If I Wanted to Make America Prosperous Again

First, I would ask myself how did our ancestors build America from an agricultural colony on the edge of civilization into the number one manufacturing and commercial nation the world had ever known. 

Why reinvent the wheel if round ones still roll?

The early American colonies of the British were founded based upon the economic ideas of Mercantilism.  Governmental regulation of industries, trade, and commerce characterized Mercantilism as every aspect of the economy was utilized for national policy. This was especially true with foreign trade, which was determined more by national aims rather than individual or local interests.

The definition of wealth began to change in the sixteenth century.  During the Middle Ages, wealth was defined by the amount of productive land a nation possessed.  As transportation, especially by sea, improved so did the ability to conduct foreign trade bringing with it an increase in the amount of cash generated by that trade.  The definition of wealth came to be the amount of cash a nation possessed.  Therefore every nation sought to have a favorable balance of trade.  They also sought to develop monopolistic type environments wherein they provided their own raw materials thus avoiding imports which meant money flowing out and fostering the export of finished goods raising the level of money flowing in.  Defining wealth as the accumulation of cash, the nations of Europe desired to conduct foreign trade on a larger scale, and they began looking for foreign sources of gold, silver, and raw materials.

This brings us to the British effort to develop North America as a source of wealth.

The Chesapeake colonies of Virginia and Maryland were the first successful British colonies in what was to become the United States of America.  Though the initial colonists came looking for gold they soon learned that prosperity came not from a shovel but instead from a plow.  It was tobacco that primed the pump and lifted the colonies from a burden to a benefit for the mother country.  After years of mounting expenses for the British and years of starvation for the colonists the cultivation of tobacco brought prosperity.  Virginia’s production of tobacco grew from 200,000 pounds in 1624 to 3,000,000 pounds in 1638 overtaking the West Indies as the number one supplier of tobacco for all of Europe thus boosting Britain’s balance of trade.

The cultivation of tobacco fostered a plantation system based upon indentured and slave labor.  A gentrified class of great planters sought to replicate the social structure of Britain with a small number of very rich ruling a large number of small land holders who prospered to a certain extent but never enough to challenge the status quo.  The wretched poor of Britain who had come to the Chesapeake colonies to find a better life did find more opportunity and the ability to advance from the landless poor to the ranks of yeoman farmer.  However, there was little opportunity to enter the ranks for the gentry which became a type of American nobility.

New England, because of the soil, the climate, and the fact that there was no major cash crop that grew well in the area, did not lend itself to large plantations.  Most farmers were operating at a subsistence level.  If they did generate a surplus it was in crops that were not easily transported across the ocean, and they were also crops that could be grown in England and were not needed as imports.

This climatic and environmental adversity did not condemn New England to being a poor relation to the Chesapeake nobility.  Instead the New English diversified, innovated, and used individual enterprise to not only match but to surpass Chesapeake and every other colony in the British Empire.  Those who settled New England were Puritans who sought to purify the Anglican religion of ceremony and return it to what they saw as the simplicity of early Christianity.  They did not believe that good works brought salvation but they did believe that salvation brought good works.  Therefore they sought to occupy their time with productive activity to glorify God through their labors.  This was a manifestation of what the sociologist Max Weber later called , “The Protestant work ethic.”  Whatever you choose to call it, it was this drive to succeed no matter what the adversity that led the New English to look beyond the soil, beyond the climate and to the opportunity.

First they exploited the fisheries of the Northeast.  In 1641 the New English caught 600,000 pounds of fish much of which was exported to Britain.  By 1645 they were catching more than 6,000,000 pounds per year employing more than a thousand men on 440 ships.  They came to dominate the fish trade shipping not only to Britain and its empire but also to Spain, Portugal, the Azores, Madeira, and the Canary Islands. 

By the end of the 1600s the merchants of the New English coast began to circle the globe trading the fish, surplus crops, and lumber of their area to all parts of the British Empire.  They became such shrewd traders that soon American ships were carrying trade from one colony to another even when the cargo didn’t originate in New England.  This secondary carrying trade generated a growing profit that in turn rebounded in a number of ways.  The increased profits brought home financed increased industry and growth at home, and it also spawned a shipbuilding industry which exploited the vast resources of the northern forests. 

Between 1674 and 1714 the New English built more than 1200 ships, totaling more than 75,000 tons.  By 1700 there were fifteen shipyards in Boston which produced more ships than all the rest of the British colonies combined.  Only London had more shipyards.  This was a significant engine of economic growth.  To build one 150 ton merchant ship required as many as 200 workers, mostly skilled craftsmen.  The shipyards also supported the growth of numerous enterprises to supply their needs such as saw mills, smithies, barrel makers, sail makers, iron foundries, and rope makers. In addition, the farmers of New England benefited by feeding the craftsmen, supplying the ships, and providing the timber.

By 1700 Boston was the third city of the Empire behind only London and Bristol and the New English shippers were earning freight charges for carrying produce and material that was neither produced, shipped to, or shipped from their home colony.  The enrichment of the area spread prosperity far beyond the sphere of shippers, sailors, and their sundry suppliers.  According to Boston’s shipping register for 1697-1714 over 25% of the adult males in Boston owned shares in at least one ship. 

