A Growing Worry in the Land (updated 18feb13)

George Rebane

[This is the linked transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 15 February 2013.]

Today everyone knows that we are a polarized nation and becoming more so by the day.  I want to talk about the reaction of a large segment of Americans who see their country slipping away.  This perception did not start yesterday and has been some decades in the making.  But where before it was seen as an erosion that slowly ate away bit by piece at what we hold dear, since Barak Obama’s election that process has accelerated to what many now see as a runaway train headed in the wrong direction and toward a cliff.

If we ignore his campaign pronouncements, President Obama’s ‘08 election promised much.  It was a coming of age when we finally filled the last branch of government with an eloquent speaker full of big ideas who was not lily white.  But we could not discount his words because they accurately foretold of the fundamental transformation of America that he had promised.  It was only the ‘you don’t have to worry’ assurances about his new regime that we could discount and do so totally.

Before being elected he toured overseas, preaching and apologizing for the evils of America, and promised to make things right.  In his speeches he celebrated, some say worshipped, the way other countries were governed, how they generated wealth, and how the state enabled and contributed to the people’s wellbeing at all levels.  He told us we had a lot to learn about how to fix our own problems.  And the first part of that learning involved letting our government become a much bigger part of our own lives, even if it meant giving up some long held liberties for the benefit of all.

The response in 2009 was hearteningly swift.  Americans at all levels took notice and began to voice opposition to this new and strange messiah.  Recognizing commonality in their voices, they joined in various organizations that came to be called the tea parties.  Espousing constitutional government, fiscal propriety, free enterprise, and maintenance of individual liberties, these organizations were able to gain the House of Representatives in 2010.  But that gain turned out to be the only one as 2012 passed, and even that was diminished in Congress.

In the meanwhile we saw an imperial presidency grow and evolve into an administration that considers Congress and the Constitution optional appendages, used only when convenient to convince the electorate that nothing essential had changed or was changing now.  A more detailed view of Washington’s omnibus reach and operations told a different story.  New regulations became a torrent while government departments continued to fortify themselves with new levels of armaments that before had only seen duty in the military.  Historically unarmed departments began buying and wearing guns.  Incidents of paramilitary government thuggery grew, and it was clear from new initiatives launched against the 1st and 2nd Amendments that this government was becoming very afraid of its own citizens.

The reaction has been a sense of alarm at local levels that have felt the heavy hand of uninvited and illegal federal interventions in counties and regionally, enforcing new diktats freshly minted by the federal bureaucracies.  A large scale response starting in the western states was the formation of the Constitutional Sheriffs - individual county sheriffs who promised to draw the line on egregious federal contraventions of local laws while end-running local law enforcement officials.  Concurrently the long slumbering John Birch Society has awakened and is going around the country explaining the related evils of the UN’s Agenda 21 design of our future.  Just recently they gave a presentation at the Nevada City Elks Club that was attended by two hundred locals of all political stripes.

And now the tea parties across America are putting away their crying towels, and regrouping for the good fight coming in 2014.  Things are really starting to stir again after President Obama told us that we have seen nothing compared to what he intends to transform in the next four years.  Millions of people believe him, and have been stocking up for all kinds of contingencies that today look very real.

Here in Nevada County you will have a chance to see what all the fuss is about when another new organization to combat government overreach – the Oathkeepers – comes to town on February the 19th.  On that evening at the GV Veterans Center you will be able to hear Oathkeepers founder Stewart Rhodes lay out what is happening, and how this organization of civilians, veterans, and law enforcement officials intends to respond.  Then you will know what people who live at the other pole are really thinking.

My name is Rebane, and I expand on this and related themes on georgerebane.com where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However these views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

[18feb13 update]  The Australian experience with gun bans and confiscations (video).  And here's one (video) from California, the idiots' delight - a police chief who daily confirms that the government is the employer of last resort.

Comments

[Gerry Fedor]

Just whom continues to perpetuate this mantra of "their coming to get your guns", "their taking away your rights", "it's those negro's from Kenya that are coming back to make whitey pay for their past deeds"?

I have to wonder.....

[Steve Frisch]

OK I'll bite.

The John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org

Agenda 21
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

Constitutional Sheriffs
http://www.constitutionalsheriffs.com

The Oathkeepers
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

The Tea Party Patriots
http://nctpp.org

From the Oathkeepers web site: "Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial. We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”
Our motto is “Not on our watch!” If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you."

