Billionaire Funds Overthrow of Capitalism

Billionaire Funds Overthrow of Capitalism

Cliff Kincaid

April 27, 2017


    “System Change, Not Climate Change” is the demand being made by the Party for Socialism and Liberation in regard to Saturday’s Peoples Climate March. “Only socialism can solve the climate crisis,” they say. It appears that the organizers of the march agree, since the old Moscow-funded Communist Party is listed as one of the official “partners” of the group sponsoring the April 29th demonstration in the nation’s capital.

    Russian leader Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than to see the U.S. close down its oil and gas industry and try to run a modern industrial economy on solar panels and windmills.

The Communist Party (CPUSA) is ecstatic, saying that a “radicalization process” is underway “that’s given renewed meaning and life by the independent movement to elect our country’s first African American president, Occupy Wall Street, the Dreamers, Black Lives Matter, marriage equality, and the political revolution energized by the Sanders bid for the presidency.”

But don’t expect our media to look behind the curtain of the Peoples Climate March, since reporters share the ideology of climate change. We will probably be told that the march is comprised of moms and kids.

In this case, it’s not really “behind the curtain” because the “partners” of the march are listed openly on the organizer’s website. The CPUSA-affiliate U.S. Peace Council is another partner.

Other official partners include Catholic groups like the Franciscan Action Network, and unions like the American Federation of Teachers, American Postal Workers Union, Service Employees International Union, and Communications Workers of America.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that backed Obama from the start of his political career, is a partner, as is the Socialist Party and the American Humanist Association.

Academia is represented through such organizations as the American Association of University Professors.

But there’s more: the Global Muslim Climate Network, the Islamic Society of North America, and a group called Green Muslims have signed on as partners.

Native Lives Matter has been formed, and they, too, are a partner of the climate march.

“On the 100th day of Trump’s presidency,” say the organizers, “our march will celebrate both the diversity of our movements and demonstrate our unity in the face of Trump’s attempts to divide us.” This is apparently a reference to President Donald Trump’s decision to enlist some industrial unions in a coalition to create jobs through the use of America’s oil and gas resources.

Trump’s electoral success has split apart the Democratic Party coalition that depended on unions and workers to help liberals win on Election Day.

One of the speakers, Jazzlyn Lindsey of Black Lives Matter DC, is described as someone who “utilizes her innovative interpersonal skills to educate and engage her peers on issues pertaining to the history of punishment and prisons, environmental racism, and intersectional feminism.” A picture on her Facebook page shows a “Black Muslims Matter” sign.

The national coordinator of the group behind the march, the Peoples Climate Movement, is Paul Getsos, who says, “We are a broad-based formation of over 50 organizations working with movements across the country to stop the Trump Administration’s and Congress’ attacks on our planet, people and communities. We demand an economy and government that works for all, clean air and water and a healthy environment. This administration must immediately stop attacks on communities of color and immigrant, Muslim, indigenous and LGBTQIA communities. We are marching from the Capital [sic] to the White House on his 100th day in office to show our resistance to the policies that favor the 1%, hastens climate change, poisons our water and air and harms our communities and people and then returning home to do the work of continuing to build this movement in every community across the country.”

The first Peoples Climate March was held on September 21, 2014 in New York City.

Getsos, described as a political strategist with his own consulting firm, was a contributor to the “Ear to the Ground Project” associated with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Another contributor was “former” communist and CNN analyst Van Jones.

One of their recommendations is to reach out beyond the far-left: “We need to identify a set of people who are our best communicators, and their role should be to hold down movement ideas, in a smart way, in public debates, online, on CNN, etc. Not just in ‘alternative’ or progressive media.” Another recommendation is, “Need more funny people turning our political ideas into widely distributed to large numbers of people. Political humor, satire, that can go viral and make a mass impact.”

Stephen Colbert is apparently not far-left enough for these characters.

Under the heading of “political formations,” leftists are told, “We need a new Left party. A united party for socialism. Not primarily an electoral vehicle. Should be explicitly anti-capitalist, a bridge between generations, training activists. An eye on the fight for people’s power. Without a hard left you have a weak middle. I don’t mean dogmatic, but it’s clear that capitalism does not have the answer to the world’s problems and we need a socialist alternative.”

However, billionaire Tom Steyer, president of NextGen Climate, is a big backer of the rally. “Tom founded a successful California business, which he left to work full-time on non-profit and advocacy efforts,” his bio says. In fact, he ran a financial hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management, which is considered to be on the cutting edge of the highest stage of capitalism, to use Marxist jargon. He sold his stake in the firm in 2012 and is now worth $1.6 billion. Forbes points out that he spent more than $65 million to back environmental causes and the Democratic Party in 2016. “Trump’s victory shocked him,” the magazine says, “Now Steyer, the founder of Farallon Capital and the environmental group NextGen Climate, is using his voice—and his wallet—to battle[the]  Trump administration.”

Like the hedge fund associated with George Soros, another billionaire backer of the “people’s revolution,” Farallon has specialized in managing equity capital “for high net worth individuals.”

It all sounds pretty capitalist to me.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at

Protect and Defend the Constitution From Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

Protect and Defend the Constitution From Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

    Writing prior to the past presidential election that the selection of the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to replace Justice Scalia was among the most important issues of the election, that assertion is now validated, again and again. America is under attack from enemies, foreign and domestic, on battlefields in our homeland and around the world. Under the guise of tolerance and political correctness, aided by the treasonous false propaganda of a media corrupted by the lies and deceptions emanating from educators not accountable to any standard of truth or justice; these traitors attack the ideological foundation of freedom and justice for all.

    Most egregious is the fact that those robed in black, bound by their oath of office, knowingly and willfully continue to violate that oath. It is now long past the time for Congress to uphold its oath of office and remove these judicial tyrants from the bar of justice.


Washington Update

Tony Perkins


The Seventh Circuit Stretch

April 05, 2017

    If Congress won’t rewrite the law, liberals will find a court who will! That’s been the M.O. of the Left for decades: packing the bench with wannabe legislators who’ll impose the agendas they could never pass democratically. It worked on school prayer, abortion, and marriage, as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) bragged last year. Now, the Left is using the same playbook on the gender debate — knowing full well that it’s the only way they can force their vision on an unwilling America. Fortunately, there are some judges who agree with us that if the Left wants to change the definition of discrimination, it’s asking the wrong branch of government. Unfortunately, those judges aren’t in the majority on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a mind-boggling decision yesterday, the judges not only stole Congress’s job — they admitted they were doing it!