All of these linkages produced an economy filled with diversification and development as opposed to the stratified monoculture of the Chesapeake colonies.

These trends continued as time went on leading to the industrial North eventually overwhelming the agricultural South.  The expansion and growth of America was based upon a foundation of hard work and innovation born of adversity.  Finding themselves in a hard place Americans found a way to prosper and grow like a young plant reaching for the sun.  Freed from the rigid restraints of the home country and then guaranteed freedom by the constitution and the limited government it provided America surged to the front ranks of nations.

Today, America labors under self-imposed adversity.  We are in the grip of an oppressive Progressive Movement that after 100 years of incremental advance is poised to transform America from what she has always been into what they want her to be.  America has traditionally been a constitutionally limited Republic operating on democratic principles providing individual liberty and economic opportunity.  The Progressives envision America as a centrally-planned highly regimented social democracy where the wealth is spread around from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs .

If I wanted to make America prosperous again I would take off the self-imposed shackles of a central government on steroids, stop imposing new regulations, and reduce taxes everywhere on everyone.  Then I would stand back and watch our economy takes off like a rocket and we take our place beside our ancestors as free people with economic liberty and a will to succeed.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the Historian of the Future and the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

Praetorian Progressives and Their Imperial Dreams

Under President Obama we doubled-down in Afghanistan? We sent more of our fellow citizens to a long hard slog in a country whose synonym is Quagmire while announcing the eventual date of their withdrawal at the same time. In an unprecedented action Mr. Obama announced our attack as he heralded our retreat in a calculated political decision that has cost lives, squandered treasure and told the Taliban to wait in the wings for the second act.
As our economy was being outsourced, our debt monetized, and our infrastructure crumbled we meekly followed the leader deeper into a thankless nation-building campaign in the Little Bighorn of nations. A nation that is more of a Western construct than an actual nation-state, and the tribes which inhabit this mountainous waste have resisted and foiled every empire from Alexander to Moscow.

There is a fundamental difference between a republic and an empire. Republics are based upon the consent of the governed. Empires are imposed from above. Republics foster a community of equals each with the opportunity to achieve. Empires exalt the ruling class at the expensive of everyone else. Though settled by European kingdoms seeking empires the United States wasn’t founded to become an empire. Individuals fought against the empire building tyrants until their determination and resolve won independence against all odds.

It is time to re-think America’s international military commitments. It is our world wide web of foreign commitments and entanglements that has been used by the self-righteous Progressives and their cronies in the military industrial complex in their efforts to transform the United States from republic to empire. They have used the never ending wars for peace to regiment our society and create a centrally-planned bureaucratic mega government.

George Washington warned us to avoid foreign entanglements telling us, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…” He warned us about allowing the military to grow to big, “Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson outlined the essential principles of our government which included this advice concerning foreign affairs, “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none.”

For the first 100 years of our existence we followed Washington’s great rule, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

The temptation to empire captured the American imagination in the 1890s: the beginning of the Progressive Era. This was a time when Europe was rushing to gobble up the last places open for colonization or carving up those areas unsuited for colonies into spheres of influence.

Under President McKinley the United States entered the scramble for colonies in the Spanish-American War winning Puerto Pico and the Philippines as well as a long war against those in the Philippines who wanted the independence they had expected when liberated from the Spanish Empire by the American Republic.

Teddy Roosevelt the great grandfather of the Progressives followed McKinley walking softly while carrying a big stick in the form of the Great White Fleet. He used America’s new found industrial might and military power for multiple intrusions into the sovereignty of Latin American countries. While better known for his war against business, or trust busting as it was then called, the first President Roosevelt extolled war as a means to national greatness, “No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war”

After being re-elected on the promise to keep America neutral President Wilson proclaimed America must fight to “Make the World Safe for Democracy.” An adventure which cost over 300,000 casualties and which actually expanded the empires of England, France, and Japan while sowing the seeds of an even greater war.

After Wilson’s war the Congress of the United States re-asserted control by rejecting the international entanglements of the League of Nations Treaty returning to the traditional American foreign policy of freedom of trade and freedom of action.

Under FDR America fought an undeclared naval war against Germany in 1940 and 41 and imposed draconian embargoes against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. Once we were attacked we had to defend ourselves. However, when World War II ended with the defeat of German, Italian, and Japanese totalitarianism and the vast expansion of Soviet totalitarianism, the guiding light of America foreign policy seems to have been permanently extinguished.

As the British Empire sailed into the sunset we filled the void taking up the role of leader of the West in the Cold War. For forty-six years we faced the Soviets until they collapsed. Then instead of coming home we spread our wings even further embracing Eastern Europe. We made a vain promise to send young Americans to fight for Estonia and Slovakia. We coaxed color-coded revolutions all around Russia while our allies moved the EU to the East. All of this rebuffed the hand of the Russians and made them instead of friends bitter foes who realized America had exploited their weakness and attempted to surround them with enemies. This is the exact scenario which has haunted Russian paranoid dreams for centuries.

