The Problem with Progressivism is Messianism

Evolutionary biologists take pains to teach students that evolution has no direction; it has no preferred path precisely because it has no specific end. As Steven J. Gould used to say, if you rewind the evolution of life on earth and set it back to the beginning, there is no guarantee that it would play out the same way again.

Unlike social Darwinists, who tend to believe that their preferred form of being human is the pinnacle of creation (note the conceptual contradiction here), evolutionary biologists understand that 'fitness' in the Darwinian sense does not imply a more 'perfect' member of a species, rather it defines individuals who can live long enough in certain environment to reproduce. Thus the measure of individual fitness is not wealth or a certain definition of perfection, rather it is the number of offspring one successfully brings into the world.

As a scientist trained in ecology (the science not the social movement) and evolution, it is rather amusing to observe how much the cultural elite really does not understand the theory of evolution; nor do they grasp its principles nor accept the consequences of its reality. To them, as to their creationist opponents, it is a political tool used to force their ideology on others, rather than a scientific idea that serves to illuminate reality.

Less amusing is the use of the theory of evolution as an excuse for the early 20th century Progressive push for eugenics, which appeared first here in the United States. (See for example Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion, when writing for the majority in Buck v. Bell, which enshrined forced sterilization into law in the United States). It was the Progressive movement's goal to build a more compliant, less independent citizen; one who would be willing to subsume his will to that of the State, in order to fit like a cog in the all-powerful and all-knowing State.

The problem with the Progressives is twofold. The first is that they believed that the term "fitness", as used in evolution, implies some quality other than differential reproduction. They believed that they could redefine fitness to mean whatever they wanted it to mean in order to direct human evolution toward what they conceived to be its proper end. And this leads to the second problem, namely, that they believed that evolution has a direction and a goal, and further, that they, by virtue of their vision were privileged to define that goal and direct humanity towards it.

In short, Progressives were (and are) Messianists. They believe that human beings are not good as they are, and should not be allowed to pursue their own ends, but that they must be perfected in some way in order to be made to conform to better ends. The only difference between the Progressives and religious Messianists, is that Progressives proclaim that they themselves are qualified to define the end of evolution and the perfection of the human being, whereas the religious Messianists rely on scripture and tradition, ultimately blaming their own desire to restrict human freedom on their various gods. But both religious Messianists and Progressives believe in some form of original sin--the concept that human beings are inherently evil and that they must be fundamentally changed to accomodate a perfect world. That this unchanging and perfect world would not be a human world is left unstated.

The particular form of Messianism that plagues Western culture began during the time when the tribal Israelite religion was evolving into modern Judaism. The Rabbis of the Talmud were, for the most part, suspicious of the apocalyptic nature of the Messianic goal. Those who espoused it (e.g. R. Akiba), learned the hard way of the danger of it during the third war with Rome (the Bar Kochba Revolt--132-135 C.E.). The Rabbis came to realize that fervent messianism was not compatible with the survival of the Jewish people. Knowing that they could not eradicate it from the minds of the people, they enshrined it as a distant hope in an unattainable future (e.g. Pirke Avot: the Messiah will come when all of [the people] Israel keeps the Sabbath perfectly). They also created a system of law and custom that kept people's focus firmly on their own lives, not on some future immortality. Thus the average Jew was taught to pray for the coming of the Messiah three times a day, but to value his life and the goodness thereof in the here and now. To this day, one notable quality of most Jews is that they have their feet firmly planted on the ground, and do not accept the idea that death is the gateway to a better world.

It helped that Judaism never accepted the concept of original sin. The Hebrew version of the story of creation uses a play on words to make the point that the material world is good, and that the presence of human beings makes it very good. (The play is on the Hebrew word for human being--Adam--which has three Hebrew letters, alef-dalet-mem; rearranged these letters become--meod--mem-alef-dalet, which means very; so with the presence of human beings the universe, which was called tov--good, is called tov meod--very good.) When confronted with the Christian notion of original sin, the Rabbis added this statement to the morning service: "The spirit that you have created within me is a good one, O G-d . . ." Every morning, a religious Jew thus affirms his own goodness.

