Rule of Law or Big Government Tyranny?

By The Colonel

There was a story in the New York Times this morning by Azam Ahmed and Habib Zahori  about a case of government “ruling class” abuse of power in Afghanistan but this story is little different in principle from another story taking place in the United States of America. That story involves the Attorney General of the United States seizing James Rosen and his parent’s phone records with no evidence to support a warrant. I argue the Afghan story illustrates an important principle in that one of the few core responsibilities of any government is to protect its people from external (National defense) and internal harm (law enforcement)…to protect the weak from the strong. Yes the government can be an equalizing force protecting the little guys from the big powerful guys…unfortunately the government can also be the big and powerful who tyrannizes we common citizens. I worry that we are seeing the symptoms of tyranny not just in Afghanistan, but here at home in the USA.

The Afghanistan story is about an army major (Pashto) who was stopped for a routine traffic check and vehicle search by an Afghan policeman (Dari), the army major was reportedly arrogant and angry that he had been stopped by a Dari policeman so he phoned his Army unit and asked that soldiers be sent to teach this lowly policeman a lesson. Two trucks, 17 soldiers, arrived and beat the policeman severely after which the army major left to go on his way. The other policemen on duty at the checkpoint took their colleague to the hospital. Even though the incident was reported up the police chain of command, the army major remains free and giving orders because his ethnic or political group (Pasto) is in “power” and the policeman’s ethnic group (Dari) is not.

While we might think this lack of justice is pretty common in a third world country, it seems to be happening more frequently now in the United States of America? For example, James Rosen, a reporter for Fox News, recently had his and his parent’s phone records collected by the U.S. Attorney General without charging or indicting him with any crime…and in spite of his First Amendment right to free speech and a free press. Even though the Justice Department got a judge to issue a warrant, it was not easy to do…they (Justice Department) had to “Judge-Shop” … to fool a judge into signing the warrant…the first two judges approached refused to issue the warrant because there was no evidence to support it and because the Justice Department had not notified James Rosen of their intention to go after his and his parent’s phone records nor had they taken the first steps required by law to simply ask James Rosen for the information they were seeking. In fact, on the warrant the Justice Department finally found a judge to sign the AG lawyers had stated that James Rosen was “potentially criminally libel” in a National security case…even though they knew well he was not. James Rosen vs. the power of the entire United States government…with very deep pockets full of taxpayer dollars and an armed FBI agent to do the enforcement does not seem fair? I think this is why we have the rule of law…at least for now?

James Rosen and his parents were powerless and worse yet unaware they were being investigated by the all-powerful, resources-rich Federal government of the United States of America. James Rosen is a reporter for the Fox News network which is reportedly a conservative news organization and the U.S. Justice Department is under Attorney General Eric Holder, a member of the reportedly liberal administration. So the liberal party in power in America can abuse the rights of the conservative party members who are not in power? In Afghanistan, the ruling party-in-power abuses the rights of those who are not in power or are of another ethnic group (Dari). There may not be as much difference between us and the third world countries as there once was; do we really want to drift into the rule-of-man (even if he is historic and charismatic) or did our Founding Fathers have it right in the Constitution to guarantee rule-of-law, where we are all equal before the law? 

Remember the classic book Animal Farm where “all of the animals were equal but some were more equal than others” (Orwell, 1946). Orwell was humorously mocking socialism and communism in 1946 but I think he would be shocked today at how some of our citizens (e.g., ruling class elite) are, “more equal than other citizens.”

 Ahmed, A., & Zahori, H. (2013, May 28). Beaten On The Job, An Afghan Police Officer Goes On TV And Hits Back, New York Times.

Troubling Question Answered - Tipping Point Crossed - Atlas Shrugs’!

By the Lieutenant Colonel

We were founded as a Republic of self-governed people championing maximum individual liberty based on property rights and an equally applied traditional rule-of-law. However, a majority, mostly huddled together in America’s major urban centers, no longer comprehends what it truly means to live in freedom; they have spurned liberty centered limited-governance of the intended Constitutional Republic and enthroned a professed benevolent king. America---“Transformed” into just another failing Democracy of needy piglet subjects suckling on the tits of a withering sow.

Prospects for a renaissance of liberty anytime soon are fading. But embers still smolder under the ash. Linking admired stories---like Jedi Obi Wan of the Old Republic, it may be time to rejuvenate in “Red” pastoral America by “Going Galt” and awaiting the opportunity to fight for a “New Hope”.

…”the blood of patriots & tyrants”, I exclaim not now!

By the Lieutenant Colonel

King Arthur: I am your king.

Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.

King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?

[Angelic music plays...]

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.  That is why I am your king.

Dennis the Peasant: Listen.  Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up!  Will you shut up?!

Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!

Dennis: Oh!  Come and see the violence inherent in the system!  Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!