It is against the traditional principles of American foreign policy to establish and maintain an empire of far-flung outposts. Doing so has broken the bank and we cannot afford to be the Policeman of the world. We cannot afford to build nations for people who don’t want them while allowing our own infrastructure to decay. How did a peaceful nation of free citizens become the advocate of pre-emptive attack and endless occupation? How much blood and treasure did we invest in Iraq and what will be the result: a precipitous pull-out resulting in a Shi’a ally for Iran.

The war in Afghanistan was obviously defensive and retaliatory in nature given the Taliban’s support and collusion with Al Qaeda. But ten years later what’s it all about? Are we really dedicated to building a modern nation for tribal people who have no sense of nationhood? Have we blundered into the same trap that brought the Soviets to their knees?

And it isn’t only our current hot deployment that is problematic.

The United States has armed forces in over 130 countries. We’re committed to defend most of these countries against aggression. Where were these allies on 9-11? Where are they in Afghanistan? Why do we have treaties binding us to go to war to defend those who refuse to support us when we’re attacked? If these policies are counter-productive are there any alternatives?

Close the foreign bases and bring our troops home. Sell the bases and save the money. Station our troops on the borders to protect us from the on-going invasion of illegal immigrants who are overloading our systems. Let the maintenance of the bases and the spending of the troops contribute to our domestic economy instead of the economies of other countries. If we need to project American power, use the carrier battle-groups designed for that purpose. Protect America and rebuild our infrastructure.

When asked what to do with the American Military after World War I Will Rogers said, “Get 'em all home, add to their number, add to their training, then just sit tight with a great feeling of security and just read about foreign wars. That's the best thing in the world to do with them.”

We must jettison the Empire to save the Republic! If we don’t the imperial power will swamp the republican nature. We will retain the forms our Founders gave us as we find ourselves under the jackbooted heel of the Praetorian Progressives and their imperial dreams.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the Historian of the Future and the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

Real Rebels and the Counter Revolution

Think of America’s Founders. These were real rebels.

Sam Adams agitated against the imposition of taxes. He penned the petitions which brought forth the rallying cry “No taxation without representation!” While avoiding violence he led the effort to organize resistance to tyranny. He founded the Committee of Correspondence in Massachusetts and inspired its spread to the other colonies. He organized boycotts of British goods and the public trial of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

In a world of divine right kings where the common man was a pawn to be exploited and demeaned James Madison made these revolutionary statements, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” And, “An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

Patrick Henry did more than say, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Before the Revolution, as a member of the Assembly in Virginia he led in the formation of a resistance movement against the tyranny of the British crown. During the Revolution he served in the Continental Congress that passed the Deceleration of Independence. After the Revolution he was not afraid to stand up against the desire of many to impose a Constitution without a Bill of Rights leading in the fight to maintain the greatest amount of individual liberty and the strongest limits to the central authority possible under the new Federal Government. As if he could see the convolutions which currently threaten to swallow the Republic Mr. Henry reminded us at the beginning of our national experiment in limited government, “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.”

Today the world is turned upside down. The so called radical rebels of the sixties now own or control most things including the government. The anti-establishment has become the establishment and the silent majority is being told to remain silent while this progressive minority transforms our nation into what their collectivist programmers have taught them it should be. And yet they still see themselves as the rebels fighting a faceless bureaucracy for freedom never realizing they have met the enemy, and they are them.

All of this made me think about my old friend the professional revolutionary and something hit me. He has always considered himself a rebel. And considering he has made a living out of being a spokesman for the movements dedicated to destroying the America we have always known that kind of made sense at one time.

But in reality he is now and has consistently in the past loyally spouted the logical progression of the anti-American, anti-capitalist garbage that many of the teachers at our good old public High School tried to shove into our young skulls full of mush. He also sounds exactly like all of our contemporaries who have spent a lifetime drinking at the well of the Corporations Once Called the Mainstream Media. Though they see themselves as deep thinkers it has always been obvious they receive their programming, their news and views from the major networks, and the transcripts in the print media. They spout the same anti-traditional values pro-socialism talking points time after time.

Their representatives have spent decades chipping away at the America we love in the movies, on television, and in songs. They have gained control of one component of society at a time: education, the media, the board room, the Congress, and finally the White House. Through patience and planning they have gained control of the entire federal government and the elites of most areas of society. Therefore I cannot see why we should continue referring to them as rebels merely because they see themselves that way. When you listen to their current spokesmen such as the Daily Show, Bill Maher, or any of the MSNBC line up they come off as so hip and so cutting edge when in fact they agree 100% with the current administration and its collectivist anti-life New Age agenda. What’s rebellious about that? That’s like saying Pravda was a radical spokesman for change when they parroted whatever the leaders of the former USSR had to say.

Today my friend the professional rebel is actively helping recruit and train the brown shirt Occupy troops? They may rail against Wall Street but that same Wall Street promotes and funds the very people these protesters vote for. Someone is being used for something, but they never seem to wake up to ask, “Why should we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?”

I can no longer consider myself a conservative. What is there left to conserve? I am a radical and a rebel, because I advocate for limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom. These 1960s retreads who continue to advocate for the progressive collectivists who have won their revolution and now occupy the seats of power are faux rebels: organizational apparatchiks spouting the party line.

Look at how revolutionary some of our real rebels still sound today:

Sam Adams said, “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” And “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.” He also said, “Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.”