In Judaism, morality rests on the notion that human beings have free will, and because of their knowledge of good and evil, are constantly required to make choices. No one, neither human nor divine, can save another from the necessity of choice and the consequences that follow. A human being, by his nature, must go through life asking himself: "Right or wrong? Good? Or evil?"

However, Jews, just like other human beings can become lazy and wish to avoid the consequences of free will, though this is quite impossible. Choices must be made and the consequences of those choices follow like night follows day. Nevertheless, people often desire to avoid the painful consequences of their wrong choices, and try to evade their reality.

(This is especially true in times of great difficulty, such as those Jews encountered during the Reformation and Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was actually an en-dark-enment for Jews in Europe, as Christian anti-Judaism mutated into the race-theory of modern antisemitism culminating in the European genocide by the National Socialists).

In modern Europe, socialists and fascists took the Messianic idea out of the religious context, where it was dangerous enough, and decided that certain "enlightened" individuals have the wisdom to determine what the good life and the perfect person ought to be, and to force others (for their own good) toward this goal. They determined that goodness means that individuals must give up their lives and aspirations for the "public good" as Holmes stated in Buck v. Bell:

"In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." (Emphasis added).

The emphasized words demonstrate that to the Progressive, individuals exist to serve the interests of a few, who call themselves 'the State' and 'Society'. These terms are really a mask for tyranny.

The real engine of American progress has been liberty. Our founders understood that human beings are endowed by their very nature with individual rights, and that governments exist to protect these rights. That people have the right to their own life, and thus must have the liberty to make their own choices, in order to pursue their own ends. The founders put these ideas forth in Declaration of Independence:

"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." (1776)


But Messianists tend to have little regard for the lives and happiness of individuals because their vision of perfection is collective. As the consequences of their evasions of reality pile up, they tend to blame it on everyone and everything but their mistaken ideals, as F. A. Hayek astutely pointed out in The Road to Serfdom. Thus they blame it on the inherent wrongness of human nature (original sin), which they believe requires them to force goodness on their victims. Finally, they come to a place of such embittered hatred of human existence that they'd rather see the whole world enslaved or dead than give up their Vision of the Anointed.

And yet the whole reason that their visions don't work, and that they cause such death and suffering, is because their visions do not conform to reality; it is the realness of matter and the consequences to mortal beings that require individual choice. It is the Progressive vision of humanity that is wrong, and their imposition of it upon others that is evil, not the nature of the human being.

Human beings evolved with all of the aspects of human nature because this enables humans to go on living and reproducing in this environment, on this earth. There is not some teleological perfection that we are missing, no ideal end that we must sacrifice our lives to attain. We are here now. We live now. Our pursuit of the good is the pursuit of our own lives in our own time.

An evolutionary biologist knows that evolution has no direction, no goal.
And she knows that it is the diversity of individual choices and personal ends that can vouchsafe a future for the species on this ever-evolving planet. For a while.

Of course, evolution is not moral. It is an idea, and thus cannot make choices. But people who understand the idea that evolution has no direction and no preferred end can infer from it that life itself is the goal of living, and what is good will always be those choices that maintain life.

Human life on this earth is tov meod. This is very good.

Richness of Experience?

Well, well, well.

We are to have a new SCOTUS Justice, Sonia Sotomayor from The United States Court of Appeals, District 2.

In many ways, she appears to be a very good pick.

She has many years on the bench, and prior to that, she was a prosecutor.

She has a good academic record, and although she is not known for legal brilliance, she is the child of immigrants and has the rise from the bottom story that is inspiring to all.

As a citizen, viewing this process from afar, my hope is always for a Supreme Court Justice who reveres the Constitution of the United States, and understands that she (or he) is not a maker of laws, but an arbiter of the Rule of Law, interpreting to us how our legislation relates to the Constitution. And I wish for someone humble as well as smart, someone who recognizes that justice is blind, and is no respecter of persons.

This last is why this Sotomayor quote is troubling:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life . . ."

