Obama’s “Second Coming” – An Analysis of His Second Inaugural Address

President Barack Obama’s Second Inaugural Address was nothing if not a disguised Orwellian version of FDR’s infamous “Second Bill of Rights” speech. The speech is a concise statement of President Obama's collectivist Neo-Progressive vision of the United States. The President begins by invoking the 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.

The re-elected Commander-in-Chief then speaks of these natural rights upon which the Republic was built after a difficult and bloody revolution fought against the oppressive English Crown.

For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

While on the surface, President Obama’s words appear patriotic, the intentions behind them are far darker. Aptly on Martin Luther King Day, the President speaks of how the institution of slavery was incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and was justly abolished. 

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Through rhetorical sleight of hand, President Obama then proceeds to not so subtly compare the hypocritical and oppressive institution of slavery with other important principles of liberty upon which the Republic was founded. For example, a limited government which does not create public works and institutions (that the private sector can more adequately provide) is as evil as the institution of slavery and was rightly abolished just like that barbaric practice.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

President Obama also compares the free market to slavery and rejoices that the free market has been all but obliterated in the United States.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

According to the President, a free market devoid of corporatist regulations was as anachronistic and vicious as slavery, and was rightfully abolished. However, the “rules” of which the President speaks do not “ensure competition and fair play” except in perhaps a cynical Orwellian sense. The regulation of the once free market just creates opportunities by which large corporations and other powerful entities may lobby for rules that grant them a favored status in what has become anything but an even playing field.

Obama continues by comparing the period of time prior to the creation of the welfare Nanny State with slavery.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life's worst hazards and misfortune.

Creating the machinery of the New Deal and later the Great Society resulted not in emancipation but in enslavement. Not only has this transformation trapped countless Americans in poverty and made them dependent upon the state, but it has also enslaved future generations of Americans by chaining them to a mounting national debt that will eventually destroy what is left of the economy.

President Obama continues by giving lip service to the private sector.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society's ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

Nobody is less skeptical of central authority than the nation’s latest and most Imperial President. No President has shown less regard for the Tenth Amendment or for the private sector.

President Obama then reveals the truth of what he means by unveiling the overarching theme of his address. The United States and the American people need to be collectivized even more than they already have been.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

He believes that the only way to preserve individual liberty and natural rights is by turning to collectivism and violating the cherished principles of the Constitution that he had just taken an oath to defend. Like the Progressives of the early twentieth century, President Obama clearly believes that the Constitution is anachronistic and needs to “evolve” in a Darwinist fashion. If he were proposing Constitutional amendments, that would at least be consistent with his oath to uphold the Constitution, but like his Progressive forefathers, he does not have Constitutional remedies in mind to bring about his collectivist transformation of the United States.

No single person can train all the math and science teachers we'll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

The private sector and the individuals who fuel it cannot create anything great in the eyes of the Neo-Progressive President Obama. Likewise, the private sector and individuals will be inadequate for creating the institutions that will be needed to allow the United States to remain a great nation.

Even more subtly, President Obama finds a way to attack the Second Amendment without making his intentions manifest.

For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.

Just as a powerful collectivist central government is required to fuel the economy, a powerful collectivist central government is required to defend liberty. The “militia” with their arms cannot possibly protect the American people from tyranny, therefore the Second Amendment is likely a dead letter just like much of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

From there, President Obama begins to sound even more like Orwell’s Big Brother.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America's possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it - so long as we seize it together.

War is peace. While President Obama ratchets up his unconstitutional and endless drone warfare campaign and plans to keep a large American military presence in the Middle East even if and when the “War” in Afghanistan ends, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate calls this peace. Imminent economic collapse is economic recovery. While the numbers of unemployed Americans and Americans on government assistance remain high and the debt continues to grow astronomically, the Harvard educated Constitutional scholar speaks of economic recovery. Slavery is freedom. The possibilities for the United States are “limitless” only if the nation is further collectivized and all are made slaves of the state.

President Obama invokes the necessity of a strong middle class for American prosperity while at the same time the economic policies of his first four years in office have continued the erosion of the middle class and have created further obstacles to upward mobility.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America's prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.