    For years, liberals have tried to pass legislation making “sexual orientation” a protected category under the Civil Rights Act — first with ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and then with the “Equality Act.” The House and Senate rejected them every time. They recognized, as we do, that sexual orientation wasn’t on the minds of legislators 53 years ago when it was trying to weed out prejudice — and more importantly, it wasn’t in the text of the law that passed! No bother, liberals said. We’ll just rewrite the policy through our activist courts.

And Tuesday, the 7th Circuit was more than willing to comply. “For many years,” Chief Judge Diane Wood admitted, “the courts of appeals of this country understood the prohibition against sex discrimination to exclude discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation.” So by her own admission, there’s absolutely no justification for rewriting the law. Still, she goes on, it’s the court’s responsibility to take a “fresh look” at its position. And in doing so, she writes, “we conclude today that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.”

The decision, an 8-3 bombshell, was astounding because it bucked — not just the 7th Circuit’s precedent, but every circuit’s precedent. Judge Diane Sykes was just as shocked as we are. “Any case heard by the full court is important,” she wrote in her dissent, “This one is momentous. All the more reason to pay careful attention to the limits on the court’s role… We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions.” In a powerful rebuke, she warns her colleagues that they’ve crossed into dangerous new territory.

    “Our role is to… [interpret] the statutory language as a reasonable person would have understood it at the time of enactment. When we assume the power to alter the original public meaning of a statute through the process of interpretation, we assume a power that is not ours. The Constitution assigns the power to make and amend statutory law to the elected representatives of the people. However welcome today’s decision might be as a policy matter, it comes at a great cost to representative self-government.”

    Translation: If you want to be a legislator, run for office! Stop “smuggling in” your own agenda, Sykes writes, “under cover of an aggressive reading of loosely related Supreme Court precedents.” Legislative change, she recognizes, “is arduous and can be slow to come. But we’re not authorized to amend Title VII by interpretation.” Despite what the Left would have you believe, impatience with Congress is no reason for throwing the separation of powers overboard! A panel of the 11th Circuit Court argued the same point in a similar case three weeks ago. Led by Judge William Pryor, they came to the opposite conclusion on the Civil Rights Act, upholding it the way it was written. Unlike Judge Wood, they understand that if liberals want to make the workplace an incubator of their radical agenda, they’ll have to persuade America the old fashioned way: democratically!

Of course, the backdrop for both decisions is the ongoing debate over Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch. Is it any wonder the knives are coming out for the president’s nominee? The 49-year-old has been adamant about respecting the court’s limited role. Trust me, that’s not what the Left wants to hear. They’re in the market for an undercover legislator. And if this case has illustrated anything, FRC’s Peter Sprigg points out, it’s “how important it is to appoint judges who understand their limited role in our constitutional system, who will exercise judicial restraint, and who will interpret both the Constitution and federal statutes in accordance with their original meaning.”

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

Judicial Tyranny and the Failure of Congress

Judicial Tyranny and the Failure of Congress

    President Trump in trying to protect America has encountered the treason of protestors attempting to violently overthrow the duly elected government, usurping the fundamental civil rights of Americans. Begun in Ferguson, where criminals were allowed by a governor; failing to uphold his oath of office in protecting and defending the original intention of the Constitution of the State of Missouri and the Constitution of the United States; to rob, loot, burn property, and obstruct the access of innocent citizens to their homes and businesses.

    Not only is the rule and order of law at every level ignored, judicial tyranny unrestrained by failed legislatures has been permitted to violate the Constitution and ignore common sense. The Framers and Founders were fully cognizant of where tyranny or failure of any branch of government to check and balance each other would lead. Regarding judicial tyranny, Thomas Jefferson expressed the danger clearly.

    “In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”  — Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 6 Sept. 1819,The Works of Thomas Jefferson. ed. P.L. Ford, Fed. Ed.12:135—38

    On other issues from immigration to protecting life, privacy, and preventing terrorism; enemies, foreign and domestic, are aided and abetted by politicans and a media completely ignoring or ignorant of the truths of science and history. On ideological grounds, the Framers established the Constitution as the overriding authority over the rule and order of man’s law in the American political jurisdiction. Itself based on immutable Law beyond human comprehension and capacity, it is Law indelibly inscribed on tablets of Truth. Only amendable by three-quarters of the established political authority, the Constitution is framed to address the ever-present repetitive failures of human behavior. Whether protected from the errors and failures of the public majority by the Electoral College, the election of Senators by the state legislatures, the intention of only direct taxes, and the other safeguards and protections incorporated after studying history in secret for three weeks before beginning deliberations, the Constitution places the primary responsibility for its protection on Congress.

After undergoing and suffering the tragedy of our great Civil War, the belief in an absolute of law became eroded. Asking the question, as to “How God . . .”, until then accepted as the Source of all, – truth, the natural order, emotion, immutable Law, etc., presumed until then as having a character of being loving and just, “ . . . could countenance such horror?”, the false religions of humanism spewed forth the lies and deceptions separating all its congregants from the Truth endowing “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”.

The judiciary led the charge in the attack on America. From Langdon, to C.E. Hughes, Jr., and on to the traitors, robed ominously in black today, Congress has failed in upholding its oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution from “all enemies, foreign and domestic”. As it did in the Judiciary Act of 1789, in the first Congress, in the City Hall of New York, as with the Bill of Rights, followed by subsequent Judiciary Acts until after 1891, Congress had exercised its Constitutional authority over all the Federal judiciary including the Supreme Court. Insidiously eroding and corrupting our freedom by judicial tyranny, Americans are shackled with injustices defying even common sense and reason.

