to CNN Money, “An estimated 3.6 million people were paid hourly rates at or below the federal minimum in 2012, down from 3.8 million a year earlier. Just under 60% of all U.S. workers are paid hourly, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. An estimated 4.7% of those hourly workers make minimum wage or less, down from 5.2%, a year earlier. That share is the lowest since 2008.” That’s quite a few people: 3.6 million, and obviously worthy of notice.
However when 16 million people had their healthcare plans cancelled due to Obamacare we were told this was an insignificant number. As with everything connected to Obamacare the numbers of those who have lost insurance coverage as a result are sketchy. Some sources say more than 4.2 million Americans have now seen their health insurance policies canceled due to the new regulations. And the President’s spokesman said that 14 million losing their healthcare is just a “small sliver” of the population.
We must increase food stamps. This is the only humane thing to do since so many go to sleep hungry at night, and besides it will create jobs and it’s good for the economy.
If food stamps spur economic growth why not just give them to everyone and on a handy plastic card that works at marijuana stores and casinos.
We must have comprehensive immigration reform, the code words for amnesty because it will create jobs and it’s good for the economy besides the illegals have earned the right to be citizens. This comes not from some general in La Raza it comes from our own Secretary of Homeland Security. If illegal immigrants have earned the right to be citizens why don’t we just dispense with borders and give citizenship to every undocumented democrat who can walk across the line.
Look at these continuing soap operas we find as our national policy. These are transparent wealth transfers, give aways, and oxymoronic programs building bridges to nowhere. All passed by the gerrymandered representatives of K Street that make up the perpetually re-elected representatives of our nation and lame excuses for leadership proposed by empty suits who have occupied the White House since Reagan went home to California.
What’s a patriot to do? There is a remedy in the Constitution for the failure of the Constitution. It is found in Article V which describes the amendment process. This provides two ways to amend the Constitution: either Congress initiates an amendment or the States can call for a Constitutional Convention to consider amendments. The first method has resulted in 27 amendments. The second method has never been used.
Many people fear a Constitutional Convention. Many believe that it would open a can of worms and lead to the destruction of our limited government. Our limited government has already been co-opted by the Progressives and turned into a Leviathan which is quickly devouring every limit and every freedom in its path.
What we have is not working, and it hasn’t worked for quite some time. I believe Article V at least provides a method to attempt to return to limited government peacefully. Let’s give peace a chance. I believe that the principles of liberty can win in the marketplace of ideas. Let us engage in a debate to save our present and the future of our children. To continue the way we are going leads to a democratic totalitarianism of the majority.
If we could find the faith and the courage to call a Constitutional Convention for what should we advocate?
I propose we do as our ancestors the Framers of our Constitution did when they were called upon to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. I propose we write a completely new document. Where do I get the chutzpa, the hubris to call for such an outcome?
By remembering why governments exist at all, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” And never forgetting “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect (sic) their safety and happiness.”
Our system is broken and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put it back together again. If we stay within the bounds of what has been done in the past what are we to do? Propose a Balanced Budget Amendment or a Spending Restriction Amendment? Or perhaps an amendment that says, “The Constitution means what it says not what judges interpret it to say” and then stand back while the Supreme Court interprets that to mean as one Chief Justice said, “The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.”
If we continue to play the same game by the same rules we will lose the same hand because the deck is stacked. This is when we need to remember: paths with no obstacles usually lead nowhere.
Let us be as bold and brave as our forefathers. Let us propose fundamental change and roll the dice. If you don’t swing the bat you don’t have a chance to hit the ball. If we continue on the road we are traveling the only thing left to say is an attempt to explain how and why we let freedom slip from our grasp.
I believe that no one is as smart as everyone, so the ideas I am proposing I do not see as the beginning and end of debate. I see them instead as a starting point. Let’s join together, demand a hearing, and move forward in an attempt to reinstate limited government and preserve this last best hope of mankind.
First of all I stand for retaining the amendments with the exception of the 16th and 17th and enshrining them within the original document.
I propose eliminating the office of President and changing to a parliamentary style government based upon the majority in the House electing a Prime Minister who is head of government and head of State. Elections for the House should continue on a two year basis.