Giving lip service to the American middle class is to be expected in any political speech, but such platitudes are even more heinous when delivered by a President who has stocked his administration with former Goldman Sachs employees and attacked small business at every turn with “Obamacare” and dozens of other weapons of mass economic destruction.

President Obama again speaks of “change” and makes it even more clear what this “change” actually entails. As if his actions in the last four years did not make it obvious enough.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American.

The “outworn programs” clearly includes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What will replace the foundations of liberty are new and higher taxes, more authoritarian public schools even more controlled by the federal government rather than by local communities, and even more centralized economic planning.

Just like FDR before him, President Obama then sings the praises of a “Second Bill of Rights” right after lamenting the archaic nature of the true Bill of Rights.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

For President Obama, true freedom and true dignity do not emanate from the inalienable natural rights that predate the state but instead emanate from the Nanny State. True freedom is dependency upon the state. The destruction of the free market and the private sector at the hands of the federal government creates a situation where the Nanny State appears to be the only safe harbor for Americans. While perhaps it is laudable that President Obama does not blame the victims – “the takers” – it is the federal government that made “the takers” what they are. 

From there, President Obama creates a new bogus “right” of which even FDR did not conceive – freedom from “climate change.”

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries - we must claim its promise.  

The science on “climate change” is anything but settled, but this does not stop the President. What “obligations” to posterity do entail is bringing the debt under control, but instead, President Obama claims that true “obligations” to posterity entail a new "path" that likely includes schemes such as more stifling environmental regulations, a carbon tax, and more corrupt corporatist “green jobs” programs such as the next Solyndra. Al Gore and other “climate fear” opportunists will benefit while the United States will likely suffer ill economic effects from a “green economy” as Spain did.  What a “green economy” means is more “green” in the pockets of the “banksters” who will benefit from a carbon tax scheme.  What is also means are more needless draconian EPA regulations that will harm small businesses.

President Obama then turns his attention from domestic policy issues to foreign policy, and the effect of his words is no less Orwellian.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

If peace does not require perpetual war, then why did President Obama undertake his unconstitutional “military kinetic action” in Libya? Why did he risk the inevitable blowback which tragically occurred in Benghazi? Why does he continue to wage a limitless drone warfare campaign without regard to checks and balances or due process? Why does he want to keep American troops in Afghanistan even after the “war” ends? Why does he seek affiliation with the radical Islamic resistance in Syria?    

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully - not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.

In other words, the United States will continue to ignore the warnings of the dangers of “entangling alliances” – the very sort of alliances that set the state for World War I and nearly engulfed the globe in nuclear annihilation during the Cold War. The United States will continue to be a warfare state that polices the world and makes that world “safe for democracy.” Or at least safe for corporatism.

President Obama concludes by labeling any who disagree with him or oppose his collectivist policies as being irrational.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today's victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

Senator Barry Goldwater famously said that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Defending an absolute is not irrational if that absolute is important enough. The natural rights embodied in the Constitution are such absolutes. If the natural rights to life, liberty, and property are not justifiable absolutes, then no freedoms can be secure in the Age of Obama.  

10 Great Libertarian Movies – Dystopian Edition

Libertarians with their love of natural rights tend to be extremely sensitive to the horrors evoked in dystopian works of art. One would presume that Statists find totalitarian dystopian art to be akin to fairytales that end “happily ever after,” but that is another story entirely. The following are ten great dystopian films that all Libertarians should see. Some end triumphantly for the cause of liberty and some … not so much.  

1. V for Vendetta

Movies are notorious for being inferior to their source material. However, James McTeigue’s film adaptation of Alan Moore’s 1980s graphic novel V for Vendetta surpasses the greatness of its source material by contemporizing the graphic novel’s fascistic themes into neoconservative ones. The film skillfully depicts the totalitarian dangers of the modern surveillance state and the libertarian Lockean theme of opposing a state that has lost its right to rule by oppressing the people it is meant to serve.

Unlike the Neoconservative Batman, V embodies a libertarian hero who is unafraid to stand up to the totalitarian regime. Director James McTeigue and producers the Wachowskis (of The Matrix fame) were brave to adapt a film that might be considered subversive in the Post-911 world where the state is worshipped as the only means of protection against terrorism and other (often) phantom threats.