Patrick Henry said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” And, “We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power... the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” When thinking of his most famous statement we should keep it in context and recall the whole quote, “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

So the next time the nightly faux news shows are filled the antics of the faux rebels demonstrating for more government power, or the next time one of your relatives or old friends wants to fill your ear with their oft repeated mantras for the collectivist establishment tell yourself, “This is the time for real rebels and the counter revolution.”

And if pointing out the transparent hypocrisy of the faux rebels of today should ever be considered too rebellious for the faint of heart let me share one more quote from Patrick Henry, “If this be treason, make the most of it!”

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the Historian of the Future and the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

A Declaration of Independence

It has happened just as foretold. The Progressive Republicans have joined with their Democrat fellow-travelers and once again sold our inheritance for a bowl of promises. We voted for an end to the out of control spending and what did we get? 3.5 trillion steps closer to the abyss. It’s time to admit that when you fall off a cliff it doesn’t matter much if you were pushed or if you walked. The fall might not be so bad but that sudden stop at the end isn’t so good.
Maybe it’s just me but I’m tired of the same old same old in our politics. The big-box monopoly parties have morphed into two sides of the same coin. Today we choose between the Conservative Progressives’ policies of tax and spend, infringe personal liberty, and outsource our sovereignty or the Liberal Progressives’ policies of tax and spend, infringe personal liberty, and outsource our sovereignty. We’ve been caught on the horns of a dilemma trying to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and since we don’t want to throw our vote away we must vote for one of the big boys after which the campaign promises dissolve and we’re hung out to dry.

As a voter I’ve had my Damascus Road Experience. The scales have fallen from my eyes. I’ve reached the point where I would rather vote for someone who might actually try finding another way to operate our government besides taxing like the Sun King and spending like a drunken sailor whose credit card limit is constantly raised and who can print his own money.

It’s time to stop talking. It’s time to take action. The Founders of our nation dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to birth our state and this noble experiment. It’s time for us to do the same. This nation was conceived as a representative republic designed to operate on democratic principles. For over 100 years the Progressives have worked to transform the land of the free and the home of the brave into a People’s Democratic Republic. What’s the difference? The difference between a Democracy and a People’s Democracy is “the difference between a jacket and a straight jacket.”

How did we arrive at the current situation?

James Madison our fourth president and the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” We didn’t get here all in one jump. First the camel said, “Can I just stick my nose in your tent to stay warm?” and finally the generous man found himself out in the cold as the camel settled down for a nice warm nap, one inch at a time.

The compassion of our people built a safety net for those who needed help and the greed of the lazy turned it into a hammock. America, the Land of the Free is being transformed into an America that is dedicated to the unsustainable achievement of, from each according to their abilities to each according to their need. When you rob Peter to pay Paul eventually Peter changes his name to Paul and the house of cards tumbles down.

The willingness to share our heritage led America to welcome more immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined, and the abuse of our generosity turned into a migration invasion that threatens to overwhelm us and destroy the future of our children. Taxes imposed to meet the ever-swelling demands of government have turned into a blatant, wealth re-distribution program that makes most pyramid schemes look fair. It’s as if our predatory government looks at a productive citizen as merely a source of residual income. Or as the ads promise, our Progressive leaders lay on the beach of self-importance and our checks just keep pouring in. We’re no longer respected as Citizens. Instead, we’re coveted as consumers or human capital.

It’s time for action.

We as citizens who love our country must to break the logjam caused by an imperial presidency, an abdicating legislature, an activist court, a suffocating bureaucracy, and the strangulation of regulation. The constant growth of government destroys freedom for “as government expands liberty contracts.”

It’s time to actively work for America’s acceptance of a different way.

And what might this Different way be?

Something radical, something that almost strains the bounds of the imagination, something that would immediately unleash the bent-up energy of a free people: a return to constitutionally limited government!

But how do we get there from here? We need to build a new party to win the reins of government from the two-headed bird of prey which has assumed perpetual power through perpetual re-election. What we need now are citizens willing to sacrifice their repose and enter the arena. We need non-professionals to clean up the mess and right the ship of state.

What we don’t need is one more election where the Conservative Progressives replace the Liberal Conservatives because as Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

We need a new party. We must work to unite the Tea Party Movement with the many splinter parties which hold the same basic values. We must reclaim our liberty from the professional politicians and professional radicals who have manipulated the system to achieve unlimited power which they use to spend us into insolvency, tax us into poverty, and regulate us into serfdom.

This new party must siphon off all the conservatives who are members of the twin party out of habit or family tradition. This new party must rise fast and work hard. It must capture the center and the right declaring boldly that it will defend what America stands for but not necessarily all that stands for America. The time has come to fight for the right before we are swallowed by the wrong.

Winston Churchill said, "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

We can’t let divisions divide us or they will bury us. United we stand, divided we fall. None of us can do this alone but together we can. Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8

© 2011 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens.

The Great Civil Debate

It is admitted by all except the liberal media and left-wing ideologues jockeying for political and partisan advantage, neither the tenor nor the content of our public discourse had any bearing upon the tragedy in Tucson. Nevertheless there have been calls for a return to civility in our speech. I heartily second that motion, believing as I do that civility should always be the hallmark of discussion among ladies and gentleman. However, that is not the topic of this discourse.


