The Rise of the Lawless Tyrant

The pathway of Tyranny in developed nations is so well-worn that little children can trace the steps. Defeat laws with lies designed for the simple. Ridicule the law abiding with shameless defamation. Never apologize.

President Obama has not “circumvented” congress with his 2012 “executive” amnesty order; he defied congress. Worse, while his economic ideas are so incompetent that one suspects sabotage, Obama’s order is crafty. Can the American votestalinrs tell the difference between an immigration reform plan many want and a reckless abuse of power? Can congress find adequate measures to reign in the executive branch and hold it accountable?

There are a couple of responses that congress might make. The first should be a national voter ID requirement. The second should be a resolution of censure, censuring the Obama administration for issuing illegal orders and taking unconstitutional actions.

The resolution of censure might include a sermon such as this: “Free markets harnesses self-interest through the rule of law. Without the rule of law, liberty, prosperity, and, ultimately, peace must fail. There cannot be limited government without the rule of law. There cannot be private property without the rule of law. The president must be censured as the open enemy of law and, by consequence, American liberty!”

The rights of property form the locus of all civil law. To extinguish the rights of property and to take what is left of our property, the rule of law must also be extinguished. This is the aim of every Marxist. What remains is tyranny, totalitarianism, and dictatorship. Caesars and Napoleons arise as common law is vanquished beneath the unbridlcastroed self-interest of the “strong.” The bait in the tyrant’s bait and switch scheme is always powerful and always a lie. For example, Obama’s dictatorial order may result is a fine policy for some of the children of illegal immigrants who have lost their native lands because of their thoughtless parents and the failure of America to enforce their own laws. The result for these children, under these circumstances will be a lie. Their new home will be no better than the lands their parents fled! This too will be a land devoid of law, of liberty, and, ultimately, prosperity.

To undermine the American way of life, tyrants must vanquish the rule of law, the heart of American liberty. This administration has purposely done just that. It has:

  • made recess appointments when congress was not in recess.
  • engaged in hostile acts of war without the consent or consultation of congress, a consent it could have received.
  • obamarefused to enforce our election laws by ignoring voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Movement.
  • resisted the laws of the several states that require a simple voter identification before offering a ballot; thereby, clearly inviting illegal immigrants to vote.
  • used the courts to retard the use of fossil fuels in a manner consistent with International Treaties the senate has refused to authorize.
  • shown contempt for the constitutional congressional oversight of federal agencies whose incompetence has cost American and Mexican lives.
  • unlawfully prosecuted states that have initiated laws that require the executive branch to enforce the will of congresses past and present, and, in so doing, has acted in direct contradiction of the will of past and present congresses.
  • begun to demand that private corporations bidding for government contracts reveal, under pain of perjury, their private political contributions.
  • prepared to use taxpayer funding for partisan propaganda on policy issues without the consent of congress.
  • forbidden private insurance companies from informing private customers about the affect of the “Affordable” Care Act on insurance premiums.
  • potentially committed high treason by leaking sensitive top secret information about current security operations.
  • openly announced it’s abdication of executive responsibility to effectively defend the will of the people in our courts.

But the executive branch is not alone in its egregious lawless appropriation of power. It couldn’t be. What about thehitler Harry Reid Senate that has, for years, knowingly abdicated its responsibility to pass a budget so that its immeasurable deficit spending can go on as secretly as possible? The congressional Democrats have been and continue to stand and cheer for the lawless White House that swears to circumvent their own constitutional authority. Only the 2014 elections offer any glimmer of hope that half our nation has not become a pig sty of corrupt, lawless, thuggery.

The congressional enemies of law are not alone in their arrogance. They are confirmed in their vile drunken acts of treachery by our lawless federal courts. Starting in California the federal courts have made a joke of the will of the people regarding the sacred heritage of their right to marry.* What about the lawless Federal Reserve Banks that steal the retirement funds of the elderly by “easing” lending rates making interest on savings and basic bond accounts yield less than the rate of inflation?

In a lawless environment, only partisanship matters. Then the only partisan that matters is oneself: envy, hate, personal riches, and limitless power become the law, and the American way of life is vanquished. From this tyranny arises, and we are Israel in Egypt.

mosesThe rule of law is bi-partisan. No matter what one’s point of view, every American has a stake in personal honesty. You laugh? It’s been gone so long, you say, that no one even knows what the rule of law looks like? You may be right. Our current lawless political realities didn’t happen overnight, but perhaps it can change in a season. May a leader  with dawn in his eyes and with the wind of the Truth at his back arise. It’s happened before. It can happen again.

*This sounds backwards, but consider this example: If the courts redefined free speech as taxation, the right to free speech would be gone. Perhaps, a government court might argue that all citizens have a right to free speech and therefore, as citizens, the obligation to pay taxes. Anyone who did not meet the obligation of taxation would not have the right to free speech. The same holds true of marriage. If a marriage is no longer a marriage, that is, if a marriage is no longer a contract based on a biological union, then the historic right to marry has been abolished (see previous article: “California Supreme Justice: The word ‘marriage’ not important to the ‘right to marry.’)

When a Tax is Not a Tax and a Marriage is not a Marriage

When the “congress of one,” Justice Roberts, voted with four other “judges” for the most massive takeover of the private economy ever, his reasoning pivoted on a lie. Not only did Roberts change the spelling of fine to ‘t-a-xroberts,’ but he also rewrote the U. S Constitution: no constitutional tax can arise from the Senate, even in a budget reconciliation conference.

Far worse, however, is the implementation of the first “tax” in history based on what a person doesn’t do. We are taxed on income we earn only because we work. When we pay a sales tax, we are taxed on what we choose to buy. Even the inheritance tax is based on the act of bequeathing one’s wealth. But the Obamacare “tax” is not like any other; it’s a tax on what we don’t do. The Obamacare tax is a singular monstrosity because a fine masquerading as  a a tax is another legalized lie.

The gospel of relativism has again led to lawlessness. Our laws, our constitutional system is now meanObamacare (1)ingless when it comes to federal power over our lives. From law is liberty. From relativism: tyranny.

Relativism’s gospel: “Oh, don’t worry yourselves over the details. Thinking is too much trouble. Everything will be fine. Just follow along”; then the cuffs are on, the door is latched, and the last light of liberty is gone.

The Supreme Court has just given the federal government the power to tax us if we don’t buy yogurt. We wouldn’t have to eat the yogurt, but we would have to buy it. The Supreme Court has just given the federal government the right to tax us if we don’t go to a privately operated fitness center. We don’t have to do anything once we get there, but we do have to report and sit around for three hours a week. If we don’t, we pay a tax.

America has surrendered a series of natural rights to its courts recently. For instance, we have a right to secure our own borders, but the courts just told Arizona that they must give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. We have a natural right to marry as we choose, but in several states, like the word “tax” the word “marriage” has been destroyed. If a marriage is not a marriage, then, like “tax,” it is whatever the government says it is.

