Acting Fabian by Carl Teichrib

Posted on November 9, 2012 by ccpastormike

(Originally posted June 15, 2009)

“No others have done so much to bring about world government as we Americans and British have.” Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain.[1]

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” Bertrand Russell [26]

Since January, the world’s eyes have focused on the United States’ new president, Barack Obama.

This is understandable. Obama’s charisma and electioneering slogan of “change” ignited imaginations in America and around the globe. And now “change” is happening; instead of Big Government it’s Even Bigger Government, and instead of unmanageable debt levels its incomprehensible debt levels. In world affairs President Obama has taken a decidedly international-friendly approach. Even so, Barack is the new man on the block, and his public endorsement of global governance – while real and documentable[2] – is relatively mild compared to his fellow traveler across the Big Pond. So far…

If anyone has been a trumpeter for global change, it’s England’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Since taking office in 2007, Mr. Brown has incessantly called for a new internationalism. Listening to his speeches, it appears that the Prime Minister is more interested in supporting an empowered United Nations and European super-state, rather than advancing an independent, free, and prosperous Britain.

But does this really matter, especially to those outside of the United Kingdom?

For those living in England and the other European nations – and to a lesser extent the Commonwealth countries – Mr. Brown’s position is understood: It’s the desire to birth a successful “socialist international.” However, for those residing in the United States, Gordon Brown’s name means little. After all, why should someone in Cleveland care what the Prime Minster of England says or supports?

Because the world is a much bigger place then CNN and Fox News, and England is a global leader, exerting enormous influence through its roles in the United Nations and NATO, and it’s ongoing leadership in the Commonwealth of Nations (a grouping of 53 member countries). Furthermore, it’s a major holder of US treasury securities (American debt). In fact, the United Kingdom is currently the seventh largest holder of US securities (the ten biggest holders in descending order are China, Japan, Caribbean Banking Centers, Oil exporting countries – OPEC, Brazil, Russia, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, and Taiwan).[3] Yet this pales in comparison to the role Great Britain has played as an historical driver during the past one hundred-plus years; Few other countries have fashioned the present global landscape like the British have.[4]

And now UK leadership is attempting to forge a path through the global economic storm. In this respect the nation holds the 2009 Chair for the Group of 20, a conglomerate of financial ministers and central bank governors from the twenty most important industrialized and developing countries. This is the principal vehicle being used to guide us through the economic hurricane, and how the world will function on the other side will reflect the G20’s vision.

So does England matter to residents of Cleveland, or anyplace else beyond the United Kingdom? It has in the past, it does today, and it will matter even more in the future. Global solutions are needed, or so we are told, to fix global problems. The headman at Number 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, firmly believes this. Moreover, he sees the crisis as an opportunity to introduce world change.

Today, his voice can be heard from the halls of the European Parliament where he recently called for the creation of a “truly global society,”[5] to the floor of the US Congress where he proclaimed that “we should seize the moment, because never before have I seen a world so willing to come together.” Like a broken record he reminded Congress that “the new shared truth is that global problems need global solutions.”[6]

In a perfect “Mr. Brown World,” how would this look? A clue was tossed out at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (January 30, “Reviving Economic Growth” session). During the discussion, the moderator asked PM Brown a thinly veiled question focusing on the need for world government. The Prime Minister responded with a thinly veiled promotion of world government.

Moderator: “Prime Minister Brown, you’ve talked a lot about the need for better global governance, but the problem often is that countries don’t want to give up their sovereignty…. How can you have a global governance without global, supranational bodies that then are resented by people in your country and in mine, the United States? There’s a great suspicion of these organizations like the WTO [World Trade Organization] or the EU [European Union] anyway. Is the answer here to create more of them?”

Gordon Brown: “…you’ve got global capital markets, you’ve got global financial flows, but you’ve only got national supervisors. And it cannot work when you’ve got cross-border activities and nobody quite knows what’s happening. And then you find in a crisis, of course, that you’ve got a bank or a financial institution that is international for all its life until it finds itself in crisis, and then the only lifeline is actually national, not international. So I think people are realizing that the international cooperation that we’re talking about is essential. You’re in a global financial system, how do you ever believe that you could solve global financial crisis without having a degree of global cooperation? It seems to me absolutely obvious.