Which all brings me to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co

And the question: What is the responsibility of these guys

http://www.kvmr.org

to tell the truth and not provide a format for the rise of fascism in America?

[Russ Steele]

If the leader of the free world can lie with such impunity we are doomed

Obama's war on climate change is a war against a chimera. He is enlarging the state, holding back the economic recovery, restricting freedoms, driving up the price of energy and killing jobs in order to deal with a problem which only exists in the discredited computer projections of a shameless cabal of grant-troughing activist scientists increasingly out of touch with real world data.

The question is why, outside the Internet, has no one called him on it?

[TheMikeyMcD]

George, I just love it when your posts stir up emotional responses... emotional responses that have no foundation of truth, logic or reason.

Like the idiots wearing Guy Fawkes masks begging for more government or the idiots that think individual liberties = fascism. Fascism (like most other bad isms) REQUIRES COLLECTIVISM/PROGRESSIVISM/BIG GOVERNMENT; a focus on individual liberty insures against fascism.

On the political spectrum Fascism is on the far left.

[Fuzz]

George, could you expand on your understanding of the Oathkeepers.  I'd never heard of them but went to their website and watched some of the videos.  I get the idea that they're not proactive, just reactive against their perceived violations of the Constitution (and Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc.)  So.... how would they have conducted themselves when the Constitution was first signed?  The Constitution/DOI/BOR declared the right of all men to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", yet it left slavery intact. Would the Oathkeepers have enforced slavery statutes?  I was intrigued when one black youth (in the video) proclaimed it was the Constitution that "got my people free."  He is patently wrong.  It was the defeat of the South that principally "got his people free".  The 13th Amendment would have meant nothing to Jefferson Davis et. al. if the South had won.  Even after the 13th Amendment, legalized discrimination remained for a hundred years until the Civil Rights Act.  Further, in trying to determine how fundamental this goes, the Constitution, for instance, says nothing about the Federal Government establishing "social programs".  Would the Oathkeepers say that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?  I'm not trying to be facetious, I just want to understand where their thinking extends.  Does it only involve matters of civil order and national defense?

[Russ Steele]

Who is da Fuzz?

[George Rebane]

GerryF 714am - You could try the state of California for openers.

MikeyM 756am - your bringing up that facetious 'misunderstanding' by the Left is timely. They dare not stop the lies, and continuing to accuse organizations that promote the Constitution and individual liberties (a la Bastiat Triangle) as being fascist is part of their toolkit. But the Left, through its schools, has taught our youth that fascism is not another kind of socialism, and that lie must be repeated by their minions as often as possible.

Fuzz 809am - I don't know much about the Oathkeepers, that's why I'm going to be at the GV Veterans Center on the eve of 19 Feb. (I also wonder why you are a sackhead (q.v.) on these pages.)

[Ben Emery]

The direction of the nation is a product of many things and what you, George, are claiming to do with Obama is absurd. President Barack Hussein Obama is just another link in a chain of hostage Executive Branches to the inevitable corruption of large institutions. I think one factor above all else stands out. The Military Industrial Complex (MIC)that was put on steroids by Truman administration and have fallen victim ever since. The Cold War and the scare tactics used to perpetuate this MIC probably has some merit but very little. We welcomed the role of world police and built up this complex to where any serious reduction in Defense/ Offense spending would affect the macro and many regional economies negatively, no politician is willing to end their out of date program. We can call it Keynesian militarism, which is the very fear that many if not most of our founding fathers had about standing armies.

The other factors was the 1960's civil unrest and the string of assassinations of liberal leaders. Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran Contra, Lewinsky, Virtually the entire W Bush administration and now much of the Obama administration.

We are a product of our own actions and those of us who speak out against our actions are usually met with resistance. We are told we are radical when what we are advocating is reversing directions of our perpetual downward spiral of the Military Industrial Complex that is funded by Federal Reserve and intertwined with just about every major industry in the US.

What you are talking about is the United States of America becoming an outright Corporatist State.

[Steve Frisch]

Yeah, how dare someone using a pseudonym ask rational questions!

I have a few of my own:

Who determines what is unconstitutional? The Oathkeeprs?

Who determines what is illegal or immoral? The Oathkeeprs?