I seek to call my fellow Americans not to a more civil debate but to The Great Civil Debate. This is the debate we need if we’re to move beyond the gridlock of right versus left, the vitriol of Democrat versus Republican, and the hysteria of a coming conservative authoritarianism or a looming socialist one. The debate I’m calling for is not an innovation in American History. Instead it’s a re-play of a previous event and the sequel to our preliminary event: the debate over the ratification of the Constitution. What we need now is a debate over the relevance of the Constitution with regard to the actions of the Federal Government.

From the day the Constitution was signed, September 17, 1787 to the day it was ratified June 21, 1788, this country rang with the impassioned speeches and stirring essays of both the opponents and the proponents of this our founding document. Today is the day and now is the time for the debate to once again stir the hearts of the nation, will we have a limited government, personal liberty and free enterprise or are we going to have something else? There’s no greater admirer of the United States Constitution then the author of this article. None can be found who gives more veneration to the Framers or who pays more attention to its words.

However, after 222 years there’s no one more convinced that we’ve reached an historical impasse. The Constitution is still in force. It has been amended twenty seven times, but it has not been supplanted. Yet, it’s all but ignored by the Federal Government. Our continually expanding federal bureaucracy tips its hat to the commerce clause or uses the elastic necessary and proper clause as a political fig leaf to do whatever they want. This being the current situation this article is in fact an intervention. It’s well known that until a problem is recognized there’s no hope for a solution. Therefore, since every other commentator I’m aware of dances around the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room, I’ll acknowledge the obvious and take the afore-mentioned primate as my dancing partner and say what must be said: the Constitution has failed.

This is not to say that it is a flawed document, a vehicle for ulterior motives, or that it has always been a failure. This is not to say that I’m offering or advocating for a replacement. As I mentioned earlier, there is no greater admirer of the United States Constitution then the author of this article. What I do mean to say is that this great document which birthed and sustained a limited government for more than two hundred years has now become effectively irrelevant.

The proof for this sad statement can be seen in the unguarded rhetoric of the movers and shakers of our now unlimited government. When asked where in the Constitution a warrant for mandated health care could be found one congressman answers, “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” Another congressman says, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. It means what we say it means.” When asked a question about the constitutionality of health care legislation former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s response is, “Are you serious?”

And we have a President who writes that the Constitution is not “…static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” No wonder a liberal pundit finds it odd that a candidate for Congress would promise to consider the constitutionality of legislation saying, “that certainly isn’t the job of Congress. They should just pass whatever they want and let the courts worry about it later.” These examples are joined by volumes of others, which show that not only is the Constitution irrelevant to these leaders it has become so accepted as irrelevant that they no longer even have to pay lip service to the integrity of the document they’ve sworn to uphold and defend.

We need a reset button. We need to return to limited government. But how do we get there from here? The Tenth Amendment which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” has been emasculated through court rulings. The legal system has moved from original intent to precedent. From what the words mean to what can we say the words mean. This tsunami of change is led by the Progressives who believe that we need to evolve past the ideas and procedures devised and set down by the Framers and create a New America. A transformed America founded not on the equality of opportunity but on the equality of outcome. These big government leaders in both parties seek not mere equal justice for all but social justice, not free enterprise but central planning.

This intervention sadly begins with the assessment based upon the current reality that the Constitution has failed. However, it ends on a note of hope. We’re the descendants of the Pioneers, the offspring of the Framers, and we can do this. We can find a way within the legal framework of the Constitution itself to press that reset button. We can solve this problem, because we’re Americans and we’re a can-do, get-it-done people. But if we refuse to admit there’s a problem we’ll be doomed to suffer silently in the shadows as our beloved city on the hill becomes a lost dream in the twilight of freedom. Instead let’s start The Great Civil Debate. How can we restore limited government, ensure liberty and revitalize free enterprise? How can we get there from here? Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

Finally We All Agree

Progressive policies don’t work. Everyone, even Progressives agree that their vast array of policies and the programs they always birth don’t work.


That the provocateurs of these endless policy schemes agree that they don’t work is proven by the fact that these same Progressives constantly seek to revise, revamp, and expand every program they ever impose. If they were working why is there a need for continuous upgrades?

That Conservatives agree must be deduced by their rhetoric since they do little else except talk. That talk always sounds merely like tinkering with the system since the repeal of these failed policies seldom if ever escapes their lips, unless there is an election on the horizon.

If we now add the recently awakened, no longer silent majority, to the mix we come across a constituency that gets it: these programs don’t work. Yes, they may accomplish some worthwhile things in the short run, but are they sustainable? Do these building blocks of the corporate state build a monument to the freedom of humanity or do they instead build a prison for the human spirit?

Yes, everyone agrees the cradle-to-grave nanny-state programs of the Progressive corporate state don’t work. What we disagree on is the motive for their imposition and the remedy for their failure.

In the social sciences it’s impossible to run controlled experiments. Since the mice can talk they’re always asking, “Who moved my cheese?” And since they have a nasty habit of jumping over the walls of the maze they confound the best laid plans and preconceived results of the social engineers. For example, though the widely accepted social engineer Karl Marx assured us that the implementation of his programs would create a worker’s paradise the pesky workers from East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and all the other beautiful places his disciples managed to turn into hell holes kept jumping off the treadmill to nowhere. They kept voting with their feet and choosing freedom with every opportunity.