Impacted by the consequences of a judiciary being unchecked by Congress, this Committee for the Constitution, in numerous articles, called for Congress to accept its Constitutional responsibility in regulating the unbridled tyranny of judicial activism. Until the recent election displayed the intention of the people to “drain the swamp” eliminating the corruption and injustice of government ruled by a political establishment, lawyers loyal to the politics of a bar excluding truth and reality ruled untouched by Congressional oversight and “justice for all”.

Time is long overdue for Congress to rein in the tyranny and violation of the original intention of the Constitution with a new Judiciary Act modeled after the ones proposed by this Committee for the Constitution. Regardless of what anyone or any entity; be it politicians at any level of government, in any jurisdiction; corporations unjustly eliminating free enterprise and/or free just competition through unbridled capitalism; those fomenting civil unrest and crimes violating fundamental civil rights; to those disseminating the lies and deceptions attending the religions of humanism in the guise of political correctness; chooses to believe, only Truth defines reality.


The Judiciary Act of 2017

    An Act to regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all inferior Courts of the United States brought under the authority of Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America as amended.

Be it enacted:

Article I


Section 1. That the Supreme Court of the United States shall not exercise final authority over the interpretation of the original intention of the Constitution of the United States.

Section 2. That such final authority to determine the original intention of the Constitution rests solely with Congress of the United States fully assembled according to a three-fourths majority of both Houses concurring with the President of the United States.

Section 3. That upon passage of any judgement by Congress and signature by the President brought under this Section, one-third of the several States concurring by action of their governors may require ratification of such a judgement brought under this Section by three-quarters of the legislatures of the States concurring.

Section 4. That no Court in the United States shall have any jurisdiction over any law passed by any legislature of the United States and signed into law by the governor of the said state except where such jurisdiction is specifically and explicitly granted by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the said State.

Section 5. That any question of constitutionality of any law of any state or any question of the Constitutional intention relative to any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States may only be decided by petition of one or more state legislatures to the Congress of the United States fully assembled, and further any such question may only be adjudicated by not less than a three-fourths majority of both the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring.

Section 6. That absent concurrence and decision of both houses of the Congress of the United States, the original intention of the state Constitution determined by the legislative history of that state’s Constitution and any Amendments shall control.

 Article II


Section 1. That on appeal from any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States as amended, either party, or on appeal from a number of citizens authorized by the legislature(s) of the respective States from at least three-fourths of the States of the United States, or any state legislature, or the Attorney-General of the United States, regarding any matter of Constitutional intent, either the House of Representatives or the Senate, each fully assembled by majority of those present may vote to hear or deny such an appeal.

Section 2. That having voted to hear such an appeal, both houses of Congress shall appoint a select committee for each to study the complete, available, public record relative to the issue or question at hand, and then report their findings to each house.

Section 3. That having heard the findings the said committees assembled under Article II, Section 2 of this Act, each house with three-fourths of its total membership, both affirming their intention regarding the meaning of the Constitution, shall forward their declaration of meaning so ascribed to each provision of the supreme law to the President of the United States for his concurrence or rejection.

Section 4. That those provisions or meanings so declared by Congress to which the President has affixed his signature shall have the same full force and effect as the supreme law of the land.

Section 5. That if the President shall veto any provision, meaning, or interpretation of Congress as to the original intention of the Constitution as submitted to him, Congress shall submit the judgment of Congress relative to the cause brought under this Article II for ratification by three-quarters of the legislatures of the States concurring.

Section 6. That absent or pending any ratification, while awaiting any process of appeal from the Supreme Court to the Congress, or while awaiting any action denying any appeal to Congress, any appeal shall provide immediate injunctive relief staying any judicial determination.

Article III


                That henceforth, this Judiciary Act of 2017, may only be amended by a concurrent vote of three-quarters of the total membership of both houses of Congress, all other acts, rules, procedures, and provisions of each house excluded.

Presidential Protestors Don’t Understand America

Presidential Protestors Don’t Understand America

David Barton

    The Inauguration of Donald Trump was remarkable in many ways, not the least of which was that six different individuals offered prayers, with four of those prayers ending in Jesus’ name and the other two openly quoting from the Bible. Clearly absent was the typical government-mandated politically-correct prayer. Ministers were once again allowed to pray according to the dictates of their own conscience, as originally intended by the US Constitution.

Another unique feature of his Inauguration was the large number of protesters present. Most were Millennials, and while some focused on single subjects (e.g., immigration, global warming, Obamacare) others were still protesting the general election results. Among the latter group, a common protest sign was, “Trump is not my president.” But that statement says more about our education system than it does about those who held the signs. It affirms the failure of American education in four areas: American history, government, Constitution, and truth.

First, the sign was intended to express their outrage over the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes (out of 128.8 million cast) but lost the presidency—an outcome they believed was unprecedented in the history of American elections. Only it wasn’t. The identical thing has happened in several other presidential elections. Shame on schools for not teaching basic American history and why such outcomes occur.

Second, the message on the sign was rooted in the protestors’ mistaken belief that America is a democracy. But we are not. Those who formed our government hated democracies and wisely protected us from them. For example, James Madison affirmed that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” Founder Fisher Ames warned, “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction,” and John Adams lamented that democracy “never lasts long….There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” For thousands of years, democracies have consistently proved to be a source of lurking disaster—an unpredictable form of government where passions and selfishness are allowed to prevail over reason and deliberation. America was therefore established as a constitutional republic—what John Adams described as “a government of laws and not of men.” Shame on schools for not teaching basic American government.

Third, the “Trump is not my president” sign affirmed their unawareness of how presidents are to be elected according to the Constitution—an election process that mirrors our federal bicameral system. For example, Wyoming has half-a-million citizens, but California has 39 million. So in the US House, Wyoming gets only one Congressman while California gets fifty-three, and California will beat Wyoming on every vote in the House. The popular vote of the House will always prevail in that chamber. But in the Senate, California gets only two Senators—the same as Wyoming; the representation is solely by state, and every state has equal voting strength with all others. This is a prominent feature in our federal system. A bill is not passed merely by the House, which reflects the popular vote; it also must be passed in the Senate, which reflects the vote by states.