The problem is that our institutions were built in the 1940s for sheltered economies, for limited competition, for national – not global – flows of capital. So we’ve got to rebuild these institutions…

That is the problem; that we haven’t got international institutions that are working well enough, even when we’re part of a global economy that everybody knows is now global and should never be anything other than global in the future. And if we don’t act, protectionist tendencies will become paramount and we will have failed in this first stage of building a new global era which I hope will end with a global economy becoming a truly global society.”

Grand Designs for a Global Society

Gordon Brown’s ideas are not unique to him. England, like America, has a long history of world government aspirations. Clarence Streit, an early advocate of a federal Atlantic Union and later a lobbyist for NATO reformation, testified to this fact in his 1941 book Union Now With Britain.

“America and Britain have each been the world’s outstanding supporters of both local and general government. No other people has proved quite so parochially-minded as each of them has been. No others have done so much to bring about world government as we Americans and British have.”[7]

Over the decades American-based global leadership has included President Woodrow Wilson (creator of the League of Nations), Samuel Gompers (the International Labor Organization), Elihu Root (the World Court), Owen Young (the World Bank), and Presidents Roosevelt and Truman (the United Nations). Commenting on these earlier institutions, Clarence Streit noted the essential role of England.

“In fairness, we must also admit that it was mainly British support that enabled every one of those four invaluable experiments in world government – League, Court, Labor Organization, and Bank – to be made real, and not left on paper.”[8]

Although it’s impossible to document the scope of British world-government activities within the space of a single article, an examination of some key individuals will suffice in demonstrating the historical breadth of “international thinking” within the UK.

Why is this important? Because understanding the foundation gives us an important observation platform into Gordon Brown’s vision of a “global society.” And as today’s leading global government advocate – more so than President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and arguably more than UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon – Mr. Brown’s grand designs would see all of us operating under a socialist system of world management.

Let’s take a very brief look at three historical figures from Britain, and their quest for a new global society.

1. H.G. Wells: The author of such classics as The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1895), The Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds (1898) – Mr. Wells was greatly interested in the “fate of human society” and believed that human management should be approached with a degree of “science.”

In 1925, Wells published a series of articles in a volume titled A Year of Prophesying, in which he called for a one-world economic and political system; “I am for world-control of production and of trade and transport, for a world coinage, and the confederation of mankind. I am for the super-State…”[9]

Keep in mind that this was during the time of the League of Nations, the first major experiment in trans-national cooperation. But H.G. Wells was not satisfied with the League. In his mind the League’s ultimate vision was being squandered.

“I am hostile to the present League of Nations because I desire the Confederation of Mankind. I do not think that the obstructive possibilities of the existing League of Nations are sufficiently understood by liberal-minded people throughout the world. I do not think they realize how effectively it may be used as a consumer and waster of the creative energy that would otherwise carry us forward towards World Confederation.

“The League of Nations that we saw in our visions in those distressful and yet creative years, 1917-1918, was to have been a real step forward in human affairs… The League we desired was to have been the first loose conference that would have ended in a federal government for the whole earth.”[10]

His approach towards the accepted sovereignty of the nation state was also antagonistic,

“The world is a patchwork of various sized internment camps called Independent Sovereign States…But a day will come… when the only passports in the world will be found alongside of Aztec idols and instruments of torture and such like relics of superstition in our historical museums.”[11]

Wells believed in and worked towards an “Open Conspiracy” of world revolution. In 1928 he published a book titled Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution, in which he claimed that a world revolution would usher in a global super-government. To Wells’ this was “the truth and the way of salvation.”[12]

Consider the following excerpt from Open Conspiracy. Does it sound like today?