If a marriage is not a sacred contract between two people based on the natural right and ability to form a sexual union, then what is it? It’s whatever the nice government tells us it is. Maybe, since a real marriage is just about love, a marriage is only a marriage if the members of the compact are loving enough to enroll in the gold health care helpprogram, a very special program that has clear dietary regulations and aerobic achievement goals. It is certain that since a real marriage is “love” that no legally sanctioned marriage would ever use the terms “husband” and “wife” because that is so insensitive.

Natural rights are part of who we are has humans. They’ve existed before governments and empires. They exist as great civilizations fall into ruin and as others arise. Governments can’t take them away. Tyrannies can only go to war against our humanity. Our natural rights are like life and conscience. They are each person’s privilege. They are everyone’s responsibility.  What is far worse and far more dangerous than that we’ve allowed ourselves to be dehumanized by surrendering a host of natural rights over the last decade is this: our government has sought to take those rights away. Any government that wants to take such liberty from its citizens has aligned itself against the will of the Creator Himself who designed all mankind with the liberty to seek Him freely and enjoy His gifts.

When a tax is Not a tax and a marriage is not a marriage, it’s tyranny.

Dehumanized Marriage is Not a Party

Dehumanized marriage, gay marriage, is often touted as progress of some sort. Many seem to feel that a dehumanized marriage is like “letting everyone be part of the party.” Dehumanized marriage is not a party; it’s an invitation to tyranny.

Marriage, “a joining,” is a mutual commitment based on a biological union. While indeed, marriage is a “celebration” of this commitmarrriage 4ment, here the word “celebration” is not a party. Instead, the celebration sets aside a relationship between two people as unique because of the mutual decision to form a biological, sexual union. Whether or not children arise from this biological union, this union, marriage, is a commitment based on biological realities.

Marriage is both a natural right and a constitutional right. It’s a natural right because it is utterly independent of governments. Legitimate governments, though, as with all natural rights, are responsible for recognizing and protecting the humanizing reality of marriage. Indeed, in our recent constitutional past, courts have found this to be the case. In 1967, in 1978, and in 1987 the Supreme Court rightly found that marriage, understood in essence as, “the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, …[obliging] them to live together throughout life,” is not only a natural right, but a fundamental right inherent in the liberties our constitution obliges our government to note and protect.

Everyone knows that marriage is no picnic, but neither is it an adult prom, a special chance to be recognized by friends and family as part of the traditional flow of society. American laws are based on nearly eight hundred years of cartawar demanding, protecting, and transmitting natural rights and liberties. There must be some other way to make same sex couples feel welcome in society than by purposely undermining the core reality of natural rights that forms the foundation of Western law and civilization.

Doug Mainwaring, a gay Tea-Party activist, once called the marriage equality movement an “un-defining” of marriage. He was exactly right. This “un-defining” is an insidious destruction, not only of marriage, but of the limited government a free people must demand. While marriage, like conscience, is as lasting as our humanity itself, limited government relies on the rule of law. As Marxism has “un-defined” property and thievery, so our judicial system has been bearing the national chest to the storm, begging the lightning to strike. By dehumanizing our marriages and families, we declare ourselves mindless, mewing cattle ready for the avarice of tyrants.

Some of even the most patriotic Americans don’t really understand either the legal or spiritual history of marriage. magna-carta1For instance, one brief before the Ninth Circuit brief read: “At the heart of this case are two competing conceptions of marriage. The traditional conception…holds that.. its [marriage’s] central purpose…is to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation.”

The carriage is before the horse! Children and a strong family are but a benefit of maintaining a marriage. It’s the fruit, not the tree. Our judiciary must be unceasingly reminded of their Constitutional responsibility to uphold the natural right to marry and all other natural rights.

Un-defining a right denies that right. If we have a right to marry, but the word “marriage” is meaningless, we have a right to nothing. A society that suppresses, ignores, or devalues any natural right will reap the whirlwind.

More will be impacted than the state of children in dehumanized “marriages.” If our government cannot be trusted to tell the truth about marriage, it can’t be trusted to tell the truth on anything. Why should we unfetter gmarriage 3overnment from its obligations to guard our inherent liberties? Would we willing allow the federal judiciary to un-define the right to bear arms? Perhaps the right to bear sharp Frisbees is liberty enough for a free people.

Any government that does not recognize and protect natural, unalienable rights is an unnatural evil. Why? Because that government’s entire mission statement has become corrupted. Legitimate governments only exist by virtue of their charter to recognize and protect the naturally arising, unalienable, inherent rights of every person.

Our founders rejected the early tenets of evolution expressed by the Enlightenment (see Thomas Jefferson On Intelligent Design), and, instead, felt that these inherent rights were evidence of the will of the Supreme Judge of the world. Any government that is “destructive of these ends” is, therefore, not only without legitimate authority, but also at war with Divine Providence.

Those Earning $400,000 a Year aren’t Marx’s Rich

The president of the Chicago teachers’ union’s comments about beheading the rich, when taken with Obama’s desire to de-capitalize those making $400,000, shows a misunderstanding of the French Revolution and its importance to Marxist doctrine about the rich. In America, by Marx’s own standards, those making $400,000 a year are not the rich, evil, bourgeoisie.

guillotine3[1]Bourgeoisie is a term for a social class during the French Revolution that eventually became the enemy of every good Communist. Marx claimed that the bourgeoisie of the French revolution, the talented, but far from rich members of the French 3rd estate, evolved through industrialization into the evil, crony-capitalist, monopolistic, ruling rich that workers (the proletariat) must destroy. Marx’s post-industrial evil bourgeoisie had a single distinguishing characteristic: they owned the means of production.

Of course, today, most free market types recognize that any monopoly is counter productive, but Marx had a far better solution than deregulation. His was much like Karen Lewis’ “off with their heads!” Karen should be warned though, after the French Revolutionary ruling committee, the one with Orwellian name: the Committee of Public Safety, was done beheading the members of the French 1st and 2nd estates, they went after everyone else for almost anything else. They were sort of prototypes for Mau Tse-Tung and Joseph Stalin.

Dear Marxists everywhere, this is not a coincidence. Whether you read Edmund Burke or Friedrich von Hayek, the reality is this: the rights of property protect us all. To unmake the foundational relationship between a law-abiding man’s work and his earnings destroys the fabric of law, and leaves only lawless tyranny. But I digress. Back to whom Karen Davis and Obama ought to be beheading according to the purist Marxist doctrine.

Karen ought to be beheading those who own the means of production, for they are Marx’s evil rich. They are the French 1st and 2nd estate. They are also, as Karen sort of alluded to when she said:  “… there is one party in this country – that is, the party of money, with two branches…” By this she seems to mean that today’s political elite are the modern bourgeoisie. In this she was talking Marxist doctrine, for the French 2nd estate were those who were exempt from the taxes and the rules the rest of France had to live by. Today these are elected officials, judicial appointees, lobbyists and all the political bureaucrats currently eating us out of house and home.