(Sonia Sotomayor, at the 2001 Judge Mario B. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture, University of California, Berkeley. Quoted in The New York Times, May 14, 2009).

Judge Sotomayor said this in the context of a remark attributed to Sandra Day O'Connor that "a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusions when judging cases."

In my reading of her speech (the whole of which can be found here), I understand that Sotomayor is talking about the idea that women and certain minorities bring their experience to their work, and in this case the work is judging.

But this is true of every individual. All of us who have lived life for a while have rich experience and the potential for wisdom. Those old white men Sotomayor disparages also have the richness of their experiences, as do the five Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant that Sotomayor will serve with on SCOTUS.

I am NOT concerned that diverse judges will bring their life experience to their work as arbiters of the Constitution. I AM concerned that they should remember that Lady Justice is blind; she is no respector of persons, and that each person's case deserves equal respect under the law.

I am NOT concerned that our SCOTUS justices are individuals from diverse rich backgrounds. I AM concerned that we may have a justice who believes that her background is richer and more "diverse*" than that of the others. Her statement makes me think that she believes that some backgrounds are more equal than others. And if that is her understanding, then how can Sotomayor possibly judge all cases equally under the Supreme Law of the Land, as her oath will require her to do?

*This is a poor, but common use of the word 'diverse.' Diversity means a range of differences, and so any one thing by itself cannot be 'diverse.' That this word is used this way by the progressives suggests an agenda whereby some people are indeed 'more equal' than others.

Certainly, Sotomayor has earned the right to be proud of her life's course and her accomplishments, attained through the surmounting of barriers that others on the Court may not have experienced. But those others may well have surmounted barriers of their own; some barriers of which she may know nothing, and some of which she may share with them.

Each individual has a unique background and set of life-circumstances, unique capabilities and limitations. Our very individuality makes it impossible to fairly judge who has done better or worse, who has had more difficulty or more ease in the attainments of life that can be observed. And this is why, in our Western culture, we have the concept of the Rule of Law: that the law should apply equally to the homeborn and the stranger; that you shall not favor the poor over the rich in judgment. Because we cannot see into the lives and the hearts of individuals, this is the only way to render justice--we make everyone equally accountable under the law.

I am not sure that Judge Sotomayor is willing and able to do that, given her remark that her personal life experiences make her better suited to make judgements than the life experience of others. As time goes on, I hope that we will learn more about her decisions from the bench, thus gaining a richer context for what she has said. In the meantime, we have reason to be concerned.

A Different View of Obama's European Tour

Here in the United States, many of us have been dismayed by President Obama's behavior on his recent trip to Europe. My dismay started even earlier with his treatment of our closest allies, when the Prime Minister of England came to the United States.

I was further dismayed when our president, who represents the United States of America--that is US--went to Europe and told leaders in Strasbourg that America has been arrogant and derisive. (Like when the US engaged in considerable sacrifice to save Europe from the National Socialists of Germany and the fascists of Italy? Oh, I forgot, Obama means to bring European style socialism to the US. And as for fascism--well, look at the takeover of private companies). He cravenly apologized for our history while at the same time chiding Europe for the very anti-Americanism he was displaying. (Which is the real message?) And that bow to the tyrant of Saudi Arabia? Please. Americans are not subjects, we are free citizens. We bow to no man. If we, the citizens do not, then, as our representative, neither should Obama. No matter how much oil the king controls.

(For a detailed analysis of the meaning of the bow, see Ed Cline's discussion at the Rule of Reason ).

When is this man going to quit campaigning for love and adulation and actually own the presidency?

But apparently, these insults are small potatoes to us, compared to what was communicated to our democratic allies across the globe. For example, I read this from Caroline Glick at The Jerusalem Post:

"Somewhere between apologizing for American history - both distant and recent; genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash the US's nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America's missile defense programs and emasculate the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles and their fellow former Soviet colonies, "Don't worry, be happy," as he leaves them to Moscow's tender mercies; humiliating Iraq's leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American history, President Obama made clear to the world's aggressors that America will not be confronting them for the foreseeable future.

Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington."