The protesters believe that only the national popular vote matters (which Hillary won—barely). But even though she garnered the votes of most of the largest cities in America, she did not win the majority of the states, cities, or counties. In fact, Trump won 30 of the 50 states, more than 80 percent of America’s 3,141 counties, and an equally lop-sided percentage of its 35,000 cities. The protestors were unaware (as are most Americans) that the Constitution establishes an election system that balances diverse measurements. Shame on schools for not teaching the Constitution.

Finally, the declaration that “Trump is not my president” establishes personal opinion as the ultimate measure of right and wrong—that truth is whatever I believe or declare it to be. (Polling today shows that two of three Americans believe that there are no moral absolutes—that every individual is his own arbiter of what is right and wrong, or moral.) But the problem with this is that there are absolutes. Jump off the Empire State Building and see what happens. On the way down you may personally object to what is happening, or be offended by it, or even vehemently disagree with it, but none of that will change the results. There is no alternate reality. None. Shame on schools for teaching students to elevate personal opinion above absolute facts.

It’s time that Americans demand that their schools once again teach American history (so students know that the popular vote winner does not always win the presidential election), American government (so they know we are a republic and not a democracy), the Constitution (so they understand our bicameral federal and election system), and absolute truth (that personal opinion must submit to truth and reality). If we don’t make these changes, we will not want to imagine, much less experience, the horrifying results from Abraham Lincoln’s warning that “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” God help America if citizens don’t act to change our schools.


Protestors and Property Rights – McDowell

Protestors and Property Rights

Stephen McDowell


Many people have been protesting the election and inauguration of Donald Trump to the Presidency. Some of these protests have been accompanied with attacks on innocent people and destruction of private property, including breaking windows, looting businesses, and setting cars on fire. Some of these anarchists have sought to justify this destruction by claiming their actions were no different than early Americans, much like the Boston Tea Party (see picture). But such a comparison reveals their ignorance of America history. Let’s look at what caused the Boston Tea Party.

Boston Tea Party









In 1765 King George III and Parliament passed the Stamp Act as a means to raise money from the American colonists to help pay for the French and Indian War. While the colonists were glad to pay for their defense, the Stamp Act imposed taxes upon them without the approval of their elected governing officials. The English government had never before imposed taxes upon the colonists without their consent.

The colonists were men of principle. One foundational Biblical idea upon which they lived and built America was the principle of property. They understood God gives individuals the right to own and govern property so they can fulfill His purposes on earth. They knew that if anyone could take their property without their consent, then they would not really own any property. They believed a primary purpose of government was to protect citizens’ property, but if their government plundered their property instead of protecting it, then it was their duty to act.[1]

Many of the colonies’ elected officials resisted the King’s unjust attempt to undermine their God-given rights. As a result, the Stamp Act was repealed. However, the belief of the English government to tax the colonies without their consent continued with the Townsend Act in 1767 and the Tea Act in 1773. With a tax on tea, the colonists refused to buy English tea and so it began to pile up in warehouses in England. Merchants petitioned the Parliament to do something. Parliament’s response was to vote to subsidize the tea and make it cheap, thinking the colonists would then buy it. Benjamin Franklin said:

They have no idea that any people can act from any other principle but that of interest; and they believe that three pence on a pound of tea, of which one does not perhaps drink ten pounds in a year, is sufficient to overcome all the patriotism of an American.[2]

Unfortunately, this may be enough to overcome the patriotism of many Americans today, though thankfully not then. The colonists were motivated by principles, not money. The attempt of England to tax them without their consent violated the principle of property. The Americans refused to buy the tea even though it was cheap.

When the King decided to send the tea and make the colonists purchase it, patriots in the major shipping ports held town meetings to decide what to do when the tea arrived. When the ships arrived in Boston, the patriots put a guard at the docks to prevent the tea from being unloaded. Almost 7000 people gathered at the Old South Meeting House to hear from Mr. Rotch, the owner of the ships. He explained that if he attempted to sail from Boston without unloading the tea, his life and business would be in danger, for the British said they would confiscate his ships unless the tea was unloaded by a certain date. The colonists decided, therefore, that in order to protect Mr. Rotch, they must accept the tea, but they would not have to drink it! By accepting the shipment they were agreeing to pay for it, but they would make a radical sacrifice in order to protest this injustice before the eyes of the world. Thus ensued the “Boston Tea Party.”

The men disguised themselves as Indians, not to implicate the Indians but to protect the identity of any one individual. They would all stand together as culprits. Historian Richard Frothingham records the incident:

The party in disguise…whooping like Indians, went on board the vessels, and, warning their officers and those of the customhouse to keep out of the way, unlaid the hatches, hoisted the chests of tea on deck, cut them open, and hove the tea overboard. They proved quiet and systematic workers. No one interfered with them. No other property was injured; no person was harmed; no tea was allowed to be carried away; and the silence of the crowd on shore was such that the breaking of the chests was distinctly heard by them. “The whole,” [Governor] Hutchinson wrote, “was done with very little tumult.[3]

Unlike modern protestors who wantonly destroy property and claim it is in line with the American tradition to resist, the original tea party colonists were actually preserving private property rights (those of Mr. Rotch and the owners of the property on the ships, as well as of the colonists at large) while they protested the tyrannical action of the King. It was a masterful and principled response to a seemingly impossible situation.

Jefferson prayer, 1774
Virginia House of Burgesses










Boston Port Bill

When the King got word of what the colonists had done, you might say he was “tead off.” The English government responded by passing the Boston Port Bill, which closed the port of Boston and was intended to shut down all commerce on June 1st and starve the townspeople into submission. Committees of Correspondence spread the news by letter throughout all the colonies. The colonies began to respond. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia called for days of fasting and prayer. Thomas Jefferson penned the resolve in Virginia “to implore the divine Interposition…to give us one Heart and one Mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper Means, every injury to American Rights.”[4]

Frothingham writes of the day the Port Act went into effect:

The day was widely observed as a day of fasting and prayer. The manifestations of sympathy were general. Business was suspended. Bells were muffled, and tolled from morning to night; flags were kept at halfmast; streets were dressed in mourning; public buildings and shops were draped in black; large congregations filled the churches.

