Welcome to the Vision Viewpoint Blog

Yellen to Fed Chief Post: More Aggressive…More Inflation

Senators are expected to confirm Janet L. Yellen as the next head of the Federal Reserve today, January 6, 2014, as the new leader for the central bank. The vote is expected to be one of the closest ever.

Yellen is a former UC Berkeley economist and would be the first woman to lead the Fed after being nominated by President Obama last fall and the first Democrat to hold the job since 1987. Bernanke’s term expires January 31, 2014.

The Democratic-controlled Senate has set a vote for 5:30 p.m. EST on Monday, its first day back after a holiday break. One issue of "more-than-just-a-little-concern" ( among many) is the current aggressive inflationary – expantionist Fed policy of injecting over 80 Billion dollars PER MONTH into the economy. This has inflated the stock market, creating the look of  "recovery" and creating the new stock market record highs, which makes it appear as if the Resident in the White House is presiding over an economic recovery. All it amounts to is the Fed’s aggressive provision of massive purchases of stocks and derivatives…escalating their prices into the "look" of recovery.

Note this issue: Historically, without monetary manipulation, a rising stock market would normally have meant that business fundamentals (increasing profitability, growth, productivity, increasing jobs, expansion of markets, more real buying power) was responsible for the rise in stock prices. However, merely increasing "credits" (credits are "contributing buying power" without the presence of a real, valued, commodity money to stabilize/secure it) and injecting dollars into the economy actually raises the prices. This is called inflationary demand… it does not need consumer demand nor good "fundamentals" to operate. But, its capacity to raise prices gives the stock market a boost and so media and government analysts hype "stock market recovery", ergo, economic recovery.

It is deceitful, manipulative, and ultimately, extremely destructive. It is anathema to God and should be exposed by pulpits (YES, pulpits!). It is akin to the dope addict "injection leading to a ‘high’"… BUT setting the stage for a worst "crash". Both the dope addict and the central bank’s inflationary policies give a similar result… more injections lead to (later) more crashes… and DEEPER crashes at that! Deeper crashes mean much longer time periods for recovery IF central banking manipulation ceases to continue to operate. Just as a cut will heal IF left alone, so our economy will heal IF it is left alone. But, we keep making the sore bleed more! Therefore, recovery becomes impossible… with capital, businesses, and families being wiped out at increasingly severe rates of destruction!

In other words, the laws of economics move to capture all the laws of destruction, turning sound stewardship into self-destruction. Yes, you read that correctly. If inflation can give the appearance of "recovery" that simply means fraud (which is what inflation really is, incidentally), can operate as if it were sound economic results ("stability", "recovery", "healthy spending").

If the pulpits would talk about stewardship from Scripture, maybe people would learn why it is that the more frugal you more, the more prone you will be to being hurt. That subject is for another post here.

Thus, it is possible that a company can be doing poorly, yet see its stock price increase. In fact, it is quite common now. The inflationary policies make it extremely difficult to predict correctly future pricing… which IS the major indicator for business budgeting and production planning. Pricing is the key for better understanding of our economic future. If that pricing is skewed by monetary-securitization policies (which allows the banking industry, for example, to make $6 million dollars on a $400k foreclosed home) PLUS insurance payments, tax breaks and seizure of the home! (The criminal activities involved include multiple acts of fraud, criminal conversion, fraudulent conveyance, robo-signing, perjury, de facto "bribery" – what the Bible calls "taking of gifts"… and is called an "abomination" by God) accompanied with perversion of the justice civil code and ignoring of the rules of evidence.

Add to that the astronomical increase in "securitization" of all sorts of "debt" instruments, such as (so-called) credit cards, mortgage-notes (look up "bifurcation" of a note from its mortgage and "robo-signer" if you want to be shocked), and other debt based instruments… All of this spells the arrival of an economic jugernaut on the side of inflationary – deflationary whipsaws, which are exceedingly destructive, from which the average middle class household cannot escape.

Since the arrival of the Federal Reserve (purportedly designed to protect the economy from recessions) we have had more than twice the number of "depression-recessions" in the century of its existence than we had in all of our prior history as a nation. 

However, such money expansion is undercutting the value of the housing market, small business’ ability to grow, while constantly eroding middle class consumer ability to save anything, sending millions of high-schoolers, mothers and college students into the market just to help pay bills. The claims that "inflation is under control" is media-talk. I still say your grocery bills -utility costs (heat!!)- gasoline costs ("stabilized" (?!) at about $3.29/gal !!!) – increasing property tax rates… are the best indicators for showing the REAL inflationary erosion of buying power and incapacity to save.

Call your Senators.   INFO HERE

You will probably be told Yellen is agreeable to Barnanke’s announced policy for "tapering", perhaps no later than 2015. Don’t get into a sparring match with the Senator’s aids. Just state your opposition to Yellen’s nomination as the new Fed Chief as she will certainly continue his policies.

Act and speak respectfully AT ALL TIMES. They love to goad people into accusing them of threats or violent speech. DON’T fight with them. Just speak your position…. BUT…DO SPEAK OUT!

- Wayne Sedlak, ICHR

The First Amendment: Are You Familiar with Chaplinsky?