-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Like many liberty-minded Constitutional Conservatives, I feel tremendous anguish and frustration as I witness the rapidly growing oppressive power of the administrative state toward us “Bloody Peasants”.  The more I study the Founders writings, the “Great Debate” between the Federalists and Anti-Federalist, and ratification of the United States Constitution [1] and the subsequent “Fundamental Transformations” brought about by persistent “Progressive” subversion primarily in past 100 years, I'm unfortunately finding myself in agreement with this assessment on the state of our Constitutional Republic by Joseph Baldacchino…

Government in the United States bears virtually no resemblance to the constitutional republic that the Framers gave us—if, as Benjamin Franklin cautioned, we could “keep it.”  …

“Our whig forebears rejected as “null and void” all acts of the British government that exceeded the limits of the constitution of custom, which was their political and cultural inheritance, their “property.”  To restore the “free government” for which they defied the most formidable military power of their time, today’s Americans would have to be willing to show similar courage and dedication.  To restore government to its proper position “under the Law,” we would have to be prepared like them to risk our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.  But to state that requirement is to recognize how unlikely is the restoration of American constitutionalism within a foreseeable future.”  [2]

It is true that many of the ominous concerns expressed by the Anti-Federalists have come to pass despite the careful crafting and amendments (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution backed by James Madison and other Federalists to reassure them.  The small and limited Federal Government as “Founded” has overcome the constitutionally enumerated constraints and grown to a bureaucratic behemoth.  "We the People" through overwhelming individual comforts and conveniences, mounting ignorance, indifference, and selection of a “professional political class” have subverted or abandoned the "Republic" envisioned by the Constitution’s Framers.  [3] We are now "progressing" toward a "flash and burn" Democracy reminiscent of ancient Greece or Rome.  The seeds of our undoing lie within.  But is it too late, or can a renaissance of individual liberty take hold?  Maybe, but even Ronald Reagan, ever the American optimist, expressed doubt that once created a bureaucratic behemoth government is nearly impossible to restrain let alone reverse.  [4]

So what can we do to reclaim our individual liberty and our Constitutional Republic envisioned by the Framers?  I believe we still have many nonviolent options available, but evidently some do not.

I have heard peoples’ frustration and ire on conservative airwaves, but more frequently, read their comments in weblogs and articles with a “Call to Arms” inspired by Thomas Jefferson’s words…

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.  It is it's natural manure.”  [5]

While I understand and empathize with their passionate frustration, our situation is far different from that of the American Revolution.  America was an exceptionally unique historical crossroads of extraordinary conditions and brilliant self-educated men of complimentary personalities.  The circumstances and timing for an armed rebellion to “institute” liberty was justified, and yet exceeding complex and very in doubt as to the outcome.  It would have been tragically similar to the bloody horror that followed the French Revolution if not for the “lives, fortunes, sacred honor” and WISDOM of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Mason, Adams (both of them), Hamilton and others that charted the turbulent waters… where among our current political class or even our entire populace is an equal assembly of such persons?  Our education system that produced the current “professional political class” will be addressed in a future article by the Colonel.   

But the concerns for the loss of individual liberty today are as legitimate as the Founders were, so it does beg the very grim and disturbing question.  At what point does government’s action transforming the Republic, first toward a direct democracy (loathed by the Constitution’s Framers as mob rule and responsible for the horrors of the French Revolution), and eventually something else well beyond the intentions of the Framers, all with the elected representative consent of a majority of the governed, lead a minority population to charge tyranny and rebel?  What is the “litmus test” for necessity--for justifying armed rebellion against civil authority knowing that it is the government's obligation to preserve itself and the safety, happiness/property and prosperity of the greater part of its citizens?  Apparently the folks tossing out the Jefferson quote think we have passed the point of justification--AGAIN, I STRONGLY DISAGREE!

As already stated, I fully understand the frustration and the fervent spirit to resist tyranny in the manner of Samuel Adams.  [6] But when I read or hear these boisterous outcries I always wonder, what are they really suggesting people do… just start shooting folks who are “accused” of threatening liberty; do they want a “John Brown” like act of rebellion to incite a conflict; [7] have they really thought through the horrible realities of insurgency and civil war?

A time may come when one has to decide whether to violently resist tyranny to prevent servitude or for self-preservation.  BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW; ALL OTHER MEANS ARE NOT EXHAUSTED!  Should we be resisting and fighting the past and present encroachments on the Constitution and liberty… most definitely!  Human nature being what it is--the fight for individual liberty and the “animating contest of freedom” never ends.  No doubt, we are at a tipping point.  But, free speech and the ballot box are still there.  The fact that I can freely express my views and effect change says to me a bloodless renaissance is still possible.  Plus, we conservatives insist on the “rule of law” as a founding principle of the Republic, it is deceitful progressives and statist that love incendiary oratory and lawless mob action.

The combined strategy of education, political activism and even some non-violent civil disobedience can be effective tools for us.  Remember the power of the written and spoken words by the Founders; we need to educate ourselves and others to use that power to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Tea Party movement is the right idea, get involved…support your local and national organizations such as FreedomWorks, The Heritage Foundation, etc…  [8] Get behind political candidates that you believe truly support and defend our Constitution.  There are many ways to get involved NOW and begin to turn the tide…but, even though liberals believe the Second Amendment is just for hunters, it will not hurt to “keep your powder dry.”