Consult the dustbin of History for the results. Compare the economies and lifestyles of East and West Germany, Mao’s China and Hong Kong, the USSR and the USA. Look at the stark contrast between the economy and lifestyle of North and South Korea. Bring it closer to home and compare California and Texas. There is no more fitting monument to several generations of Progressive leadership than the once proud motor-city of Detroit. The policies and programs of the Progressive social engineers have caused more misery, injustice, poverty, and destruction than Attila ever dreamed of or Genghis Khan ever accomplished. The Progressive secular saints have left a trail of broken dreams littering their path to paradise.

Margret Thatcher told us the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money, and I will add that the problem with our homegrown Progressive policies is that no one spends other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own. If the government confiscates ten dollars from citizen A, then takes a fifty percent administration fee to redistribute it to citizen B, how can that five dollars returned to the economy be a net plus? To say we’ll lose a little on each transaction and make it up in volume makes no more sense when it’s government policy than when it’s an example of poor logic.

In addition, in any system dedicated to the redistribution of wealth those who do the redistribution always seem to skim a little more than a little off the top. And while all this selfless redistribution is going on our freedoms fall through the cracks. Progressives talk much about freedom. They want freedom from traditions, and freedom from decorum. They want freedom of speech if that speech agrees with them. They want freedom to practice any religion anywhere at any time, a masque at ground zero for example, but no nativities in public squares or prayers at high school graduations. Check that dustbin of history again; the only Presidents in modern American History who ever rounded up citizens for who they were, what they said, or what they wrote were the Progressives Wilson and FDR.

So if we agree the policies of Progressives don’t work what is the dispute that keeps us from completely agreeing? Our disagreement centers on two things: motives and remedies.

As to motives the Progressives contend they want to help their fellow man. No one is stopping them from doing so. They could give of their own resources or volunteer at a soup kitchen any time they feel the need to create a just society. Instead, they want to force others to pay the freight for their ideas as to what causes and what people are worthy of assistance. This is usually accomplished by them keeping their own money in their pockets while receiving the administrator’s redistribution skim/bonus. Here’s the disagreement. It’s transparently obvious the motive is not to help but to re-order, not to augment the system but to change it.

Looking at remedies, the Progressive’s answer to the fact that their Plan A always fails is to try Plan A again except this time make it bigger. The remedy seen as purely commonsense to everyone else is Plan B. Take the current mad rush to insolvency as an example. We recently had a watershed election shouting as loud as possible, “STOP THE SPENDING!” And what does the Progressive leadership of the twin parties give us, more spending, more spending, and just for good measure more spending.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that when you are trapped in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging. When you’re bleeding to death the first thing to do is stop the bleeding. Just look at the trial balloons floated by even the most fiscally responsible pragmatists the media call conservatives: return spending to what it was under George II. That was unsustainable. It was merely a slower ride to the poor house.

What we need is real change: balanced budgets, policies that will re-industrialize America, an end to wars we won’t win, open borders, and an end to inflationary monetary policy that will eventually collapse our economy. Can we finally all agree on that?

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

Wanted a Kamikaze Congress for a Banzai Counterattack

During World War II when the no-longer sleeping giant was pounding on Japan’s door their do-or-die military began Kamikaze attacks against our ever growing fleets in the Pacific. The Kamikaze pilots flew planes filled with bombs into American ships as the first and only honorable expression of the term suicide bomber. During America’s island-hopping advance through the Japanese Empire the combination of courageous marines and naval supremacy led to defeat for the fanatically loyal Japanese. In many cases instead of surrender the last of the defenders launched a Banzai Counterattack. This was the earthbound equivalent of the airborne Kamikaze. A final charge into the face of overwhelming odds meant to either change the game in one decisive blow or to at least die honorably for a sacred cause.

Unless the Progressives are able to pull an election out of their hat the coming midterms have the feeling of an approaching hurricane. The tide, as measured by polls, is going so far out it looks like a tsunami of indignation is about to send a tidal surge of newly elected self-proclaimed Conservatives with a mandate to reverse the Progressive trajectory. A trajectory which has America aimed like a laser at the dust-bin of History. These newly elected heroes, many of whom have come from nowhere to defeat long-serving Progressive icons, will have been hired by the voters to not only drain the swamp of Federal corruption but to turn the swamp back into the seed bed of liberty and opportunity.

These New Hires must not morph into the in-crowd clique in Washington as so many have in the past. And if the entrenched leaders of the loyal opposition are determined to compromise with the Progressives for some favorable coverage and a photo-op in the rose garden, the New Hires must vote them out and elect new leaders who will fight the good fight. The New Hires must remain true to the people who sent them or the millions of newly aroused voters and grass-roots activists will throw them out in 2012. The Momma Grizzlies, the Grammas, the Grandpas, and all the once-silent majority who’ve sacrificed their repose to stand-up for limited government will turn from ardent supporter to dedicated advisory in the blink of an eye if they believe the new boss starts to look like the old boss.