Karen, though, like far too many modern American Marxists, in the spirit of the Reign of Terror, has redefined the bourgeoisie, the “rich” in search of more victims for the tax guillotine.  Karen and Obama need to review American class structure, not according to yearly salary, but according to the characteristics described by Marx.

********

There are two leisure classes in modern America, the lower class and the upper class. Both classes exert tremendous control over the means of production. The entire working class is the middle class.

The American middle class itself can be broken down into the Upper-Middle Class, Middle Class, and the Lower-Middle Class. Daumier BourgeoisAmerica’s upper middle class are the skilled artisans and traders of the Middle Ages. These are not the land holders of medieval society, nor are they the bourgeoisie of the industrial society that spawned Marx’s analysis.

The American lower-middle class are unskilled workers who, in many ways, are similar to the Marxist proletariat. Unlike a true proletariat, the American lower-middle class worker can develop marketable skills. Some will and some won’t.

The core of the American middle class are the semi-skilled or highly educated class. This class is dependent on institutional structures for their social status. Not everyone can succeed in America’s bureaucracies, but most can. This group is exemplified by policemen, teachers, military officers, college professors, and tax collectors. These are not the pure capitalists of Marxist ideology, for they don’t control the means of production and, independently, they produce nothing of value. Members of the modern Committee of Public Safety, often found in our institutions of higher learning, want to call these middle class Americans the upper-middle class. This is for two reasons: first, it makes intellectuals feel better to call themselves the upper-middle class, and, secondly, this allows the political class to argue that all evil comes from doctors, lawyers, and pizza franchise owners. Conveniently, this allows both of these subgroups of the middle class to avoid responsibility for their own monumental failures. But when the characteristics of each class are considered, it is plain that, in America, $400,000 a year makes you part of the working upper-middle class.

America’s upper-middle class are skilled workers. This class is exemplified by doctors, certain kinds of engineers, computer programmers, and those capable of sophisticated repair work. Likewise, lawyers, and those skilled in business investment or organization are members of this class. These individuals can prosper without the help of a bureaucratic organization or a union. This financially mobile upper-middle class produces services that are independently valuable. In America, these upper middle class members do not control the means of production; they are the means of production.

Doctors are the CEO’s of their small businesses because they produce the essential services first hand. Even the investors and entrepreneurs at this level often invest borrowed money. Part of their skill involves presenting and selling business plans to those who do own the means of production. Like the doctor, their ability to recognize value and market share means they quarterback a team of workers that, together, produce value.

America’s upper middle class are the skilled artisans and traders of the Middle Ages. These are not the land holders of medieval society, nor are they the bourgeoisie of the industrial society that spawned Marx’s analysis. Even though some of these may break the $400,000 per year mark, they are not the classic Marxist bourgeoisie.

Within this group are also those in the entertainment business such as actors and professional athletes. These later groups, like salesmen, may produce income in short, intense bursts. To be properly understood within the American cartelclass structure, an athlete’s or an entertainer’s yearly income should be amortized over the lifespan of the earner.

The bourgeoisie, those of inherited leisure who control the means of production in America are not those who gain status within the bureaucracy of the banks, they are the bankers we don’t see. Likewise, the leisure class are not those who are working their way up in a Wall Street firm, those of inherited leisure are the massive invisible, individual investors. While Americans who live by interest on their bonds and the dividends of their stock are the leisure upper class, the true haute bourgeoisie, those who hold the means of all production in the industrialized West, are those who provide fossil fuels.

The failure to truly explain class structure in America using Marxist language, has allowed the word “rich” to be demagogued. For instance, while statistics become susceptible to great error when taxable income is the question, it does seem that in any one year, those who make more than $400,000 can’t be greater than 4 or 5 % of the population. But it is a often a different 4 or 5 % every year. The years an American breaks $400,000 are often the years of his “bumper crop.” These are the best years of the entrepreneur’s life. From these years of peak salary and production, an upper-middle class member lays the basis for buying the means of production back from China or Saudi Arabia. To tax the upper middle class of America is to practice the Bush doctrine of preemption, not on terrorists, but on “the rich.”

moneyObama and Lewis must remember that Marx lumps the teachers and the business owners together as the petite bourgeoisie. Unless these two want Fascism, as good Marxists they must support the unity of these to strata of society against the truly evil rich, the 1st and 2nd estates in the French Revolution and the haute bourgeoisie of industrialization.

Ironically, the French thought they were America. At first, the French were applauded by the English liberals for their glorious rout of tyranny; ultimately, as the Reign of Terror ignited, even the best liberals were utterly disillusioned. From the beginning, however, the French Revolution was condemned by Edmund Burke. The strength of Burke’s conservatism was his ability to distinguish the failed elements of the French Revolution from the tyrant shaking ideals of America.

If Liberals want to be disillusioned, they will ignore this Marxist analysis of American class structure and charge forward, taxing everyone that has more money than the leisure lower class. Ultimately, we could all end up not only a proletariat from Marx’s demented dreams, but a starving serfdom in a medieval fiefdom.

Marx’s Plot to Destroy the Nuclear Family More Horrible than his Economics

Spreading the wealth around is an idea at least as old as Karl Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program in which he wrote: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” To Marx this notion was a transitional principle leading to the workers’ paradise. His economic ideas are utterly nonsensical and have caused poverty and slavery wherever they’ve been tried. Even more sinister than an “economic system” based on lies that appeal to human jealousy and greed was Marx’s methods and plans for dismembering the hub of economic liberty: the nuclear family. As wicked as Marx’s appeal to the masses of the “downtrodden” were, even more base was his appeal for “a community of women.”

As part of the “dictatorship of the working class,” Marx desired that there would be no wealth to spread around. Marx wanted to abolish “capital.” That is, Marx envisioned abolishing the means to relate to others in terms of employer and wage earner.

marx

It was an idea that never worked very well. Why? Have you noticed the flaw in Marxist logic? If there is no capital, there can be no wage earners, or, in other words, no jobs. Therefore, Marxism leads to the absence of wealth!

Oddly, illogical notions don’t work in the real world. Because of the failure of these Marxist ideas in practice (as well as on the drawing board), one almost suspects the motivation of anyone in any government who proposes them.

On one level the motivation seems plain. The appeal of Marxism can be outwardly pleasant. When we humans don’t get what they want, it feels very unfair to us. It is easy to demand fairness instead of responsibility. It’s even easier to promise to make things fair by making a gift of someone else’s property to those who desire “fairness.” Nevertheless, considering how little clear thinking it takes to recognize the absurdity of Marxism, one must wonder about the cynicism of its proponents.

Marx also had some interesting notions about marriage. The Manifesto reads: “Bourgeois marriage is (because of rampant infidelity), in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed (system of free love), an openly legalized community of women.”

For Marx any force that disrupted one’s marriage was part of the plan for a worker’s paradise. The nuclear family appeared to be a threat to the communist theorist. Again the manifesto reads: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”  At any rate, once capital had been destroyed, of nature the workers RedWhiteparadise would feature no mothers and no fathers. In addition to the revolutionary party’s “community of women” Marx felt that public schools were the key to destroying the nuclear family. He was almost right about this, but marriage proved tougher than he thought. Since marriage exists prior to governments, it will endure when governments fail. Government schools can resist marriage, but cannot prevail against this God-given human ability because it is part of what people are.