Who determines what constitutes 'disarming" the American people? The Oathkeepers?

It is our legal system, from the halls of Congress to the local courts that determine these things. If we want to change law, we elect people to Congress, they write laws, our President signs them [or not], they get implemented, and people challenge the constitutionality of laws in the courts, eventually being determined by the SCOTUS. If Congress does not like what the SCOTUS decides they write a new law and the process begins all over again.

That is how a society of law works. It does not work through a group of unelected military and police officers forming a group to "fight for your liberty in another American revolution."

So McD....this is not an emotional response. I defend our nation. I have every right to. I defend it by standing for the rule of law over unelected armed militia like the Oathkeepers.

I have to also seriously question Sheriff Keith Royal's association with the 'Constitutional Sheriff' movement. I would really counsel Sheriff Royal to take a good hard look at just who the 'constitutional sheriffs' are and what movement they are associated with. I believe there is serious question about our elected sheriff being listed on their site as a supporter. Has he consented to being listed as a supporter on a site that links directly to armed militia? If so, that is a pretty radical move for a guy who gets elected every four years.

It is the George's of the nation who are standing for tearing our nation down through armed revolution and unlawful conduct in some futile attempt to resist the natural change that occurs in every society over time.

Fortunately I know that the proponents of this line of reasoning in our County are through natural causes relatively short of time on this earth.

[Steve Frisch]

Jesus Ben, you are going to whistle right past the damn gate marked "labor maker you free".

[Joe Koyote]

Fascism is another kind of socialism and our schools have failed to teach this? Do you make this stuff up, where did this "theory" come from? I have a degree in Political Science and the general train of thought seems to be that fascism is a far right endeavor not leftist. If fascism is socialism, why did Wall Street back Hitler's rise to power as a counter to the Soviets? While the two share some characteristics (extreme nationalism, no tolerance for dissent, strong national government with dictatorial inclinations, etc., fascism is described by many (Mussolini, FDR) to be a marriage of government and corporations, socialism tends to favor government ownership of certain endeavors while fascism does not. Another example of conservative double speak, war is peace, liberals are fascists, liberals are socialist, liberals are communists, conservatives are not fascists, conservatives are not greedy, they are good wholesome people who only have American's best interests at heart, and profit is just a sideline to that activity.

[Steve Frisch]

Ah, Joe, this is just another crazy, tin-foil hat wearing, right wing canard perpetrated by historical revisionists to blame those they claim are anti-capitalist for every evil in the modern world. Not content with the false equation of the evil inherent in the communist economic system as it was implemented in the 19th and 20th centuries with American liberalism, they must try to tie fascism to the modern liberal in order to wash the stain of complicity that they bare.

[George Rebane]

JoeK 1016am - It appears that you have every reason to demand a full refund from the institution that claimed to teach you political science.

To the extent that Wall Street backed Hitler has everything to do with geo-strategic politics/finance during the rise of Bolshevism in Europe, and nothing to do with the definition of fascism. That you are still suffering in ignorance of fascism as a form of collectivism that subverts industrial policy to its purposes, AND a form of governance that does not include any of the tenets of Bastiat's Triangle which are the basis of our Constitution and the principles that conservatives espouse, is evidence enough to make your case. And you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that not all Republicans are conservatives or libertarians (or conservetarians).

And as far as America becoming a corporatist state, in recent history no greater strides toward that form of socialism have been made than by President Obama.

[Steve Frisch]

Well George, I have read quite a bit of Enlightenment, early American, and American Revolutionary period history. I have even read Bastiat. No where were the "tenets of Bastiat's Triangle' the 'basis of our Constitution'. To characterize the revolutionary American understanding of the philosophy of the enlightenment, the rise of scientific empiricism, religious reformation thought, and the delicate dance of economic forces that encouraged Americans to gradually embrace revolution, as simplistically as 'the tenets of Bastiat', is just ass backward. Real history, by real historians who do not twist it to fit their propaganda, is just never that simple.

As far as the efficacy of Joe's education, I suggest George's education is so colored by ideology at this point that he can no longer tell the difference between reality and the world as he wishes it to be.

[Gregory]

As if Cal State Frisco didn't color Frisch's world.

Really, Steve, while I don't put Bastiat in any central location for my politics, it is classic liberalism and that 'triangle' effectively exists in Locke, Jefferson and the Constitution, or at least did before the sphincter of the interstate commerce clause was overstretched from misuse.

