Was Liberty the Real End? Not Hardly!

by Al Benson Jr.

Gary M. Galles has been a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. Awhile back he wrote an article for http://www.freedomforallseasons.org which was entitled The Anti-Federalists Were Right. Galles noted in his article that: “Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its checks on federal power would be undermined by expansive interpretations of promoting the ‘general welfare’ (which could be claimed with every law) and the ‘all laws necessary and proper’ clause (which could be used to override limits on delegated federal powers), creating a federal government with unwarranted and undefeated powers that were bound to be abused.” In the light of subsequent history it’s hard to argue with that analysis. Can anyone say “Obamacare”?

Gary North, in an article on mises.ca/ wrote quite plainly that: “The Constitution was deliberately designed to centralize power vastly beyond what the legitimate constitution–the Articles of Confederation–allowed. The Federal government in 1787 was weak. In 1788 it was vastly stronger. The newly created Federal government immediately did two things. It accepted responsibility to pay off state debts. This was Alexander Hamilton’s proposal. He proposed it specifically to centralize the government by granting enormous profits to the investment class that had bought state debts for practically nothing. The Wikipedia article on this consolidation of federal debt is accurate in its discussion of Hamilton’s motives.” Sounds as if Hamilton had more than real liberty as the “direct end” of his agenda.

It was noted that: “Hamilton’s economic plan had multiple goals. First, the debts and honor of the nation would be secured…By selling bonds to pay the debt, bondholders would have a direct financial interest to help the new United States government survive and thrive…The plan would also create a bureaucracy of agents across the country who would be tied to the Federal government instead of the individual states. Assuming the debts of the states would likewise couple financial elites in those states to the national government and less to state governments, thereby reducing the risk of secession. Hamilton’s plan was called the ‘debt assumption plan,’ and it was a radical idea in 1790.” You can see from this one paragraph that Hamilton, from the beginning, was always the consummate collectivist and centralist, trying to tie everyone’s interests to the Federal government instead of to the states. And he sought to reduce the risk of secession, so he must have felt that secession was a legitimate option which he wanted to steer the states away from.

Madison and Jefferson initially opposed this, but, as Gary North observed: “When Madison and Jefferson opposed the plan, Hamilton bought them off by promising to support the swamp today known as Washington D.C. as the nation’s capitol. This was done at a private dinner with only the three in attendance. Jefferson later wrote about it.” I read one account that noted that, while Madison was still opposed to the idea, and might speak out against it, he would not do such very strenuously. How little has changed in Washington since 1790! Covert “dinners,” midnight voice votes in Congress, it was and is always the same game, and the public is always on the receiving end of the shaft.

Gary North noted the outcome of this grand bargain. “The Treasury Department quickly grew in stature and personnel, encompassing the United States Customs Service, the United States Revenue Cutter Service, and the network of Treasury agents Hamilton had foreseen. Hamilton immediately followed up his success with the Second Report on Public Credit, containing his plan for the Bank of the United States–a national, privately-operated bank owned in part by the government, which became the forerunner of the Federal Reserve System.” Do you begin to see where Hamilton was going now? The Bank of the United States–privately operated, owned “in part” by the government. One with a suspicious mind might be led to ask who owned the part the government didn’t. And since much of this is not included in the “history” books, are we forced to conclude that this is a question some would prefer not to be asked? After all, if you can’t trust your government… But you can see from this that our problems with bankers did not begin in 1913. That was chapter two.

As to Hamilton’s motives, North observed: “By 1791 Hamilton had created a vast Federal debt and the nation’s first central bank, owned privately. He had planned it from the beginning. That was why he promoted the Constitution. This is why he wrote most of The Federalist Papers. The anti-Federalists predicted accurately what was coming in 1787. It came. There was a conspiracy in Philadelphia in 1787. It was successful…To understand the expansion of Federal power in 1788, consider this. In 1786, the Federal government’s total army was 1,200 men. It was too small to come to the rescue of the state of Massachusetts in putting down Shay’s rebellion. This was a rebellion by rural counties against the state government’s decision in 1786 to pay off state debts in silver, collected from the counties. The governor and most of the members of the legislature had bought these debts for pennies in fiat currency. Now they were about to get very rich at the expense of rural taxpayers, who had little silver. A lot of counties revolted. That was the trigger that got George Washington to attend the (Constitutional) Convention, which he had previously refused to agree to attend. He had been completely misinformed about the motives of the protest. A former general of his sent him letters that concealed the politics of the revolt.” So Washington had no idea that the real reason for the rebellion was that the state government was stealing from its citizens. North continued: “In 1794, Washington personally led an army of 13,000 to crush a tax revolt in Western Pennsylvania…Because so few men volunteered, the Federal government imposed a draft. This was the whiskey rebellion. The revolt was against Hamilton’s 1791 tax on whiskey–a tax used to raise revenue to pay off Federal debts at face value–debts that the holders had purchased for pennies…Do you begin to see a pattern here? Centralized power? I guess you could say that. Seems the new Federal power was being used to help make the big money boys even richer at the expense of the rural farmers. I suppose you could label that as the 1794 version of redistribution of the wealth. And Hamilton was in on the ground floor. Beginning to connect the dots here?