Although Marx claimed that “the bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation,” he was wrong about that as well. No, it would be a hundred and fifty years before the Supreme Court of the United States did this. Although married folk pay SCOTUS no mind, it begs the question: what kind of judicial system is it that wants to reduce marriage to a definition only ever imagined by Karl Marx? What kind of “justice” system hates what we are as people to such a fanatical degree?

A careful read of the Communist Manifesto will reveal its ambitious aims to amass the power of the state in the hands of the few. This, not a workers’ paradise, is what it has always achieved for those who have used its perverse arguments to their advantage. If you wonder why America has struggled since the late fifties, consider some of the other preconditions for Marxist communism that he first set out in 1847. Precondition #2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Precondition #3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Precondition #10: Free education for all children in public schools.

By the way, some wondered whether the United States bank bailout plan would work. It did, but not, of course as wealth of nationsadvertised. Interestingly, here is the fifth of the ten Marxist preconditions for a workers paradise first outlined in the Communist Manifesto: “Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” It all depends on what one means by “work.” Anyone who knew the history and failures of Marxist theory, would have been certain that the bailout plan would not produce wealth. However, if one hates the United States because of its international prestige, its great abundance, and its liberties, and, as a student of Marxism, has been awaiting a crisis of capital to forward the communist agenda for the express purpose of ruining the wealth of nations, this bailout worked perfectly. Small investors cannot earn interest. Centralized banks make trillions by simply recycling Federal Reserve green backs.

Marx’s opposition to The Wealth of Nations is plain. Poverty is the inevitable result of his precepts. His ideas about family are equally astute.

Relativism, Rome, Homosexuality, and the Fall of the West

The Archetype of American Wisdom

The elite Roman moralists, Virgil and Cicero, cited the agrarian lifestyle as the source of civic virtue. Thomas Jefferson went further. He believed that no nation could provide evidence of the corruption of virtues among those who worked the land. For Jefferson the independent farmer became the allegoric prototype of our unalienable rights. Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin framed the archetype of the American spirit by printing its distinctive wisdom in a farmer’s almanac and displayed his self-reliant American wit before the courts of Europe from beneath a coonskin cap.

Cole's Savage State which is a model of Locke's view of man's natural state of freedom.

Virtue is embedded in nature, instructed by nature, and rewarded by nature. As Thomas Cole’s sequence of portraits “The Course of Civilization” illustrates, mankind’s journey from a savage state to an agrarian state nurtures courage, determination, diligence, frugality, and, above all, a respect for reality.

While the savage state is Locke’s ideal of man in nature, Cole’s pastoral state is the model of Jeffersonian virtues.

Cole's Pastoral State: the model of Jeffersonain Virtue

Below, Cole’s image of civilization’s consummation shows mankind’s social apex as his complete insulation from the rigors of the natural environment. People retain the virtues they have learned on the path to success and strength. Their virtues have allowed them to overcome the harsh savagery of the natural environment. This easily acceptable view of society’s zenith shows man severed from his teacher.

Once within the luxurious bubble of civilization, no lie is too great to be considered plausible. While we make genuine scientific progress, the false, self-styled sciences that “experiment” with the lifestyle of mankind are as old as the hills. In insulating himself from the harsh realities of nature, mankind abandons virtue and lives by the permutations of a relativism nobody in an agrarian state can afford. This natural failing of mankind only increases with his loss of virtue. The more debased and vicious people become, the more they must insist that everything is relative, that choices make no difference. Anyone who even dares to suggest otherwise becomes an outcast, a fool, a fanatic.

Cole's Consummation: Mankind's Lost Teacher

Sallust, witnessing the fall of the Roman Republic, recognized the end of Roman liberty as a consequence of Roman vice:

“…By practicing these two qualities, boldness in warfare and justice when peace came, they watched over themselves and their country. …But when our country had grown great through toil and the practice of justice, (then)…those who had found it easy to bear hardship and dangers, anxiety and adversity, found leisure and wealth … a burden and a curse. Hence the lust for money first, then for power, grew upon them …For avarice destroyed honor, integrity, and all other noble qualities; taught in their place insolence, cruelty, to neglect the gods, to set a price on everything. Ambition drove many men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue; to value friendships and enmities not on their merits but by the standard of self-interest, and to show a good front rather than a good heart. At first these vices grew slowly, from time to time they were punished; finally, when the disease had spread like a deadly plague, the state was changed and a government second to none in equity and excellence became cruel and intolerable.”(War With Catiline, 9-10)

Only relativism validates such practices in civic life. Self-interest is a satisfactory motivation in everything but government. This was the fanatical relativism that destroyed the Roman Republic. In Rome relativism led to a failure of patriotism, to schism over duty, and ambition over honor. The rise of RomanCole's Destruction: The effect of vice and weakness on civilization Imperialism was sealed. The systematic exultation of homosexuality was only a symptom of the decline of the Roman Republic as it is but a harbinger of the abyss now awaiting the West.

No society is fit that has lost all contact with the truth.

Certainly, there has been homosexuality in every age. However, the fall of Athens and of the Roman Republic can be linked to evidence of rampant, institutionalized homosexuality. This is the last outrage of man against nature and those values that are natural to the human heart. People become too civilized, too elite, to be bothered with the truth. Ambition dismisses the hard work of responsibility to the truth as a venal preoccupation with the trivial. Reality becomes hard words, the pauper’s long face, an outcast in polite society. Institutionalized homosexuality is not the effective cause of the end of civilization; it is simply the last death rattle of a society no longer fit for law or decency.

In Athens the rise of Socrates as a “corrupter” of the young, reveals the intense reaction against what had become very public homosexuality (“Plato”). As in the modern West, the question of homosexuality in Athens was no longer one of a government that peered into bed chambers; it was an issue of protecting young men against the onslaught of an institutionalized homosexuality in the public square. Socrates came to historic prominence in the late fifth century BCE (400 BC). Exactly what the details of the case against him were is unknown; however, Plato and Socrates were the rock stars of their age. What occurred must have been a monstrosity that could not be ignored. Yes, Socrates aggravated the traditionalists, but not by his philosophy alone. It was his behavior that outraged what was left of the old guard of the old ways. He was executed in 399 BC. Within sixty years King Phillip II of Macedonia defeated Athens, and the queen of the Athenian league became a member of the Corinthian league. Athens became a mere memory of glory.

Cole's Desolation: a mere memory of glory

The evidence that rampant, institutionalized, homosexuality held sway in Rome as the Republic burned is very telling. It is found in Augustus Caesar’s desperation about the birthrates in Rome. Not only did he pass some of the strictest ordinances favoring marriage and forbidding promiscuity in Roman history (Paragraph 13 and footnote 5), but he did so with a very peculiar tirade against the vast majority of the unmarried Roman noblemen. These noblemen were knights, members of the equestrian order. They were the elite of the Roman world. In his speech defending his new ordinances, great Augustus commiserated at length with the bachelors who protested that there were some unpleasant things “incident to…the begetting of children” (p. 23).