I propose that we keep the Senate but that it reverts to its original intent as the representatives of the States and those Senators are once again elected by the legislatures of the States and serve at their pleasure.
I propose stronger guarantees for the States in a renewed Federalism: a true confederation similar to that of Switzerland.
I propose that since the scope of Federal jurisdiction will be severely restricted, the Federal Court System along with its power of judicial review be abolished. The State court systems are well able to handle the civil and criminal cases brought within their boundaries.
I propose that the Supreme Court be abolished and replaced by a Constitutional Court similar to Germany’s. This court would be physically removed from the capital, and it shall have no jurisdiction beyond Judicial Review having the power to declare laws and actions of the Federal Government unconstitutional. The Congress shall have the power to override these rulings by a three quarter majority in both houses. Judges shall serve four year terms with only two terms allowed.
I know that these proposals will make some people very upset. I know these proposals will make some quit reading this History of the Future. I also know that is we do not do something to break the log jam the river will not flow free.
Yes, there are what seem to be insurmountable obstacles to change. I know these obstacles are daunting, and they will not be overcome by the timid. However, paths with no obstacles usually lead nowhere, and if what we have is no longer working, why can’t we change.
Keep the Faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Whose Responsibility is It? January 24, 2014
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: achievement, determinist, Dr. Robert Owens, morality, opportunity, responsibility, you didn’t build that
add a comment
God makes all of us to be round pegs in round holes. In a free society if we end up a round peg in a square hole…..that’s on us.
There is no feeling worse than believing we have squandered our talents, wasted our life, and made no difference in our short time upon the world stage. If we live in a society that chooses what, where, and how we do things it is easy to feel as if the opportunity to become who we were created to be was stolen. However in a free society where we can choose for ourselves the responsibility for those choices as well as the freedom belongs to us.
Freedom does not merely mean that each individual bears the responsibility and the burden of choosing their path. In a free society it also means that each individual will also receive either the praise or the blame that results from those choices. Freedom and responsibility cannot be separated if either is to have a realistic bearing upon the individual. If you cannot choose you are not responsible. If you can you are. A society cannot call itself free unless individuals ultimately occupy the positions and bear the consequences resulting from their own actions. For that society to remain stable the individuals need to recognize that their positions and the concurrent consequences are the result of their own choices and actions.
A free society can only offer the opportunity to choose, and in a society of free agents this can only provide the chance for success. The outcome always depends on the accidental interactions between circumstances and others. Someone who has taken their destiny into their own hands while cognoscente of what they cannot control will concentrate their attention on what they can as if these are the only aspects of the endeavor which matter. Circumstances and chance will either be advantageous or limiting. Only the individual will know whether they have made the most advantageous use of either their talents or their circumstances therefore the responsibility for their actions resides with them.
In America today the knowledge of and the belief in this link between freedom and responsibility has become as rare as the honest man Diogenes spent a life time looking for. Today victimhood has been raised to an art form. It is inspired and rewarded by a complex system of laws and social conventions that offers praise for the helpless pawn and reviles the individual who succeeds. Driven by the apathy and antagonism it elicits from those who accept the arguments that “You can’t fight city hall” and “It wasn’t my fault” even the word responsibility disappears from the vocabulary of motivation from the pulpit to the hustings.
The I’m OK you’re OK culture that accepts infanticide, suicide, and much else of what was once known as vice as not only morally acceptable but as civil rights flees from moralizing. This throw-away culture elects people of the lowest morals and of the most glaring narcissism: media rock stars who rule instead of lead and who trample upon the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for. This is not only accepted it is voted for since if our leaders are morally bankrupt it is all right for us to do whatever feels good. If our leaders are attempting to weld the shackles of a totalitarian gulag in every sphere of life we truly are deprived of choice and are mere victims.
If you attempt to tell people that they are responsible for their choices and their conditions it will often provoke outright hostility. These people have been taught that society has made them what they are. It has determined their position in life and it is nothing but external circumstances that decide whether they succeed or fail. They have rejected all responsibility because they fear it and in consequence they have rejected freedom.
In a large part this is a development that is not purely either religious or political in nature. The rise of science and of the attempt to apply it to our understanding of humanity leads to several conclusions which are incompatible with freedom.
The first of these misapplied axioms is that everything is governed by iron-clad laws. While this may apply to thermodynamics it does not relate in the same fashion to free agents in a free society. Thoughts are infinite and new thoughts can always inspire new choices. The second axiom erroneously used to understand human action is the idea of universal determinism. The idea that all things are the inevitable consequence of prior action directed by inherently immutable outside forces precludes spontaneity and freedom of choice. In such a system human will becomes an illusion and reality a maze with always only one way out.
Of course based on reality as experienced by everyone it has to be admitted that except on rare occasions the outcomes of human action could not be predicted and the results of particular circumstances interacting with particular individuals could not be foreseen. However from genetics to economics from sociology to politics the belief that everything is determined by laws eliminates the space for a belief in freedom of the will and the responsibility which its operation engenders.
Those who accept the determinist position assert that it is genetics shaped by education tempered by society that constructs and controls all of us. We are all the product of both nature and nurture and we exist within a grid designed, created, and controlled by society. Whatever we are and whatever we become it isn’t our fault and it isn’t our choice or our effort. This position was summed up brilliantly in the statement, “You didn’t build that.” If you accomplished something you didn’t do it on your own just as if you fail it isn’t because of you, you’re merely a victim and as such society owes you support.
Divorced from morality and excluded from personal experience by education and an ever more regimented society responsibility has become a legal concept. There are intricate webs of laws used to determine liability in the case of negatives while the “You didn’t build that” mentality erodes the concept of responsibility for success. Once the link between choice and responsibility has been severed one of the major motivators for excellence has been silenced. For the greatest significance of this fundamental concept is that a feeling of responsibility for one’s own choices is its role in guiding the decisions and actions for free people.
If nothing is ever your fault, if nothing is ever your achievement what does it matter what you choose or what you do? If we are to be free we must bear the responsibility of that freedom or else we will search our whole life to learn whose responsibility is it.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
What’s the Reason? January 10, 2014
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: America first, American tradition, conservative agenda, Conservatives, Dr. Robert Owens, Progressive agenda, Progressives, rationalistic, reason, traditionalists, traditions
1 comment so far
Just as the pursuit of perfection can often end in the sacrifice of what is good so too the worship of reason often results in the exaltation of mediocrity and the circumscription of reasonable thought and action.
Daily the Progressives aggressively push forward against positions which have long been the traditional battle lines of the conservative movement. The front lines in the culture war move ever closer to the transformed America they envision. First prayer was expelled from School. Then the sexual revolution wave peaked with the nullification of state abortion laws by the Supreme Court and then crashed into the mainstream with condoms and birth-control distributed to school children. Divorce became common-place, and out-of-wedlock births account for the majority in several demographics. Pornography is a constitutional right and as close as a mouse click away in most homes.
Those who want to hold on to the America we were raised in are ridiculed in the press, movies, and by our elected officials as a wild-eyed fringe of traditionalist America-firsters clinging to our guns and Bibles. This is why it is important to examine the place of reason as opposed to tradition in the operation of society.
To paraphrase the infamous phrase of George Bush the Younger, “I have sacrificed free market principles to save the free market system,” I would say, “At times we must suspend the rule of reason for reason to flourish.” Or follow in the footsteps of David Hume who was said to have turned against the Enlightenment its own weapons to whittle down the claims of reason by the use of rational analysis.
It is the ability to think in symbols and imagine abstract things that sets man apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Therefore at the outset let me say this is not an appeal for irrationality or any type of transcendental mysticism. It is instead meant to be a rational examination of the anti-rationalistic position which is necessary for the preservation of individual freedom, personal liberty, and economic opportunity, and the only conditions under which reason can flourish and evolve. For the attempt to apply reason and reason alone to the organization of society’s intricately woven interface of conventions stifles creativity, leaves no place for innovation, and is ultimately unreasonable.
When we attempt to apply the laws of science or the mechanical practices of engineering to human activity we run the risk of building a maze so perfect the mouse can never find the cheese. Or in other words we can seek to make our processes so ideal that there is no room for free thinking, free action, or for the splashes of genius that are the real catalysts of societal evolution.
Those who stand by the idea that reason and reason alone should shape the future must of necessity seek to abandon tradition; for traditions are not built upon reason. They are built upon trial and error. That which doesn’t work is discarded, and that which works becomes accepted through use and time. However it is impossible to completely disregard tradition. Every day each of us moves through life acting upon hundreds of unconscious rules and procedures that we don’t think about because they were bred into us by those who raised us. It is the consensus of a common culture and heritage which makes a people one, E Pluribus Unum.
Those who worship reason believe that they can design a perfect society, a utopia, and that all of their dreams of perfection will stand the light of day. History proves over and over that those who seek to guide the evolution of man through the evolution of society do not create the heaven on earth they advertise.
Look to the French Revolution which cast down Christ and enshrined Reason as their God. It didn’t produce the liberty, equality, and fraternity it promised; instead it brought forth Terror, dictatorship, war and ruin. The Russian Revolution overthrew the absolute monarchy of the Romanovs and installed an even more absolute dictatorship that promised a worker’s paradise and delivered the gulags, starvation, and collapse.
When those who think they are wise enough to make everyone’s decisions about everything try to manufacture a society that looks like their computer models they must use coercion to force those who do not accept their vision to act as if they did. Rules, regulations and red tape bind the human spirit and prevent the growth of the un-designed, the unforeseen, and smother the spark of genius. As counter intuitive as it may sound a free society will always be in large measure a tradition bound society. For traditions, though they may seem unbreakable at times, are always evolving while rules are cast in concrete.
Patrick Henry told us, “Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Our virtue is embodied and defended in our traditions. Once these walls have fallen how can our virtue stand unprotected assailed on all sides in what is becoming an alien culture?
The ethics of virtue tells us “virtue is determined by the right reason. Virtue requires the right desire and the right reason. To act from the wrong reason is to act viciously. On the other hand, the agent can try to act from the right reason, but fail because he or she has the wrong desire. The virtuous agent acts effortlessly, perceives the right reason, has the harmonious right desire, and has an inner state of virtue that flows smoothly into action. The virtuous agent can act as an exemplar of virtue to others.”
The virtuous person acts in the way they do because it is their nature. They have imbibed the virtue of their society and they act naturally as an embodiment of the good. They have absorbed the traditions and they act as they do without thought, without regard or reliance on reason. They do not question what is right or wrong. They know what is right or wrong and act accordingly. They follow tradition.
The worshipers of reason reject the traditions that have grown up organically in society and design their own. They reject the good and seek the perfect. The problem is that perfection is impossible in this life. Perfection does not belong to the realm of man. The air castles and utopias of the rationalistic social engineers may look good on paper; however they never materialize into anywhere we can live.
Why is it hell the Progressives will deliver instead of the heaven they promise? This is what has traditionally happened and that’s the reason.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Never the Twain Shall Meet December 20, 2013
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: Capitalism, Dr. Robert Owens, freedom, French revolution, laissez-faire, liberty, Progressive agenda, Progressive Movement, utilitarianism
1 comment so far
When Kipling coined this phrase in the 19th century he was lamenting the gulf of understanding between the imperial British and their subjects on the Indian subcontinent. It has since entered general usage meaning two things that are so different they have no opportunity to unite.
In the development and discussion of liberty there are two strains which fit this description. There is the English school of thought born out of fits and starts developed over centuries by trial and error as first the Lords and then the common people of England fought for and gained individual liberty, personal freedom and economic opportunity. On the other side is the French School of thought which sprang from the French Revolution. This revolution was based upon a foundation of several generations of French thinkers who labored under the extremely autocratic divine right monarchy which held France in thrall for so long.
Our Republic sprang from the English tradition, and for most of its History has developed along the lines it defined. Today we find our traditions and our model of governance under assault not from without but from within. After successfully defeating the Fascist totalitarians in World War II and subsequently defeating the Soviet totalitarians in the Cold War we find ourselves face-to-face with home grown want-to-be totalitarians. Many wonder how this can be. How can people raised in America think so differently than Americans have thought for so long?
What we face is a clique of academics who have no real world experience and who have accepted the French as opposed to the English school of thought. Once we explore the two this will reveal it to be what one might expect from those who have inhabited the ivory towers for their entire adult lives.
So what are the differences between the English and the French theories of Liberty?