“The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed. It will have become a great world movement as widespread and evident as socialism and communism. It will largely have taken the place of these movements. It will be more, it will be a world religion. This large loose assimilatory mass of groups and societies will be definitely and obviously attempting to swallow up the entire population of the world and become the new human community.”[13]

Other books, such as his monumental Outline of History, pointed to the coming hope of a super-world government. However, towards the end of his life Mr. Wells’ lost much of his “Open Conspiracy” optimism. Having lived through the devastation of London’s World War II air blitz, Wells came to the realization that man’s power to wage war was too great to overcome. This conclusion was so problematic to Mr. Wells that modern editions of his Outline of History have removed his original thoughts about the anticipated world society.[14]

Regardless of his changed position later in life, Mr. Wells’ earlier work played a major role in formulating a global ideology.

2. Winston Churchill: Prime Minister Churchill was and still is the most visible symbol of Britain’s stance as a sovereign nation in the heat of crisis. Because of his bulldog determination, the citizens of his country were able to rally against the Nazi assault of World War II. Today, Mr. Churchill is a flagship icon of the United Kingdom Independence Party, a pro-national, anti-European Union political body. While that figure of independence is legitimate in the context of World War II, there was much more to Mr. Churchill.[15]

It is interesting to note that while the “Bulldog” was at odds with a British political organization known as the Fabian Society, which advocated a socialist world order,16 Churchill clearly embraced a world government vision. During an early September, 1943 speech on “Anglo-American Unity” at Harvard University, Churchill stated the following,

“I am here to tell you that, whatever form your system of world security may take, however the nations are grouped and ranged, whatever derogations are made from national sovereignty for the sake of the larger synthesis, nothing will work soundly or for long without the united effort of the British and American peoples.”[17]

That “system of world security” became the United Nations, of which Churchill played a fundamental role along with Stalin, Roosevelt and Truman. Churchill’s world government stance, however, really came to the forefront afterthe creation of the UN. Going further, the Bulldog directly linked a world government to the creation of a new European super state.

“The creation of an authoritative, all-powerful world order is the ultimate aim towards which we must strive. Unless some effective World Super- Government can be set up and brought quickly into action, the prospects for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful. But let there be no mistake upon the main issue. Without a United Europe there is no sure prospect of world government. It is the urgent and indispensable step towards the realization of that ideal.”[18]

He also made similar remarks to an audience at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, and at Zurich University.[19]

Churchill’s direct involvement in creating the United Nations, and his open support of an “effective World Super-Government,” led the American-based World Federalist Association to list him as one of the historical leaders who paved the way for the modern world government movement.[20]

Obviously there’s more to the story of Churchill than just determination and the ability to unify his country in the face of adversity. Like Wells, Churchill was committed to a larger picture of global change.

3. Bertrand Russell: Considered by many to be the most important liberal thinker of the last century, Bertrand Russell has been recognized the world over for his contributions to philosophy, politics, and peace advocacy.[21] He authored more than thirty books, lectured extensively, and openly pursued the goal of a central world authority.

Born into a long family line of liberal British politicians,[22] the young Russell likewise adopted a liberal view of the world – going so far as to philosophically embrace communism while simultaneously finding the practices of the Soviet government distasteful.[23] After visiting the Soviet Union with a specially arranged Labour Party delegation, Russell wrote; “The fundamental ideas of communism are by no means impracticable, and would, if realized, add immeasurably to the well-being of mankind.”[24] This is not surprising since Russell recognized that “The true Communist is thoroughly international.”[25]

Bertrand Russell also connected “population control” with radical world change. His ideas of de-population had a distinctively apocalyptic ring. Consider an excerpt from a lecture given at the Royal Society of Medicine in London, England.

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”[26]

Russell continued by offering a global solution to the global problem.

“…unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must from time to time be great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation…The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline…”

The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.[27]

Russell’s thoughts on tyranny were equally disturbing.