And North has told us that what Hamilton could not accomplish on his own, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who was also a Federalist, did manage. Among his other “accomplishments” he managed to find time to squeeze in the writing of the opinion for McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. This was an authorization for the privately-owned Second Bank of the United States to exercise a government-granted monopoly over our monetary system. The last half of chapter one!

North began the conclusion of his article with this: “The Constitution was from day one an instrument to consolidate Federal power and expand it. The Constitution has proven to be a weak reed in every attempt to slow down the expansion of Federal power. It has proven utterly impotent to roll Federal power back as little as a decade, ever.” Mr. North is pointing out the exact same thing I have been saying in regard to the fact that the checks and balances in the Constitution that are supposed to keep one branch of the government from overreaching and acting in the affairs of another branch just simply do not work. They are not effective and, given North’s analysis, you have to wonder if they were ever meant to be effective, or if they were only ever meant to be a cover seeming to do what they are not really doing.

Obama is now threatening Congress that if they refuse to legalize millions of illegal immigrants then he will just take executive action and do it himself. After all, he has a pen and a phone. It’s up to Congress to deal with this, not the dictator, (excuse me, I meant president–a slip of the fingers on the keyboard). For him to usurp the power of Congress goes against the vaunted “checks and balances” between branches of government that are supposed to be there for our protection. Suppose Obama just unilaterally decides to go and do this “because he can?” Do you know what Congress will do? Nothing!!! Oh, they’ll make a little fuss, a little political bloviation to try to save face, and that will be the end of it. Obama will do what he wants to do because, in the end, the Constitution won’t stop him.

Folks, we’ve been had since way back in 1787 and it’s about time we woke and and realized it. Do I think that will happen? Maybe in a couple hundred years, if we can rear up enough Christian-schooled and home schooled kids with the truth. Maybe.

Centralism Trumps “Checks and Balances”

by Al Benson

Well, we’ve just had an election and it looks to most people like the good guys won for a change. However, voters need to be discerning enough to realize that not all those who appear to be good guys (Republicans) really are. Some of them are no better than the Democratic socialists, the only difference being the party label. Remember that the first two Republican candidates for president in this country, John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln, were both socialists in their worldviews even if they may not have officially belonged to any socialist ” Party.” You can check out the backgrounds of both of these individuals in the book Lincoln’s Marxists.

Now that we have a Republican majority in both houses Comrade Obama has stated that he will just take “executive action” in regard to making illegal immigrants part of the national culture. Will the checks and balances that are supposed to operate with our current Constitution be enough to stop him. Will Congress do what it should do or will Obama just continue to get away with his lawlessness? Most of us know the answer and it’s not pretty. Congress will fume and fuss and make great pontifications about who should do what and that will be it.

The checks and balances that one branch of government is supposed to employ under the Constitution to check the usurpations of another branch will amount to nothing. It’s all, as one Christian pastor once said–“meaningless drivel.” Always has been.

Interestingly, one of the most insightful of the Anti-Federalists in the beginning was Robert Yates, a judge from New York who was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. At some point Judge Yates withdrew because he felt the convention was exceeding the instructions it had been given. Yates later wrote as “Brutus” about the debates over the Constitution. Given that he had expertise as a judge he claimed that the Supreme Court was destined to become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching, and his insight in this area has proven correct.

As “Brutus,” he observed that the Supreme Court, as envisioned under the Constitution, would end up becoming a source of growing abuse because they were beyond the control of both legislatures and ordinary citizens and they were in no way subject to being “corrected by any power above them.” Who is there out there that will correct them regarding their farcial ruling that Obamacare is constitutional? Where are the checks and balances in this situation? If any are present they are hidden under the political rug, never to be seen. Yates thought that the power the Court would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law. Gee, when has that ever happened? (Let us count the times).

That being the case, the Court could then proceed to interpret the Constitution according to the “spirit” of the law rather than the letter of the law. Looking at some of the “decisions” the Court has handed down in our lifetime, can anyone seriously doubt the concerns that Robert Yates had? In fact, if anything, his concerns could have been labeled as optimistic, because in his day, he could have had no possible concept of just how far the Court would go in promoting the agendas of radical, activist judges who would shamelessly promote their version of what they wished the Constitution had really said.