Later she says this:

"AMERICA'S BETRAYAL of its democratic allies makes each of them more vulnerable to aggression at the hands of their enemies - enemies the Obama administration is now actively attempting to appease. And as the US strengthens their adversaries at their expense, these spurned democracies must consider their options for surviving as free societies in this new, threatening, post-American environment. "

The entire column is definitely worth reading as it elucidates a viewpoint that is different than how Americans, though equally dismayed, see the Obama European tour.

As for what America's enemies are thinking, we do not know for sure. And we are unlikely to find out via civilized means such as the press or blogs. If we do find out, the knowledge will come more suddenly and violently, as an exploitation of the percieved weakness of American leadership.

I fear for my country. I fear for the world.

G-d save the United States of America.

Committees of Correspondence and Safety

In the past week, I have hear references to two organizations, the Committees of Correspondence and the Committees of Safety, that I had not thought about in years; and then, only in the context of my high school history books. Who knew that we would need the aid of such as these again?

During the time period leading up to the American Revolution, various groups (such as the Sons of Liberty) within the 13 Colonies developed Committees of Correspondence for the purposes of communicating among the various colonies in order to organize opposition to British actions, and bring people together to support the common cause. The first Committee of Correspondence was formed in 1764 in Boston in opposition to the Currency Act. Other such committees were formed to rally people in protest of the Stamp Act and the Intolerable (Coercive) Acts. These various acts all aimed to tax the colonies into oblivion in order for Great Britian to pay for the recent Queen Anne's War (in Europe), which was called the French and Indian War in North America. The English colonists, not used to such oppressive taxes, and unwilling to pay them, generally refused to do so. The Committees of Correspondence were instrumental in organizing mass actions such as the Boston Tea Party.

Starting at the about the same time (the early 1760s), Committees of Safety were formed in many colonial towns and cities. These were local organizations that were often composed of all of the adult males in the community, whose purpose was to discuss the concerns of the day, and to keep watch and act upon threats to the welfare of the community. As part of the latter, the Committees of Safety elected representatives to larger decision-making bodies (regional or colonial), and often were responsible for ordering out the local militias.

Now as events accelerate towards a great crisis that could destroy our Liberty, bankrupt the United States, and change our political system irrevocably, the patriot community is finding ways to communicate for information and action once again. We are also thinking about how to strengthen our communities and prepare our friends and neighbors for the terrible economic disruption (and all that this implies) still to come.

Last weekend, when the Engineering Geek and I attended the New Mexico organizing meeting for the 2009 Continental Congress, the state chair of the New Mexico Constitution Party passed around a letter and call to action for the purpose of organizing a steering committee for a coalition of the liberty parties and organizations (libertarians, constitutionalists, 9-12ers, etc.) in the state based on shared values and goals. The coalition would be based upon small, local groups, which were called 'Committees of Safety.' He listed the following objectives:

“A Proposal for Your Consideration:

“Formation of a unified patriot community here in New Mexico will provide not only mutual support but also enable us to prepare for what appears to be on the horizon for America. As most citizens are woefully ignorant of indifferent to what is going on, it is imperative that we this NOW so that we will be able to help them later. I submit for your consideration these primary objectives:

· That we continue our efforst in the various groups that we represent
· That we cooperate with one another instead of remaining isolated or distant
· That we identify common or shared values and rally around those principles
· That we form a broader coalition based on these shared convictions
· That we develop a functional network for mutual care, training and mobilization

“To this I would add the following suggested goals:

Formation of a steering committee to chart the course of this network
Cross-pollination of our groups and collaborative efforts
Develop strategic plans for crisis preparedness, patriot education and training
Form localized, small groups to facilitate and achieve these goals
Strengthen and expand this alliance across the State of New Mexico

“Find out more at http://americansynergy.wetpaint.org/ or www.committeesofsafety.org"
(From "To the patriot community of New Mexico" by Dave Batcheller, distributed March 21, 2009).