V’s televised speech is among the most moving of movie scenes for any liberty lover. Strong performances by Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea, and John Hurt along with masterful direction and cinematography make V for Vendetta one of the greatest graphic novel adaptations. Unlike too many libertarian themed films, this one actually triumphed at the box office. 

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

2. Serenity

Many avowed progressives are libertarians even if they do not realize it. The brilliant Joss Whedon is a prime example of this. The auteur behind “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Serenity” has often presented libertarian themes whether intentionally or not. From Buffy opposing the Initiative – a neoconservative military group that sought to indefinitely detain demons and use them to create weapons – in season four of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” to Angel and his gang fighting the good fight against demonic legal firm Wolfram and Hart – representative of the corporatist powers that hold the true reins of power in the world – Whedon has always seemed like a libertarian waiting to happen. His deep mistrust of the government makes statism a poor fit for him.

Serenity – the theatrical sequel to short-lived television sci fi cult classic “Firefly” – is an old fashioned “space western.” The film depicts the roguish Captain Mal Reynolds and his band of petty criminals who find a noble cause to pursue when they decide to protect River Tam – a young woman with a secret that could bring down the totalitarian Alliance government. Like the United States government which employs fluoride in the drinking water and psychiatric drugs to control the people, the Alliance has tested a chemical compound to suppress aggression in human beings. With disastrous results.

As with any Whedon production, Serenity mixes philosophical ideas with humor and engrossing action sequences. Whedon’s most recent big budget Avengers adaptation made more in its first few hours of release than Serenity made in its entire theatrical run. Pity. Serenity is one shiny masterpiece.

3. Equilibrium

Take Fahrenheit 451, mix in 1984, and then sprinkle in some kick ass action sequences with fight scenes that make those in The Matrix seem trite, and you have Equilibrium. The film is far superior to most sci fi action films, yet somehow managed to make just over $5 million at the domestic box office. And yet that sci fi crapfest with Jar Jar Binks made over $1 trillion?

In the futuristic city-state of Libria, the government has decided that the devastating Third World War was caused by human emotion. In order to “protect” the people, the government mandates that all people must take the emotion suppressing drug Prozium – basically Prozac but not Prozac as the film’s producers would hardly have enough money to defend against a lawsuit from the corporatist leviathan Eli Lilly and Company. In addition to Prozium, the government of Libria censors and destroys any art or other materials that might potentially inspire emotions. Christian Bale plays John Preston, a government agent who is part of a martial arts trained group that enforces the laws against “sense offenders.” Unlike in his role as Batman, Bale does not need to wear a silly latex fetish costume with a cowl or speak in a bizarre voice. Preston is a widower with two young children. His wife had been executed as a “sense offender.” When Preston forgets to take his daily dose of Prozium, he begins to experience emotions. Preston aids the Resistance against the government and begins a path to redemption that is surprisingly moving for an action film that features “gun fu” and a katana fight scene.

4. Fight Club

Fight Club is another film whose greatness outshines its source material. And even Chuck Palahniuk – the author of the novel on which the film is based – agrees. A box office failure, Fight Club has steadily gained a large group of admirers and has worked its way into the all time top 10 of user rated movies on the Internet Movie Database. The script by Jim Uhls, the acting by Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter and every single supporting player, David Fincher’s direction, and the score by the Dust Brothers are all – a in a word – perfect. The combined efforts of these great artists produce a different kind of dystopia – a dystopia that IS our present world rather than some fanciful futuristic society.  

Fight Club is subversive, violent, fascistic, anarchistic, Freudian, and postmodern, but at its heart it is a simple love story. However, its soul is libertarian. The Narrator overcomes his conditioned corporatist consumerism, tames his violent fascistic and collectivist inner impulses, becomes a self-actualized and enlightened individualist, brings down the banking system, and gets the girl. Words cannot do the film justice. So, all that can be said is that if you have not seen Fight Club, see it NOW. IF you have seen it, watch it again. And again. And again.

5. 1984

Michael Radford’s adaptation of Orwell’s classic dystopian novel creates a viscerally bleak depiction of a totalitarian England that is at once nostalgic and futuristic yet still contemporary. The film – as well as the novel – is a primer on totalitarian collectivist techniques which governments use to control their people. It sets the mood of despair and paranoia that police states create for their oppressed citizens.

