Many of us are off of work today, but are unaware of the true origin of this holiday.  Indeed, today is not Presidents’ Day; it is the legal holiday to celebrate George Washington’s birthday (his actual birthday is Wednesday).  Washington’s Birthday has been usurped by liberals (and marketers), as it has been morphed into a generic celebration of all American presidents.

In 1885, President Chester Arthur signed the original bill to make Washington’s birthday – February 22 – a federal holiday.  For the first 83 years, the holiday was celebrated on Washington’s actual birthday.  It wasn’t until 1968, when Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holidays Act, that the holiday was moved to the third Monday in February.  Now, the holiday can only fall out between Lincoln’s (Feb. 12) and Washington’s birthdays, but never on February 22, the original date of the holiday.  There was no official act of Congress that changed the name of the holiday (although an earlier draft the 1968 law did), but the random date opened the door for those with influence over the culture to corrupt the name.  Many states, including my home state, officially call it Presidents’ Day.

There is actually deep meaning behind the name change.  Liberals garner antipathy for our Founding Fathers.  At best, they view our founding president with no higher regard than other more uninspiring presidents.  Thus, in their mind, George Washington was no greater than Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Jimmy Carter…and Barack Obama! In fact, they think these presidents were much greater than our first president.  After all, how do you think they would regard an elected official who would declare the following in this day and age? “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Read More →

Many of us are off of work today, but are unaware of the true origin of this holiday.  Indeed, today is not Presidents’ Day; it is the legal holiday to celebrate George Washington’s birthday (his actual birthday is Wednesday).  Washington’s Birthday has been usurped by liberals (and marketers), as it has been morphed into a generic celebration of all American presidents.

In 1885, President Chester Arthur signed the original bill to make Washington’s birthday – February 22 – a federal holiday.  For the first 83 years, the holiday was celebrated on Washington’s actual birthday.  It wasn’t until 1968, when Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holidays Act, that the holiday was moved to the third Monday in February.  Now, the holiday can only fall out between Lincoln’s (Feb. 12) and Washington’s birthdays, but never on February 22, the original date of the holiday.  There was no official act of Congress that changed the name of the holiday (although an earlier draft the 1968 law did), but the random date opened the door for those with influence over the culture to corrupt the name.  Many states, including my home state, officially call it Presidents’ Day.

There is actually deep meaning behind the name change.  Liberals garner antipathy for our Founding Fathers.  At best, they view our founding president with no higher regard than other more uninspiring presidents.  Thus, in their mind, George Washington was no greater than Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Jimmy Carter…and Barack Obama! In fact, they think these presidents were much greater than our first president.  After all, how do you think they would regard an elected official who would declare the following in this day and age? “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Read More →

The United States Constitution is a unique document. It is the foundation for how the federal government is structured and sets the basis for the relationship between the federal government, states and citizens. In what might be a surprise to most Americans, the Constitution does not confer rights on them. Their rights are bestowed by the Creator as detailed in the Declaration of Independence, the document that established the United States of America in the first place:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

What the Constitution does is prohibits the government from infringing upon those rights. Nor does the Constitution articulate all of the rights that citizens have. The 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states as much very clearly:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What made the Constitution of the United States unique was the fact that for the first time in human history there was a written constitution that clearly defined the powers the national government had, and most importantly, clearly articulated the limits to that power.

Implicit in that Constitution is the concept called the Rule of Law. The 10th Amendment makes clear that the powers of the federal government are limited to those delegated in the document:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And therein lies the problem. The United States is supposed to be a nation ruled by laws, not by men. As Hayek explains in The Road to Serfdom:

“Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principle know as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand — rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge”

In other words, for a free country to exist, men’s actions must be taken in the presence of previously established, well defined and clearly articulated laws. Otherwise his every move will be taken under the threat of potential illegality, arbitrarily imposed at the whim of those who have accumulated the most power.

I cover this basic Constitutional information simply to contrast it with actual actions of the current occupant of the White House. Our Constitutional Professor in Chief is either ignorant of the Constitution or simply feels like it does not apply to him. Regardless of the cause, today in the United States we are very much moving towards a Rule of Man and away from the Rule of Law.

Really? Some examples please…

There is the takeover of Chrysler. In a typical bankruptcy the secured debtholders get first dibs on the company’s assets. That is the way the law is written and that is the basis upon which secured lending takes place. President Obama threw out the rule of law and coerced Chrysler’s secured debtholders into accepting $.29 on the dollar while paying his friends at the UAW $.40 on the dollar for their unsecured obligations, eventually giving them 55% of the company.

No doubt lenders will henceforth think twice about committing their resources to borrowers given the fact that government can come in and arbitrarily adjust their contracts.

Then there is the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB made news last year by illegally seeking to decide for Boeing where it could invest its money. The lawlessness of the board didn’t fall far from the tree… This January, President Obama, seeking to circumvent the Senate’s advise and consent role appointed 4 people to the NLRB via recess appointments despite the Senate being in pro-forma session. Pro-forma session? Certainly that must mean that the Senate was not really in session so no actual business could be done, right? Actually… Not according to the President. Just the previous week he was so sure the pro-forma session was real that he signed into law the payroll tax extension bill that was passed during such as session. Either pro-forma sessions are in session, or not, but they can’t be both. It’s like being pregnant, one either is or isn’t, you can’t be both. This is a perfect example of Rule of Man vs. Rule of Law. Unfortunately for the United States the Rule of Obama supersedes the Constitution in that battle.

There are many others of course but the most egregious is of course Obamacare. The Constitution clearly does not give the federal government the right to force consumers to purchase anything; not healthcare not Twinkies, not tooth paste, not even green cars. Despite that, Obama and his Reid / Pelosi led Congress decided to pass a law that does just that – purchase health insurance. If Uncle Sam has the right to force you to purchase health insurance under the threat of jail, then the Constitution becomes nothing but a relic of a once great nation that was once governed by the Rule of Law.

President Obama is a free man’s worst nightmare. Even for those foolish enough to support his statist, redistributionist, green policies. Why? Because he is the epitome of the Rule of Man. Rule of Man simply means that the person in control of the mechanism of government can do whatever he wants to do, and while it’s exercised by your guy that’s great, but what about when someone you disagree with gets into the position of power? Without the Rule of Law to guide and constrain government actions, a nation will quickly devolve into a tyranny of men. Not sure about that? At the Constitution’s bicentennial a quarter century ago could you have imagined that the government could dictate what you must feed your kids for lunch, could require you to buy anything at all simply because you’re alive or force churches to provide contraception or abortion benefits? I don’t think so.

Welcome to the Rule of Man. We’ve seen this play itself out before, where someone comes to power legitimately and then manipulates the rules to give themselves virtually unlimited power. That’s how Hitler did it. That’s how Chavez did it. That’s how Putin’s doing it again. Can you imagine a Barack Obama unfettered by the concerns of seeking a second term? One shudders to think…

The recent controversy over Obama’s attempted coercion and erosion of religious liberty reminded me of an essay Thomas Sowell wrote shortly after the oil spill. Sowell made the case that the U.S. is on the slippery slope to tyranny, cited the action by the Obama administration regarding compensation for the oil spill victims as an example. He wondered, “[j]ust where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.” And Sowell is correct. Just as Obama acted in such a manner then, his latest antics show that the slope is getting more slippery.

The audacity of our president to mandate that citizens violate their religious conscience by paying for and subsidizing things they are against is striking. Just as egregious is his shell game “compromise” – where he mandates that a private enterprise directly shoulder the cost themselves of those things (which a large percentage of the population opposes). Not that his proposal changes much anything in the way of liberty; the issue here is, once again, that we have actions by our President which are very clearly unconstitutional.

Our Constitution tells us that the the federal government has the power to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States (Article 1, Section 8). The rest of the powers enumerated in this part mainly relate to the military and defense, as well as some specific items, such as roads and post offices. That’s it. But this administration has exploited the feel-good term of “general welfare” as a green light to spend drastically — and unconstitutionally.

So how did this happen? And why is it unconstitutional?

Let’s back to the beginning of tax and spend mentality, specifically the 16th amendment – the implementation of the federal income tax. Before this passed in 1913, Congress was limited by its income due to the type of taxes the Constitution allowed. But this new federal income tax was a different type of tax levy than previous tax measures because it was not a proportional tax. It was based on income, which is disproportional: some are rich, others poor. With the new income tax, those who had accumulated large sums of wealth became a revenue stream for our Congress.

Government was grossly expanded during the Great Depression and New Deal when FDR gave America programs of public works such as the National Recovery Administration, and monetary supports like Social Security. The litany of abuse of federal power has been well documented and the salient point is that role of government and our relationship to the Constitution was forever changed.

The explosion of economic meddling and bloated government since then has been extraordinary. But we’ve been told it’s okay because it’s all in the name of General Welfare. We’ve slowly become more and more accustomed to the idea that the government can—and should—take care of its citizens in all facets of our lives. But that is not the original intent of government, according to our Founding Fathers.

Indeed, they were keenly aware of the potential for abuse of the welfare clause. Jefferson himself emphatically declared in 1798 that “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

What’s different about this current administration, is that Obama has explicitly stated, even before he became President, that he favors wealth redistribution. This is evident in his actions such as the aforementioned oil compensation. He is working vigorously to expand the welfare state.

Under the guise of “rights”, Obama has pushed forth the notion that we are entitled to many things. But these programs are not free, nor are they charitable. It simply transfers wealth from those who can afford it most to those who can afford it less. This idea in itself is not new in our country. But the Obama administration is continuously trying to spread the wealth around in more deep-reaching personal and private sectors. The so-called “Buffet Rule” , for instance, adds a surcharge to millionaires, just because he can. (He needs the revenue for his programs). And the latest: free birth control for all!

His administration appointees, aptly called “czars”, are mainly reflections of his own economic ideas. Most are against free market principles and favor great spending. But alarmingly, they are neither confirmed by Congress nor answerable to Obama, a clear violation of our Constitution. And the IRS has become the chief money launderer, as seen from the growing list of tax credits since the first stimulus package, his jobs bill and his recent SOTU address. But all these tax credits merely do is subsidize various industries while push an underlying agenda —but “credits” sound good to the pundits and citizens. That’s why we will never see true tax code reform.

We’ve seen bailouts of industries deemed “too big to fail” by taking our taxpayer money and nationalizing businesses. Putting government-decided caps on wages and imposing 90% taxes on employee compensation packages. And of course, Obamacare is among the biggest farces of all. Deeming healthcare a crisis is another example of false advertising in order to create a reason for the intrusion into our lives and money, and now, our religious liberty. As William Pitt the Younger sagely put it, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

Ironically, those who claim to love liberty the most are those who have done the most damage. Calling the Constitution a “living document” is code word for manipulation and interpretation, justifying the general welfare clause time and again in order to spend recklessly, regulate more, oftentimes via unconstitutional procedures.

President Obama swore an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he assumed the presidency. Yet he is busily ignoring it, rerouting it, and creating a new language of “rights” that are not contained therein but provide persuasive lingo to pass his calculated policies.

The difference between FDR and Obama is the era in which we live. We have allowed the slope to get slippery since the New Deal so much that our own politicians on both sides of the aisle have become accustomed to government intrusion and spending – so much that they have abrogated their fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to act as stewards of taxpayer money. And they have forgotten to ask the most important question of all, for us all: Is This Constitutional?