Although there are many of us who have been aware of what is coming for some time, we had all hoped against hope that we were wrong about the severity of the approaching storm. However, in the past few weeks we have seen spending packages passed that commit us well beyond our ability to repay, the monitization of said debt, and now we are hearing our genius Secretary of the Treasury ask for power to nationalize and close any businesses he deems "a threat to economy" without asking leave of anyone. This same brilliant man has also been heard to say that he supports a world currency. He was against it before he was for it. And then he was against it after he was for it. The destruction of the dollar is well underway, and the aforementioned monetization of our debt could lead to hyperinflation. We have begun lending ourselves money to pay for our committments because of the deficits. It is a vicious, downward spiral, that will lead to the destruction of our wealth and the suffering of millions.

All of this has been occuring while the corrupt clowns in Congress have tried to distract our attention by bussing the ACORN equivalent of Brownshirts to protest outside the homes of AIG executives and to threaten their families with all manner of creative destruction. The attorney generals of Connecticut and New York have threatened to "out" the executives who dare to keep their contractual and earned bonuses, not in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. This is government sponsored rule by fear and intimidation; instigated by the fools (in all three branches and in both "major" parties) in Washington who do it to save their own guilty butts from the opening salvos in the class wars they are creating. (Here at Ragamuffin House, we wonder what they will do when the mob turns on them, as mobs are wont to do. It may well be the Reign of Terror on steroids).

And since our government is pouring gasoline on a variety of fires, we understand that it is up to us to work with our friends and neighbors to develop networks for mutual aid and support in order to weather the coming storm. Those of us who have been aware and have already prepared ourselves can be of great assistance to our friends and neighbors who have not, and those who cannot bring themselves to believe that this could be happening now. Thus, the idea to develop these Committees of Safety.

DISCLAIMER FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE MISSOURI STATE POLICE ASSOCIATION: We are not militias. Even though: 1) most of us have in the past or do now belong to third parties such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarians; 2) most of us have actually voted for people like Ron Paul and Bob Barr; 3) some of us belong to the NRA or JPFO; 4) all of us own pocket copies of the US Constitution provided by that subversive group, the Heritage Foundation; and (gasp!) 5) all of us have had the termerity to criticize or complain about the IRS at some point in our lives.

We live in interesting times.

This morning, I heard Congresswoman Michelle Bachman* interviewed on the Glenn Beck Program. In the course of the interview, which can be found in its entirety here--and it's well worth a listen), she commented that radio programs like Mr. Beck's and groups like the 9-12 Project and the Tea Parties, are the modern equivalent of Committees of Correspondence, because they help Americans who love the Constitution keep abreast of the increasing pace of its destruction by the very people sworn to uphold it. And they provide a rallying point for purposeful action by citizens to defend the Constitution.

*Congresswoman Bachman is the committee member who asked Secretary (and Tax Cheat) Geithner to show her where the Constitution would allow him such powers as he was requesting. She asked it over and over again. Funny, how the good secretary could not find anything like that in the Constitution. I mean, he must know what's in it. He has sworn to uphold it.

As I listened, I thought that the good congresswoman was right. Last night, as I sat in a group of 9-12ers at the Independence Grill in Albuquerque, as we discussed and debated the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, I understood also the meaning of our gathering. These are our Committees of Correspondence. We will be Committees of Safety for the mutual aid and support of our neighbors. We love our country and the exceptional form of government passed down to us from those miracle makers in Philadelphia. We want it to continue and prosper. And as we gather to speak and debate, we find our own voices. Voices that no Fairness Doctrine can ever silence. Here we develop the courage not only to express our beliefs, but to act on them.

And just in time, too. It feels downright serendipidous.

What Must a Free People Do?

Yesterday, the Engineering Geek and I attended a public meeting about the We the People Organization's 2009 Continental Congress.

At the meeting, we met Bob Schulz, the founder of the We the People Organization, who is traveling to cities in every state of the union in order to develop a mass movement to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Bob Schulz is a man with a gift and a passion. An engineer by training and trade, he is thorough in his analysis of problems, and he has a passion for Liberty, and thus for the Constitution, which was written to restrain our government and protect our unalienable rights.