In Virginia the members of the House of Burgesses assembled at their place of meeting; went in procession, with the speaker at their head, to the church and listened to a discourse. “Never,” a lady wrote, “since my residence in Virginia have I seen so large a congregation as was this day assembled to hear divine service.” The preacher selected for his text the words: “be strong and of good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them; for the Lord thy God, He it is that doth go with thee. He will not fail thee nor forsake thee.” “The people,” Jefferson says, “met generally, with anxiety and alarm in their countenances; and the effect of the day, through the whole colony, was like a shock of electricity, arousing every man and placing him erect and solidly on his centre.” These words describe the effect of the Port Act throughout the thirteen colonies.[5]

The colonies responded with material support as well, obtained, not by governmental decree but, more significantly, by individual action. A grassroots movement of zealous workers went door to door to gather patriotic offerings. These gifts were sent to Boston accompanied with letters of support. Out of the diversity of the colonies, a deep Christian unity was being revealed on a national level. John Adams spoke of the miraculous nature of this union: “Thirteen clocks were made to strike together, a perfection of mechanism which no artist had ever before effected.”[6]

Here we see an excellent historical example of the principle of Christian union. The external union of the colonies came about due to an internal unity of ideas and principles that had been sown in the hearts of the American people by the families and churches. Our national motto reflects this Christian union: E Pluribus Unum (one from the many).

The true story of the Boston Tea Party reveals that America was birthed by God-fearing, Biblically thinking people, and that Christianity provided the principles underlying the United States of America. If our schools taught American history accurately, modern liberals would much less likely attempt to justify their anarchy by saying they are only doing what our founders did. In fact, if we taught our true history, they might never have become the secular progressives they are today, but would, like our founders, become Biblically principled citizens who know how to live in liberty.

[1] To learn more about the principle of property see Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 1989, pp. 210-211, and Stephen McDowell, The Economy from a Biblical Perspective, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 2009, pp. 9-13.

[2] Verna Hall, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America, San Francisco: Foundation of American Christian Education, 1980, p. 328.

[3] Beliles and McDowell, America’s Providential History, p. 131.

[4] Ibid., p. 131.

[5] Ibid, p. 131-132.

[6] The Patriots, Virginius Dabney, editor, New York: Atheneum, 1975, p. 7.

For PDF Version: Protestors and Property Rights

Fiscal Disaster Ahead

Fiscal Disaster Ahead

     We the People . . . . , in Order to . . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

CBO Report Shows Why Action Needed Now to Avoid Budget Crisis

Justin Bogie

January 24, 2017

The Congressional Budget Office’s budget and economic outlook for the next decade paints a grim picture of the nation’s fiscal situation and shows we continue to be on an unsustainable budget path.

Despite years of warnings by CBO and others that this path will lead to fiscal disaster, Congress continually has failed to make substantive reforms. With Republicans now in control of the White House as well as Congress, they have the opportunity to make much-needed reforms to avert the crisis.

The CBO report, released Tuesday, covers fiscal years 2017 through 2027. Here are four key findings:

1. Spending continues to climb out of control. Over the next 10 years, CBO projects spending will rise from around $3.9 trillion annually to over $6.5 trillion a year. This reflects an increase of almost $2.6 trillion a year by 2027.

Cumulatively, CBO estimates outlays will be $52.5 trillion over the next 10 years. As a percentage of the overall economy, spending is projected to rise from 20.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2017 to 23.4 percent of GDP by 2027. This is 3.2 percentage points higher than average spending over the past 50 years.

As in the past several years, the biggest drivers of the increase in spending continue to be entitlement programs and interest on the national debt. By 2027, CBO projects Congress will spend over $3.8 trillion annually on Social Security and major health care programs, which include Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.

America’s aging population is rapidly adding to our already unsustainable entitlement spending. CBO estimates that the population over age 65 will grow by 39 percent over the next decade, to around 19 percent of the total population:

The effects on the federal budget of the aging population and rapidly growing health care costs are already apparent over the 10-year horizon—especially for Social Security and Medicare—and will grow in size beyond the baseline period.

Although past House budgets have included reforms to health care programs, Congress consistently has failed to follow through and address the problem, which is making it even larger. In 2016, Medicare and Medicaid spending both grew by 5 percent (after accounting for shifts in the timing of certain Medicare payments), adding another $45 billion in federal health spending.

In addition, CBO estimates that the coverage expansion provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, will add $119 billion in federal spending in 2017.

President Donald Trump has hinted that Medicaid reforms are on the horizon, but a specific proposal is yet to be seen. Congress is also in the process of repealing and replacing Obamacare, which would help to control some of the rising health care costs.

Interest spending also continues to skyrocket in CBO’s latest projections, going from $270 billion per year in 2017 to $768 billion annually by 2027. At the current pace, spending on interest payments will be about $30 billion higher than spending for national defense programs by the end of the decade. When coupled with entitlements, spending for these activities alone will consume more than 70 percent of the federal budget by 2027.

While the president has pledged not to take on Medicare and Social Security reform, it is clear that spending for these programs is unsustainable and will continue to drive up interest payments and crowd out other important government programs, if left unchanged. In addition, Congress faces a “mini-cliff” for funding going into 2018: Under the Budget Control Act, base discretionary spending is set to decline from $1.070 trillion to $1.064 trillion.

Undoubtedly, some in Congress will press for passage of another budget deal like the one cut by former President Barack Obama and former House Speaker John Boehner, and increase discretionary spending for 2018 and perhaps beyond.

Congress should resist this pressure and abide by the overall discretionary spending levels set by the Budget Control Act, prioritizing national defense and cutting spending on non-defense programs that are wasteful, crony, or within the proper purview of states, localities, and the private sector.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Blueprint for Balance” identified nearly $100 billion in spending reductions that Congress could make immediately.

2. Deficits soon will be on the rise again. Over the past few years, deficits have been in a period of decline. However, by 2018, CBO projects deficits will reach a low of $487 billion and then take a dramatic upturn, increasing to over $1.4 trillion annually (5 percent of GDP) in 2027.

Cumulatively, over the next decade deficit spending will add an additional $9.4 trillion to the federal debt held by the public. As with increases in spending, the main contributors to rising deficit levels will be entitlement programs and interest payments on the debt. Unless major steps are taken to decrease spending, reform entitlements, and get the federal debt down to a more sustainable level, deficit levels will continue to rise out of control.