John Hurt – who would later play the villainous Chancellor Sutler in V for Vendetta – skillfully portrays the bland minor government bureaucrat Winston Smith. The wonderful Richard Burton gives his last great performance as O’Brien – and makes up for the campy alcohol infused performance that he gave in the mindnumbingly strange but nonetheless compelling Exorcist2: The Heretic.

Radford presents hallmarks of Orwell’s novel – Newspeak, telescreens, continuous warfare, and the “Two Minutes Hate” – in an evocative manner and creates just the right tone. The film slowly immerses the viewer into the bleak world of ever-present totalitarianism. Burton’s revelation of the motives of the Party is chilling, and the final scenes are as haunting as the original prose of Orwell. 

6. Gattaca 

Andrew Niccol’s 1997 sci fi masterpiece starring Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman presents a more gentle form of totalitarianism. Gattaca is a world where eugenics and genetic engineering have produced two distinct classes of human beings – “valids” who are engineered to be intellectually and physically superior and “invalids” who are naturally conceived human beings.  Although genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, “invalids” are typically relegated to menial jobs. 

Hawke plays Vincent Anton Freeman (obvious name symbolism much?), a bright an ambitious “invalid” who dreams about becoming an astronaut. Due to informal genetic discrimination, Vincent must use the DNA samples of Jerome Eugene Morrow, a paralyzed “valid.”

Part underdog story, part dystopian fantasy, and part murder mystery, Gattaca raises complex and disturbing philosophical issues concerning eugenics and Transhumanism. Is the world portrayed in this film the “brave new world” where we are headed? If so, will a new biological social divide be created and lead to even more unrest in society?  

7. Minority Report 

The 2002 Steven Spielberg directed Tom Cruise blockbuster vehicle Minority Report – based on a short story by the inimitable Philip K. Dick – presents a dystopian society that is perhaps a more frightening and realistic possibility for the future than even 1984. Truth is often stranger – and scarier – than fiction and many of the sci fi technologies presented in this film are seemingly only a short time away from being developed by DARPA and unleashed on the American public.

Tom Cruise stars as Commander John Anderton, police commander of Washington D.C.’s controversial new “PreCrime” Force. Using genetic mutant “precogs” who can predict murders before they occur, Anderton and his colleagues arrest potential murderers before they can commit their crimes. Those guilty of “PreCrime” are placed without due process into a perpetual state of suspended animation where they experience bliss. Due to the success of the program, D.C. – which is now among the “murder capitals of the nation” – has been murder free for six years. When the “precogs” predict that Anderton will murder a man that he has never met within 36 hours, he must go on the run in order to figure out who has framed him and why it was done.

Minority Report represents some of the best work of Spielberg’s illustrious career. Its stunning presentation of futurist technology and arresting action sequences provide just the right amount of action flick “sugar” to make the philosophical “medicine” of the film go down smoothly. The horrors of “benevolent” totalitarianism are put on display and the philosophical issue of free will versus determinism is explored along with the ethics of “punishing” those who have not committed a crime but inevitably will.

If the future does make such technologies possible, should they be used? Are some technologies so pernicious that they should not even be employed for good reasons where such technology will provide great utilitarian benefits for society as a whole?

8. A Scanner Darkly 

Austin, Texas native Richard Linklater has made some of the quirkiest and most eclectic films in recent years – including Waking Life, Dazed and Confused, and Before Sunset. In his adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s novel of the same name, Linklater creates a surreal and paranoid world where covert government agents surveil citizens in order to fight the “War on Drugs.” In other words, it is like our world, only even more paranoid. Linklater employs the creative technique of using rotoscope animation over digitally filmed live action scenes to produce a look that is so distinctive that one wonders why more directors do not use it. Keanu “Whoa” Reeves stars as Bob Arctor, a government agent assigned to find the source of a new drug called Substance D. Robert Downey, Jr. and Woody Harrelson give wonderful comedic performances as Arctor’s two perpetually drugged friends. Winona Ryder also gives a surprisingly nuanced performance as Arctor’s potential love interest – a drug dealer who may be able to lead him to the source of Substance D.

The themes of a drugged out populace, omnipresent government surveillance, and ruthlessly pragmatic police procedures are effectively presented by Linklater. The rotoscope is a pleasure to behold and gives the film a surreal yet also somehow ultra-realistic feel. As an added bonus, talk show host Alex Jones gives an amusing cameo appearance as himself.  Of course, Jones employs his bullhorn.    