The road to the We the People Continental Congress began when Bob went to a municipal public meeting at a firehouse in upstate New York. The public meeting was about an upcoming public works project, and Bob rose to ask a few questions, since the project concerned a discipline he knew well. Evidently, his questions were a little too incisive, because the pols involved refused to answer them publically, and instead wanted to discuss the matter privately. But Bob wanted his questions aired and answered before the town meeting. The incident eventually led to a lawsuit, because the project was not beneficial to the town, but was intended to line the pockets of a few of the pols in charge. Bob won. And the town retaliated against him when he went to subdivide his property to fund his nascent government watchdog group, We the People. He accepted a gig as an afternoon drive talkshow host on his local radio station, and from talking to callers, Bob began to realize the extent of corruption in state and national politics as well. When he realized that the Federal government is in violation of nearly every article of the United States Constitution, Bob began to study that document.

The moral of the story: Politicians! Beware an engineer who develops a passion for a problem. Bob consulted Constitutional scholars, and his organization went national. Bob developed a particular passion for what he calls "the capstone right of the First Amendment": the right of the people to petition their government for redress of grievances. In his presentation to the concerned citizens of New Mexico yesterday, Bob traced the history of this right from the Magna Carta to the Constitution and beyond.

The Magna Carta, which was signed by King John at Runnymeade, England, in 1290 (at the point of a sword), was the document that forced the king to share power and recognize the rights of Englishmen as understood by English Common Law. The English were not about to accept an absolute monarchy which was a violation of their customs and traditions. In the Magna Carta, the redress of grievances is guaranteed thus:

“If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress.
If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.” Magna Carta, 1290

(The Royal "WE" is employed here to mean the monarch).

Thus, the great tradition of Court Days, upon which the monarch sat outside in the courtyard and heard the petitions of even the most humble of subjects was born. The American colonists brought that tradition across the Atlantic, and continued to insist upon their right to petition for redress and be answered. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders justified their separation from England and their right to form a new government upon the fact that King George III and Parliament answered repeated petitions for redress only with repeated injury:

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a free people….” Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

(The capitalizations here are not just quaint colonial fashion, the mark specific concepts coming from the English Common Law).

In the Constitution, the right for Redress of Grievances is the capstone of the First Amendment, a right from which the other First Amendment rights are derived:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, freedom of the press; or the Right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to Petition the government for a Redress of Grievances.” First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 1791.

This right was cherished by the People of the United States up until 1830. Every Monday, petitioners came before the relevant committees of the United States Congress to air their grievances and receive an answer or the promise of a written response. In 1830, the southern states forced a "gag rule" to shut down the abolitionists, and the use of this right faded. . .

. . . Until 1995. In that year, Bob Schulz and his We the People Congress began a series of Petitions for the Redress of Grievances to all three branches of the Federal Government. These petitions all addressed grievances caused by the violation of the United States Constitution. Such petitions included:

• the violation of the monetary clause by bailing out the Mexican Peso (1995)
• the violation of the Constitutional ban on the direct unapportioned tax on labor (the income tax) (1999, 2000, 2001)
• the violation of Article 4 by use of the USA Patriot Act (2002)

There were many more, and a complete list can be found here.

Although the topics of the peoples petitions are interesting documentation of percieved injury, the content of the answers are not at issue; what is most important is that the government is required to respond, just as the King of England was. And none of the petitions thus far have received a response. No. Response. At. All.

What is a free people to do? As Bob says, "The Constitution does not defend itself." The Federal system of government is not Sovereign; As Alexander Hamilton put it, "Here, Sir, the People govern." It is the people who are Sovereign. And our rights are individual. Every individual has the right to petition and must be answered.

According to the Declaration of Independence, if the government instituted by the people at the consent of governed becomes tyrannical, the people have the right, derived from the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to dissovle that government and institute a new one that will protect their rights. The rights belong to the individual. They are inherent in the nature of human beings; they are not a gift of government. The government exists only to protect those rights.