The English theory was forged in the fires of English History. Starting with the Magna Charta wherein the Lords forced King John to accept some limitation on his absolute power, it continued on through the slow expansion of rights and the Civil War. Leading eventually to the emasculation of the Lords, the triumph of the House, and the primacy of its Prime Minister, the English tradition grew it was not imposed. This process was highly empirical and unsystematic.
The French theory is the product of a slow germination at first by intellectuals and academics who labored under a repressive regime of hereditary elites ruled over by kings who claimed divine right to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted to whoever they wanted. These thinkers had no way to experiment. They had no way to see if their ideas worked in the real world. They thought in virtual vacuums building highways in the air to link sand castles of the mind. Their approach was rationalistic and systematic.
The English school built upon such thinkers as David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke. The French built upon the works of such notables as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Nicolas de Condorcet, and François Quesnay.
The French rationalists believed that man was originally endowed with the intellectual and moral capacity to deliberately build society, civilization and government. The English believe that all three are the result of an evolutionary process of trial and error. The French believed that thinking man could devise new and better forms of governance and impose them from above. The English believed that effective governance was a product of experience discarding that which does not work and perfecting that which does.
The English view is deeply entrenched in Christian tradition and thought. It does not build upon anything like the natural goodness of man, natural harmony, or natural liberty the hallmarks of the French school. They instead realized that it was informed self-interest that was the prime-mover amongst men. However there was no illusion that the natural liberty or natural harmony of interests would direct this self-interest to provide or develop society in a manner which promoted the general good. The English school and the works which their leading lights produced universally saw law and structure as the necessary framework within which the invisible hand could and would benefit the general society by working for the individual good. Or as a famous American once said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
It is obvious from even a cursory review of the works of the English school that they do not advocate for either anarchy in government or laissez-faire in economics. Both of which are common charges casually tossed in the direction of American Traditionalists by the progressive elites who control our government and media.
Conversely, the French school not only advocated but coined the phrase laissez-faire, and Anarchy as a political theory was developed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. It is the French tradition which holds that liberty can be imposed from above and yet in a Schizophrenic fit of conscious these would-be liberators could say as Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism, did, “Every law is an evil for every law is an infraction of liberty.” No matter what their theories say about the greatest good for the greatest number and their goal of a worker’s paradise these are the same people who brought us the Soviet gulag and the Cambodian killing fields.
The differences between the two schools of thought are best illustrated in their fundamental assumptions regarding the essence of human nature. The French relying on their rationalistic conscious design model hold that humans have an innate ability to think and a desire to act rationally based on their natural intelligence and basic goodness. The English believe that it is the institutions and traditions evolved over time that provide a framework which allows man to constrain his fallen nature. They see these institutions as platforms for the launching of society into a trajectory to good while at the same time restraining the darker side of human nature from doing its worst.
These two schools of thought are as different as east and west. Though they may at present in America travel on the same road they are heading for two completely different destinations. They may even race towards each other at a furious speed, and they may collide; however, never the twain shall meet.
Though Harry Reid may call those who oppose the endless spending anarchists, and Pelosi may call those who oppose raising the debt limit advocates of laissez-faire it is they who represent the intrusion of the French school into American politics. It is the Progressives who march around the world trying to impose liberty and democracy on cultures that find democracy abhorrent and ungodly. It is the Progressives who are dedicated to creating a utopia from the top down.
In other words a donkey may call an elephant an ass but that doesn’t make it one.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Liberty Makes Ignorance Necessary December 13, 2013
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: central-planning, Dr. Robert Owens, enlightenment thinking, liberty, Political philosophy, political theory
add a comment
If we knew everything in the past and the future there would be little need for freedom. If we could accurately know all that preceded our fleeting moment upon life’s stage, if we could know all the consequences of our present desires, and if we could know what we would desire in the future we could then chart a course to perfection without any detours and so freedom of action would be unnecessary and central-planning would make sense.
Freedom would not only be unnecessary it would be very inconvenient. One free agent on this express to perfection would be the fly in the ointment and the monkey wrench in the gears. That one free person would rage against the machines, and would inevitably make an unforeseen choice and all the perfection would silently slip away.