3. Debt projections continue to worsen and soon will consume the entire economy. According to CBO historical data, over the past 50 years federal debt held by the public has averaged around 39 percent of GDP. Because of the lack of fiscal responsibility over the past few decades, CBO projects that by the end of 2017 debt will reach 77.5 percent of GDP. By the end of the decade, it will rise to an astounding 88.9 percent of GDP.

Compared to estimates released just last August, the debt level in 2026 is projected to be 1.5 percent of GDP higher in the latest estimates. In July, CBO released its updated long-term budget projections, which projected that by 2033 the debt would reach more than 100 percent of GDP, outpacing the entire U.S. economy.

This is six years sooner than CBO projected only a year earlier. Clearly, the impending debt crisis is continuing to accelerate and soon will be within the budget window.

Congress and the president should act now and not let the burden of debt continue to grow for another year.

4. Rising revenues may increase the spending problem. CBO projects that over the next 10 years, revenues will average 18.2 percent of GDP, 0.8 percent higher than the 50-year average. Ever-increasing deficits and debt levels are driven by too much spending, not too little taxation.

Trump has pledged to make tax reform a priority early in his administration, and Congress seems eager to reform our current system as well. Congress and the Trump administration should work together to find a solution that will cut taxes, freeing up valuable resources to robustly grow the economy.

Critical Work Ahead for Trump, Lawmakers

As they have for the past several years, CBO’s latest budget projections reinforce the fact that the country is headed down the wrong fiscal path.

If policymakers don’t make changes in the immediate future, the situation will continue to spiral out of control and cause damages that will take years, if not decades, to recover from. Spending, deficits, and debt are expected to expand significantly over the next decade, while entitlement and interest spending will continue to consume more and more of the budget.

Congress and Trump must take action now to fix the spending and taxation problem and put us back on a path toward economic prosperity and opportunity for future generations.

The Inaugural Address of the 45th President of the United States – Donald J. Trump

The Inaugural Address of the 45th President of the United States – Donald J. Trump

Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.

We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.

Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come. We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.

Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you! It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day.

This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now. You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before. At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public. But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This American carnage stops RIGHT HERE and stops RIGHT NOW. We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.

The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans. For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military; We’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own; And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.

We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon. One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.

The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world. But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

From this moment on, it’s going to be America First. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down. America will start winning again, winning like never before. We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor. We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”
We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity. When America is united, America is totally unstoppable. There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.

We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.

Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger. In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving. We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.

The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.

Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again. We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions. It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag. And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words: You will never be ignored again. Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

Together, We Will Make America Strong Again. We Will Make America Wealthy Again.
We Will Make America Proud Again.
We Will Make America Safe Again…. and Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.

Donald J. Trump
45th President of the United States

A Legacy of Failure

A Legacy of Failure


Ignorance of truth does not prevent or circumvent the consequences of failure and error. Worse, once aware of truth, rejection of it indelibly engraves the responsibility for failed initiative and defeat on the guilty. Intentionally, the Constitution is grounded on the truths revealed in science and history. Politically ignoring or rejecting the ideological foundation embedded in it always will result in a legacy of failure.


This past election found America at a crossroads. One road was paved in Constitutional intention, and the other with the lies and deceptions of humanism and the recurrent various multitude of false ideologies / religions repeatedly consumed in the past by the crucible of time. Rejecting true science and valid history, motivated by what they want or choose to believe, the enemies of freedom and justice for all prosecuted the attack on America in the forum of the American political tradition.


Calling to the economic “special interests” alluded to in the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, those representing untruth sought support in the jurisdictions populated by criminals and the undeserving. Sustained by the Framers’ wisdom and foresight reflecting their fear of the popular majority, the Electoral College protected America from the same forces that have consumed and defeated past governments throughout history. Those forces feed on and are energized by ignorance, lies, and deceptions spewing untruth from the seething caldrons of greed, avarice, and injustice.


With executive orders knowingly violating the Constitution; Congress failing to rein in judicial activism; the tyranny and gross injustice of the administrative state as public enemy number one; unbridled capitalism decimating the middle class and robbing American jobs; political correctness dividing and polarizing; sin, corruption, and evil replacing common sense and decency; murder of the innocent and vulnerable upheld; and the list continues; the legacy of failure was supported by the false propaganda of a media undeserving of First Amendment protection. Raising the question of, “Does any enemy seeking to overthrow the original intention of the Constitution deserve its protection?”, seems to be appropriate. In the not too distant past, some would call such political acts treason, regardless of motives and unexcused by the rationalizations of humanism, other false ideologies or religions, or situation or statistical ethics.


Witnessing a political miracle, not unlike the multiple repetitive military, political, and personal miracles displayed in the Revolutionary War, America was granted a reprieve by the grace of “divine Providence“. This past election, at every level – local, state, and Federal, proclaimed a moral imperative. President Washington in his Farewell Address said very clearly “Religion and morality are indispensible supports for our form of government.”. In contrast to recent departing sentiments attempting to ignore and excuse a nearly complete legacy of failure in two terms in the Oval Office, our First President spoke of truth and reality. It remains to be seen whether we as a people, one Nation under God, will protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution by electing and holding those we elect accountable to the original intention of the Constitution.


No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency… We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. – Washington’s Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789


Healthcare in America – Drain the Swamp

Healthcare in America – Drain the Swamp


Some prominent political voices of the medical community representing, perhaps, a minority of American physicians have sent letters to politicians in Washington suggesting that there will be a crisis created in the provision of healthcare in America, if the, so called, Affordable Care Act is repealed without a suitable replacement in place. More accurately, the only crisis resides in the payment for the provision of healthcare in America. Prior to the politicization of healthcare resulting in government programs and interference in the healthcare system, healthcare in America was the best in the world, and accessible to all to varying and limited degrees. Moving forward to the brokenness of the current money driven, politicized system, the foundational resources found in healthcare providers – the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, technicians, etc.; the technology; pharmaceuticals; and all that constitute actual healthcare are still at the ready and have advanced magnitudes beyond what they were even just in a prior year. Allocation or provision of those resources to provide cost effective, quality, accessible healthcare to all regardless of the ability to pay is what is in question and needs correction. Whatever the course, simple charity and caring can stand in the gap.


