Why the Collectivist Left is So Angry
Tighe Barry, Codepink protester, interrupts the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on September 6, 2018. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to fill the seat of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who announced his retirement in June. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI
Those of us who are passionate about college basketball know the importance of the March Madness Basketball Tournament and reaching the Final Four. It is, of course, the pinnacle of achievement for the season, and the winner has bragging rights for the year. So what does a college basketball tournament have in common with the explosive anger of the collectivist left?
All season, fans follow their favorite teams, watching games, memorizing players’ stats, keeping track of wins and losses, and hoping for a tournament bid. Once the NCAA selects teams for the bracket, it is “game on” as everyone places their bets and prays for victory. It is a single elimination tournament, so one loss sends a team home, a major disappointment for coaches, players, and fans. Every year, a few favored teams with outstanding players and winning records are eliminated by an unknown team no one expected to win.
How a fan handles such an unexpected defeat says a lot about that person’s character. Most of us shrug off our disappointment, saying, “Well, there’s always next year.” Inevitably, recriminations with a range of anger appear in the media blaming the coaches or individual players for errors that led to defeat. Unfortunately, for some it becomes an excuse for rioting, looting, and destruction of property, sometimes with physical injury or even loss of life. Eventually, everyone calms down and life goes back to normal.
The American Constitutional Republic, government by the people and for the people, empowers authority at the local level. That concept means that States’ Rights are the true basis for Individual Rights. When the federal government is both properly limited in power and entirely constrained by those limits, each state reflects the desires of its citizens not those of other states. Individual mobility allows citizens to relocate when necessary to congregate with others who share similar and compatible beliefs, and, by their votes, they can define the governmental authority of their state. As required by the constitutionally enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8), central government authority is limited to those few functions best accomplished at a national level. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly reserve all other powers to the states and their citizens.
Since the early 1900s, the collectivist left has been successfully implementing socialism in America gradually and quietly. Using a combination of legislation, regulation, amendments to the Constitution, and decisions by the federal court system and the Supreme Court, collectivists have increased the size and power of the federal government at the expense of the states and the individual. The year 1913 was a disastrous year for individual freedom and states’ rights with the 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, and the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, all of which significantly reduced the power of the states versus the federal government.
Since then, the trail toward collectivism and one-world socialist governance has been blazed by a biased and compliant federal court system that has failed miserably to force the other two branches of government to adhere to the restrictions authorized by the Constitution and to perform their constitutionally required duties properly.
The foundation of our justice system is an unbiased judiciary relying not on personal opinion, but on the written law. For the federal court system, that body of law is our Constitution, a contract among thirteen sovereign states that created a legally constrained separate entity, the Federal Government, which was not a party to the contract. It was expected that judges would listen to arguments from all sides, debate principles and remedies amongst themselves, and then make judicial decisions based on the law as written.
The written words of our Constitution set forth rules for governmental authority that are based on Natural Law Rights and accepted timeless principles. Many Supreme Court justices over the past hundred years, however, have voted for and written opinions that are in direct contradiction to those very doctrines on which our nation was founded. Their false and misguided rationale is the notion that the Constitution allows them to ignore principle and apply the realities of modern life to change the rules. Their true purpose is to circumvent the constitutional restraints on governmental authority to fundamentally change America and eliminate individual sovereignty.
As an example, let’s use the Seventh God’s Ten Commandments, which states, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” If the modern Supreme Court were to interpret this simple commandment, it would begin by redefining the act of sexual intercourse, dividing it into a series of stages of varying intensity under different conditions in a variety of positions in order to permit some and prohibit others. The court’s final decision would be based on the personal opinions and biases of the individual justices, ignoring the basic principle, namely, the prohibition of adultery.
The Supreme Court and the federal court system are not infallible. Noted attorney and Cato Institute Chair Robert Levy discussed the twelve worst Supreme Court decisions in his book, The Dirty Dozen, among them the Dred Scott decision and many cases from FDR’s New Deal era such as Wickard vs. Filburn. When the Supreme Court correctly denied the constitutionality of FDR’s socialist program, he threatened to pack the court with six additional agreeable justices. Several justices then capitulated, and the era of judicial blackmail had officially begun.
The Supreme Court consists of men and women who are supposed to ignore their own personal opinions and prejudices to make judicial decisions based on the written law. Increasingly, federal judges at all levels ignore or deliberately obfuscate the written text of the law to inject “social justice” concepts and political bias into each decision. In direct contradiction to our Constitution, legislating from the bench has become the new normal.