What must a free people do? This is the question that the 2009 Continental Congress is intended to answer. It will be a gathering of three delegates from every state in the United States. It is not a Constitutional Convention; it is a Congress at which the delegates, will consider the violations to the constitution by our government, ennumerate them, take note of the efforts of the People to Petition for the Redress of Grievances, and then consider and determine what the next step must be.

At this point, the People must take action to secure their Liberty once again. Taking a page from Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, Bob Schulz and the We the People Organization believes that three things are needed for successful action: it must be proactive, non-violent, and come from a mass movement. Thus the Mission of the 2009 Continental Congress is:

"The Mission of the Continental Congress is to end and reverse violations of the Constitution of the United States of America by educating Americans on the issue of petitions for redress. We will do this by acting in a proactive, non-violent, constitutionally based course of action to restore the original intent of our Founding Fathers for the free people of our Constitutional Republic." (WTPCC Powerpoint, e-mailed from Bob Schulz on March 21, 2009).

Although there will only be three delegates from each state, this movement will need local and state support, because the acts of civil disobedience that will be required as the course of action, can only be successful if a sizeable minority of citizens engage in them.

At our meeting, there came a moment when those who are willing to act to protect and defend the Constitution were asked to stand. The Engineering Geek and I, along with a sizeable majority in the room, did stand. We were mindful of the words of Thomas Paine:

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." (The Crisis, December 23, 1776).

Our founders pledged to one another "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" in the cause of Liberty. If we want our children to receive their inheritance of Liberty, the time has come to act. For otherwise, in our old age, we will watch them toiling as indentured servants to the National Debt. It will take generations to pay for the pork and the earmarks, the acts of an irresponsible government at war with reality.

Inauguration Tuesday

Today, the United States witnessed a transcending moment.
That this happens every eight years makes it no less unique or special.
For today, we saw the peaceful transfer of the office of President of the United States from one man to another, as we have seen in ordinary times and extraordinary times, from 1789 until now.


Today was an extraordinary time, as Barack Obama was sworn in as the first Black President of the United States, standing on the same Capital Mall as MLK did, when he said, "I have a dream . . ."

For many Americans, this is a dream fulfilled.
Tomorrow, Mr. Obama begins to govern.
Tomorrow, Americans will begin to argue about the wisdom of his government, the policies he proposes and the vision he works to make a reality.

Even that vision will be trasmuted from within and from without. From within, it will change as Mr. Obama confronts the realities that his administration must work within. From without, the change will come from the push-and-pull of politics, as through their representatives, the people of the United States demand to have their unique and diverse voices heard.
This is what our founders intended: not the efficiency of a well-oiled collective, but rather the push-and-pull of a government of, for, and by the people at work.

Tomorrow, where the rubber meets the road, Mr. Obama will begin to get the reality of the change: that his vision will not remain what it was as Candidate Obama.
Tomorrow, we will begin to pick apart the new President's policies. We will agree with some and vehemently disagree with others.

But for today, we have the satisfaction of taking pride in the Republic and in the enduring grace with which the Office of the Chief Executive is transfered. We saw it in 1789. We saw it twice in 1865. We saw it in 1974, when in the midst of division and scandal, a president resigned, and we could smile through our pain because our system worked.

Tomorrow, Mr. Obama must begin to earn our criticism and our compliments.

But for today, just for today, we can stop and rejoice in this peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Constitution.

Congratulations, President Obama.
Best Wishes to the United States.

New Mexico's "Flag"-Ship University?

I have not posted anything political in a very long time. However, this is something that happened here at home. I have strong opinions about it and I cannot let this one pass in silence.

The University of New Mexico bills itself as "New Mexico's Flagship University."

It is my guess that the powers that be that reside in Scholes Hall--which is the administration building--consider that to mean that it is the first among equals in the state university system. Because if New Mexicans thought it meant something to actually do with the actual flag--you know, the one we lovingly call 'Old Glory'--we'd all ROTFL.