Equally as loathsome when actor and malcontent Sean Penn criticizes America while praising the Arab Spring, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disparaging the US Constitution rivals treason.

Ginsburg’s ACLU convictions shadow her in old age. Conjoined in mindset with Barack Obama, both believe the Constitution is an outdated allegory, no longer sufficient as a guiding vehicle to the norms of contemporary society.

Like a vulture awaiting a carcass to further decompose before gorging its remains, Ginsburg shared her ill-timed and progressive views on social equality in the appropriately moldering venue of Egypt last week.

A proponent of foreign charters and treaties to better liberate the world, Ginsburg on Christian Arabic Alhayat television, said, “I would not look at the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in 2012, instead suggesting a more modern version, namely South Africa’s, in laying more fundamental human rights and an independent judiciary.

In Cairo on the one-year anniversary of the Friday of Rage, marking the uprising leading to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, Ginsburg called it “a very inspiring time, that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. Americans are hoping that this transition will work.”

In the streets below her hotel overlooking Tahrir Square, Islamists and liberal secular-leaning protesters were seen divided on how to achieve that genuine democracy.

Also among the activists on the Square, where in 2011, three world newswomen on assignment were sexually assaulted and molested, including CBS News’ Lara Logan who was raped, were members of the rancorous Muslim Brotherhood, unsullied from a 50-seat parliamentary election victory, now in the driver’s seat of the country’s conscience.

While Ginsburg espoused “listening and learning from others,” referencing amended protocols from the European Convention on Human Rights, CBC Egypt was simultaneously broadcasting the carnage and subsequent rioting with police in the aftermath of a Port Said soccer match where 74 people were trampled to death.

Ginsburg’s sojourn was tainted as 19 Americans; some from US funded pro-democracy organizations were accused of inferring in the country’s internal politics, and are now being held hostage by Egypt’s military-appointed government.

Choosing not to contradict the objective of her visit, the normally outspoken Ginsburg had no comment on the wave of crime and internal turmoil in a region where the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood calls the shots following Obama’s call one year ago for Mubarak to step down.

Since Ginsburg won’t use the US Constitution as an archetype model for Egypt, she can’t preach to the new choir inserted there
either; ones with as little regard for American ideals as Ginsburg herself.

You’re invited to an event featuring Joshua Charles, co-author of Glenn Beck’s recent book called The Original Argument: The Federalists’ Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century.

Join us Thursday night, March 8, from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in room 200 of Colonial Presbyterian Church in Overland Park (map below).

This is a free event, but space is limited.

Click here to register online at Eventbrite.

Mr. Charles received his undergraduate degree in Piano Performance from KU, and is pursuing a Master’s Degree in Government from Regent University.

This event is sponsored by the local educational non-profit, the State and Local Educational Foundation of Kansas.

You can learn more about the book The Original Argument by going to Amazon.com or to Glenn Beck’s site.

Location:

Colonial Presbyterian Church
Room 200
12501 West 137 St. in Overland Park

Thank you for your time, as always.

Sincerely,

Benjamin B. Hodge

Read More →

Read More →

Read More →

While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists.  We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system.  Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court.

After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent.  The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges.  Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted.  This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year.  Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come.

While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them.  Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology.  This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process.  That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend.

Last week, in an interview with an Egyptian television station, Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed why ideology matters and why perverted judicial philosophy should indeed be a disqualifying factor for a judgeship.  She told the audience –one that lives under tyranny – that the U.S. Constitution should not serve as a role model for a modern draft:

“I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

Read More →

While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists.  We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system.  Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court.

After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent.  The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges.  Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted.  This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year.  Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come.

While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them.  Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology.  This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process.  That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend.

Last week, in an interview with an Egyptian television station, Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed why ideology matters and why perverted judicial philosophy should indeed be a disqualifying factor for a judgeship.  She told the audience –one that lives under tyranny – that the U.S. Constitution should not serve as a role model for a modern draft:

“I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

Read More →