The account of this speech by Augustus is telling for three reasons. First, it is an often told tale that homosexuality has a genetic component that affects only a small percentage of any given population. However, plainly, plainly the majority of the equestrians had become homosexual. Secondly, this is so like government. Long after the Republic has fallen, and long after there was any chance of saving the Roman birthrate, then, then, the government gets into the act.

Lastly, a more often told tale is that the only with the rise of Christianity did homosexuality become unacceptable. This is not, historically, the case. Augustus reasoned that if there were fewer children, there would be fewer legions, and it would be the end of Roman domination of the empire. He reasoned correctly. Despite the wisdom of the most powerful emperor in the history of the Mediterranean, by the end of the first century Italian recruits comprised as little as twenty-two percent (Hassall, The High Empire, AD 70–192, p. 331) of Rome’s armies. From the first century on, barbarian auxiliaries, among whom homosexuality was not tolerated, earning citizenship by service in the Roman military became the rule. The idea of Rome lived on, but for the Romans themselves, it was mostly over. They too became but a memory of glory, an inspiration to barbarians like us.

In the case of Rome and Athens, the virtues of the old ways were neglected, so also in the United States. In Athens and Rome luxury, born by innovation and ingenuity or on slavery’s back, insulated the citizenry against the virtues an agricultural life demands. In rural societies laziness, stealing, lying and promiscuity are evils none can afford. The harvest rewards the diligent, the faithful, the honest, and the kind. Homosexuality did not bring down the ancients; it was simply their final outrage against nature and nature’s maxims. Instead of virtue the ancients increasingly insisted that depravity, dishonesty, and cruelty of every type were justified by an undeniable, invincibly proud relativism. It was a lie then. It is a lie now.

Prosperity allows one to buy out one’s conscience. Don’t make the sale. ‘Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die’ is a chorus only a rich Epicurean can sing. Riches can be deceitful and those that are most deceitful are those that are inherited. America has inherited greater riches than our founders could have ever dreamt, and we, like spoiled little rich children, insist on our delusions. We insist today that no choices have consequences, that there is no virtue and no vice, and daily we become more vicious. The more depraved our lives become, the more fanatically we insist on relativism; we are too ugly to face the mirror.

Where Roman viciousness had a soft landing with the rise of tyranny only, America and the West may have a much harder future. Our viciousness seems ready to spawn, not tyranny, but totalitarianism. Withstand our religion of relativism and be taken to the inquisitors. It’s begun: see Judge: Parents bigots for opposing ‘gay’ lessons.

California’s Constitution Murdered Over Gay Marriage

Be warned brother and sister states, one of your fairest brethren has been murdered by the “judicial” branch of these United States of America and by the elitist political caste. I will tell you of the death California’s constitution; each of you must mourn your own.

American Village Montevallo, Al "The citizenship Trust" 2009 May14The preamble to California‘s constitution was bolder than the preamble to the United States Constitution. It read: “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” Section 1 of the first article of California’s constitution was more noble still: “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.” This was the tone of those who have had enough of pretense and hypocrisy. These were grave and solemn declarations. They were the words of men and women who have had experience in the great and ongoing struggle for liberty. The rest of California’s constitution once lived up to these brave words. (They’re only paper now. Their life is gone. Cry for yourselves. We are all next.)

For these very self-evident reasons, any refusal by four California judges to enact Proposition 8, by describing it as a revision, would have been to drastically alter the heart of California’s constitution. The simple words of this historic constitutional amendment were, by comparison to its preamble, very ordinary: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Of this California’s Supreme Court judges, despite their personal reservations about Proposition 8 as a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage, had no reservations. Ultimately, in a 6-1 decision, California’s Supreme Court recognized the state they lived in. It’s a state based on the will of the people. Apparently, such a state of affairs was too free of tyranny for our Federal Courts, so they killed it.

The Constitution of California is or tragically was a living document, but its life was not ultimately in the hands of a Supreme Court, and its breath did not wait on a two thirds majority of the state legislature. No, California’s constitution was specifically designed to live and breathe with the people of California. Nor was this done for light and transient causes. California’s constitution was borne from the lessons of the undergraduate school of Error and graduate school of Painful Experience in this Land of Opportunity.

Of all the states in the union, California has the most experience with constitutions. California drafted its original RobberBaronsconstitution in coordination with a military proclamation shortly following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. California then redrafted its constitution only thirty years later. It was in this second draft of its constitution that California began its loathing of political authorities and its love of the initiative and referendum process. Finally, after years of committee analysis, in 1966  California used the mechanisms within the 1897 draft to significantly revise its constitution. This it did with a constitutional convention and approval of the electorate. Ultimately, the revision committee completed the final part of its revision process with a series of tailor made ballot initiatives(CPS 6). Hence, if California’s constitution is one of the most liberal in the union, it is a political path based, not on naïveté , but on experience. In other words, if California gives greater authority to its electorate than any other state, it is because California has learned from its history. Its institutions recognize that those in authority are often as impervious to truth as they are imperfect in character. California’s limits on its Supreme Court Justices, as set out in terms of recall and elective terms, is not done without a very clear understanding of the challenges to freedom that arise in every generation, even in nations governed as constitutional and democratic republics.

This wonderful political document based on the trials and experiences of a concerned, highly educated, and informed citizenry was murdered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Such a document as California’s was not seen fit to live.10th country The other 49 of our brother and sister states be warned!

The problem with the founding father’s notion of an independent judiciary is that our forefathers benignly believed that the check on judges would be the laws and the constitutional documents they embodied. California discovered that such a check was not always convenient. While, on one hand, California gives its chief justice tremendous powers over the interpretation and the culture of interpretation that surrounds California’s laws, the consequences of its painful experiences with thepowerful forces of large business interests during the Civil War period left the people of this state with an extremely sober view of every element of representative government, including the judiciary. California’s judiciary is one of the least independent in the nation. While judges are appointed by the governor, the judges are subject to reelection every twelve years. Furthermore, they are subject to recall at any time by way of the recall petition process.

In the United States Constitution five judges closely divided with four others in the interpretation of the federal constitution plus the silence of the legislature can equal, in practical terms, via stare decisis, an amendment or a revision or of the constitution. Of course the more devided the judiciary, the more divided the legislature, so, in the course of time, judges have often changed the constitutional rudiments of our federal laws. In California, though, the people must also remain silent for a judicial opinion, an interpretation of the law to become, via stare decisis, an amendment to or a drastic revision of the California constitution. Such a state of liberty could no longer be tolerated by the judicial branch of the United States of America, and so California’s Constitution was buried.

The Ninth Circuit court cannot take all the credit for this murder. The final stab in the back came from California’s attorney general who refused to appeal the people’s decision to the United States Supreme Court. Nor can the wounds inflicted by the Supreme bruteCourt of the United States be ultimately named as the cause of California’s death, for that court cannot be completely faulted for failing to hear a case not brought by due process to its steps; but the court provided no remedy. Where were the people of California to go for redress of their injuries? Twice they voted down gay marriage in their state. They even voted to amend that document. Is this liberty?