1. While We Looked Elsewhere…

Let’s face it: Phil’s statements and subsequent "firing" is not a crisis. And it is NOT a constitutional crisis. But, it could become both, depending upon HOW the Left manipulates this issue. But what is REALLy important is the RESPONSE of people across the country who held A&E responsible for firing Phil. In other words, people are furious with this kind of treatment for Christian, traditional and sexual values. Perhaps, they are sick of corporate America bowing to pressure groups, lobbies, and bureaucratic regulation.

But while this episode was being debated across the country, a new bill (HR 1540) was passed by BOTH Houses of the Congress:

Understand that the new term for terrorists as defined by BOTH the Senate and House in the NDAA – the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA is a bill that normally funds the military) – now allows for the INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION of ANY PERSON suspected of an "affiliation" (What is that?!) with "terrorism" AS DEFINED BY THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE (in their words):

- "people are terrorists who are suspicious of centralized government"
- people who are "reverent of individual liberty"
- people who are "anti-federalists"

2. So What about Phil and A&E: Is This a Concern? (Rewrite: Have you heard of Chaplinsky? Now…be concerned!)

We are in an age where there is an ongoing "Legal Revolution". It is no secret that the Supreme Court has been whittling away at the Bill of Rights for some time now. Let’s understand what that means: it means that, to derail the genius of our Bill of Rights, there must be "legal engineering" that turns legal language of the document designed to protect us into one that is destructive of liberty.

The right to privacy – used to justify abortion – is a classic case of such legal engineering. Undoing the REMAINING historic application of that "right to privacy", i.e., the right to be protected from intrusive acts of others (such as the state and other parties, public or private), is further "whittled" by recent Congressional legislation "protecting us" from terrorist attack.

As things stand with the Supreme Court, this encroachment is yet to be more fully tested but it is assumed that it will withstand challenges, if they are brought to the Court. This still leaves the right to privacy WITH RESPECT TO ABORTION intact, but legally compromises such privacy protections as Habeus Corpus, Probable cause, and Fifth Amendment testimony. Add to that such abominations as the restrictive use of "Summary Judgment" proceedings giving judges discretionary authority to deny you a fair trial and you find that the "whittlings" amount to denials of Constitutional protections in the name of "constitutional protection". Roe v. Wade, for example, stands as a monument to the Bible’s apt description of such legal chicanery: "They frame mischief with a law." (Psalm ).

3. First Amendment? Have You Heard of Chaplinsky?

All of which brings us to the First Amendment issue, Phil Robertson, homosexual rights and A&E’s recent actions. In an outstanding article entitled "Why Firing Phil Robertson Is Not a Censorship or First Amendment Issue", Gary Demar raised a number of issues which led him to conclude that this is not a First Amendment issue. As much as I enjoyed the article (and I recommend everyone read it- rather "learn" it), I worry that perhaps a point not raised therein may be what we are facing.

Here are three paragraphs from that article I believe we need to understand BEFORE I state my concern:

"Let me tell you where First Amendment rights are being infringed. Several courts have ruled against people who refuse to offer services to same-sex couples who want to marry. It’s happened to bakeries and photographers.

If A&E is within its rights to fire someone for what he says about homosexual behavior, then why is it wrong for a business owner to refuse service to someone who holds contrary beliefs about homosexuality?

A&E shouldn’t be forced by the government to rehire Phil Robertson, and the government should not force a bakery to bake a cake for a couple that admits to engaging in same-sex sex. They’re both businesses, and the government has no business getting involved in their businesses unless a business crime like fraud or breach of contract has taken place."

This is certainly the kind of understanding I believe our forefathers intended. I certainly believe with Gary that the actions taken by A&E and the statements made by Phil Robertson would not fall under the scope of First Amendment "violations"… AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED by our forefathers.

Phil Robertson’s outspoken position concerning homosexuality got him "canned" by A&E. Many are deliberating the issue, some concluding this is a First Amendment violation of his religious convictions.

Unfortunately, as excellent as each point is in Gary’s article I wonder whether the ongoing Revolution of the United States Supreme Court ought really to be our real concern here. The article – point by point was superb. But it’s an old maxim that says "What is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole." In other words, the many points were well expressed…and true, as far as they go. But, perhaps, not all the considerations surrounding the First Amendment and Phil Robertson’s sanctioned statements, have been covered sufficiently to exclude this event from the scope of First Amendment litigation.

4. Chaplinsky…

The problem with the First Amendment, as it is currently being applied by the Supreme Court, is that the Court has reduced a once powerful set of Rights and Protections into a complexity of contradictory "understandings". A landmark First Amendment Supreme Court decision, Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, is one of several decisions that places great pressure on historically held protections. The Court’s position made it clear that a commitment to rights is inseparably linked to our civic responsibility to guard those rights for all others.

The whole hate speech movement has precedents emanating from, among others, this Case. Thus actions that are interpreted as "violent", abusive", or "misrepresentative" of a group, person or entity, grow "legal" arms and legs as a GRANT of GOVERNMENT where none was supposed to exist (by our forefathers).

That is the reason groups opposed to Phil’s statements are using language to CREATE an atmosphere in which Phil’s positions are deemed as misrepresentative, hateful or have the capacity to incite abuse. The Chaplinsky precedent needs any kind of occurrence CLAIMED as abusive, hateful, or misrepresentative to bring a test case up into the court system. Once there, it takes on a life of its own.