Here are the facts: On September 17, 2007--the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the United States Constitution--students arrived on campus to find the Mexican national flag flying alone in front of Scholes Hall. Evidently, the Mexican Student's Union had put the flag up next to Old Glory on Friday to mark Mexican independence day but did not take it down. The ROTC squad that took the American flag down left the Mexican flag flying alone because they thought that the Mexican Student's Union would take it down later. (The ROTC squad should be doing extra push-ups for this lack of knowledge of flag ettiquette. You don't ever lower the US flag on American territory before another national flag. It makes it look like you've surrendered to a foreign power). Some students might have thought that maybe the powers that be in Scholes Hall had surrendered UNM to Mexico--after all, when it comes to the university administration's actions, students tend to think nothing is too far fetched to be true. But most students probably didn't notice anything at all except that the shuttles were running late and crowded, and hurried off to class. That is, except Peter Ryan Lynch, a decorated US war veteran and a student. And he called up the powers that be at Scholes Hall to inform them of the surrender...er, I mean mistake.

This is what transpired in his own words:

"Throughout history, flying a nation's banner is a claim of ownership. To do this on U.S. Constitution Day is an insult to all Americans. I am outraged that the UNM administration allowed this to happen. I thought the administration would address the issue before my class was over. I left class, and the foreign banner was still unaccompanied. I went to the dean's office pleading for action. I also notified the Army ROTC, which has the honor of raising and lowering the U.S. flag on campus this month. I waited one to 1 1/2 hours after these notifications to take action myself. I made a profound statement and tore down this foreign banner. My actions, although overzealous, were warranted."
(From the Daily Lobo, Opinion, 9/25/07).

Mr. Lynch delivered the torn Mexican flag to the ROTC commander. And then the hullaballoo started. He was charged with destruction of property. El Centro de La Raza cried "racism" and charged that this was a "hate crime." The President of the UNM Schmidley decried the tearing down of the Mexican flag, but said nothing about his responsibility as the 'admiral' of New Mexico's "flagship' for the violation of US law and the insult to American citizens caused by the Mexican flag flying three days alone over sovereign US territory.

It is interesting that the president of the university does not get it that the buck for whatever happens on UNM campus should stop on his desk. We have too many public officials who do not take the responsibility that goes with the powers of an office. Schmidley may not be personally responsible for insulting American sensibilities in this case, but he leads the institution that is responsible. A leader ought to take corporate responsibility instead of spouting nonsense about how New Mexico was once part of Mexico. That history has not bearing on the breach of patriotic duty we witnessed on September 17.

It is interesting that the Army ROTC did not know how to handle the ceremonial responsibilities that go with the honor of posting and striking the colors. It would have been better to have taken the Mexican flag down first and returned it to La Raza or left 'Old Glory' flying, than to do what they did. The ROTC leadership needs to apologize to the UNM community and the citizens of US for the insult tendered by this lack of knowledge. And maybe they ought to impose extra laps or pushups on the color guard members who "forgot" their responsibility to post the US flag on Constitution day.

El Centro de la Raza had better take the advice handed to everyone who dwells in glass palaces. An organization with a name that means 'the Center for the Race' should not be the first to cry racism. And they should further note that hate crimes are, by definition, crimes against people, not flags. It is neither racism nor hatred that motived Mr. Lynch's actions. It was a passionate commitment to the honor of his country. A commitment for which Mr. Lynch has demonstrated his willingness to shed blood and die, if necessary.

As for Mr. Lynch, I think he was overzealous. As a mother nearing fifty years of age, I would probably have taken down the Mexican flag and turned it over, intact, to La Raza. Age and experience has cooled my zealousness a little bit. But Mr. Lynch is a young man. And young men and women tend to be zealous for their causes, and passionate about their beliefs. Would that those who would like to lead this country would demonstrate as much passion for American sensibilities as does Mr. Lynch. It is not racist to defend the honor of the United States and the Constitution. It is not hatred to be passionate about the ideals that this nation espouses. As Mr. Lynch puts it:

"Americans have one of the most diverse cultures on the planet. We embrace our differences, and unless you are a foreign visitor or illegal immigrant, your nationality is American. We are all equals under the Constitution and the Stars and Stripes that protect us. Americans should fly their nation's banner with pride." (Daily Lobo, Opinions, 9/25/07)

We need more young men and women like this.