“Given a stable world-organization, economic and political, even if, at first, it rested upon nothing but armed force, the evils which now threaten civilization would gradually diminish, and a more thorough democracy than that which now exists might become possible. I believe that, owing to men’s folly, a world-government will only be established by force, and will therefore be at first cruel and despotic. But I believe that it is necessary for the preservation of a scientific civilization, and that, if once realized, it will gradually give rise to the other conditions of a tolerable existence.[28]

“Tolerable” to who? Those who hold the ultimate authority of life and death in a global regime? Remember, this man is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. Interestingly, Russell also viewed the educational arena to be part of this global authoritarian control structure,

“…physiology [the science of the functions of living organisms] will in time find ways of controlling emotion, which is scarcely possible to doubt. When that day comes, we shall have the emotions desired by our rulers, and the chief business of elementary education will be to produce the desired disposition…The man who will administer this system will have a power beyond the dreams of the Jesuits…”[29]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s message of a “global society” is rooted in a movement that spans over 100 years, covering H.G. Wells, Churchill, and Russell. But there’s another connection that goes beyond visionary aspirations – one that marries the intellectual ideal of a world community with actual political power.

Fabian Brown

For over a century, the Fabian Society – mentioned earlier in this article – has advanced socialism at the British national level and beyond. Its symbol was and is the tortoise, a proclamation that “slow and steady” wins the race. But what is the finish line?

One of the most remarkable exposés done on the Fabian Society was the 1968 book, Fabian Freeway by Rose L. Martin.[30] Rose clearly documents that the Fabians’ goal is international socialism, and connected the group to a host of interlocking organizations and movements working for similar ends. It’s not surprising to learn then, that H.G. Wells was a member of the Society – although he quit the group in frustration over its methodology – and that Bertrand Russell was part of the Fabians for a period.

Since it’s inception in the mid 1880s, the Fabian Society has been the heartbeat of England’s intellectual and political movement for international socialism. The Society spawned the London School of Economics (LSE), a globally recognized university focusing on economic, political, and social issues. In fact, on April 20, 2006, Prime Minister Tony Blair unveiled “the lost Fabian window” during a ceremony at the LSE. This stained glass window shows Fabian leaders using hammers to pound a globe positioned on an anvil: it’s the remaking of the world.[31] Along the top of the window is the phrase; “Remold It Nearer To The Hearts Desire.” H.G. Wells is seen in one corner of the picture, and a group of members are praying to a stack of social theory texts.

What’s really remarkable is the coat of arms hanging over the re-forged globe: A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This window was first unveiled by Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee, who held the PM’s office from 1945 to 1951, and then the framed glass was re-instated in 2006 by another Labour leader, Mr. Blair.[32] This shouldn’t be a surprise; after all, the Fabian Society was the primary designer of the Labour Party. As Fabian founder Sidney Webb explained regarding the Labour/Fabian connection; “the Fabian Society participated in the very first [Labour] meeting; and has ever since formed a constituent part of the organization.”[33] Hence, from the Party’s inception, all Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society.[34]

This intimate connection between the Fabians and Labour explains why the Labour Party Election Manifesto of 1964 is so…blatant.

“…Labour always…remained faithful to its long-term belief in the establishment of east-west co-operation [Note: this refers to Russia and the West] as the basis for a strengthened United Nations developing towards world government…

“For us world government is the final objective – and the United Nations the chosen instrument by which the world can move away from the anarchy of power politics towards the creation of a genuine world community and the rule of law.”[35]

Other Labour Party Election Manifestos speak of forming a world community, empowering the United Nations, and upholding a system of binding international laws: This is global governance – the centre piece of world management.

No wonder PM Brown has made so many statements over the past two years advocating a global society – it’s the heart of his Party and the bedrock of the Fabian ideal. As Brown explained in the 2008 Kennedy Memorial lecture in Boston,

“For the first time in history we have the opportunity to come together around a global covenant, to reframe the international architecture and build a truly global society.”[36]

Wells, Churchill, Russell, and the Fabian fathers would be proud. Brown and his comrades are telling those who have ears to hear: The “global society” that has been long dreamed of is very near.

Wake up, Britain. Wake up America. Wake up Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all those who value freedom.

“Change” is coming. FC

Carl Teichrib is a Canadian-based researcher on globalization and editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly publication documenting global governance and world change issues.

Endnotes:

1. Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941), p.124. Clarence Streit’s idea of combining the US with the British Commonwealth to create an English-based regional world government drew heavy attention and large support from the US and British governments of the day. Our present NATO was partially founded upon Streit’s Union concept.