In the controversy surrounding Phil Robertson’s public statements concerning the the sin of homosexuality, it is apparent that entities such as A & E  take a position that aligns with the precedent established by the Supreme Court for ALL PERSONS (corporations are legal PERSONS).

This case is not about A&E’s concerns with Christianity and Phil.

Why not? A&E knew what they were getting into when they first aired Duck Dynasty. They knew they were dealing with a dedicated family of Christians who were articulate and funny – down-to-earth people. A&E knew before they got into this show that the members of the Duck Dynasty cast were not timid. In show business that’s what you must be to succeed. Therefore, "canning" Phil Robertson for his statements comes as a surprise despite A&E’s less than friendly comments about prayer (disturbing their producers) and other issues (the ridiculous "bleeping" of different statements on air, for example.). A&E knows that a profitable show is being lost.

Remember, the ongoing Revolution being engineered through our Supreme Court is one that whittles away rights. It takes away our version of the proverbial pie one slice at a time so as not to arouse suspicion much less opposition. But, what if the real reason for all this is a "need" for the powers with an agenda for a case that rounds out Chaplinsky "more explicitly"?

Restrictions upon "free exercise" of speech must be more explicit. It was for lack thereof, that Supreme Court took the state of New Hampshire to task for being too vague concerning statements made in public, stating the following:

“English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming
smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight."

Did you "get that"? If a court feels you are using language that could be construed as "fighting words" then you have lost First Amendment protections and your words could be construed as inflammatory and other than legally permissible.

According to the Court, the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

Did you get that? Local jurisdictions – local governments, cities, state governments – COULD write statutes to punish verbal acts construed as "fighting words". So why haven’t they done so with, say, churches and Christians who condemn homosexuality? However, due to public pressure, the Supreme Court has limited the effects of Chaplinsky and other First Amendment confusions from affecting more of the private sector and especially religious expression…so far.

Allegedly, according to cited "experts" such as the oft-quoted "Southern Poverty Law Center" certain Christian groups have been singled out as hate groups, including "…the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, Abiding Truth Ministries, American Vision, the Chalcedon Foundation, the Dove World Outreach Center, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the Westboro Baptist Church." [See the posted article: http://bit.ly/195Lpsg] Though I am not personally familiar with all of these entities, it is "interesting" that Christianity is singled out increasingly as if Christians were the real storm center for "hate expression". 

In the FBI Bulletin cited below (where the model for hate groups and violent ideologies was introduced), the emphasis of that Study was upon gangs and tattooed subculture types including "Neo-Nazi" gang members who often have already established criminal records. Groups often naively – or those with an "axe to grind" -  cite this model and almost exclusively ignore the subculture groups who are its focus.

5. Now, It’s Phil’s Turn.

However, it is NOT just about being put on a watch list of some kind. The FBI has a model for hate groups, cited repeatedly in hate abuse literature. According to the now widely quoted 2003 FBI Law Enforcement bulletin, a hate group, if not restricted legally, matures in seven successive stages.[See "2003 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin".]

According to this Model, now in use all throughout the country, hate groups vocalize their beliefs in the first four stages of hate-development. But, in the last three stages, they act upon those beliefs and begin targeting people and groups. The bulletin postulates a transition period that exists between verbal violence and acts that single out targets of hatred. Thus, hate speech is seen
as a prerequisite of hate crimes, and as a necessary pre-condition for future acts of violence. [http://bit.ly/195Lpsg]

You know as well as I do the Revolution is ongoing. The pressure from powerful people, media and government is unceasingly anti-Christian. For 4 decades I have watched Christians and Christian movements get "tarred and feathered" as domestic terrorists, hatemongers, bigots, and a host of other pejorative accusations. More tragically, many of those who have been "tarred and feathered" publicly have also been sanctioned JUDICIALLY. Thus, INCREASINGLY, authorities have tragically damaged home schooled families, Christian schools, Christian publishing houses, conservative interests, Christian immigrants, Christian and non-Christian businesses, and traditional Christian family values.

The question is this: Can the Left bring legal issues to the test at the Supreme Court level which would incite new restrictions upon Christians and, especially, churches? Remember, we already have several cases on their way to the Supreme Court concerning gay-rights. But to round out the precedents, the particular pressure point is the churches… and biblical expression concerning sin.

There’s no other way around the fact that if the Left wants to muzzle the pulpits, it must CREATE a First Amendment case. That involves victimizing one Christian after another until finally a pliable Supreme Court – stacked currently with arguably some of the most anti-constitutional thinkers in its history – will bend to political expediency and engage in further "judicial legislating".

The fact is, though groups and entities are airing their "concerns" to protect the rights of other groups as per Chaplinsky, WE, as Christians have lost some protections to air publicly opinions directly in support of biblical Truth. This departure from historically judicial norms is especially dangerous when such truths disagree with social mores and are thus perceived as "condemning" the behavior of others.

In the controversy surrounding Phil Robertson’s public statements concerning the sin of homosexuality, it is apparent that entities such as A & E  take a position that aligns with the precedent established by the Supreme Court for ALL entities, especially government or government creations (all corporations are government creations by code) in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

6. YOUR Responsibility to "Guard the Rights of Others…"

This brings us back to Phil’s statements. A&E appears to be acting on the basis that its own responsibility to "guard the rights of others" under the Supreme Court’s current understanding of the First Amendment, mandates it take Phil Robertson to task for statements made in an interview with GQ…an ENTIRELY privately contracted event, having nothing to do with A&E directly.