In order to have the freedom to succeed there must also be freedom to fail. We all need the freedom to act upon circumstances that we don’t fully understand to attain goals whose consequences we can’t fully appreciate. Without this there is no freedom. We can pretend as the progressive advocates of central-planning do that we can accurately predict the consequence of every action; however this is contrary to our real-world experience.
The reason failure is so prevalent is due to the fact that every individual is operating with imperfect knowledge of what is best or of what will eventually yield the best outcome that we must allow people the freedom to act upon their ignorance. In this way the independent and competitive choices of many individuals will eventually lead through trial and error to the development of the best. Since so many times the best emerges through accidental or unforeseen results of actions taken without complete knowledge of what the outcome would be we must leave room for accidents often guided by ignorance so that knowledge can grow.
It is an incontrovertible fact that as the fund of human knowledge grows the percentage that any one person can effectively know becomes smaller. In other words, as general knowledge increases individual ignorance also increases. Add to this the constantly increasing complexity of our civilization and it becomes obvious that people must be allowed to act upon the knowledge they possess without regard to the vast amount of knowledge they do not possess. Otherwise no advancement would be possible, and we would live in a static society doomed to eventual demise.
It is this freedom to act in ignorance of all the consequences of their actions that allows the space for individual innovation. The greater the freedom of individuals to interpret the world according to their imperfect knowledge and to organize their efforts based upon their understanding of the world as they see it the greater the opportunity for the accidents which make up the majority of progress. If we take away the freedom to act upon our imperfect knowledge, if we take away the freedom to fail we will also take away the engine of progress and condemn ourselves to a stagnant world of limited possibilities.
As one person tries something another may build upon their result whether it succeeds or fails. The ability to learn from and build upon the experience of others is the seedbed of innovation and the font of discovery. It is our ignorance of all but a small fragment of reality that causes probability and chance to play such a large portion in our activities. It is within this realm of probability and chance that the future grows.
This applies to social as well as technical fields. The favorable accidents which become the building blocks of a vibrant, successful society do not just happen. They are the result of someone taking a risk, doing something that hasn’t been tried before without the complete knowledge of what the result will be. They include the chance of failure as well as of success and often the success achieved is not the desired end result of the action when it was initiated. Freedom increases the opportunity for risk and opens the door to possibility.
When we look at the vast amount of knowledge that makes up the common store of information in the modern age and then look at the miniscule percentage that any one person could possibly gain, retain and understand we see that the difference between what the wisest knows and what the least wise knows is comparatively insignificant. Everyone is operating based upon imperfect knowledge and the acceptance of grand assumptions.
To tell you the truth I am not really sure how electricity works. Yet most of my life and lifestyle is predicated on the availability and use of electricity. Most people have no idea how the economy works yet we all base our lives upon the fact that it does. If we refused to act in areas where we had less than perfect knowledge we would do nothing. One of the big differences between an advocate of liberty and an advocate of central-planning is that those who see liberty as man’s natural state understand that no one person or group is wise enough to make all the decisions for everyone. Central planners by definition believe they are wise enough to do so.
The case for liberty made by such Enlightenment thinkers as John Milton and John Locke provided the philosophical foundation for the Framers as they wrote our Constitution. They based their arguments for liberty on the realization that human ignorance and our need to act in the face of ignorance is a basic component of reality.
Every application of the tenants of Liberty reflect our need to give these actions based upon ignorance the widest possible scope to interface with chance and probability not certainty. Certainty is unattainable in this life outside of a cultural straightjacket that restricts choice and eliminates the freedom to fail. Such a society will be stagnant, stunted and doomed. Without the freedom to fail on an individual basis and then fall forward from that failure a society has short-circuited the conveyor belt of individual success and charted the course to eventual systemic failure. The former USSR was a text book example of this scenario.
If we wish to avoid the trash heap of History we must be wise enough to learn that though acting upon ignorance may increase the odds of failure if we try to eliminate failure so that everyone gets a trophy and everyone succeeds we have consigned ourselves to the dead end that always awaits anyone or any society that believes perfection is attainable on this earth.
For it isn’t failing that marks a failure it is the refusal to rise from failure and move on to success. We learn by failing. We achieve by using our freedom to fail as a launching pad for success. We fail because of our ignorance. We succeed because of our failures.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Dr. Robert Owens Chronicles the History of the Future 