2. One example is his promotion of the Global Poverty Act while he was still a Senator. For more on this issue, see Tom DeWeese’s article, “Barak Obama & the UN’s Drive for Global Governance,” (www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom114.htm).

3. For a current listing of foreign holders of US Treasury Securities, see the US Treasury Department’s most recent data release at www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

4. For information on the role of England in shaping international affairs, see Carroll Quigley’s two books, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966) and The Anglo-American Establishment (1981). And the UK’s involvement in colonial change cannot be ignored; From the Middle East to the Pacific and Africa, Great Britain has firmly left its finger prints on the pages of modern history.

5. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Speech to European Parliament, March 24, 2009 (this speech can be viewed at www.number10.gov.uk/Page18718).

6. UK PM Gordon Brown Speech to the Joint Session, US Congress, March 4, 2009 (full text can be obtained at www.number10.gov.uk/Page18506).

7. Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941), p.124.8 Ibid., p.123.9 H.G. Wells, A Year of Prophesying (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1925), p.86.

10. Ibid., pp.9-10.

11. Ibid., p.86.

12. H.G Wells, The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (Garden City, 1928), p.ix.13 Ibid,. p.163.

14. See the endnote in the new revised editions of The Outline of History. Compare the new version with the 1940-1941 volume three edition.

15. See Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn for an examination of Winston Churchill’s conservative/liberal political switch-hitting.

16. See Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA, by Rose L. Martin for more information on the role and influence of the Fabians in European and American political affairs. Leftism by von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also contains some important information on the Fabian Society and their international role in the global socialist agenda.

17. Churchill Speaks, 1897-1963: Collected Speeches in Peace and War (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1980), p.817.

18. Ibid., p.913. Speech entitled “United Europe,” May 14, 1947, Albert Hall, London, UK.

19. Ibid., pp.878/893, “The Sinews of Peace,” March 5, 1946, Fulton, Missouri/”The Tragedy of Europe,” September 19, 1946, ZurichUniversity.

20. World Federalist Association Activists Guidebook, Section 1, p.15.

21. Bertrand Russell was a giant in the field of philosophy and politics. Because of the complexities of his life and beliefs, it is completely impossible to do justification to the subject in such a limited-spaced article as this. I would suggest reading Russell’s own writings to get a sense of his life’s scope, and to read the various biographies and commentaries. Some of his more obscure works are some of his most revealing, such as The Impact of Science on Society (1953).

22. His grandfather was a Prime Minister and his father was a Member of Parliament for a brief time (he died prematurely). Others in the family tree were involved in British politics and England’s high society. For a short introduction to the Russell family’s political roots, see Alan Ryan, Bertrand Russell: A Political Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

23. See Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism; Sidney Hook, Political Power and Personal Freedom (B.R. has some interesting correspondence published in this work); Alan Ryan, Bertrand Russell: A Political Life.

24.The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, pp.23-24,11725 Ibid., p.30.

26. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp.103-104.

27. Ibid., p.105.

28. Bertrand Russell, The Future of Science (New York: Wisdom Library, 1959), pp.33-34.

29. Ibid., p.46.

30. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA (Fidelis Publishers, 1968). For more on the Fabian Society see the book The Story of Fabian Socialism by Margaret Cole (Stanford University Press, 1961) and Fabian Essays in Socialism (Fabian Society, 1908).

31. London School of Economics, “A Piece of Fabian History Unveiled at LSE,” April 20, 2006. Press release.

32. Ibid.

33. Fabian Essays in Socialism, 1920 edition, p.xv. November 1919. Introduction to the essay collection.

34. About the Fabian Society, (www.fabians.org.uk/about-the-fabian-society).

35. 1964 Labour Party Election Manifesto: “The New Britain.” (The full text of this Manifesto can be found at www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1964/1964-labour-manifesto.shtml).

36. You can read selected excerpts of this speech in Developments, Issue 42, p.4. Developments is the official magazine of the UK Department for International Development.