Gary was right. This is not a First Amendment right issue in any historic sense since private businesses may hire and fire for many things.  However, there is little if anything that is historically sound in this Supreme Court. We have a Chief Justice calling Obamacare a "tax" despite the fact our Constitution disallows anything to be called a tax if it did not first originate in the House of Representatives (not the Senate where Obamacare was first passed, a point about which even Obamacare Federal attorneys were deeply concerned before the Court).

Phil’s right to speak in a privately contracted setting can be interpreted as a violation under Chaplinsky. So far, the landmark case has not been tested on this point. But… will THIS MOST REVOLUTIONARY COURT… find enough SOCIAL HATE to construe Phil’s "free speech" – or someone like Phil – as a menace to the public peace? Of course, such a case needs a Complainant. Enter A&E… or Phil Robertson in defense of his rights … or an advocacy group(s).

…And everyone is lining up for a fight… including the NDAA.

- Submitted, Wayne C. Sedlak

Phil Robertson… Bursting a Bubble: The Illusion of Popular Support

Phil Robertson:  A Bold Stand

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty has taken a bold stand: he dared to call homosexuality "sin". However, what happened next is even more important: he got fired by the network … and his "firing" roused a firestorm of protest that shocked everyone. People across the country are enraged that he expressed his opinion (albeit somewhat graphically) and got fired. Something about 1st Amendment … something about "conscience"… and especially something about "obedience to Christ"… all play into this series of ground shaking events.

Phil Robertson: Bursting the Bubble – "The Illusion of Popular Support"

But the REAL story is emerging. The theological and political Left have always exercised their "sway" by creating what several of their "pioneers" (Nechayev, Gramschi, Lenin) all called "the illusion of popular support." In other words, they organize followers (and as many organizations as will support them) to make bold claims that imply or directly claim their positions as "majority" positions" … or lacking that they claim "moral imperatives", "’civil’ and/or ‘constitutional’ rights", "popular outrage"… all with far less than majorities on their side. Yet, their "indignation", anger and "outrage" intimidates good people into believing that such positions DO HAVE Popular support on their side.

As Gramschi and Nechayev put it… Gain the advantage by claiming victory ahead of the real victory by Creating the illusion of popular support (stated by them in various ways), in essence, winning your position in the culture long before you ever gain real victory.

Phil Robertson’s stand burst that bubble: His faithfulness caught the Left off guard… and his supporters…all who stand with him… caught the powers that be off guard as well.

In the days and weeks ahead, he WILL be attacked by every Leftist journalist, TV celebrity, and offended "Christian" who must make Phil "pay" for his stand for Christ. Dig in for the days and weeks ahead. PERSEVERE WITH PHIL AND ENCOURAGE HIM AND HIS FAMILY TO STAND … COME WHAT MAY. Please look to the side of this post and  sign up to become a Town Crier with us. We will keep you posted.

- Wayne Sedlak, ICHR (Institute for Christian Heritage Research)

 

Justice or Blood In The Streets: The Frightful Role of the Courts

And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges,

Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. 
      – II Chronicles 19: 5- 7

 

1.    VOLTAIRE STIRS A “LAUGHING” NIGHTMARE IN FRANCE… 

In 1776, one hundred thousand people attended the funeral of the once most powerful man in France… the author and satirist, Voltaire. “To name Voltaire”, said Victor Hugo, “is to characterize the entire 18th century”. His was the voice of Revolution which finally exploded upon the ancient regime in the guillotines and other genocidal horrors of the French Revolution of 1789.  Voltaire taught an entire generation there would be no end to the injustices and corruptions of government unless the people acted.

The populace learned never to expect relief in courts which took bribes and perverted justice to accommodate the political aspirations of French rulers.  Unfortunately, the corruption of the French judges and courts was proverbial, though French propagandists like Marat focused on the King and Queen, epitomizing them for all that was wrong with France.

“If we judge of men by what they have done”, wrote Lamartine, “then Voltaire is incontestably the greatest writer of modern Europe… Destiny gave him eight-three years of existence that he might slowly decompose the decayed age. He had the time to combat time, and when he fell he was the conqueror.” 

Above all else, Voltaire learned to subject his enemies – the Bourbon King and Queen, royalty, bureaucracy, judges, and clergy – to public ridicule. Get people laughing at those who rule was his aim. Nietzsche would later take his cue from Voltaire when he wrote “Laughing lions must come.” Voltaire came, and “annihilated with laughter.” 

Voltaire was “…unprepossessing, ugly, vain, flippant, obscene, unscrupulous, and dishonest” (as one famous historian characterized him) . But, above all, he was “sheer intelligence transmuting anger into fun, fire into light.”  He coached actress Mlle. Dumesnil that she must “have the very devil” in her to simulate the passion of the character he created in his play, Mérope.  “You must have the devil in you to succeed in any of the arts”, he quipped.   Napoleon once remarked “The Bourbons might have preserved themselves if they had controlled writing materials…” 

Why such venom in Voltaire?

In 1789, Parisian crowds stormed the Bastille. This was the Fortress-Prison in which Voltaire had been unjustly incarcerated by French aristocrat, the Chevalier de Rohan-Chabot, merely for an insult made toward him at an opera (December, 1725). Voltaire would go on to epitomize the Bastille as the very Symbol of Social Injustice and bureaucratic misrule for the next half century.