Sadly, the death blow to California was a knife in the back. It came from her own elites. They ripped with treachery at the very heart of the State Constitution when they did not fulfill their oaths, for with this trivial legal maneuver the elites completely avoided the will of the people of California upon which the entire constitution stood. Who will impeach the attorney general? Who will bring that case? California’s constitution was betrayed to its death by special interests over gay marriage. Could California have survived the many wounds the federal courts ripped through the fine fabric of her laws? Who knows?

In the matter of Proposition 8 and Proposition 22, Californians were not silent. They thought long and hard; twice Californians have clarified the definition of marriage. This itself was an altogether silly exercise forced on them from “above,” but it was, nonetheless, a gracious and constitutional exercise. All those who opposed that definition ought to accept the verdict in the gracious spirit in which it was legally and duly offered. The definition of marriage Californians have declared doesn’t harm anyone, and it does apply equally applied to all. Homosexuals may also get married to one member of the opposite sex, just like every other Californian. Californians do not hold anyone’s sexual orientation against them. The people of California have never been perfect, and they are not now. California’s constitution though, isn’t bad. Other states ought to follow California’s example of liberally granting the final say and authority to the people. After all, where do all constitutions that are worth the ink originate? ALL of that is gone now. We are in the age generations of Californians, in their wisdom, sought to avoid. We’re in the age when an elite politician, not doing the will of the electorate, can side step not only the will of a decade of California’s elections, but that lone politician can eviscerate the very heart of liberty that generations of Californians citizens conferred on their descendants.

How to Recall a California Supreme Court Justice

Information is power if power has already been granted to you. Indeed, in California great political authority has already been granted to its citizens. That power is our history and our legacy, for the California Constitution in Article 2 Section 1 reads:

“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

California-Constitution-620x495The voters of California have recently reformed their state by way of a ballot initiative called Proposition 8. This was a reformation because marriage in California (and in all the world) has always been between a man and a woman. Only in recent months did our justices deem it fit to alter our state laws and our constitution. Because the justices are sworn to uphold the constitution, not alter it, they should be recalled for the failure to discharge their duties. The people of California have also been granted this right. It is within our authority as states Article 2 Section 13: “Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer,” and, as the constitutional framers saw fit and in California Supreme Court Justices are elected, not appointed; Article 2 Section 16a:

“Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected at large and judges of courts of appeal shall be elected in their districts at general elections at the same time and places as the Governor. Their terms are 12 years beginning the Monday after January 1 following their election”

Because in California Supreme Court Justices are not appointed as they are under the federal constitution, but elected, they are subject to recall by the electorate, and rightly so.

The constitutional framers made the manner of recall very simple. The recall process has two parts. Both of these parts are stated plainly in Article 2 Section 14a. The first is:

“Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable.”

The petition to remove these elected officials is not “reviewable.” That means that the voters could say, “We the people of California petition for the removal of these four Supreme Court Justices because they are dumb-dumb heads, and we don’t like them any more.” Such a claim could not be rejected on legal grounds; however, such simplicity might not be considered overly persuasive either. Nonetheless, the point is that the California Constitution makes this matter simple because its intent is that the people of California, not its lawyers or its judges, define the nature and scope of our laws.

Those who choose to circulate a petition to recall each of these four judges might contemplate a petition that says:

We the people of California, petition for the recall of Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, and Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno for the following reasons:

Unless one is of an unsound mind, seeks personal aggrandizement, or sets himself above the body of laws and the constitution he has taken an oath to uphold, the historic documents surrounding the constitution and the historic contexts of the documents surrounding the family law of California cannot be construed to include homosexuality as a suspect category in civil right laws: these are plainly limited to race, religion and gender.

The historic documents of California and the body of documentation surrounding California can not be held to imply or refer to a right for same sex couples to pretend to marriage by law, and any such conclusion is evidence of an unsound mind, self seeking, or a judicial hubris that pretends to be above the body of laws embodied in the constitution of California he swore to uphold.

In altering the Constitution of California and the body of laws it embodies, this jurist has undermined the civil right to marry for all couples; he has reduced marriage to a mere legal contract defined by states rather than upholding the court’s legitimate responsibility to recognize the union of a man and a woman. This is an ancient contract between two people based on exalting that which nature and the God of nature has set within the heart of all people everywhere without regard to race, religion or gender. This fundamental joining, like the right to free speech, like the right to worship in accordance with our conscience, like the right to free movement and like the right to defend oneself against tyrants and any who would threaten life and property, exists prior to governments and any government that refuses to recognize such rights is illegitimate.

In altering the Constitution of California and the body of laws it embodies, these jurists have undermined civil society, civil conversation, and the peace of this great state, for we have had untold expenditures of time and money resulting only in increased acrimony and civil unrest. This is entirely the fault of this Court. Rather than undermining the documents and laws of this land designed for the express purpose of maintaining civil discourse, a democratic union and the peace of this people, this court could have urged the plaintiffs in “re Marriages” to utilize the ballot initiatives to democratically amend our State’s Constitution. Instead, this court has purposely misrepresented the documents of our state and deceived many of its unwitting populace into feeling that it has “rights” it never received in accordance with the democratic principles of our society.

The ruling of this court expresses an explicit intent to order state representatives to deceive others by applying the historic name and honor of the institution of “marriage” on unions that have no history at all. This legislated fraud would have constituted a tyranny and would have affected young children of every race, religion and gender from the tender ages in which they enter our public school system.”

Article 2 Section 14a also sets out the second condition for demanding the recall of its elected judges: “Proponents (of the recall) have 160 days to file signed petitions.” Article 2 Section 14b and c contains the instructions on filing the petition:

“A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office. (b) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of the signatures certified to that office.”

California is one of the most liberal states in These United States of America in the oldest and truest meaning of that word. California is not liberal because has relativism, high taxes, deficit spending and a “nanny government” written into its constitution. California is proudly one of the most liberal states in the Union because, rather than specifying that the authority and responsibility for governance resides primarily in the representatives of the people, it gives the authority and responsibility for governance to the people in some of the most direct and practical ways ever devised. Californians ought to prize the authority its citizens have been granted, but with this greater authority comes greater responsibility. Californians have a responsibility, a duty, to recall these judges. This matter has not been left to lawyers, other judges, or to elected representatives. They do not, therefore, have the responsibility to recall these judges. Californians, however, do. It is therefore, the people of California who are responsible for the harm these judges have done and will do if they do not act together swiftly and decisively to recall them.

Supreme Deception, Part III: California’s Supreme Court Conferred the Right to Deceive

Because California’s governor and attorney general refused to defend California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage, family law in California has returned to a state of infectious deception outlined in its Supreme Court’s ruling In “re Marriage Cases.