Many years ago, I wrote an article published by the St. Louis Metropolitan Medical Society entitled “Justice For All“. Its premise was that healthcare was not a right, but rather a responsibility. It is not a right any more than health itself is a right. How that responsibility is assumed and distributed has taken on its political character. This was a time that the provision of healthcare began to change. In attempting to constructively address the inevitable change brought by the politicization of healthcare, I also tried to organize doctors to provide guidance and insight to the politicians and bureaucracies with each; in the words of Madison, other Framers, and Founders, as warned of in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers; having and advancing their own “special interests”. Failing to give voice to the real providers of healthcare, the injustice, greed, avarice, and quest for political power and control emanating from those “special interests”, unchecked by righteous legislative oversight and authority, has resulted in the crisis of paying for healthcare in America.


Insidiously and persistently, healthcare systems and enterprises comprised of most “non-profit” and for profit hospital organizations, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, medical technology companies, insurance companies, and even academic institutions housing the medical schools have promoted and brought about the current broken healthcare system enabled by legislative failure in failing to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution. The Preamble‘s words “promote the general welfare” have been politically corrupted and perverted to give license to the political agendas offering to provide healthcare.


Solutions to the failed provision of healthcare can be found in adhering to the Framers’ intention to “promote the general welfare”. Prior to Medicare, hospitals, medical schools, doctors, and other healthcare providers made the best medical care in the world available to all in need with the exceptions and failures again brought by greed and lack of true caring and compassion. I can never forget the tragedies of coat hanger abortions; the inexcusable delays in critical care encountered as “non-profit” hospitals dumped patients to public and/or truly charitable hospitals; or affluent doctors refusing to treat even a few indigent or working poor patients. Rather than accepting timed payment of what could be afforded; scheduling at the end of regular patients in private offices; or serving as adjunct faculty staffing and teaching in medical school clinics; the past failures distributed across the healthcare system prior to government involvement only displayed what needed to be corrected and addressed. True caring cannot by legislated. Greed and human failure and inadequacy cannot be remedied by laws. According to the Framers’ undisturbed intention; those rich and famous, the Hollywood elite, the liberal progressive millionaires and billionaires, not forgetting the “non-profit” executives with undeserved and unwarranted compensations; could contribute up to 50% of their income to provide healthcare to the unfortunate. Income that should be taxed can be given to the working poor and the deserving avoiding taxation funding the undeserving. Where the Framers’ intention failed, government inadequately stepped in.


Looking to constructive solutions to repeal past injustices in healthcare, proven positive successful efforts must not be abandoned or ignored. Preventing exclusion for preexisting conditions, portability, privacy, etc. need to be retained and incorporated. Several years ago, I wrote a paper entitled “The Politicization of Healthcare“ published by this Committee for the Constitution. With approximately 70% of the healthcare dollar costs generated by those covered by Medicare, the Federal government could promote cost-effective quality healthcare by mandating the healthcare database advocated in that article.


There are many other just and unburdening alternatives already in place to make the patient responsible for healthcare. Before Medicare, medical schools and various teaching hospital free clinics were statistically shown to to provide the best state of science medical care. The actual provider of that optimal care was the senior resident in the relevant specialty. Now medical schools and faculties divert those residents’ time to higher income generating activities. Governments could mandate that all medical schools and teaching institutions or entities receiving Federal funds in any form be required by law to make free clinic services and all hospital services and facilities available to all those requesting them. Most certainly, profits and administrators’ and maybe  even some doctors’ salaries would have to decline. Patients of every economic condition and circumstance would have access to the best quality cost-effective healthcare.


I remember, as a medical student on my obstetrics rotation, going with a senior resident and nurses to deliver a baby to a principal of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in their Gold Coast home on Lake Shore Drive. By choice, this man and his wife simply wanted a natural childbirth in their home. It was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.


In addition to unbridled capitalism uncontrollably raising the costs of healthcare while at the same time deceasing the quality and access to healthcare, government bears a significant responsibility for the economic disaster encountered in the provision of healthcare. As one example, I have developed a proven, 100% successful in human volunteers, device to regrow the anterior cruciate ligament. Reported and published in peer reviewed forums, the synthetic scaffold allows a person’s own adult mesenchymal stem cells to grow and differentiate replacing the damaged tissue. It has never achieved commercial development because of the financial constraints imposed by the FDA. Another example is seen in a 100% safe material able to aid in the healing of skin wounds such as seen in diabetes and trauma. Without a two million dollar waiver by the FDA and FDA approval, it will never be available to those in dire need. More egregious is the fact that it is so safe and efficacious that it should have been available over the counter at a mere fraction of the cost of anything currently available or in the research pipeline. Perhaps, it should also be mentioned that a doctor can use any FDA approved material, which this material is, with an over forty year clinical history, off-label. But, because it is not paid for or reimbursed, it is denied to patients even in medical school and free clinics. Money and greed have contaminated and infected American healthcare.


“Draining the swamp” could alter the provision of healthcare in America.


Editors note: This article by the author of The Attack On America and Beyond Reason calls to an experience and expertise held by many members of The Committee for the Constitution. Many of them are academics with doctorates in all areas of science, history, law, political science, etc. Some have chosen to remain anonymous because of the discrimination experienced in their professional activities when addressing the truths confirmed and validated by science and history but rejected in the guise of political correctness and the religion of humanism. Best described in Ben Stein’s film Expelled, they have authored seminal works on such topics as global warming, political science, law, etc.


More On “Drain the Swamp”

Here’s What the Founders Thought About Term Limits

   The true “permanent political class” . . . . exists in the federal agencies.

Jarrett Stepman / December 16, 2016

            With the sudden dominance of Republicans in Congress, state legislatures, and, of course, the White House, conservatives have an incredible opportunity to restore constitutional principles to government.

            Several lawmakers have brought back the old idea of congressional term limits to “drain the swamp” on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post suggesting they will endorse a constitutional amendment to limit the number of times a legislator can run for re-election to the same office, an idea that was also popularized by President-elect Donald Trump during his campaign.