9. Brazil

 

What if someone read Orwell’s 1984 while tripping on acid and decided to make a high budget Kubrickesque absurdist comedy loosely based upon it? Monty Python alumnus and gonzo director Terry Gilliam did just that when he made Brazil in 1985.  While Orwell presented the bleak horrors of totalitarian bureaucracy, Gilliam presents the absurd humor of it.

Jonathan Pryce plays Sam Lowry, a low-level milquetoast government official whose clerical error leads to the arrest, torture, and killing of an innocent man with a name similar to that of a wanted terrorist. When a female friend of the deceased man appears on a government list as a person of interest and friend of a terrorist, Lowry attempts to make amends and fix the situation in order to save her life. Wackiness ensues.

Gilliam’s distinct direction is on display as always. Creative set designs and breathtaking cinematography give Brazil a unique and sometimes surreal look. Strong comedic performances by Robert Deniro, Bob Hoskins, and “Soap” and “Who’s the Boss” alumnus Katherine Helmond make Brazil more amusing than any dystopian film about a totalitarian regime has the right to be. If you think that 1984 was compelling but just needed a bit of black comedy, then Brazil is the film for you.  

10. The Trial

Orson Welles adapted Franz Kafka’s chilling novel The Trial in 1962. Any film directed by Welles – the director of Citizen Kane – is worth viewing, but The Trial is particularly frightening. Anthony Perkins – of Psycho fame – portrays Josef K, a man who awakes to find that he is being placed under arrest. He is not informed of the charges, and he is also not taken into custody. Josef K. struggles in vain to learn the nature of the crime of which he is accused and only succeeds in learning that he has been condemned to death.

Welles succeeds in presenting a stark black and white surreal canvas on which to paint Kafka’s bleak existentialist themes of totalitarianism, capricious justice, and the learned helplessness of human beings under despotic regimes. Welles creates a waking nightmare from which we – like Josef K. – cannot escape, employing many inventive directorial techniques as he did in Citizen Kane. Perkins shows great range in the lead role and quickly dispels any comparisons to Norman Bates. He is an “everyman” yet there is something not quite right about him. In a sense one can project any real or imagined crime onto him, yet at the same time there is no doubt that he is guilty of no crime. Through him the audience feels both frustration at the totalitarian justice system of this imaginary world yet also an uneasy feeling of resignation.

The Trial is in the public domain, and may be viewed in its entirety at the link below.  

The Trial

The National Debt Shell Game

The looming “fiscal cliff,” “fiscal curve,” or whatever you want to call it is a red herring. In effect, all that it really does is provides filler for 24 hour news channels so that they do not have to bother reporting on real news. There is simply no way to make a few spending cuts here or there or to raise taxes in this tax bracket or that tax bracket in order to solve the debt crisis. Even if all discretionary spending – military spending and all spending other than mandatory spending – were cut completely, the United States would not balance the budget based upon the tax revenues that it currently receives. Furthermore, the amount of tax increases necessary to cover mandatory spending – Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Unemployment, debt interest, tax credits, and student loans – would likely cripple an already hobbled economy and require even further increases in mandatory spending to cover even more needy Americans that would result.

The federal government is going to be forced to make tough choices – something that is has proven to be ineffective in doing. The entitlement system is going to have be radically overhauled. Social Security may have to be altered with means tests, higher retirement ages, and smaller payments or even eventually privatized like in Chile. Other “social safety net” programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. – which are patently unconstitutional – may have to be transferred entirely to the states in line with the Tenth Amendment. Only a leaner and more “Constitution-sized” government is one that Americans will ever be able to afford to fund.

However, this is not to say that military spending and all other discretionary spending should not be cut wherever possible. If responsibility for entitlement programs were to be returned to the states in a Constitutional fashion, American taxpayers will require savings in federal taxes in order to pay for inevitable increases in state taxes. In particular, the Military-Industrial Complex can no longer be a sacred cow. If the nation were to return to the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founders, then defense spending could easily be reduced significantly. Ending the Drug War, getting rid of federal regulations that are often expensive to enforce, and completely eliminating all nonessential and unconstitutional executive branch agencies would also save money.  Corporatist social welfare (which costs nearly $100 billion per year) must also be eliminated as well as counterproductive blowback inducing foreign aid (over $50 billion per year).  