The New Hires must withstand the ridicule of the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media. The propaganda arm of the Progressive Movement will relentlessly mock and denigrate any who try to dismantle the welfare state and return America to limited government. The New Hires must be willing to commit political suicide by not tweaking but by repealing the entitlements which have turned America from the cradle of opportunity and the arsenal of democracy into a half-way house on the road to the poor-house.

Billionaires who amassed their fortunes through crony deals and manipulation, dedicate themselves to the destruction of capitalism and liberty. They use their power and their front-groups to destroy the lives and the careers of anyone brave enough to step into the swamp and confront the Progressive beast. The recent campaigns have shown no tactic, no smear, no fraud is beneath the opponents of liberty. Instead of victory celebrations on November 3rd the New Hires should rededicate themselves to doing whatever it takes to re-establish limited government.

The hour is late and the night is dark. Our Progressive President aided and abetted by the democrat-controlled Congress of Pelosi and Reid have delivered the wealth of the nation and the power to rule into the hands of a professional bureaucracy willing to legislate through regulations, to rule through politically correct guidelines, and the desire to control our every move. This may be the charge of the Light Brigade into the valley of doom for it’s not enough to return to the spending of the Progressive Bush (either of them) or the Progressive Clinton. No, we need to face the austerity our credit financed binge has purchased. We need to dismantle the entitlement superstructure constructed upon the re-interpreted foundation of the Constitution.

We boomers need to admit we’ve been swindled. There’s no lock-box and there never was. All the money we’ve invested in Social Security over the years wasn’t invested. It was flushed down a rat-hole. There’s nothing there. We have to stop demanding what we feel we have coming and join our children, roll-up our sleeves, and together rebuild the greatest Republic ever to grace the history of man. All of us, every American, needs to admit the binge is over and the time for heavy lifting is here. To pass these changes, over the President’s veto, may swiftly end new political careers. New Heroes will be needed to replace the first line of battle as the banzai counterattack of limited government assaults the ramparts of the Progressive- bureaucratic-media-crony capitalist coalition.

If the portents of a coming pro-limited government victory at the polls prove true we must gird ourselves for the long legislative war against an implacable foe. Be prepared for the Progressives to react like a cornered jackal forced to drop its prey. The battle will be bitter, and don’t count your votes until the dust settles. In any close races ACORN-by-any-other-name will find bags of votes someone forgot to count, the ballots for our heroes defending the Empire overseas can’t seem to make it there on time while those to prisoners are hand- delivered. Thugs who intimidate in front of polling places are given a pass while government-funded institutions urge people to vote early and help the Democratic Party.

Total victory may not be possible until there is a change of administration, but it must be attempted. Those who believe in limited government and personal liberty must make a stand so that those who come after will hear their cry, “These principles we believe in and for these principles we are willing to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our political careers!” Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome. Who knows Republicans may even win in Chicago.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System. http://drrobertowens.com © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

The Bottleneck is Always at the Top

Why does bureaucracy cover the world? Because bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization ever devised. Max Weber first pointed out the defining traits of a bureaucracy calling it the ideal type of organization because it’s rational, efficient and practical. Before his definition this form of organization was called common sense.
As with most things in life the foundational elements of bureaucracy, the things which make it good, can also make it bad. Division of labor which allows the best adapted to concentrate on appropriate tasks producing efficiency also produces people who can only do one thing. Layers of authority make it clear who’s in command also deprives those below a role in decisions and facilitates the concealment of mistakes. Written rules and regulations which allow everyone to know what’s expected also stifles individual initiative and imagination. Impersonality which reduces personal bias also makes people feel like faceless numbers and fosters feelings of alienation. Employment based on technical qualifications discourages favoritism and also discourages ambition. Maintenance of position as the primary occupation of office holder, which produces continuity also breeds stagnation. Promotion based on seniority institutionalizes stability, but it also brings those who can survive in the system to the top instead of innovators. All of which equals the bottleneck is always at the top.
The Leviathan of national government has grown far beyond anything our founders would’ve envisioned. Spreading across the landscape inserting tentacles into everything from who does what to who gets what. Americans stand before the drones making up the business end of the federal bureaucracy hat in hand waiting for service. We’re in the midst of a transaction wherein we’re expected to trade in our freedom for cradle-to-grave security and individual liberty for bureaucratic regimentation. The problem is that when our Progressive collectivist leaders herded us toward giving them total control of our lives the American people have risen up in Tea Parties, Town Halls and State governments declaring, “We the People will not go quietly into that dark night!”
The more the President flexes his media-enhanced, teleprompter-controlled, highly-reverberated communication skills the more people don’t want what he’s selling. Using procedure and manipulation the same 50+ 1 strategy candidate Obama said should not be used to pass health care was used to pass health care while the rest of the agenda stands waiting in the wings. With an overwhelming majority in Congress and enough votes to make the Progressive’s evolution/revolution happen, watch as the total transformation of America metastasizes before the people get a chance to speak in November.
What a travesty! First the best Congress money can buy passes bills without reading them. Now we’re bluntly told we don’t get to know what’s in them until they pass them. It is hard to imagine such arrogance. After taking control of GM, Chrysler and the largest insurance company the Progressives reformed America’s medical system into who knows what and are now moving on to and the financial sector. What will they bail-out (take over) next? The unions? The fossil press? This is no spur of the moment off the cuff solution to immediate problems. This is not just a case of an imperial president passing collectivist legislation against the wishes of the electorate. This is the culmination of a long march by the Progressives. They’ve pretended to be one thing or another: liberals, unions, advocacy groups, or whatever it took to slip past the voters. And let’s face it, they’ve been much more dedicated and disciplined than those who want a nation based on free enterprise and individualism.
From Teddy Roosevelt to Barak Obama we’ve had one Trojan horse after another: one more Federal mandate, one more dependency creating entitlement, and each one a step closer to total government control. Luckily the American spirit of individualism and tradition of liberty hasn’t been completely cowed by 100 years of the Progressive’s evolution/revolution. Not only are the Tea Party and the Town Hall Patriots continuing to stand up for liberty many states are lining up to resist these naked power grabs. Congress refuses to have open debates on the implementation of legislation designed to fundamentally transform America. The Pelosi-Reid Congress following their leader have instituted what in effect is a one-party government seeking no input from the minority party and ignoring the outcry of citizens. They’ve bludgeoned their collectivist bills through to the President’s desk, but when he signed them he signed the marching orders for a legion of awakened voters who will troop to the polls and guide the way home to the America we’ve known and loved. The night may be dark, the way may be long, but if we keep the faith and keep the peace we shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System. http://drrobertowens.com © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net