Even on the surface, the idea of same-sex marriage must be either a lie or a deceit; hence, any court’s opinion that is engaged in “legalizing” such a thing must also be replete with lies or immersed in deception. In “redefining” marriage without admitting that it has done so, the Supreme Court of California’s opinion is riddled with deceptions.

First, the California Supreme Court has masked its reduction of marriage to the mere legality that it conferred on civil unions by using the misleading terms “family relationship” and “family unit” to describe homosexual relationships and civil unions.

Second, the Court’s use of this misleading terminology generates the threadbare appearance, at once humorously incompetent and ironically pathetic, that previous court opinions and precedents support the benefits of, and state interests in, gay marriage. In fact, the opinion refers to no actual evidence whatsoever from previous case law or precedent that the state has either an abiding interest in, or that individuals derive substantial benefit from, gay marriage.

interesting

Third, whether by design or by incompetence, the Court’s opinion uses circular reasoning throughout. Either way, such pathetic use of logical fallacies produces yet more deception. Fundamentally, the opinion supposes that marriage is not between a man and a woman so that it may find an offended class and conclude that marriage, indeed, must not be only between a man and a woman.

Finally, not satisfied with an opinion that is so inadequate that it only deceives the public, the Court produces several passages in which it seems to have conferred the right to deceive the public on the plaintiffs. Deceiving people is what the Court has, directly or indirectly, sanctioned by its discussion of “privacy rights” on page 105 below:

“Plaintiffs point out that one consequence of the coexistence of two parallel types of familial relationship (marriage and domestic partnerships) is that in the numerous everyday social, employment, and governmental settings in which an individual is asked whether he or she “is married or single” an individual who is a domestic partner and who accurately responds to the question by disclosing that status will (as a realistic matter) be disclosing his or her homosexual orientation, even if he or she would rather not do so under the circumstances and even if that information is totally irrelevant in the setting in question.”

The opinion of the majority in “re Marriages” explains that disclosing one’s sexual orientation is protected under a right to privacy, but the Court’s resolution of the issue should not be to sanction intentional deception as a remedy. Under this court’s ruling same sex couples may mislead an employer, whether it is a government office or a private enterprise, by leading individuals to believe that their status is heterosexual. That is, they may rest assured that when they say they are “married”, their employer or insurance company will understand the ordinary sense of the word and assume they are heterosexual. Doesn’t the state have an interest in deploring all acts of deception, especially as it relates to its own offices? Instead, this court has not only sanctioned such deception, it has actually provided the means of deception.

Sadly, this willingness to deceive ourselves and lie to one another is increasingly becoming the new “normal,” normal as in the steady decline under a terminal sickness. Little by little real normalcy, the abiltiy of a human to function without hinderance by a disease, fades as the body progressively sickens. The remedy, America, is the truth. Start telling the truth, no matter what the cost.

Gruber-on-the-lies-told-to-pass-Obamacare1-1024x576

Is deception, then, simply a matter of course and necessity to the California Supreme Court? Shouldn’t we conclude that the Court’s view of deception as justified in pursuing equality to be evidence that the court is not foolish or idiotic, but is, instead, purposely doing everything in its power to deceive us with its circular logic and its abuse of precedents as evidence? Furthermore, isn’t this willingness to confer the right to deceive to the plaintiffs evidence that the court’s first and most profound deception –its absurd reduction of marriage from a human innate ability and reality, having nothing to do with government, to a wardrobe of rags handed to “citizens” by “benevolent,” god-like courts– blatantly disingenuous? Isn’t the court’s willingness to confer the right to deceive on the plaintiffs at the altar an idolatrous “equality” proof that five highly intelligent, and seemingly well-educated men and women set out to purposely deceive us all? How great is the magnitude of an evil that must be advanced by people of such ill will?

Nor is the foregoing deception seemingly advocated by the Court without potentially serious implications for insurance, credit, and medical institutions. Although the court recognized that some of these requests for information are not relevant, the discretion on when to deceive seems to be entirely in the hands of a member of a same sex partnership.

Some may argue that the destruction of the word “marriage” and its meaning would result in “marriage” no longer implying heterosexuality. Hence, there would be no deception. However, until the process of reconstructing documents in which one’s sexual orientation is necessary information and, instance by instance, allowing courts to decide upon this necessity, many instances of deception on important matters will have been perpetrated and seemingly sanctioned by this Court.

Nor is such deception a necessary instrument for achieving equality in the United States of America. No one can seriously imagine women seeking equal opportunity being able to get away with bubbling in “man” on their employment applications. No, in order to equalize the playing field women proudly declared their gender and insisted on access. Likewise, African Americans proudly declared their identities as they demanded the equal rights they were entitled to under the law.

Perhaps religions have had the “option” of “going public” with their beliefs through the years. Notice how well that has gone? The religions such as Islam that state their creeds by their apparel and their deeds have a far greater opportunity for recognition and accommodation under U.S. Laws than do the more timid believers who obey court and statute despite the outcry of their consciences. Secrecy is no ally of civil rights. Not only does the Court appear to confer the right to deceive on a special segment of the population, it undermines the very equality is seeks to establish.

On page 117-118 the Court issues a pronouncement that, essentially, concedes the right to deceive to all same sex couples in California while, at the same time, insisting that all citizens of the state of California who have direct dealings with the state government perpetrate deception on others:

“As discussed above, (page 81) because of the long and celebrated history of the term marriage’ and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship (my italics) unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.”

First of all, the word marriage does not refer to the commonly understood words “family relationship.” The new terminology introduced by the George court names marriage a “family relationship.” In the same way that a cursory reading of this ruling and an assumption of judiciary accuracy with language might mislead a reader, the use of the term “marriage” for same sex couples has the potential for misleading many citizens of the state and the nation. The problem is that, if nothing else, same sex civil unions are very novel, and indeed they are an alternate relationship relative to that of traditional marriage. Novel and alternative are not pejoratives, nor should anyone expect them to be.

By the courts own admission, by its stated design, the venerable history of marriage will be conferred, naturally, on same sex couples. However, that is deceptive precisely because same sex unions have no history at all. The application of the commonly understood word to marriage to same sex couples is, therefore misleading and orwelldeceptive. Even if there is a tradition of prejudice towards gay couples, prejudice in every other area of American life is not overcome by way of deception. Prejudice is overcome by being who we are, and by proving, with the equal opportunities we are granted, that hurtful prejudgments are no more than the products of ignorance.

Marriage has a long and celebrated history and has been widely sanctioned in every community in history (even if not always faithfully adhered to!) because of what it is. The use of the word “marriage” in California is now new, controversial, and alternate from every other known use of the word for 6,000 years of recorded history. Let us as Californians be clear about this: marriage in California now, under the ruling of the George court, no longer means “marriage.” If you think it does, you are deceived. If after reading this series of articles you are deceived, then you are deceiving yourself. However, when state employees, whether they be doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, policemen, or firemen say “marriage,” the common understanding of marriage will come to the mind of the hearers. Government employees everywhere may be directed to say “marriage” with the intended new meaning concocted by this court; however, those that hear what they say will not necessarily understand what is meant. Indeed, who really can understand this definition of marriage as a “family relationship” given meaning through a concoction of legal rights pulled from a seascape of irrelevant references?