Perhaps most importantly, the Federal Reserve must be abolished. The federal government must regain its constitutional control of the currency in order to allow free market forces to grow the economy.  Unless and until American leaders in Congress and the White House get real, the whole debate on taxes/spending and the debt is just a charade.  

Another Scapegoat for Mass Shootings

 

The finger pointing blame game that occurs whenever there is a tragic mass shooting in the United States has begun again. Progressives point the finger at gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates point the finger at video game manufacturers. Video game manufacturers point the finger back at gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates point the finger at Hollywood. Hollywood points the finger back at gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates point the finger at Big Pharma and the psychiatric industry.  Big Pharma pints the finger back at gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates point the finger at policies that do not make schools into militarized police states or the Wild West. School officials point the finger back at gun rights advocates.  

Now gun rights advocates are pointing the finger of blame at the news media. The news media, it is claimed, “glorifies” killers by making them “household names.” Disaffected and disturbed individuals go on a killing spree instead of simply committing suicide because they wish to achieve the fame in death that eluded them in life. 

Is this even true? First of all, are such killers really “household names?”  One of the most tragic school shootings in American history occurred on the campus of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. The murderous gunman climbed a tower on the university campus and opened fire with a Universal M1 Carbine rifle, killing 15 and wounding 32 others before being killed by police. What is this murderer’s name? It is no excuse that he perpetrated his murderous rampage nearly fifty years ago. Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and Charles Manson committed their heinous crimes during this period, and they are well remembered. Rather than have you waste time Googling it, I will tell you that the murderer’s name is Charles Joseph Whitman. How about a more recent one? What is the name of the murderer who 32 and injured 17 on the campus of Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007? Give up? It was Seung-Hui Cho.

The point is that media coverage of these murderers do not really seem to make them into “household names.” Nevertheless, is it possible that the erroneous perception that they will become “household names” inspires these rampage mass shooters? There is no evidence that this inspired Charles Joseph Whitman. All indications are that a dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps, the divorce of his parents, and marital problems led to Whitman’s rampage. What about Seung-Hui Cho? Evidence indicates that he was suffering from severe anxiety disorder as well as major depression. In a note that he left behind, he channeled Holden Caulfield and criticized “rich kids,” “debauchery,” and “deceitful charlatans” and claimed that these “rich kids” were the ones who “caused him to do this.”  There is no indication that fame – or infamy – was on his mind. The Colombine killers – Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold – cited bullying at school as their motivation.

Even if some rampage killer committed his crimes in order to achieve fame, what would critics of the news media have them do? Would these critics seek to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the news media? Should the news media ignore such stories and simply continue reporting on hero dogs that save their owners’ lives and on common household items that may be dangerous? Should no mention be made of the killers? Should the audience be given no facts about the killers so that no theories may be formulated as to why the tragedy occurred?

The mainstream news media in the United States can be criticized for countless things. These outlets are largely corporatist mouthpieces owned by large corporations. These outlets often practice lazy and sloppy journalism. These outlets often go to insensitive extremes in order to get sensationalistic details. However, when television journalists attempt to actually do their jobs and inform the public about a tragic event, should they be stopped from doing it?

Until Americans and their politicians get real about the causes of gun violence in general and mass murder in particular, these tragedies will continue to occur. A simple scapegoat is always easier to find than a complex solution to a multi-faceted problem. Poverty, desensitization, a history of institutionalized racism, an inept mental health system, and violent and nihilistic feelings inspired by a ruthless government and the hopelessness it creates with misguided economic and social policies are just a few of the root causes of violence in the United States. Smarmy talking heads on the television news are no more to blame than video games, Hollywood, or the Second Amendment.

What If Speech Was Regulated Like Guns?

  

The pen is mightier than the sword. It is also mightier than the gun – whether it is a revolver, semiautomatic pistol, assault rifle, or machine gun. Words can move the world whether these words are delivered through speech, the printing press, or the internet.  

The speeches of Lenin inspired the birth of a movement that led to the deaths of nearly 100 million human beings. 