These judges and justices are enabled by a cadre of willing lawyers financed by special interest groups who pursue litigation in response to every bureaucratic regulation and legitimately enacted federal law. Special interest groups search out known sympathetic judges, wasting time and public funds to delay or prevent implementation of the will of Congress and the people. The entire federal judiciary has become a legislative “super branch” more powerful than Congress or the Executive Branch that makes law without being directly accountable to the people.
Instead of examining the judicial candidate’s character and experience, Senate confirmation hearings have become an opportunity for opponents to assassinate the character of honorable and able judges with inaccurate and deliberately misleading interpretations of any and all previously uttered statements, articles, and judicial rulings. A complicit media furthers the insult by choosing sound bites taken out of context and outright lies designed to paint the candidate in the most unfavorable light.
The overall scheme is both diabolical and simple. Any legislation passed by an otherwise do-nothing Congress consists only of a framework for which nameless, faceless bureaucrats in numerous alphabet soup agencies (TSA, BLM, EPA, FDA, DOJ, FEC, BATF, SEC, EEOC, FAA, FCC, FDIC, FEMA, etc.) write the rules, laws, and regulations that we must all obey. The rule makers are, therefore, untouchable by We the People and, unlike congressmen, cannot be pressured or voted out of office when their work product is unacceptable. The bureaucratic arm of government, started under the New Deal and FDR, grows larger and more powerful each day, and, most dangerously, its actions and its personnel are beyond control of ordinary people.
Worse yet, the validity and constitutionality of these regulations are the subject of lawsuits tried in a Federal Court system in which decisions are based on political agendas rather than the rule of law or the Constitution.
With the death of Justice Scalia and the retirement of Justice Kennedy, the majority of the Supreme Court will be held by constitutional textualists. As Arizona Supreme Court Judge Clint Bolick wrote, “. . . textualist judges provide the greatest possible guarantee that the judiciary will safeguard the Constitution and rule of law.” Without the unconstitutional and duplicitous actions of the federal judiciary, the collectivist agenda of the progressive left would be stalled, dead in the water.
That is why the collectivist socialist left is so angry. A rising tide of populist anger has blown the tank treads off a century-long juggernaut of arrogant elitist collectivist victories. When a spoiled undisciplined brat’s parents finally take away the car keys, a temper tantrum of epic proportions can be expected, and that is what is occurring today in our country. And I guarantee that it will get worse.
Having now taken a stand, we cannot capitulate or compromise on principle if we are to restore the constitutional foundation of our nation. At this point, there can be absolutely no turning back. The future of our constitutional republic, our own individual freedom, and the security of our children are at stake. Acta non Verba.
Dr. Dan’s guest on Freedom Forum Radio this weekend is James Bolton, former Marine (once a Marine always a Marine) and Counter-Insurgency Operations Specialist. Topics covered will include: Era of Insurgency/What is Political Insurgency, Why Movements Fail, Counter-Political Insurgency Skills.
“I believe that the key to regaining traditional political prowess in America as liberty-loving and God-fearing people is in learning to employ real Modern Counter Insurgency skills at the civil level as all insurgencies are aimed at populations. Social change creates political results. The fact is inarguable!” – James Bolton
Understanding Political Insurgency in America and Learning the Skills to Defeat It
Sunday, September 16, 2018, 2:00PM
Butternut Creek Golf Course Community Room
For More Information
James Bolton Bio:
- Born and reared in WV in farming and woodworking environment, graduating high school in 1986.
- Joined the USMC in 1987 and due to some particular natural skills, was selected as a team-member of a Special Operations unit (MARSOC) tasked with Counter-Insurgency Operations. Active Tenure ended in 1995 and served an additional 2 years on the USMCR (reserve).
- Was privately trained By Geo-political PHD Dr. John Berry from 1996 to 2001. Upon his recommendation and his death, completed the Basic Operators Counter-Intelligence Course in 2005.
- Has actively involved in private security, dispute resolution, movement building and self-defense instruction for over 20 years.
- Has worked in four states over the last 20+ years in movement building and direct confrontations with political subversives and their agendas.
- Currently working closely with Freedom Force International to create local ‘campuses’ of Red Pill University.
- Currently has two children in the USMC and resides in Stevens County WA with his wife Kim.
Part one of this five-part interview begins this weekend, Saturday and Sunday, September 8-9, on WJRB 95.1 FM and streamed live over the Internet.
Part two airs Saturday and Sunday, September 15-16
Part three airs Saturday and Sunday, September 22-23
Part four airs Saturday and Sunday, September 29-30
Part five airs Saturday and Sunday, October 6-7
All programs are available by podcast following air time here.