I can recall author and columnist, the late Joseph Sobran, writing on this subject years ago when he noted that the Court had found many “enumerated penumbras” in the Constitution that justified abortion, the murder of unborn babies. Many folks will ask “what’s a penumbra?” Good question. For want of being able to explain it legally, I will note that it is nothing more than the judicial version of “seeing through a glass darkly.” The lawyers see “rights” there that are never spelled out anywhere, except in their own minds. So there are no real checks and balances in play regarding the Supreme Court. It is truly a law unto itself.

Back in 2008, Dr. Clyde Wilson wrote an article called Nathaniel Macon and The Way Things Should Be in which he dealt with the career of Nathaniel Macon, the man that Macon, Georgia was named after. Macon and others in his family were quite discerning. He served with North Carolina troops in the War for Independence. Dr. Wilson noted of him that: “He was offered but refused a commission and he refused also the bounty that was paid for enlisting…In the next few years he was offered a place in the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress which he declined. It is noteworthy that his brother, John, voted against ratification of the new U.S. Constitution in both conventions of the sovereign people of North Carolina to consider that question; and that our State did not ratify until the first ten amendments, especially the 9th and 10th, were in place to limit the federal government.” And he commented on the new government, saying “As soon as the U.S. government went into operation, Hamilton and his Yankee friends, claiming that they were acting in behalf of ‘good government’ began to turn the government into a centralized power and a money-making machine for themselves by banks, tariffs, government bonds, and other paper swindles that would be paid for out of the pockets of the farmers who produced the tangible wealth of the country. To oppose this Macon accepted election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Second Congress.” However, Dr. Wilson noted that “By the end of his life Macon had realized that the cause of republicanism was lost at the federal level, and also that the North was determined to exploit and rule the South. South Carolina tried in 1832 to use ‘nullification,’ state interposition, to force the federal government back within the limits of the Constitution. After he read Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, Macon told his friends that it was too late for nullification. The Constitution was dead. The only recourse was secession–…” These folks had it figured out by the 1830s that the Constitution was not going to work because no one was staying within the sphere of authority that was delegated to them. The checks and balances that were supposed to keep everyone where they belonged were just not being practiced. Each branch of the new government was doing what it wanted to do with no resistance from the other branches save a little breast-beating. It was only to get worse during the Lincoln administration, and worse yet during the “reconstruction” period, when Congress basically just did whatever they wanted. Johnson vetoed their indiscretions but they overrode that while the Supreme Court did little. Now we have a president (a would-be dictator for life if he could get away with it) who doesn’t even bother to consult Congress anymore. He just issues “executive orders” and rules like a Muslim potentate, so where are the checks and balances?

It’s all rhetoric, folks, that’s all it is. We have been lied to by so many for so long about so much, we wouldn’t recognize the truth if we saw it floating amongst all the political swill out there.

Three years ago, Mike Crane of Morganton, Georgia did a series in six parts called What Is States Rights? which you can still find on the Internet. Check out the website for the Southern Party of Georgia and read his comments. If that one is gone you can still find these articles on the League of the South website, probably in their archive. He observed: “In the very early days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates, the framers of the Constitution, made a deliberate and conscious decision to discontinue a federated form of government and to replace it…let me emphasize…REPLACE IT…with a national form of government in their deliberations. Let me emphasize what this means for the concept of States Rights…By the votes of May 30, 1787 the framers of the Constitution began debating the ultimate elimination of States Rights.”

There’s a lot more to all this and I would encourage everyone to check out Mike’s articles and see what he has to say. You can bet the farm that you will never get this material from what passes for history books today.

Christian Opposition, Checks & Balances, Etc.

by Al Benson Jr.

Having read several insightful articles by Al Cronkrite, a freelance Reformed Christian writer who lives in Florida, I usually pay attention when I see his name on an article because I know I will get something that goes beyond the usual “patriotic” chatter that is so prevalent on the Internet. Mind you, I am not against patriotism, but lots of what floats around out there today is not real patriotism but merely a shallow brand of nationalism–sort of like “My country, right or wrong–rah, rah, rah.” In its own way it’s just as bad as liberalism because it leads sincere Americans down the garden path to Nowheresville when they should be on the cultural path removing the thorns.

Having said that, I recall reading an article by Mr. Cronkrite in The Covenant News back in July of 2009 where he observed that most folks today view our founders as mostly Christian men “…who produced documents that, if they were not expressly Christian, contained Christian principles. Others find it strange that Christian men would fail to encode the name of the Savior or refer to His dominion.” Regarding the Constitution that brings a different dimension to the topic, one that Gary North has referred to more than once in his writings.