The speeches of Hitler inspired the birth of a movement that led to the deaths of 61 million human beings in World War II and to another 11 million human beings in his murderous programs of extermination. Countless others died by other fascistic leaders inspired by Hitler. 

 

There is not a single gun that could lead to so many fatalities. Not even a single weapon of mass destruction could kill so many human beings. Therefore, one could claim that speech is more dangerous than guns.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -- The First Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -- The Second Amendment

Notice the words – “no law” and “shall not be infringed.” These are absolutes. Of course, both free speech and the right to bear arms have limits. The Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that do not enjoy First Amendment protection. These categories include fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, imminent incitement of illegal activity, threats, solicitations or offers to engage in illegal activity, and libel. The Supreme Court has also recognized limits on the right to bear arms.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Given that both speech and guns may be limited by the government, and given that the pen is mightier than the sword (or gun), why is speech not regulated as guns are? What if words were regulated as guns are? What if speech were regulated as gun control advocates would like guns to be regulated?

 

Ban on “Machine Words” and “Assault Words”

Machine guns were effectively banned by Congress in the National Firearms Act of 1934. “Assault weapons” were banned by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – which lapsed in 2004 but may very well be renewed. These firearms are more powerful, and hence, more dangerous. Likewise, one could argue that some types of speech are more powerful, and hence, more dangerous. Current categories of prohibited speech do not have to do with the power of those words. These categories are based upon contexts. Therefore, new categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment would have to be created in order to be analogs of restrictions on machine guns and “assault weapons.” Impassioned speech by charismatic individuals – whether skilled orators like Martin Luther King, Jr. or skilled writers like Thomas Jefferson – would need to be banned. No written work has inspired more people than the Bible. Hence, that would need to be banned as well. The passionate words of such individuals inspire actions in the way that the words of bland and emotionless hacks do not. Therefore, in order to protect the children from the next Lenin or the next Hitler, powerful words – “machine words” and “assault words” must be banned.

Waiting Period and Background Check

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchases of handguns. Words are more dangerous than guns; therefore a similar five-day waiting period should be imposed on speech. If one wants to speak to other people, write a letter to be sent to another person, write a piece for publication, or send an e-mail, make a message board post, Tweet, or post on one’s FaceBook page, one should have to wait for five days and be subjected to a background check. The federal government should also create a database with information about all speakers and what they said. Former felons should not be allowed to speak at all. Anyone with a “mental health history” – which is to say anyone with a “disease” according to the learned “priests” of the psychiatric class – should not be allowed to speak at all.

 

Ban on the Right to Free Speech by Civilians

The Holy Grail of gun control is a total firearms ban similar to what is present in safe and enlightened nations like China and North Korea. Therefore, the Holy Grail of word control is a total ban on speech. At least a total ban on civilian speech. Words are so dangerous that only the state should be allowed any speech at all. Police, soldiers, and those who command them will still be allowed to speak. They will be able to tell civilians to “move it” as they march them into concentration camps. They will tell them “see you in Hell” when they shoot them or gas them with Zyklon B.

All or Nothing

The bottom line is that natural rights are natural rights. These inalienable rights come as a set and may not be “purchased separately.” The Constitution provides mechanisms to amend it. If one wishes to repeal the First or the Second Amendment, there are direct and constitutional ways for lovers of totalitarianism to do so. However, repealing those amendments does not make those rights disappear. The government does not grant rights. The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution merely summarizes indestructible rights that already exist in nature. Nevertheless, if we want to “protect the children,” perhaps we should ban words. Of course, nobody would want their children to live in a world where no civilian may speak. Perhaps parents believe that their children can live in a world with words but without guns. Alas, infringe the right of the people to bear arms and eventually you will have a nation where none may speak without fear of the government.  

Kick Piers Off the Pier?

CNN host Piers Morgan is a foppish pseudo-intellectual twit. There is no doubt about that. Morgan is the host of CNN’s highest rated show “Piers Morgan Tonight,” having replaced CNN mainstay Larry King in January of 2011. Morgan was a writer and editor with several British tabloids including The Sun, The News of the World, and Daily Mirror and has also been a judge on “Britain’s Got Talent” and “America’s Got Talent,” and the winner of Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” in 2008.