Forcing Change

P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada

R0J-1P0

Forcing Change, Volume 3, Issue 4. Posted June 15, 2009. Used by permission.

http://www.forcingchange.org/files/1874178/uploaded/Volume3Issue4.pdf

An Open Letter to Obama Voters by Matt Barber

Posted on October 20, 2012 by ccpastormike

Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? A lot of people did – obviously.

What a time. There’s still room for improvement, but what a testimony to just how far we as a nation have come in terms of racial harmony, tolerance and diversity.

Only decades earlier a man like Barack Obama – a black man – couldn’t even drink from the same water fountain as a white man, let alone become president of the United States. A hundred years prior to that, and he may well have been counted another man’s property.

On Nov. 4, 2008, millions gathered at the ballot box to prove, once and for all, that, in large measure, we as a nation have healed from our disgraceful, self-inflicted wounds of racial abuse, bias and division.

That we could elect an African-American to lead the free world is indeed a very good thing.

We just happened to elect the wrong African-American.

In life, we sometimes find that the idea of a thing is far better than the thing itself. As a boy, I once ordered, from a comic book, a pair of X-ray glasses that promised to allow me to see the bones beneath my hand (my motives were a bit more ignoble). The two weeks it took for the glasses to arrive seemed like an eternity.

Once they did arrive, I ripped into the package and put them on, darting my head to-and-fro. It’s difficult to express my level of disappointment. As I quickly discovered, the glasses merely formed a halo effect around objects, creating the illusion of transparency. I felt embarrassed. I got took.

Barack Obama’s presidency has been a halo effect. Like I did so many years ago, in 2008 America fell victim to false advertising. As the past four years have demonstrated beyond any serious debate, the idea of President Obama was far better than the reality of President Obama. We were promised the world. We were promised transparency; but we were sold an illusion. We got took.

Indeed, during the 2008 campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama promised us that, if elected, we would look back upon the moment he took office and “tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

That was the idea of President Obama. That was what many good, well-meaning people voted for. That was the hope offered and the change promised.

That was not what we got.

Though it’s certainly not a comprehensive analysis, during the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney, in response to Mr. Obama’s attempts to gloss over his mounting leadership failures, summarized a few of the big ones. While addressing an audience member who, perhaps like you, voted for Obama in 2008, Romney observed, in part, the following:

I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. …

He said that, by now, we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. …

He said he would have, by now, put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.

He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.

This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it.

He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is … implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500. …

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. … [T]he number of people who are still looking for work is still 23 million Americans.

There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year – and more slowly last year than the year before. …

The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked.

Recently, my wife and I attended an outdoor festival in central Virginia. Although the event was not political, there were people from both the Obama and Romney camps handing out campaign stickers and other items. I suspect that if a poll were taken, liberals out-numbered conservatives by about two-to-one.

That’s why I was so taken aback. Although we saw dozens of people wearing Romney stickers, we only saw one man wearing an Obama sticker.

We walked up to a fellow with a gray pony tail, John Lennon glasses and Birkenstocks. He was wearing a Romney sticker.

“Mind if I ask why you’re voting for Mitt Romney?” I asked. “I assume you are.”

His reply – and these were his words, not mine – was short and to the point: “Because I refuse to be that stupid twice.”

Changing one’s mind doesn’t always reveal a tendency toward indecision. Sometimes, changing one’s mind reveals a tendency toward wisdom.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action (LCA on Facebook) .

An open letter to Obama voters

The Most Important Election in History by Matt Barber

Posted on October 13, 2012 by ccpastormike

Who says Republicans and Democrats can’t agree? Every four years, politicos and pundits, both left and right, come together in a harmonious hymn of hyperbole: “This is the most important election in history!” they sing.

I think hyperbole is responsible for all of the world’s problems. Still, this time nobody’s exaggerating. What happens on Nov. 6 really is of critical importance. America’s future really does hang in the balance.

We’re in uncharted territories. We’re lost. We stand dazed at cliff’s edge – legs wobbling – with big government winds at our back. Under President Obama, the reasons for this election’s unparalleled significance are piling up like pink slips in the private sector, like credit rating downgrades, like zeros on the national debt.

Yet, as I see it, there are nine black-robed reasons in particular that reign supreme.

And those reasons never get a pink slip.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power … [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.”

I know. Settle down.

Alas, Alexander Hamilton was obviously no better with a crystal ball than he was with a dueling pistol. For better or for worse (hint: for worse), today’s judiciary – through the constitutionally erosive drip-drop of judicial attrition and congressional submission – has, instead, become the most powerful branch of government.

Today, rather than the properly balanced, decentralized constitutional republic our founders envisaged, we live, to a large degree, under a very much centralized judiciocracy. (That is, when President Obama’s not circumventing the Constitution via executive fiat.)

William Howard Taft, who served as both our 27th president and our 10th Supreme Court chief justice, had unique insight into the dichotomy between the framers’ intent, and today’s reality. He summed it up well: “Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.”

Indeed, due to the creeping misalignment of separation of powers, the function of appointing Supreme Court justices is almost certainly the most significant thing any president can do. Though it defies the High Court’s original construct, these nine unelected, well-meaning, yet very human, individuals profoundly steer law, public policy and our larger culture in perpetuity.

So much for the balance of powers.

Therein lies the problem. Conservative columnist Andrew McCarthy noted in March that four of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices are in their late 70s and early 80s.

“We wish them all well,” he wrote, “but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court – in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.

“If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama,” concluded McCarthy, “I think you’re smokin’ something funky.”

Speaking of “smokin’ something funky,” during Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, Joe Biden touched on the Supreme Court. He agreed with McCarthy: “The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. … For Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia … ? We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded.”

And, of course, by “open-minded,” Biden means “not bound by those pesky constitutional limitations intended to avert government tyranny.” He means liberal “living constitutionalists.”

To be sure, the next president may well appoint one, two, three or even four new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As voters, this should be our most critical point of focus: ensuring an originalist, strict constructionist majority. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and appoints just one more Ruth Bader Ginsburg, forget it. America, as our founders envisioned her, is gone.

This is why, after the primary, I went from an outspoken Romney critic, to a cautiously optimistic Romney supporter. He has pledged: “I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary.”

Still not sold?

President Obama has already shown who he’ll appoint. In Justices Elena Kagan and Sonja Sotomayor – nice though they may be – he has stacked the Court with two radical counter-constitutionalists who share his belief that the Constitution “is not a static, but living document and must be read in the context of an ever changing world.”

Naturally, if the Constitution is “ever changing,” the Constitution is meaningless.

But it gets worse. Obama has also called this – the very founding document upon which our laws, public policy, indeed our very freedoms rest – an “imperfect document,” a “living document … that reflects some deep flaws in American culture.”

Yikes.

Moreover, during the 2008 campaign, Obama lamented that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

Let that sink in a moment. In his own words, this man – a man solemnly sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution – has betrayed utter disdain for it. He has, in essence, admitted that he views our most sacred founding document as a “constraint” against his thinly veiled efforts to “fundamentally transform” America into Greece.

Thank God our Founding Fathers predicted that men like Barack Obama would come and go. And thank God they had the wisdom to plan accordingly.

Patrick Henry once said, “[L]iberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” Today, we have it exactly backward. Four more years of Barack Obama, and government will be the direct end of your liberty.

Still thinking of sitting this one out?

I hope not.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/the-most-important-election-in-history/

Power Grab: Our Technocratic Future by Wesley J. Smith

Posted on September 23, 2012 by ccpastormike

October 1, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 03

To paraphrase Freud: Liberals, what do they really want? Not the communism or socialism of the right’s fever dreams. They know that didn’t work. Today’s liberal agenda is more akin to the corporatist vision of the 1920s and ’30s—an economy in which the state directs the activities of the private sector to achieve ideologically desired ends. But even that description doesn’t quite get to the nub of it. Liberals today seek to create a stable, and what they perceive to be a socially just, society via rule by experts—in which most of the activities of society are micromanaged by technocrats for the economic and social benefit of the whole. In other words, social democracy without the messiness of democracy, like the European Union’s rule-by-bureaucrats-in-Brussels. This is the “fundamental transformation” that President Obama seeks to implement in this country.

The siren song of technocracy attracts members of both parties. Left-wing types tend to believe in issuing direct government commands. Think Nancy Pelosi or Mayor Bloomberg. Big government right-wingers prefer to induce “desirable” behavior through incentives. Think Newt Gingrich at his most utopian.

Since technocrats believe their job is to protect us from ourselves, preventing people from getting hurt becomes the prime directive, the equality that matters most is equality of outcome—not opportunity—an unattainable goal, which conveniently means a technocrat’s work is never done.

Europeans generally accept this benign statism as the best way to maintain peace and social stability. It has been somewhat rougher sledding in the United States because technocracy undermines individual liberty and the American dream. Hence the widespread outrage over “You didn’t build that.”

But with the coming of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, the technocrats have broken ground for a full-bore, EU-style bureaucratic state. Leading the charge is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, governed by 15 “experts” appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Established to control Medicare costs, IPAB possesses the raw power to force Congress to legislate via its “fast track authority”; IPAB’s financial targets must be enacted into law by August 15 of each year, beginning in 2014. Not only that, if Congress refuses to legislate the level of cost containment demanded by IPAB (or if the president vetoes the bill), IPAB’s original recommendation is automatically imposed. In other words, IPAB’s cost-cutting word is law. And if that isn’t enough: Congress can’t dissolve IPAB until 2017—and then only by a supermajority vote of both houses.

Defenders of IPAB claim that such extraordinary authority is necessary because Congress can’t be trusted to cut costs. We should never underestimate Congress’s cravenness, but that is no reason to bulldoze democratic accountability or devolve power from the elected organs of government to a semi-sovereign bureaucracy.

Defenders also tell us not to fear because IPAB’s cost-cutting weapons are limited primarily to controlling payments to doctors and hospitals—never mind that draconian cuts in compensation could make it extremely difficult for Medicare beneficiaries to find doctors. But the broad power given to IPAB was not designed to remain limited. Even before it is up and running, President Obama has said that IPAB should be “strengthened.”

More specifically, Christina Romer, the former head of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, suggested in a July 22 column in the New York Times that IPAB “could be empowered to suggest changes in benefits or in how Medicare services are provided,” once it has a “track record”—meaning, once it becomes an accepted reality. But as we have seen, IPAB doesn’t merely “suggest,” it dictates. Thus, Romer is actually arguing that IPAB could eventually be granted absolute authority over Medicare policy, including, perhaps, health care rationing power that would be the envy of any EU technocrat.

Former Obama Treasury Department adviser and New York Times columnist Steven Rattner specifically urged transforming IPAB into a rationing board in a September 17 column. “No one wants to lose an aging parent,” he wrote. But the cost of caring extensively for the elderly “imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear,” and so we too must jump into the rationing pool:

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

Once we turn our affairs over to the technocracy, bureaucrats even get to decide which of us has greater value and which of us can be kicked out of the lifeboat.

Technocracy is ultimately not about expertise but about determining the common moral values of society. It does not countenance competing centers of moral authority. It is no surprise that the first major regulation promulgated under the ACA by the Obama administration directly attacked freedom of religion by requiring sectarian institutions and private businesses to provide their employees free birth control and sterilization surgeries even if it violates their religious consciences.

Obamacare is also a splendid vehicle for imposing liberal social values that technocrats favor. Thus, the next time the Democrats enjoy one-party rule, expect them to amend the ACA first to permit, then to mandate, abortion coverage. Indeed, Obamacare could easily become the vehicle for enacting many profoundly culture-changing policies, such as requiring employers to cover free in-vitro fertilization, not to mention sex reassignment surgery, and eventually assisted suicide.

The issue isn’t whether there should be regulation. Only the most radical libertarians favor laissez faire. The concern is the Obama administration’s apparent eagerness to cross the border from reasonable regulation to the land of technocracy—and not just in health care. In this sense, the current election is about far more than policy issues such as taxation, spending, and terrorism. More profoundly, we will find out whether the voters are ready to allow a second term President Obama to transform Washington, D.C., into Brussels on the Potomac.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. He consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/power-grab_652898.html