Mr. Cronkrite, along with others, also observed that: “The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in the Summer of 1787, was a secret gathering convened for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. It was an elite group that Jefferson described as ‘demigods’. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and probably President George Washington had no intentions of abiding by the instructions from congress to revise the Articles. Their intention was to form a new federal government which they believed the states would accept in order to solve the problems they were having in conducting their inter-state affairs. They were conspiratorial and dishonest in their actions but right in their political assessment…Patrick Henry of Virginia claimed he ‘smelled a rat’ and refused to attend.” Time has shown how foul the rat Henry smelled really was, and is.

It has been duly noted by Mr. Cronkrite that almost nothing has been written about Christian opposition to the final results of the Constitutional Convention. And I have to admit that none of the history I have come across has mentioned any of this, even the home school material. He observed that: “The shift from a reformation to a substitution was successful and in the exuberant pride that characterized the birth of a new nation the still small voice of the Creator was drowned out and a grave error was made. Several prominent clergymen expressed their dissatisfaction. Rev. John Mason of New York wrote, ‘Should the citizens of America be as irreligious as her Constitution, we will have reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity, by a people anymore than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck’.”

Also, “Rev. Samuel Austin said, the Constitution ‘is entirely disconnected from Christianity. It is not founded on the Christian religion.’ Rev. Samuel Taggart lamented the lack of Christian reference to be a national evil of great magnitude.’ ‘It is a great sin to have forgotten God in such an important national instrument and not have acknowledged Him in that which forms the very nerves and sinews of the political body,’ lamented Rev. George Duffield. Rev. Jedediah Morse thought that the secular Constitution meant that America, like ancient Israel was doomed. Rev. James Wilson considered its creation ‘a degree of ingratitude, perhaps without parallel’.”

Now, folks, stop and reflect for a minute. How much about this Christian opposition to the Constitution have you ever read about in “history” books? I’ll wager that about all you ever read what just about what I read–that almost no one was opposed to it but Patrick Henry and a mere handful of his friends, who must all surely have had charter memberships in the Flat Earth Society. Those folks were supposedly anachronisms that just couldn’t see the pressing need for consolidation–Henry and his dwindling number of friends were a bit shortsighted, so it’s a good thing no one listened to them (or Leviathan wouldn’t be where it is today) and that’s about all you get, if that. The anti-Federalist arguments against ratification are seldom, if ever, mentioned–and as anachronistic as I guess I must be, the ones I’ve read about I’ve agreed with.

Mr. Cronkrite informed his readers that one of the big selling points for the new Constitution was that old, mythical “separation of church and state” story–the so-called government “neutrality” in regard to religion. All you have to do is look at where we are today in this regard and ask yourself–how’s that “government neutrality” in regard to religion working out for you nowadays? Anything even remotely Christian is now constantly under attack, while all the other pagan faiths seem to be getting a poss. Folks, this is not by accident. I put that in bold letters because we need to grasp that. Muslims will get to do in many educational institutions what Christians couldn’t even dream about. Any perversion today is accepted, no matter how gross, as long as it flies in the face of Christian culture. It’s all “protected” except Christianity and it’s open season on us and that’s not by accident.

I read an article on LewRockwell.com for October 30th written by Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics, in which he noted a raid in Texas by a SWAT team on a community in which there was no probable cause. The inhabitants had done nothing wrong, did not use drugs; no weapons or anything illegal was found, but the SWAT team handcuffed people, destroyed their crops, and pretty much did what they wanted because they could.

In his article Mr. Armstrong observed: “Raiding such a community without probable cause is totally unconstitutional. This is my point about the Constitution–it is just a worthless scrap of paper with the purpose of providing propaganda and false hope. The Constitution protects nobody. It was supposed to be a self-restraint upon government. It fails in every respect. Government agents can do as they like and it is the BURDEN of the citizen to prove that they violated the Constitution.” I might not have said it quite the way he did, but he does have a point.

There are no real restraints upon government, no real checks and balances so that if one branch oversteps its bounds the others will bring it to heel. They all collude with one another to quash whatever rights the citizens have, all the while telling us we live in a “free country”–the freest on earth they tell us–and it’s all just so much bovine fertilizer. This government has gone rogue–it went that way noticeably when the Lincoln administration started, but it had been showing signs of major slippage before that. John C. Calhoun noticed it before he died in 1850.

It really appears to me that we have a government that is one thing when we have been told it was something else. Most of us who have followed the political situation realize that we have been shamelessly lied to by “our” government about just about everything in our lifetime. But what about our ancestors? Were they lied to in the same way about what went on in their day? What about the War of Northern Aggression, the Spanish-American War, World Wars 1 and 2, Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty, the Kennedy Assassinaton, and a plethora of other things I could spend paragraphs on just listing? Where, in all of this and more, has there been “constitutional” protection for our citizens–from their own government?

We had better start grappling with some of this folks, before the gates to the FEMA camps open wide and we all become “memory hole” material–naturally under the protection of the US Constitution, replete with its “checks and balances.”