Despite being the host of CNN’s highest rated show, not that many Americans followed him very closely because ratings on a television network are a relative thing. Morgan’s show pulls in less than 1 million viewers a night on the average and finishes a distant third in the Nielsen ratings well behind Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News and Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC.

On December 21, a petition appeared on the White House’s website demanding that Piers Morgan be deported.

British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

As of December 24, 2012, more than 48,000 people had signed this document. The policy of the White House is that if a petition receives 25,000 signatures within 30 days, the White House is obliged to respond.

Why do Americans want the federal government to give this tabloid journalist fop the heave ho? The furor began in the wake of comments that Morgan has made on his show and on Twitter following the tragic school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14. Morgan has consistently attacked the Second Amendment on his show, culminating in an embarrassing performance on December 19, 2012 when unable to engage in a rational debate with gun rights advocate Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, Morgan resorted to childish name calling. During this broadcast, Morgan called Pratt “an unbelievably stupid man,” an “idiot,” and “a dangerous man espousing dangerous nonsense.”  

Morgan continued his gun control crusade on Twitter, tweeting several suggestions for new gun control regulations that he would like to see enacted. These suggestions include a ban on “assault weapons,” more stringent background checks, a ban on guns for any felons or people with a “mental health history,” and a ban on guns for any person less than 25 years of age. In addition, Morgan suggested “a huge incentivized gun amnesty,” noting that he does not believe anyone needs more than one gun. 

The idea that Piers Morgan should be deported has been energetically expressed by Wall Street Journal writer James Taranto and by popular talk show host Alex Jones. Morgan had argued that he was protected by the First Amendment, but Taranto replied that Morgan’s opinion was protected but his presence in the United States was not, citing Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) – a case involving the denial of an immigration visa by the Attorney General to a Belgian Marxist journalist – in support of his opinion. 

Jones argues that Morgan should be deported because he is a foreign agent attempting to subvert the Constitution.

It’s one thing for an American citizen to ideologically assault and trash the Constitution, although odious such activity would be protected under the First Amendment, but Piers Morgan is a foreigner in a position of influence on prime time television. He is a foreign agent using his power to lobby for the constitutional rights of American citizens to be overturned. If I was on British television every night calling for the Queen to be dethroned and kicked out on the streets, many British people would also call for me to be deported. Morgan is subverting the very foundation of American freedom, the second amendment. 

 
Morgan is clearly correct in stating that stating opinions in favor of gun control is protected by the First Amendment. The real question concerns whether Taranto and Jones are correct in there being grounds for the federal government to deport the chat show host.

In Kleindienst v. Mandel, Belgian journalist Ernest E. Mandel – who was editor-in-chief of the Belgian Left Socialist weekly La Gauche – was appealing being denied a nonimmigrant visa to visit the United States in the fall of 1969 to speak at a conference. The Court upheld the denial of the visa on the grounds that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provided that avowed Communists such as Mandel were to be denied visas unless the Attorney General approved it at his or her discretion. At the time, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 stated that aliens were ineligible for visas if they fell into certain categories.  Aliens to be excluded from receiving visas included:

Aliens … who advocate the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship ….

Aliens who write or publish . . . (v) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship ….

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has since been amended. It now states “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party … is inadmissible.”

The first thing to note is that Piers Morgan is already in the country, and his visa would have to be revoked for him to be deported. The second more important point is that there are simply no grounds on which to deport Morgan. There is no evidence that he is or ever has been the member of any totalitarian party. In fact, it is rather unlikely that he ever has. One would guess that Morgan is most likely a member of the UK’s Labour Party, which is equivalent to the Democratic Party of the United States. Therefore, Kleindienst v. Mandel simply is not relevant to Morgan.

Morgan is expressing a fairly mainstream opinion today. Stricter gun control laws are advocated by many Americans. While such an argument is dubious, dubious opinions are not forbidden in the United States. The attitude expressed by Taranto, Jones, and the signers of the petition to deport Morgan is a symptom of the disease of attacking one inalienable natural right to defend another one. The remedy to bad speech is not to censor it. The remedy is good speech. The case in defense of the Second Amendment is far stronger than the case against it, and Morgan is not exactly a skilled orator. The answer is not to kick Morgan out of the country but to ridicule him and to make loud and strong arguments in defense of the Second Amendment.