The crowds took “justice” into the streets and, in storming the Bastille, began to shed rivers of blood that would destroy hundreds of thousands of lives. Hell had been unleashed by Voltaire long after he was gone. Almost all of it was due to the perception that justice was defrauded in the courts for nobility and royalty.

2.    NOTE: CROWDS TOOK TO THE STREETS FOR THE INJUSTICES OF THE COURTS.

What Voltaire did was two-fold: He mocked rulers for the great injustices of society and  made the masses aware of their options. In essence, he taught them, you can depend upon the courts to stuff their own pockets and uphold “law” in favor of the upper crust of society.  In the courts you find no justice, he argued. The Storming of the Bastille and subsequent rivers of bloodshed throughout France was their response.

So, the genocide that became the French Revolution… the Bolshevik Revolution under Lenin… the Chinese Revolution under Mao, the Nazi and Fascist Revolutions under Hitler and Mussolini… were ignited by people who believed they could not expect to have their offenses settled justly in the courts of their respective societies. All these revolutions looked back on the French Revolution as their Model.

Our Lord said, “It is necessary that offenses come…” (Matt. 18: 7). The Bible warns us in Proverbs 12: 15 – “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.” People naturally gravitate to their own sense of justice and prefer to “take matters into their own hands” thereby guaranteeing for themselves their own desired goals. Given the existence of Laws of human action, we can coin this, what we may call, “Theorem of Justice (1)”: “Given the reality of offences, if people perceive – right or wrong – that they cannot expect justice in the courts, they will be sorely tempted to take their differences into the streets.”

Judges hold within their grasp the very life of a society.  In the passage above, Jehoshaphat called for judges that would never accept bribes (gifts), which is a major cause of corruption in judges tempted to pervert justice. Put simply: All societies in a fallen world must handle strife among individuals, factions, sects, institutions, and countries. Differences must be contained – confined to the forums of the courts – or man will take those offenses into the streets. The resultant bloodshed brings chaos to society… and that usually results in tyranny as people weary of chaos and call for order (martial law).

That is exactly what philosopher Voltaire understood, attacking all aspects of injustice through satire, mockery, laughter, and scorn:

"To hold a pen is to be at war!" – Voltaire to Mme. d’ Angenthal, October 4, 1748

The courts are the final SAFE place to argue “injustices” done.  Courts are the forums for settling adversarial contests.  Failing to expect justice due to the antics of corrupt judges, people will take their fight elsewhere … revenge, murder, thefts, radicalism, activism, bloodshed, avarice, deceit and shameless dishonesty. 

In advanced societies such corruption takes time to erode the confidence of the people. Former Judge Andrew J. Napolitano describes how the Supreme Court of the United States began to erode confidence in commercial affairs with its sudden change in direction in the case of Home Building & Loan Association vs. Blaisdell (1934). This FDR New Deal era decision broke from past precedents in which the Supreme Court and state courts took a “hands off” attitude to statist control of commerce. Judge Napolitano explains:

Under the Contracts Clause, the states are prohibited from interfering with obligations under private contracts. But the Supreme Court has never faithfully interpreted the clause…Despite the majority’s approval of … interference with free contracts and undue regulation of commerce, the dissenting justices remained true to the text and the spirit of the Constitution, including its prohibition on interference with contracts. In his dissent, Justice Sutherland wrote:

Whether the legislation under review is wise or unwise as a matter with which we have nothing to do. Whether it is likely to work well or work ill presents a question entirely irrelevant to the issue. The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether it is constitutional. If it is not, its virtues, if it has any, cannot save it; if it is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned (emphasis added).

Judge Napolitano went on to quote Justice Sutherland further:

Justice Sutherland wrote that the “effect of the Minnesota legislation, though serious enough in itself, is of trivial significance compared with the far more serious and dangerous inroads by the limitations of the Constitution.”

Results of this decision were staggering, as Justice Sutherland predicted:

1. The US Supreme Court allowed Minnesota banks to foreclose mortgages that were in default when in fact, there were CONTRACTUAL protections – provisions within the contracts themselves – agreed upon and designed for the protection of homeowners (as opposed to STATIST RESTRICTIONS allegedly protecting homeowners).
2. This decision was in essence, a repudiation of the Contracts Clause.  The Court was no longer concerned about keeping markets open and free. It was no longer concerned with keeping the government small. It was no longer concerned with enforcing really consented to agreements. Its new priority was “the common good” and making sure government would provide for it.
3. Businesses could no longer trust the courts to protect their contracts due to this decision. When the courts do not protect business contracts, business investment “dries up” as owners and investors flee the public market to protect themselves from the unpredictability of the “justice system”. In other words, the courts send a signal to the economy and many investors refuse to further invest scarce economic capital into the economy. Jobs dry up. Products and services diminish. Bread lines form. Infrastructure of the economy withers. It should be noted here that the economy does not diminish due to some strange phenomenon hovering over “capitalism”. What occurs is simple: the judges make justice unpredictable.

Who wants to put scarce economic resources into society in which the rule of law becomes flimsy, unpredictable, and worse – corrupt?

Given the fact there are laws of human action, we can proffer this Theorem of Justice (2): “When justice fails, or is perceived to be headed toward failure, people will not invest in business creation and development. The economy falters or actually fails, due to political and judicial injustices.”

Ah… and FDR and his Congress couldn’t figure out why they couldn’t jumpstart the economy of the Depression. They made it such a mystery. “The failure of Capitalism”, they mused. So they continued to stack more and more taxes upon the beleaguered shoulders of businesses already overwhelmed by costs and shrinking markets. They further exasperated the business sector with regulatory bureaucracies, red tape and draconian penalties adding EXTREME RISK to an already debilitated economic environment. And FDR and his handwringing Congress couldn’t figure out why the economy “remained depressed”. Must’ve been something in the water.

Of course, the “interpreting” function of the courts was supposed to “kick in” here and say, “Stop! This is Unconstitutional!”  No… sad to say, they went right along with most of it.

And behold the wonder of it all. The Resident of the White House just can’t figure out why the job market is shrinking (Remember, government jobs are NOT reflective of any PERMANENT economic infrastructural growth, since they are politically arranged positions, and temporary. They were not brought about by the laws of human action normally referenced as “demand” and “supply”.). The Resident and his version of a handwringing Congress find it an “inscrutable mystery” as to why jobs are shrinking, and few are being added… especially when the business sector perceives an ENORMOUS TAXING AUTHORITY imposing ENORMOUS HEALTH CARE COSTS on the beleaguered shoulders of businesses already overwhelmed by costs and shrinking markets (Ah… but I repeat myself from the FDR era).

In other words, the economy took repeated hits because the politics of the courts were unjust. Not the kind of business environment that would ATTRACT investors.

The creation of new businesses, inventions, innovative and useful products and services, IS the most important area of economic development. It is, by far, the most important area of INVESTMENTS…. as opposed to the media’s propagandized misuse of the term “investment”. Media and public education have trained people to think that stocks, bonds, derivatives, commodities, real estate and the like constitute “investments”. But the reality is, businesses – particularly small businesses – are the backbone of a healthy economy and are the major, most vital investment our economy can receive.

In 1890, the road was paved for the 1934 Blaisdell decision by the Supreme Court in which the Court suggested it would allow the state to interfere with a private contract by invoking a “valid police purpose”. In this case, the Court dismissed the Founders’ clearly stated intent in the Contracts Clause as being irrelevant. Chief Justice Hughes wrote.

"It is no answer…To insist that the provision of the Constitution meant to the vision of that day, it must mean to the vision of our time."
                                  

Again, as Judge Napolitano points out, “This is the strongest statement of its kind ever made in constitutional history” because the “Court explicitly held that the Founders intent is irrelevant in the interpretation of constitutional language and thus the meaning of the fundamental law of the land changes with each generation.”

Just as staggering, was a 1920 Supreme Court decision which has set precedent down to the current court. In a comparatively trivial issue involving some environmental issues, that Court, in its decision Missouri vs. Holland, set the precedent that all treaties with foreign nations supersede federal and state law, in essence, putting them on a par with the Constitution. The decision circumvented the more difficult Amendment Process outlined in the Constitution, allowing treaties with foreigners-who – have – no – care – nor –stake in our constitutional heritage, to practically amend our Constitution out from under us! And the Court called that “the original intent” of our Founders.

Hypothetically then, after fighting a war with Great Britain in 1776, our Founders could’ve made a treaty with their enemy Great Britain. That done, had they been guided by the rational accorded them by the 1920 Supreme Court, our Founders would happily have set such a treaty side-by-side with the Constitution they labored to produce as a fruit of their independence from Great Britain.

Actually, that is precisely what the 1920 Supreme Court did. The treaty was with Great Britain and that treaty has allowed, quite literally, the rewriting and overhauling of federal and state law since that time. An additional problem here rears its ugly head by the fact that, with the signing of a Treaty, only the Senate and the President need pass on it. The House of Representatives is left out of the Treaty passing process. In some respects therefore, it is much easier to sign a Treaty with a foreign body, then it is to get a bill through BOTH Houses of Congress! It is CERTAINLY now much easier to get a Treaty through the Senate AND make it the supreme law of the land than it is to have a bill go through Congress AND make it an Amendment to the Constitution.

That’s what happens when Lawyer – Justices manipulate laws out of ambition, greed, or stupidity (or worse). As an important side note, the United States is signatory to the United Nations. And in the spring of this year 2013, that same United Nations passed a gun bill. So, are you comfortable with how well protected your Second Amendment really is today, as provided by the Supreme Court?

If you’re wondering that the lessons of the “Theorems of Justice” herein stated, are lost to the thinking of our rulers, the powers that be have purchased enormous stocks of ammunition. Do you wonder what they’re afraid of? And if they suspect that many people would (God forbid!) “Take it to the streets”, why aren’t they doing something to rectify the problems being created by both bureaucracy and courts? Ignorance and stupidity are no longer proper tags put on our rulers. They are “in sin” WITH KNOWLEDGE. That is called in the Bible “hardness of heart”.

In contrast, up until the late 19th century, American courts relied upon a Christian ethic to guide them. This statement is one of the most famous in all judicial history. It is an observation made by Alexis de Tocqueville, a European who visited America and noted the tremendous impact Christianity made upon all aspects of our culture. He wrote:

While I was in America, a witness called at the assizes of the County of Chester (state of New York) declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to allow him to be sworn in, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all possible confidence in his testimony.

                              

God warns us several times in His Word that the office of a “judge” (judicial branch of civil government) is one which Represents Him directly. It is an office that carries so much weight, has so much authority, and issues forth with such impact on society that He warns judges (in the passage cited above) “…ye judge not for man, but for the Lord who is with you in judgment.” Elsewhere He says,

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

Given laws of human action, we can coin this Theorem of Justice (3): “Justice is impossible unless God is represented by Judges who are expected to be just, upright and courageous against evil; their power to judge is taken by Him as a direct reflection of His Character.”

Judges have the fearsome power of “interpretation” and thus, “adjudication” of the laws. It is that interpretation that either nullifies or guarantees application of any legislation purportedly designed for the well-being of a people.  He who interprets thereby holds the power of society’s preservation, peace and safety in his hands. Voltaire subjected everything about the ancient regime to ridicule thereby providing real interpretation and subjecting the antics, corruptions, and authorities to man’s scorn. No one believed in the rule of law or expected to find justice in the courts of France. Voltaire interpreted for an entire generation. But he could only assume the mantle of that authority due to the self-defrocking of judges who were no longer trusted to interpret justly.

We can thereby coin yet another Theorem of Justice (4): “He who interprets, holds the ultimate standard for application.”

Every pastor knows he holds the fearsome power to interpret when he ascends the pulpit. It is that power that governs the applications made by so many people. However, as powerful as that is, pastors do not hold the fearsome power of the civil sword. Judges do.  They adjudicate between parties and put down one party, upholding another. This twofold action – upholding one, discounting the other – is called Judgment in the Bible.

Judges are called by God to make certain that “justice” is rooted in the land.  Thus, God specifically identifies the role of the Judge as that which REPRESENTS Him in Judgment!  Failure to bring “just Judgment” into society is to put society in jeopardy of its very life as a society.

Thus we have this Theorem of Justice (5): “Judges cannot allow the courts to fail of justice due to corruption or ineptitude. They must be Masters of Law, uprooting the unjust party and upholding the just party in any action of court. Judgment is this two-fold action.”

Our Supreme Court has created a great turmoil in society with the Obama Health care ruling. New York Times writer Adam Liptik wrote at the time concerning the cynicism of Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy “… who had been thought to be the [Obama] Administration’s best hope to provide a fifth vote to uphold the law, joined three more conservative members in an unusual jointly written dissent that said the court should have struck down the entire law. The majority’s approach, he said from the bench, “amounts to a vast judicial overreaching.”

Worse, Chief Justice Roberts treated the penalties of the law as if the law were written as a tax and voted for the law, swinging the Court to a 5 – 4 decision to uphold it. Amazingly, while voting for its “constitutionality” on the basis that it was a tax, Article I, section 7 of the Constitution says that all bills that raise revenue (taxes) must originate in the House of Representatives. This one didn’t. As a Health Care Tax it originated in the Senate.

How? Let me explain how some lawyers, politicians and prosti… uh, that’s enough… think.

As an original “shell bill”, it was a tax concerning the military. As such, it wasn’t Obama’s “O-Care” bill that originated in the House; it was a military tax bill. As a bill before the House, it was given a number.

In other words, another tax bill of a completely different kind, began in the House and it concerned the military. But Senate Leader Harry Reid’s sleight of hand adopted the bill’s NUMBER, erased the language of that bill and “penciled in” O-Care. That’s why it’s called a “shell bill” (Note the nickname here given it in the records of… CONGRESS!).  What he did would be like taking this Position Paper – erasing in its entirety – but because it was already proffered as a Position Paper (given a number) but not yet made public, a whole new Position Paper is written in its place, say… one entitled: “Judges Get –A – Bye – On – Being – Good".

Now you know why I don’t number these Position Papers.

Of course, in their infernal wisdom, many lawyers invariably play legal games, toying with law and its interpretation. Law is sacred, according to the Bible. ALL law is sacred because it is called forth to represent God as a grant of authority from Him (Romans 13:1ff). But, such lawyers and politicians too often feel smug about the “legalities” they’ve creatively finagled. However, they miss the much more important lesson …“if people perceive – right or wrong – that they cannot expect justice in the courts, they will be sorely tempted to take their differences to the streets.” (Again, I repeat myself). Such lawyers trade public confidence for personal ambition and legalese, putting society in harm’s way. This is the reason Scripture calls such men “bloody men”.

So, do you think the people will RESPECT law as sacred when such “games” are played? Does such a “shell bill” give the impression that the Constitution is an inviolable Covenant and their individual oaths to uphold its spirit and letter means anything to these legislators? Theorem of Justice (6): “Oath-bound judges and rulers are called to keep the spirit of the Law as well as the ‘letter of the law’”.

For those of you who may be tempted to believe that Jesus somehow put aside “oath-taking” (See Matthew 5: 33-37), let’s see what He said: 

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Christ “upped the ante” by INCREASING the oath bound authority of our words: Our speech is to be certain. Our speech is our oath. But, in a forum like a court, where witnesses swear to the Truth of their testimony, the Scriptures tell us that to perjure themselves is to bring severe penalty upon themselves.

And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. – Deut. 19:19

Theorem of Justice (7): “Oaths were not designed by God to increase the “truth-value” of a statement. Oaths are designed to increase the SANCTIONS for false testimony so that society can more readily depend upon the word of any witness.”