Notes:

[1] I highly recommend the Teaching Company’s course taught by Professor Thomas L. Pangle, Ph.D.  Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution, University of Chicago, The University of Texas at Austin.  Available at http://www.thegreatcourses.com

[2] Joseph Baldacchino, (2005).  The Unraveling of American Constitutionalism: From Customary Law to Permanent Innovation, The Center for Constitutional Studies, National Humanities Institute http://www.nhinet.org/ccs-res.htm

[3] A condition embodied in quotes of these two great intellectuals… "Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both.  The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”  --Frederick Douglass, August 3, 1857 in a speech on “West India Emancipation” at Canandaigua, New York

"If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be....  If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”  --Thomas Jefferson

[4] “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.  Government programs, once launched, never disappear.  Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”  Ronald Reagan, U.S. Republican politician, President. “A Time for Choosing,” television address, 27 Oct. 1964 (published in Speaking My Mind, 1989).

[5] From a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1787 while he was in France to his friend William Smith.  This phrase is often quoted as an affirmation of the right of the people to rebel against the tyranny of government.  The intended meaning of this quote in full context of the letter and historic setting is still debated.

[6] “If we love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”  Samuel Adams from a speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia, August 1, 1776

[7] Revolutionary abolitionist who in the 1850s advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to abolish slavery in the United States and made his name in the unsuccessful raid at Harpers Ferry in 1859 for which he was hung.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

[8] I highly recommend and personally support.  http://www.freedomworks.org/ and   http://www.heritage.org/

So what if we have incompatible and irreconcilable worldviews on our existence… can’t we still get along?

By the Lieutenant Colonel

I am troubled by those that are adamant about separating undesirable “beliefs” from the individuals that espouse them in the wishful endeavor to avoid physical confrontation at all cost.  I decided to write on this subject after reading this closing statement from a “conservative” blog article:

“They grasped the seriousness of their disagreement and found ways to hate the other side’s ideas without hating the individuals on the other side.  We can do the same with the political, religious, and secular Left in 2010.”  [1]

The “we can agree to disagree” and still be friends view is reasonable and admirable when the disagreement is over some benign “like or dislike” such as; I think that painting is beautiful, you think it is ugly.  Or, I’m a Steelers fan and you’re a Ravens fan.  Rational humans may have spirited discourse on their preferences, but will not come to blows over such things.  (Please note I said rational)

But when a disagreement is over irreconcilable and incompatible philosophies with a “my way or your way” outcome pertaining to one’s physical and mental state of existence in this world, a fight to determine which outcome prevails is inevitable unless there is a willingness by one party to acquiesce and submit.  Such disagreements sometimes smolder for a period as opponents struggle to coexistence, but they inevitably explode into conflict as opponents either employ self-defense or assert dominance to obtain resolution.  Such conflicts span human history. 

The preeminent irreconcilable struggle of human coexistence is between the social order boundaries of anarchy and tyranny.  Between these extremes are those that believe in individual liberty (God given inalienable rights) and personal property under a system of equal opportunity and justice under law and those that believe in statist collectivism and community property under a system of equal outcome and social justice.  One seeks maximum self determination and limited governance, the other, a utopian collective governed by a benevolent authoritarian system.  These views are diametrically opposed.  Whenever liberty triumphs statist collectivist coercions, the result is preservation of individual freedom, but whenever the statist collective triumphs, it is at the expense of liberty--and those that don’t want to acquiesce are forced into submission, incarcerated, or eliminated.

So, when it comes to my view on individuals or groups whose beliefs impose conditions that force me down “the road to serfdom” (With best intents for our wellbeing of course [2]), I can’t help but hold disdain for them.  They are a threat to my liberty, and therefore an enemy… how can I feign friendship or even just passively ignore them when they vigorously encroach upon me?  Then what is one to do, dispatch them…“the blood of tyrants”, well no!  (More on this in a follow-on article)  That is, if the defense of liberty is vigilant and uncompromising [3] while the fight can be bloodless as wisely stated by Winston Churchill…

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.  There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Notes:

[1] R.J. Moeller (8 April 2010).  The Drama of Our Time, A Voice in the Wilderness-In Defense of “Mere Conservatism”, http://rjmoeller.com/category/uncategorized/page/2/

[2] Hayek, Friedrich August (1994).  The Road to Serfdom, University of Chicago Press

British writer C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[3] How can you compromise liberty?  You can’t… a point well explained by Buck Stienke in this post on Patriotpost.com, 6 Dec 2011.  “Colin Powell is wrong (about compromise with progressives in Congress) for a simple reason.  Tea Party unwillingness to compromise with a fundamentally un-American policy (Socialism) is no vice.  Compare it to a rapist's desire to have unlimited sex with your wife or child.  At what point would a "compromise" with the rapist's demand satisfy you?  A weekend?  A night?  How about only 30 minutes?  As I suspected, your unwillingness to compromise is no surprise.  Principles must be defended, even if the defense is not "civil".

[4] Winston Churchill (1948).  The Gathering Storm, p. 348, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH)