Health Care Mandates are Constitutional? Not Even Close

Health Care Mandates are Constitutional? Not Even Close

Written by: Michael Boldin

25. Jan, 2010

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/health-care-mandates-are-constitutional-not-even-close/

If there’s one thing that I can agree with Akhil Reed Amar on, it’s this:

the Constitution grants Congress authority to legislate only in the areas enumerated in the document itself.

But after reading his recent op-ed in the LA Times arguing that the Constitution somehow authorizes a national healthcare mandate, I can’t find much else to agree with. His arguments cover the spectrum of all the most prominent arguments in support of more central control.

Professor Rob Natelson’s featured article on the subject, “Beware the Word Clearly” takes Amar to task, line by line, on his inaccurate positions, which are often so off-base that it appears to me that the op-ed was written by an interested politician instead of a Constitutional Scholar.

But, In case Natelson’s arguments weren’t compelling enough for you, I figured it would be good to look to a few other experts on the Constitution for their opinion too. Especially since Amar made his case as if it were somehow indisputable.

Here’s what I was able to dig up.

1. Professor Kevin Gutzman is a Constitutional scholar, an expert in the Middle Period of American history, 1760-1877, and the New York Times bestselling author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution

“By Amar’s logic, a federal entitlement to annual vacations would be within Congress’s power under the Interstate Commerce Clause: it would affect interstate commerce, it is beyond some people’s reach because of lack of resources, and it would be funded via an apparently rudderless taxing power. Of course, neither his reading of the Commerce Clause (which was rejected by the Supreme Court until 1937) nor his understanding of the Taxing Clause (which was rejected by the Supreme Court until the 20th century, or else there would have been no 16th Amendment) has anything much to do with the original understanding. Professor Amar would not be a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School if he did not advocate virtually unlimited power in the formerly Federal Government.”

2. Professor Kurt Lash is the James P. Bradley Chair of Constitutional Law at Loyola Law School, who’s scholarly work has appears in some of the top law reviews in the United States, including Stanford Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Northwestern Law Review, and Texas Law Review.

As for this [comment by Amar]:

“After the Civil War, Americans amended the Constitution to give Congress another explicit authority relevant in the healthcare debate: Section 5 of the 14th Amendment charges Congress with protecting basic human rights. Healthcare is such a right — or at least Congress is constitutionally allowed to decide it is. Those who disagree should simply vote for different congressional members rather than hiding behind bad constitutional arguments that do violence to the text and original intent of the 14th Amendment.”

Well, I love Akhil like a brother, but this assertion is unsupported by either the text or history behind the Fourteenth Amendment. I imagine Akhil would claim that the Privileges or Immunities Clause nationalized all of the state common law rights listed by Justice Bushrod Washington in Corfield v. Coryell–Akhil would translate this to all “basic human rights.” But not only has he grafted a modern concept on a 19th century decision of the lower federal courts, he is wrong that the members of the Thirty-Ninth Congress would have supported federal power to regulate all “basic human rights.” The very term “civil rights” was removed from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 due to concerns it would authorize federal control of matters belonging under sate control. John Bingham, the drafter of Section One’s privileges and immunities clause, refused to support the civil rights act due to concerns about federal interference with matters reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

Professor Lash also recommended that I check in with Randy Barnett, who along with Rob Natelson, has done some of the most extensive research on the origins and meaning of the Commerce Clause.

3. Professor Randy E. Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts.

Unfortunately, Barnett was not available for comment, but one only needs to read his seminal work, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, to get a better understanding. Here’s how he sums up the commerce power:

“Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.”

With the added weight of professors Gutzman, Lash, and Barnett, I find it hard to disagree with Natelson’s statement that “The claim that the Founding Fathers would have thought the Constitution allows Congress to impose health care mandates is little short of absurd.”

Absurd, indeed.

---

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Hello Everyone,

It dawned on me that not everyone got the origin or meaning of my references to sheepdogs.  Although, most of those that are sheepdogs, often replied in kind.  The point where I realized that was when someone replied and asked the basic question, “What is a sheepdog?” 

Rather than go through a long explanation, the short version is they are the ones who stand up when others let things go even when it may cause them detriment.  They don’t particularly like to fight, but have the habit of not letting the bad guys hurt ourselves and our loved ones, as well as the rest of the flock in many cases. 

Below is a copy the original writing on the Sheepdog idea. 

One more thing; I have gotten very little feedback from folks viewing my blog at (http://grapoza.blogspot.com/).  I am not going to pull it down just yet, but I think I’ll put a lot less stuff there seeing I still get very good replies from this list as opposed to the blog.  I may just drop it in the future if can not think of a better reason to keep it running. 

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

(From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman)

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself.

The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?"

- William J. Bennett

In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy

November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, “We intimidate those who intimidate others.”

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

The gift of aggression

"What goes on around you... compares little with what goes on inside you."

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Everyone has been given a gift in life. Some people have a gift for science and some have a flair for art. And warriors have been given the gift of aggression. They would no more misuse this gift than a doctor would misuse his healing arts, but they yearn for the opportunity to use their gift to help others. These people, the ones who have been blessed with the gift of aggression and a love for others, are our sheepdogs. These are our warriors.

One career police officer wrote to me about this after attending one of my Bulletproof Mind training sessions:

"I want to say thank you for finally shedding some light on why it is that I can do what I do. I always knew why I did it. I love my [citizens], even the bad ones, and had a talent that I could return to my community. I just couldn’t put my finger on why I could wade through the chaos, the gore, the sadness, if given a chance try to make it all better, and walk right out the other side."

Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. As Kipling said in his poem about “Tommy” the British soldier:

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"

But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,

There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,

O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage. Only one. He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory acts of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

However, when there were cues given by potential victims that indicated they would not go easily, the cons said that they would walk away. If the cons sensed that the target was a "counter-predator," that is, a sheepdog, they would leave him alone unless there was no other choice but to engage.

One police officer told me that he rode a commuter train to work each day. One day, as was his usual, he was standing in the crowded car, dressed in blue jeans, T-shirt and jacket, holding onto a pole and reading a paperback. At one of the stops, two street toughs boarded, shouting and cursing and doing every obnoxious thing possible to intimidate the other riders. The officer continued to read his book, though he kept a watchful eye on the two punks as they strolled along the aisle making comments to female passengers, and banging shoulders with men as they passed.

As they approached the officer, he lowered his novel and made eye contact with them. “You got a problem, man?” one of the IQ-challenged punks asked. “You think you’re tough, or somethin’?” the other asked, obviously offended that this one was not shirking away from them.

“As a matter of fact, I am tough,” the officer said, calmly and with a steady gaze.

The two looked at him for a long moment, and then without saying a word, turned and moved back down the aisle to continue their taunting of the other passengers, the sheep.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, “Let’s roll,” which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers--athletes, business people and parents--from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

“Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men."

-Edmund Burke

Reflections on the Revolution in France

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to slaughter you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll” if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids’ school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”

The warrior must cleanse denial from his thinking. Coach Bob Lindsey, a renowned law enforcement trainer, says that warriors must practice “when/then” thinking, not “if/when.” Instead of saying, “If it happens then I will take action,” the warrior says, “When it happens then I will be ready.”

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: You didn’t bring your gun; you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by fear, helplessness, horror and shame at your moment of truth.

Chuck Yeager, the famous test pilot and first man to fly faster than the speed of sound, says that he knew he could die. There was no denial for him. He did not allow himself the luxury of denial. This acceptance of reality can cause fear, but it is a healthy, controlled fear that will keep you alive:

"I was always afraid of dying. Always. It was my fear that made me learn everything I could about my airplane and my emergency equipment, and kept me flying respectful of my machine and always alert in the cockpit."

- Brigadier General Chuck Yeager

Yeager, An Autobiography

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation:

"..denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn’t so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling. Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level."

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... “Baa.”

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

---

©2000 Warrior Science Group ~ All Rights Reserved.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

What Is More Troubling Than Pat Robertson’s Remarks?

What Is More Troubling Than Pat Robertson’s Remarks?

By: Selwyn Duke

January 20, 2010 issue of Ether Zone.

http://www.etherzone.com/2010/duke012010.shtml

Of all the responses to the devastation in Haiti, the most copy-worthy is televangelist Pat Robertson’s claim that the earthquake was divine retribution. In making his case, he told a story about how Haitian leaders long ago made a pact with Satan, promising to serve him if he would help vanquish their French oppressors. The Devil delivered, said Robertson, but the consequence is that the nation has ever since been cursed, with one disaster befalling it after another. It was reminiscent of when the late Jerry Falwell said — and Robertson agreed — that those who have authored America’s descent into sin were partially responsible for 9/11.

Not surprisingly, the response today is much as it was back then. Robertson has been roundly criticized in media, by the left, right and center. Yet there’s something more troubling than his remarks.

Just for the record, I don’t share Robertson’s theology. While I do believe there can be such a thing as the wrath of God, I also know that God has both ordained will and permissive will. The former, of course, is when God intervenes and makes something happen; miracles, in the typical sense, fall into this category. And many have believed in divine intercession. For instance, Ben Franklin once said, “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men.”

In contrast, permissive will is when God allows other forces — such man’s free will — in the Universe free rein. I believe most events fall into this category, although I’m certainly not inclined to argue about what percentage of all happenings they might be. I’m also not inclined to argue about the category into which the Haitian earthquake falls. I’ll simply note that disasters, like death, touch the Hades-bound and holy alike. I’ll also point out that Robertson’s story about the Haitian rebels’ pact with Beelzebub seems more urban legend than cause of urban devastation. Yet more ridiculous than the televangelist’s comments is something inherent in the criticism of him.

Many lambasting Robertson are Christians who believe in miracles and sometimes pray for God’s intercession. Yet, while they believe He may reward and rescue us, they certainly don’t seem to believe that He would apply the rod. Now, many would say this is because He is loving God, not a vengeful one; of course, others might say a loving father knows that love involves discipline. But I’d like to focus on a different matter.

Why do people take such umbrage at Robertson’s remarks? Now, I don’t ask why they disagree; to reiterate, I part ways with him theologically myself. Yet I’m not offended. I don’t act as if his commentary is as bad as a phony reverend screaming “God d*** America!” from the pulpit — which, I should emphasize, isn’t just saying that God has punished America. It is asking Him to damn America. And let us be clear: Damnation in Christian thought is something infinitely worse than sending a natural or manmade disaster our way. It is wishing on your target the worst thing possible: eternal separation from God. We should also note the context of that esteemed man of the cloth’s remarks. He was saying that 9/11 was our just deserts, that, as he put it, “America’s chickens have come home to roost.” Only, unlike the pastoral admonishment of Robertson and Falwell, he spewed the words with venom. And I don’t remember the chickens in the media condemning him as they did those two men. But I digress.

The larger point is that there is nothing un-Christian about a belief in God’s wrath. The Bible is replete with examples of it, such as Noah’s Ark and the great flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah. And when the Crusades (which, mind you, were a response to Moslem aggression) weren’t successful, medieval Christians viewed it as punishment for their sins. They then aimed to purify themselves, and piety movements arose all across Europe.

Yet, while many view this thinking as backward and superstitious, it isn’t always because they scoff at the idea of the supernatural; as I said, millions believe in miracles. Rather, it is because so many believe they have nothing to purify.

Truth be known, what really angers people is the implication that we could be deserving of such punishment. It’s just a very unfashionable idea in our I’m-OK, you’re-OK, self-esteem-and-candy culture. Yet the belief reflected by this anger is far more contrary to authentic Christianity than anything Robertson has said.

Central to Christianity is the idea that we’re deserving of the worst punishment — of damnation itself. As the Bible says, “All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.” Yet we won’t necessarily get what we deserve because God is merciful. But this doesn’t mean He would not, under any circumstances, administer lesser punishment. I suppose you could say it’s much like the difference between a pagan Roman father and a good Christian one. As the paterfamilias, the former had the authority to even kill his children if it suited him. Thankfully, no average father today would contemplate such a thing, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t put hand to hindquarters on occasion.

Also, before one judges a Christian harshly for speaking of God’s wrath, it’s important to understand the idea within the context of Christianity. As the one who gave us life, God has the right to take it away.

But He doesn’t.

Upon leaving this fold, we pass on to eternal life. And if God takes people from this world but then invites them into His kingdom, is it not a blessing? Now, I well understand that this sounds ridiculous to secular ears that find the very concept of an afterlife silly. But we’ve all heard of the importance of putting yourself in another’s shoes, of understanding his “perspective.” There’s nothing sillier than judging someone’s intentions — what’s going on in his mind — without trying to grasp the world view shaping that mind.

Most interesting, though, is the modern man’s belief in his own sanctity. Some would say this problem is a result of a lack of introspection, but, in a way, it’s also a result of nothing but introspection. And this is largely a function of moral relativism. I’ll explain.

The question here boils down to what you use to judge your moral state. If you use Moral Truth — that is, something existing apart from man that constitutes perfect moral law — you will always find yourself wanting as you can never be perfect, never measure up to it. Sure, not everyone has the same grasp of morality; some are blind to many of its elements; some see elements that aren’t there. Some are blind to many of their own faults. Nevertheless, it’s hard to believe in Truth, in perfection, and also believe that you truly reflect it.

But if there were no Truth, there would be no morality. After all, if there is no external reality on which to base right and wrong — if, as the Greek philosopher Polybius said, “Man is the measure of all things” — it is simply an invention of man. This is why relativists shy away from the term “morality” and instead prefer “values,” which usually refers not to divine or “natural” law but to social constructs. But, then, what are values? What are we really talking about? What are we actually using as a yardstick for judging “moral” state? It then could only one thing, emotion — consensus or individual. This accounts for the popularity of the animalistic credo, “If it feels good, do it.”

But then, whose feelings should hold sway? A person could use those of the wider society, and there certainly is social pressure to do so. And given that our relativistic, feel-good culture has dumbed down standards to rubber-stamp what is pleasurable (part of which is sin), our collective set of values is far from perfect. Thus, it’s easy to view yourself as “OK” relative to it.

More significantly, though, if values are relative and feelings carry the day, why should we defer to other people’s feelings? After all, I’m a person just as you are. Why should you be the arbiter of my “moral” standard? Don’t impose your values on me, you intolerant oaf.

The individual then uses his own emotions as the yardstick for what his relativistic mind can only call morality. Then, since his “morality” is just a reflection of himself, he will conform to it perfectly. This is the process by which one deifies himself. It is when he finds the only kind of being this side of Heaven who could establish moral standards: the god “within.” And then don’t dare suggest that he deserves punishment, for that is an offense against the perfect. Is it any wonder that many so-called Christians today no longer believe in Hell?

Of course, not everyone descends into complete self-delusion. But the more relativism blinds our eyes to the yardstick that reveals imperfection, the more we start to mistake our warts for marks of distinction.

I don’t think the Haitian earthquake, 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment. But I do know this: It is not dangerous to believe that God would wash away wickedness with a great flood. It is very dangerous to believe it wouldn’t matter anyway, because we can walk on water.

---

“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.  He is a regular contributor to Ether Zone.

Selwyn Duke can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net

Published in the January 20, 2010 issue of Ether Zone.

Copyright © 1997 - 2010 Ether Zone.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

A UN Militia in Your Community?

A UN Militia in Your Community?

Rapid Reaction Against UN Foes

by Berit Kjos - 1999

(updated 2010)

http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/rapid-reaction99.htm

Army study suggests new 'police force’: “A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes the federal government create a rapid deployment ‘Stabilization Police Force’ that would be tasked with ‘shaping an environment before a conflict’ and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.... Darrell Castle [retired Marine Corps officer and attorney]... is skeptical of the report and believes the unit could be used in the U.S. against Americans.’” January 22, 2010

“Noting the increasing role and special functions of civilian police in United Nations’ peace-keeping operations, the Security Council this morning encouraged States [nations] to make appropriate trained police available to the Organization at short notice.... The council encouraged States to provide appropriate training of civilian police for international service.” UN Press Release (#6397), July 14, 1997

“As professional volunteers develop into a cohesive UN force, they can assume responsibility for some of the riskier operations mandated by the Council but for which troop contributors have been hesitant to contribute…. Without the need to consult national authorities, the UN could cut response time significantly. . . . As the 1995 Commission on Global Governance noted, ‘It is high time that this idea - a United nations Volunteer Force - was made a reality.’”1 Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the UN

“Governments are understandably reluctant to commit troops rapidly for UN action, particularly in civil wars and internal conflicts….”2 Our Global Neighborhood, The Report of the Commission on Global Governance

In the near future, could the United Nations actually place its own police force in our communities to quell local conflicts? Worse yet, would it have authority to deal with the mere risk of such a conflict? Would this intrusive militia bypass U.S. authorities in order to fulfill any UN Security Council command?

The answer to all three questions is an alarming “Yes.” Consider the evidence:

1. In 1998, the Clinton administration quietly gave the UN $200,000 as seed money to establish the a UN military operation called the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. A UN Secretariat official who prefers to remain anonymous explained the need for such “backdoor support.” It was “because of the political sensitivity over creating an army under UN command and political authority.”3

According to George Archibald, who reported this incident in his Washington Times article, “White House backs standby U.N. army,” the UN official indicated that Canada and the Netherlands are primary backers of this UN force. That’s true, but the USA has been actively pursuing this goal together with Canada.

2. In 1995, a detailed report titled Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations was prepared by an International Consultative Group co-chaired by Sir Brian Urquhart of the Ford Foundation and Dr. John C. Polanyi, Nobel Laureate of the University of Toronto. This Group consisted of “experts drawn from governments, academic institutions and non-governmental organizations” and included U.S. leaders such as Dr. Jessica Mathews, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations. Published by the Canadian government, it called for UN management of satellite surveillance, information systems, databanks, and every other technological tool for managing people. It concluded that—

“As long sovereign states retain the right to decide on the deployment of their national units, there will never be complete assurance that a UN force can meet an urgent situation on time . . . .”4

“Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence systems (C41) would incorporate the full range of strategic and tactical communications networks, together with data processing capabilities and real-time information transfer….

“… A number of UN Member States are bound to be wary of systems and equipment designed for advance surveillance, intrusion detection, early warning and enhanced analytical capabilities, even if similar systems are already part of the national inventories of neighbors or adversaries. Some of these systems… might be considered too “intrusive” for use by an inter-governmental organizations. Even if these political hurdles can be overcome, acquisitions of these capabilities face enormous financial obstacles . . . .

“A prudent, long-terms approach… would focus initially on the acquisition of advanced communication/information management systems for UN headquarters and the field. These would be “secure” systems which could readily be linked electronically to a variety of national systems provided to the UN under memoranda of understanding. The UN could then build upon this base…. “5

3. What if this plan conflicts with U.S. laws, American values, and our national sovereignty? It doesn’t matter, according to Sir Brian Urquhart and Erstine Childers. Political obstacles may slow, but not block, the move toward an international police force under UN Command. Their 1993 statement was quoted in the above report, Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations:

“The fact that the theoretically best solution is not at present politically feasible does not mean that the system must simply muddle on indefinitely in its present condition. A great deal can be achieved without constitutional change, by changes in such salient features as geography, legal mandates and behavior.”6

Does that statement sound familiar? A mere Constitutional objection cannot stop these visionaries. Nor can national laws or public opinion. After all, laws can be reinterpreted and public opinion manipulated. As long as the mainstream media can win either the consent or the silence of the masses, Clinton and his team of change agents can continue to write life-changing rules and regulations that bypass Congress.

It’s happening in education, health, environmental programs, and every other area of life. The global management system Al Gore points to in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, refers primarily to sustainable development, 7 but the transformation he envisions involves every part of the all-inclusive global system. As you read the following statement, don’t forget that “voluntary” has become a buzzword for a system with built-in controls that reward compliance and shows zero tolerance for non-compliance. To these social engineers, their ends justifies any deceptive means:

“Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action – to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment.... Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”8

4. Behind UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stands the powerful Canadian multi-billionaire Maurice Strong. The founder of both the World Economic Council and Planetary Citizens, he has served as director of the World Future Society, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen Institute, and a member of the Club of Rome. As head of the Earth Council, he began to prepare an Earth Charter—a global code of conduct based on global values and radical environmental guidelines.  [He was discredited after accepting a million dollars from Saddam Hussein during the UN “Food for Oil” travesty.]

Strong led the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). It produced the controversial Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda 21 — the monstrous plan for reorganizing the world along environmental guidelines. One of his offices is only two blocks away from the White House.

Officially, Strong was “hired” by Annan to “reform” the massive, inefficient, and corrupt UN bureaucracy so that the US Congress would pay its dues. But his leadership brings little comfort to those who remember Strong’s occult and environmental ties, globalist ambitions, and corrupt business practices.

His true plan for UN reform is documented in Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN Commission on Global Governance, which Strong helped write. Like Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations, this report calls for a volunteer UN army under UN command, with UN police stationed in every region of the world:

“In many of today’s crises, it is clear than an early intervention could have prevented later negative developments…. This underlines the need for a highly trained UN Volunteer Force that is willing, if necessary, to take combat risks….This would be particularly useful in low-level but dangerous conflicts. Such an international Volunteer Force would be under the exclusive authority of the Security Council.” 9

What if the U.S. Congress disagrees with UN decisions. Could it simply press for a U.S. veto on the Security Council? Not if Strong implements his vision of reform. The United States, which is billed 25% of the huge UN budget, would be dismissed from the Security Council:

“We recommend that a new class of ‘standing‘ members be established…. Of these new members, two should be drawn from industrial countries and three from among the larger developing countries. Of the two from industrial countries, presumably one will be from Asia and one from Europe. Of the three from developing countries, we would expect one each to be drawn from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. . . . The new standing members will not possess a veto, and we believe the aim should be for the power of the veto to be phased out. 10

5. Most of the incremental steps toward UN control over its own local police happen in secret, behind closed doors. But some are made public, such as the following UN Press Release (#6397) issued on July 14, 1997:

“Noting the increasing role and special functions of civilian police in United Nations’ peace-keeping operations, the Security Council this morning encouraged States [nations] to make appropriate trained police available to the Organization at short notice. . . . The council encouraged States to provide appropriate training of civilian police for international service…. [C]ivilian police performed indispensable functions in monitoring and training national police forces. They could play a major role, through assistance to local police forces, in restoring civil order, supporting the rule of law, and fostering civil reconciliation.”

6. On September 14, 1998, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen addressed the Council on Foreign Relations. In the euphemistically veiled language so typical of the Clinton administration, he described the current crisis and offered a government solution:

“To deal effectively with these challenges, we must have a national security policy based on four pillars:

Ø      Bi-partisan support for Defense Policy

Ø      Budgets adequate to maintain the world’s best military today and in the future

Ø      International cooperation

Ø      Interagency cooperation within our government”

Keep in mind that “international cooperation” means working with NATO and the UN. Three of the four points above were covered in the report mentioned earlier, Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations. The list of excerpts at the end of this report broadens our view of the vast bureaucracies, monstrous power, and arrogant ambitions that drive the UN agenda and its worldwide network of disciples every closer to Maurice Strong’s vision of “global governance”. To speed the process, the United States is expected to contribute troops as well as its enviable expertise in surveillance and reconnaissance technology. American taxes would fund and arm a global management system that aims to crush Christianity, Western culture, capitalism, and the US Constitution.

7. Controlling the flow of information is vital to the envisioned global management system. To this end, each nation must fund and implement its part of the massive global information and monitoring system. In the following section of Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations, notice the reference to Information Management.

“The types of technologies which could play a greater role in peacekeeping operations are: surveillance technologies, communications equipment and enhanced information management systems….

“An attractive technology for a variety of peace operations is aerial reconnaissance of ground activity. Access to satellite capability… may have great strategic potential.

“The ability to locate, identify and monitor virtually all vehicular movement… has obvious applicability to monitoring, surveillance and control missions.

“….surveillance technologies and information management systems could be integrated into an organization-wide system to enhance contingency planning….” (pages 56-57)

Such an integrated UN-U.S. information management system is needed for other global programs as well. At the 1995 UN Conference for Women in Beijing, 11 our U.S. delegation committed our nation to participate in an international monitoring system controlled by the UN Economic and Social Council. This system would monitor compliance with politically correct gender roles in schools, workplaces, and homes (parents could no longer model traditional gender roles in the home). Fulfilling his part of the UN plan, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13011, establishing a massive interagency bureaucracy with power to -

Ø      manage “Federal Information Technology”

Ø      disseminate politically correct information

Ø      build massive data banks

Ø      share the data with international bodies such as the United Nations.

8. A crisis need not erupt before the UN militia begins its work. In fact, one of its major responsibilities would be to monitor human rights violations around the world. If that doesn’t concern you, please read our reports on Executive Order 13107: Human Rights Implementation and The UN Plan for Your Mental Health.

The 1998 International IDNDR Conference on Early Warning Systems for the Reduction of Natural Disasters chose as its theme, “Building a Culture of Prevention.” For our globalist leaders who promote “systems thinking,” the theme of prevention includes all conceivable areas of potential conflict and non-compliance. What’s more, this theme provides a catchy rationale for continual and pervasive surveillance of beliefs, attitudes, and actions. In light of the UN’s overall quest for global “peace” and “solidarity,” ponder the following quote from The Declaration of the Potsdam Early Warning Conference:

“Successful early warning requires unrestricted access to data that is freely available for exchange. Ultimately, all resulting information must be credible, and emanate from a single officially designated authority.

“Participants emphasized that early warning is effective only to the extent that policy makers at national levels of authority have the will, and make a sustained commitment of resources that will establish protective measures. It is crucial that these measures support the development of early warning capabilities at the community level and that they be based on local vulnerability and risk assessments.” 12

In other words, the U.S. must provide the UN with all the data needed to assess potential conflict of any sort anywhere. Among the conflicts the UN police are being trained to resolve are human rights violations. In the eyes of UN leaders, any group that violates the UN standard for politically correct beliefs and values could be “at risk” of creating conflict.13 Would non-compliant people be among the risk factors that could trigger the “early warning systems”?

9. Finally, see how the pieces fit together. Ponder the following quotes from Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations:

“… This study’s central objective is to recommend changes at all levels of the UN system which would give the UN an enhanced capability to respond rapidly to crisis situations.” (p. iv)

“…there are several generic components of rapid reaction which must be included in an UN capability if it is to be effective:

Ø      an early warning mechanism to alert the system to an impending conflict or crisis;

Ø      an effective decision-making process…

Ø      adequate finance….

Ø      well-trained personnel.” (p. iv)

“Current early-warning systems could be substantially strengthened by working towards an element of ‘automaticity’ in early-warning arrangements. Ideally, as Jessica Tuchman Mathews, of the Council of Foreign Relations, New York has suggested, “The UN should develop an automatic system of responses . . . . The key is that a certain set of findings would trigger a set of predetermined responses for rapid reaction.. . . .

“Nothing can tie the hands of the Security Council in making decisions.” (p.44)

“To enhance rapid reaction, the UN and Member States need to address the nature of training to be conducted and the management systems which should be put into place to ensure that national training programs are responsive to the UN’s requirements.” (p. 54)

“The UN … would not have to await the lengthy domestic processes of each Member State before a critical mass of police forces is assembled.... a permanent force could be trained to the high standards which the UN should demand. . . .

“The Vanguard Concept … is based on standby arrangements for nationally-based units linked to a UN operational headquarters. … The presence of regional headquarters would provide for greater flexibility and reduce the time required for deployment. . . . Governments are sometimes reluctant to release their forces for duty…. Even when Governments are disposed to concur… the process of seeking authorization is often slow…. (p. 60)

“As they would remain under national command, national authorities would retain primary responsibility for their administration, pay and benefits.” (p. 61)

The United Nations may well position its “highly trained” Volunteer Force armed with America’s latest surveillance and reconnaissance technology in our midst. Such an action would fit the vision of many US leaders who, for political reasons, prefer to let the UN make such unpolular choices for them. If this happens, and if this Force must carry out Security Council orders that our Congress would forbid, there will be no earthly place to hide from tyrannical leaders.

While we must do all we can to stop this intrusion upon American sovereignty and freedom, we need to remember that the forces arrayed against us are far greater than our mere human efforts. Only God can bring victory. I suggest that we turn to Him, listen to His instructions, and follow His plan. Jehoshophat, a godly king in Old Testament days, said it well:

“O our God, will You not judge them? For we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.” (2 Chronicles 20:12)

Together, the people prayed, followed God’s instructions, and won the war in a mighty demonstration of the power and faithfulness of our God.

---

Endnotes:

1.Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the UN (The Government of Canada, 1992), p. 62.

2. Our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance (Oxford University Press, 1995), 110-111.

3. George Archibald, “White House backs standby UN army,” Washington Times, April 23, 1998.

4. Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the UN , page 63.

5. Ibid., page 56-57.

6. Ibid., page 55.

7. See Local Agenda 21.

8. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit (Houghton Mifflin, 1992), p. 274.

9. Our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance (Oxford University Press, 1995), 110-111.

10. Ibid., 240, 241.

11. You can read about this UN conference, and the global sisterhood that led it, in chapter 9 of A Twist of Faith.

12. http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/ewc98/finaldec.html

13. See the UN Plan for Your Mental Health

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---