3.    TAKE HEED … FOR YOU JUDGE NOT FOR MAN, BUT FOR THE LORD WHO IS WITH YOU IN THE JUDGMENT.”

Judgment is God’s. He gives a grant of authority to mankind. Government, being a gift of God, is designed to REPRESENT GOD in its Goodness, Mercy, and Redemptive Love. The Second Commandment warns all people that God is to be Represented Correctly at all times, in His Character – including Justice, Righteousness, and Truth (not just in worship!). The fact that very few individuals believe government to be a gift of God testifies to the knowledge that the courts and more generally “government” plays fast and loose with its control over the persons and resources of those under its sway.

Since there is no kindness or carefulness, it loses its divine sanction. It becomes the mere toy of men. People lose respect for such “law” which becomes more like an abusive parent than servant of the people.  So, for loss of justice, people feel a deep bitterness and singular distrust. Therefore the Presence of the Laws of Human Action embedded with the Image of God within us understand justice defrauded and goodness thwarted:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves.

The role of the judge in the courts is one of the most frightening of powers, if misused. People understand the propensity toward the truth of this precept of Scripture: “Every man did what was right in his own eyes …”

The injustices of a court, its playful misuse of law, sends a message to the heart of man, “There is no justice. Life is a grab-bag. Take all you want.”

-    Respectfully submitted, Wayne C. Sedlak, ICHR for Vision Viewpoint

DOWNLOAD THE POSITION PAPER "JUSTICE OR BLOOD IN THE STREETS" HERE

 

Wisconsin County Sheriff Boldly Defends 2nd Amendment

Protecting the Constitution

Sheriff Dale Schmidt Boldly Defends the 2nd AmendmentTo Washington County Residents,  
                                               
Recent comments on gun control by Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn highlight, for me, a problem with law enforcement in this country.  Too often, law enforcement leaders confuse all citizens with criminals, and see themselves as “kings” of their jurisdiction instead of employees of the people.

In 2009, when Wisconsin’s Attorney General issued his advisory memo on open carry, it created little discussion within my department.  That is because we already knew it was legal and protected by the Constitution.  Chief Flynn’s position quoted from JSOnline was, “my message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.”  Sounds like a man who makes no distinction between law abiding citizens and criminals.  That is one example, but I believe other law enforcement leaders operate under the “end justifies the means” policing model, Constitution be damned.

Law enforcement in America was never supposed to be about “ruling the people.”  We are hired by “the people” to do that part of crime fighting they cannot do themselves.  The citizens never gave up their protection against unlawful search of their persons, or seizure of their property, or the right to own guns and defend themselves, in that process.  Does that make it harder to ferret out the criminals amongst us and arrest them?  Yes it does, but it is how we protect our free society from a tyrannical government.  I believe Chief Flynn is truly concerned about the safety of his officers, but law abiding citizens are not the threat, and any law to improve officer safety must first be Constitutional.

The way it is supposed to work, is that the citizens elect people to run the government.  Those elected people then hire police chiefs and officers to enforce society’s laws within the confines of the Constitution.  In the case of Sheriffs, the people elect them directly.  Either way, we are allaccountable to the people, we are not their rulers.  The law abiding people are on our side and we should be focused on protecting their Constitutional rights, not limiting them!  How did this get so backward?

The assertion, by President Obama, Senator Feinstein and Chief Flynn, that if certain types of guns or features of guns are banned, then violent crime will go away, is a fantasy.  More importantly, they should not even be talking about it because the people hired them to protect that right.  We should be talking about how to identify and stop people before they commit mass murders.  We should be talking about why criminals remain on the street after multiple convictions for violent crimes.  And we should be talking about how to change the sub-culture in this country that places no value on human life or personal responsibility.

Every American was appalled when they learned Adam Lanza inexplicably killed 20 children in their own classroom.  But President Obama showed no leadership when he immediately took the focus to banning guns.  That “kingly” position, shared by Senator Feinstein and Chief Flynn, essentially blames any American who supports the 2nd Amendment for those deaths, and excuses the perpetrator.

What if after Sandy Hook, President Obama had said, “this is bad; dangerous people are committing mass killings in public places, drug addicts are robbing banks, pharmacies and gas stations, and the Drug Cartels are operating in our central city neighborhoods.  The violence in this country is more than our law enforcement people can handle right now.  We work for you, and we need your help.”   Might that have produced something more positive for this country than a threat to turn half its citizens into criminals for owning guns?

Rotten and disturbed individuals commit violent crimes, and that is where law enforcement leaders need to focus their energies.  We were elected and hired by the people, and then took an oath to protect their Constitutional rights.  I suggest we try a fresh angle on violent crime by inviting the law abiding public to be a part of the solution instead of carpet bombing their individual rights.  It would do Sheriffs, Chiefs and the President well to remember Sir Robert Peel’s 7th Principle of Policing:

 

  Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Mr. President, Chief, it’s time to trust the People, not rule them.

Dale K. Schmidt, Sheriff ( email)
Washington County, WI

  03-08-2013

If anyone has articles of public officials like this one PLEASE send them on to us. We all need to be supportive of those who Interpose on our behalf. God bless you…

-    Wayne Sedlak, ICHR for VisionViewpoint

 

Next Page »