The entire progress of this Court’s legislation, and it is certainly that, and its explanations are immersed in deception. It is by this means that it seeks to persuade us of its equanimity in making us its partners in its deceptions. Whether these deceptions are accidental or intended, we will all be employed in them. This court’s ruling, whether by incompetence or by malice, evinces a design to reduce us under an absolute despotism of the state. It demands that we ourselves become the instruments of deception. The state can stand in no greater tyranny to its subjects than that it demand them to dissemble in order to comply with its dictates.

On page 8 of this opinion, Judge George wrote,

“We need not decide in this case whether the name marriage’ is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would violate a couple’s constitutional right even if perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the formal family relationship for all couples.”

This is incorrect. If the opinion of this court is that marriage is no longer marriage and that one new institution is fitting for all, then let the Court proudly proclaim this! Instead, this court lets stand a document that rids California of marriage entirely without even the slightest acknowledgment of its radicalism. The Court seems to embrace deception for a remedy to the plaintiffs claims of privacy and its ruling encourages the deception of the entire state by insisting that government officials use a new, and impossibly complex and incoherent legal definition in communicating with children and minors about marriage.

Oh… no adults would be lying to children… And fear not California, your little children will not be deceived. No, even they know what marriage is. Instead, they will assume that policemen, firemen, teachers, doctors and nurses are cowardly liars or deluded morons. Good work Chief Justice George, and let us give thanks to all those members of the court that concurred.

Supreme Deception: the Evidence, Part II

A marriage is not a family and to call it one is a lie. A family always involves children. For the shambles of California law to continue to call a same sex relationship a “family unit” is especially deceptive because no family can ever occur as a result of a same sex relationship.

This deceptive legal jargon has entered California jurisprudence during the period of time in which Judge George has been broken scalethe Supreme Court’s Chief Justice. In 2005 the majority opinion in Kobke vs. Bernardo Club Country Club, uses the terms “family unit” and “domestic partnership” anonymously. What is new in the court’s jargon in “re Marriages” (May 2008) is the Chief Justice’s wider use of “family relationship” to mean “marriage” or “domestic partnership” (pages 65-66). All of this is in keeping with the Court’s open refusal to recognize marriage in the state of California. Marriage is not a “family relationship,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Marriage is not a “family unit” and never has been. Further, in the corrupt jargon of the state of California it is even more assuredly not a “family unit” or, in other words, a domestic partnership.

Californians are deceived if they think that marriage currently exists in their law as that law has now been defined by Chief Justice George and the Supreme Court of California. The definition of marriage has not been expanded to include domestic partnerships. Instead, the definition of marriage has been contracted and dehumanized. To the Supreme Court of California marriage is a mere patchwork of rights conferred on two people by the legislature and the courts. Marriage results in husbands and wives, not “Party A’s” and “Party B’s.”

California’s assessment of the nature of marriage flies in the face of  Perez vs. The State of California, the defining voice in establishing marriage as a right in the family law of California. For these jurists, jurists who codified the will of the people in matters of interracial marriage, “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men” (p. 714). Likewise also in Williams v. Garcetti, the Court in 1993 stated: “we have already recognized that [t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government [such as defining races that may marry, or the preexisting conditions necessary to legal marriage, or, in this case as limiting marriage to merely the rights conferred by government] … extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not listed in the Constitution [as] the right to marry, [to] establish a home and [to] bring up children (page 577, brackets and italics added).” Notice the the context makes plain the court’s intention. Marriage was not same sex. The home established was established by those with the natural ability and right to marry, and the children reared were the natural offspring of those who have the ability and right to marry.

ajustweightNone of this, however, fully describes the patterns deception perpetrated on the public by the Supreme Court of California In “re Marriages.” The majority opinion authored by Judge George is deceptive when it refers to other cases of precedent on the importance of “family relationships.” The Chief Justice refers to cases of precedent written before 2003 as evidence that supports the importance of “family relationships” as defined by the court in 2005 and 2008. For instance, on page 54, Judge George notes that

“subsequent California decisions discussing the nature of marriage and the right to marry have recognized repeatedly the linkage between marriage, establishing a home, and raising children in identifying civil marriage as the means available to an individual to establish, with a loved one of his or her choice, an officially recognized family relationship” (Italics added).

Domestic partnerships are not what the case he cites, DeBurgh v. DeBurgh (1952), was about at all. Continuing on Judge George stated,

“for example, in explaining the public interest in the institution of marriage’ (id. at p. 863), this court (in Deburgh) stated: “The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.” (Id. at pp. 863-864.)

In his citation of DeBurgh v. DeBurgh Chief Justice George makes it sound as though this court referred to marriage as a family relationship. It never did. In 1952 marriage was marriage and a family was a family. Additionally, in order to utilize this quote about domestic partnerships, the judge must assume first that marriage is not between a man and a woman. However, George blurs this very important distinction rather than obviate it. He does this by using the jargon concocted under his rule as Chief Justice.proverbs

Similarly, throughout the section in which he notes past decisions about marriage in order to catalog the importance and rights of marriage (53-66), he assumes that each right or benefit of marriage from old precedents can be assigned to any legalized relationship between two people. On page 66 the judge concluded,

“It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Hence, the foregoing thirteen pages of supposed evidence are entirely irrelevant. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right.”

The italicized words are my addition. These words should have been added by Judge George, all the more because he concludes that this was all the traffic of mere tradition. Moreover, his conclusion that all of the rights attributed to marriage were based on no more than tradition is itself misleading. The references were observations justices made in specific instances; they were not observations about historic tradition. Finally, although no evidence was presented that same sex couples gain any of the benefits mentioned by the authorities referred to, nor that the state has any interest at all in same sex unions, the court behaves as though it has listed thirteen pages of evidence proving both the interest of the state and the benefit to individuals of same sex unions. This is misleading and deceptive. The Court should plainly admit that it is rewriting the definition of marriage in a way it sees fit and cease attempting to persuade Californians that this has anything whatsoever to do with previous case law.

The court would lead us to believe that the references to families as the building blocks of society are directly related to the civil institutions designated by governments. The court would have us believe that a same sex couple is a building block of society, just as these famed jurists of the past declared was the case with married couples and their children. This equation is at least, open to discussion.

While we can conceive of marriages and children leading to societies and governments, we cannot see same sex unions leading to the existence of nations states. Indeed, the existence of children in a same sex union is, like a school, inconceivable without the good graces of the society at large. This is a matter for legislation, not for courts. The people of California are under no genuine constitutional compulsion to submit children who are wards of the state for adoption to same sex couples. In California the people have legislated that such adoption is acceptable. Considering the incompetence of state agencies in every aspect of public and private life, perhaps the wisdom of the people of California is to be applauded.

In Part III of “Supreme Deception: the Right to Deceive” the court’s explanation of privacy rights and same sex marriage will be probed.