What Is Sovereignty and Who Has It

Sovereignty is accepted as absolute uncontested authority. This definition of the concept of sovereignty emerged along with the nation-state. The nation-state hasn’t always existed. Everyone tends to see the circumstances of their own times as the static normality of history. And contrary to the endless lectures of History teachers tied to politically correct text books and standardized tests, History is not static it’s dynamic, it changes every day. The concept of the nation-state emerged in the sixteenth century evolving from countries as the private property of monarchs, and however hard to envision the nation-state will someday be replaced by something else.
If that’s what sovereignty is who has it? In England it’s vested in Parliament. In China it’s vested in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. But in America sovereignty isn’t vested in any one place, which means there really isn’t any. No sovereignty? How can that be? Since sovereignty is an absolute, it either exists or it doesn’t and it’s a misapplied concept when striving to understand the American government.
This does not mean that the United States is not a sovereign nation. The Federal Government represents the United Sates on the world stage. To the other countries of the world the Federal Government is the sovereign power with which they must deal. However, domestically we face a different situation. In some areas the Federal Government is sovereign, in some areas the States are sovereign, and in some areas the people are sovereign. Since sovereignty by definition is an absolutist concept and not one of degrees, either something is sovereign or it is not. In the United States there is no one legitimate source or center of sovereignty. The revolutionary theory the Framers advanced into practice is that several centers of power prevents the formation of an authority vortex swallowing all legitimate authority and paralyzing decision making, thus establishing the world’s first viable system of disassociated sovereignty.
Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution as the foundational document and framework of organization of the United States, stated categorically in Article II, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” Nowhere in the Constitution is this retention of inherent sovereignty surrendered. The so-called sovereignty clause found in Article Six of the Constitution obviously gives precedence to the laws and treaties made by the Federal government it does not however expressly say anywhere in the document that the States surrendered or forfeited their inherent sovereignty. If it had it never would’ve been ratified. As expressly stated in the 10th Amendment neither the States nor the people surrendered their sovereignty to the Federal Government they delegated it. There is a difference between these two actions. To surrender is to give entirely and irrevocably to another while delegation is a temporary action based upon continued agreement between the parties involved.
Another strong argument can be made that since all governments are the products of a social contract between those who govern and those governed sovereignty ultimately resides in the people and governments are therefore merely agents of the people’s will. According to this line of thought all governments wield delegated powers and can have no more power in and of themselves than the moon has light without the sun.
Amendment is the only legitimate process for change under the Constitution. If the design calls for a decentralized diffused sovereignty in an asymmetrical system how was change achieved from that to the current system of highly centralized power and control? Was it by amendment or practice? Is it possible for an illegitimate practice to become a legitimate tradition? Is it possible for an illegitimate tradition to set a legitimate precedent?
All of these historically based academic discussions aside and for all intents and purposes the argument about who is sovereign was forever settled by Abraham Lincoln. When the South attempted to succeed, an action not prohibited by the Constitution they were beat back into submission to the Federal Government. Debate over. Question answered. The Federal Government is supreme. However, though this is the reality of our circumstance since the Civil War this is a reality imposed through the use of military force not to be confounded with the original condition based upon the voluntary agreement between the people, the states and the national government in Constitution.
For years this question of who is sovereign has see-sawed back and forth. Today the Progressives and their two headed government party seek to make the exaltation of the central government permanent. If this stands unchallenged America has devolved from the defused model established under the Constitution to a centralized version reminiscent of its original absolutist definition. If this new normal is enshrined as reality it will become increasingly obvious as States strive to assert their rights and people seek to preserve their freedom. For if the central government is now absolutely sovereign it will eventually crush all rivals. If the people are sovereign in time they’ll find their voice, reassert their power, re-establish the federal system, and return to the social contract as ratified in the Constitution.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System. http://drrobertowens.com © 2010 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net