Cruz and DeSantis argued, “Though our Founding Fathers declined to include term limits in the Constitution, they feared the creation of a permanent political class that existed parallel to, rather than enmeshed within, American society.”

It is worth examining what the Founders believed about term limits and what, fundamentally, has gone wrong with our modern government that has expanded far beyond its originally intended bounds. That most Americans believe their government to be dysfunctional and corrupt should be a tip-off that there are deep problems at the heart of our institutions.

‘Rotation in Office’

The idea of term limits, connected to the notion of “rotation in office,” was popular during the early days of the American republic.

Founding-era citizens viewed term limits as a means to prevent corruption and distant, entrenched interests staying permanently in power. They worried that a lack of change in higher office could be destructive to republican government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, term limits kept representatives to three terms in any six-year period. However, after considerable debate, the idea was abandoned during the construction of the Constitution because many Founders were skeptical of forced rotation’s usefulness—though there were certainly strong advocates in its favor.

For instance, a 1788 pseudonymous essay likely penned by noted anti-federalist Melancton Smith suggested that while limiting terms in local elections was probably unnecessary, limits would provide a useful check on the power of federal legislators, who were “elected for long periods, and far removed from the observation of the people.”

The essay’s author worried that without a mechanism to push national legislators out of office from time to time, lawmakers would become “inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption.”

Trump Vows to Back Term Limits. So Do These 48 Lawmakers.

He continued to warn readers that “Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them.”

Thomas Jefferson was also wary of abandoning rotation, and wrote to his friend Edward Rutledge in 1788, “I apprehend that the total abandonment of the principle of rotation in the offices of president and senator will end in abuse. But my confidence is that there will for a long time be virtue and good sense enough in our countrymen to correct abuses.”

But some of the Constitution’s strongest advocates rejected the notion that sweeping out legislators by law would reduce corruption.

James Madison wrote that term limits might actually lead to government dysfunction. He wrote that frequent elections were a better check on power than forcing legislators out of office by law.

Those who stood against term limits argued that regular elections by the people could be a better check on corruption than constitutional limits and that such restrictions would create their own problems.

Madison wrote in Federalist 53 that the higher proportion of new representatives swept into office due to term limits could lead to poor decisions and corruption from a wave of inexperienced legislators.

Madison surmised that the “greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.”

Ultimately, the anti-term limits forces won out and the Constitution was ratified without them.

A Return to Term Limits

Even though the framers of the Constitution ultimately dropped term limits, the debate over rotation for federal officials continued into future generations.

Through the 19th century, a regular rotation in office was common as citizens and politicians believed by creed and custom that periodic changes in public office were healthy for the republic. There were also practical limits on time in office, like shorter life spans. In the 20th century, long-term incumbency increased substantially.

Growth in governmental scope produced less turnover and more careerism than previous eras. This led to a movement to curtail the power of near-permanent stays in office.

Anti-Establishment Mood Could Spur Revival of Term Limits

As Americans tried to curb the power of their government, proposals were adopted to circumscribe the executive, legislative, and even the judicial branch with term limits.

Term limits on the chief executive were introduced after the four concurrent elections of President Franklin Roosevelt.

While earlier presidents had served no more than the two-term precedent set by George Washington, FDR stayed in office nearly 13 years, prompting fears of a calcified presidency. So, in 1951, the United States ratified the 22nd Amendment to strictly limit the president to two terms.

Reformers set their sights on legislative incumbency too. A wave of states passed term limit restrictions on their legislators in the mid-1990s, and the reforms attracted broad and bipartisan support.

But the Supreme Court struck down these laws in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, in which they were struck down over conflict with Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Many states passed term limits for their state legislators too, but according to some research, the results were mixed.

The term limits movement has been essentially dormant for over a decade.

A System Neither Constitutional, Nor Democratic

Unfortunately, over time, the American system of government has changed. The original checks and balances that the Founders incorporated into the Constitution have been twisted and undermined.

A surge of populism that goes hand-in-hand with the idea that the American people need to reassert their authority to “throw the bums out” of Congress will undoubtedly fuel the increase in popularity for term limits.

Yet it’s unclear what the ultimate effect of a term limit law would be. It will certainly solve the problem of Americans hating Congress, but re-electing their own congressmen. And it is also encouraging that Americans are starting to look at structural government dysfunction, rather than just focusing on elections and specific policies.

However, term limits will not address the larger problem of persistent big-government incursions of the unelected “fourth” branch of government: the vast federal bureaucracy.

The true “permanent political class” that Cruz and DeSantis warn of exists in the federal agencies.

A combination of the Civil Service Act of 1883, which, over time, has made it impossible to fire or remove career bureaucrats once they are hired, and the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Supreme Court case, which ensures judicial deference to the bureaucracy in regard to regulation, has made the fourth branch vastly more powerful and less accountable than anything the Founders conceived.

Progressive Era reformers successfully created a system that left long-term power in the hands of the technocratic agencies that would handle most of the business of government.

As Heritage Foundation legal fellow Elizabeth Slattery noted, the result has been the creation of unchecked agencies that “pok[e] into every nook and cranny of daily life.”

Unfortunately, it’s possible that term limits may further reduce the power of the legislative branch vis-à-vis the agencies, as inexperienced legislators may lack the bill drafting skills to tightly circumscribe agency action.

Term limits may add “rotation in office” to the legislative branch, only to cede additional power to a permanent class of bureaucratic staffers who do not even stand for election.

Additionally, studies on state-level legislative term limits have demonstrated mixed results. The kinds of people holding office generally change very little and the balance of power generally tips toward the executive branch and bureaucracy. Yet the power of party leaders typically declines as well.

How Trump Can Curb the Power of Unelected Regulators

As American political theorist James Burnham wrote:

            The bureaucracy … not merely wields its own share of the sovereign power but begins to challenge the older branches for supremacy. This emergence of the bureaucracy is a creeping growth, expressed most tellingly in the day to day, unpublicized activities of the governmental colossus …

            Perhaps limits on this system—which is neither constitutional, nor democratic—should be the next step for those who want to return to the Constitution and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.