[George Rebane]

For the record (and adding to Gregory's 146pm), Bastiat constructed the minimalist tenets of liberalism - security, liberty, property - from his ideological forebears, and summarized them in 'The Law'. As his student, I merely gave them a graphic form in the Bastiat Triangle (engineering explanation omitted) that, in turn, made it easy for my students to remember when I was teaching at CSUN (journalism and media). It worked so well that I have continued to use the metaphor. Sadly, it is not a presentation of seminal rights that is accessible to all.

[Steve Frisch]

I bow to the expert, the biggest sphincter I know (electronically).

[Steve Frisch]

George, did you actually come up with the Bastiat Triangle analogy and image while you were teaching at Cal State Northridge? I am perversely impressed.

[Joe Koyote]

George-- you taught journalism and media and you think their is a liberal bias in news. I would demand a refund if I were you and so should your students.

[Gregory]

Frisch, if you'd keep your head on the daylight side of the constitutional sphincter, you'd have more of a clue.

[TheMikeyMcD]

George, thanks for the logic and reason.... emotions are running high with the progressives. I can't imagine their tone if a liberty lovin' guy like you held office!

I can tell which commenters are living off the taxpayers teet. #obvious

[Bill Tozer]

Think I will just skip the comments and go directly to Dr. Rebane's article. I am one feeling our country is slipping away. Hitler wrote Mein Kempt laying out what he was going to do and later he did what he said he was going to do. Thank goodness the Allies stopped him. Same with Obama. We only have his spoken words and speeches since there is not one editorial published by Obama when he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review nor has one term paper from his college days surfaced.

Slipping away. Seems you can't walk outside and have a smoke without breaking some sort of law. The idea of public servant has been replaced with public slave master. The way Obama dissed the Supreme Court shows his contempt for anything resembling an equal branch of government.

Excessive Executive Orders are so common now that they circumvent Congress (elected law makers)on a daily basis. This reminds me of the early political cartoons of George Washington lampooned as King George after he sent troops to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was a direct result of the Congress's second thing they ever passed, aka, a tax on whiskey.

One wonders how the Constitutional privileges given to the people to overthrown a tyrannical government will ever happen. Are we going to take up arms and shoot young National Guards or US soldiers or an US Marshall in the eye at 200 yards to fight for our freedoms? We would be squashed like the infant in his mother's arms at Ruby Ridge.

I am not for abolishing the Constitution like some who do not like the way it was written. They seem not to grasp the notion that the Constitution is the law of the land and the very embodiment of our ideals. Our ideals are for men to be free, and free men and women must have limited government or they are not free. Never met a liberal who wanted a more limited government; nay, they worship government as the solution to all their little ails of life and they proclaim the problems with society today is that government is not big enough.
I am not for altering the Constitution. I am for upholding the Constitution, albeit the more one espouses the Constitution, the more one is demonized and ridiculed (as if such disparagement could ever silence this Patriot). God bless the USofA. Like the old bumper sticker "I love my country, but I fear my government". The shining light on the hill is looking more like Mein Kempt.

[Michael Anderson]

I have to go take a shower now after reading all of this garbage. Not sure why I keep subjecting myself to the RR abattoir. I just got back from a nice trip to Tahoe, where money was flying around like in one of those old game shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Concentration_money_shower_1972.JPG

I know things are tough for people who are left out of the current money shower, but the constant mewling on this site is not helping those people one iota. In fact, it's the biggest part of the problem.

I'll be at the Oathkeepers meeting on Tuesday at the GV Vets Hall, with bells on my toes. It's close to my birthday, so this will be a great self-gifted birthday present for me. Will GG be there? Bill Tozer? Todd & Mikey?

I can't wait.

[George Rebane]

MichaelA 912pm - I can imagine your pain Michael. If there is anything I can do to help end it, please let me know.

[Michael Anderson]

George asked: "If there is anything I can do to help end [your pain], please let me know."

Yup. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3jdbFOidds

[Bill Tozer]

Mr. Anderson, this may help you in your hour of sorrow. Then again, perhaps it is too late.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdAt4qWvz_8

[Russ Steele]

JOEL KOTKIN on the The Age Of Bernanke.

Many of the biggest losers in the Bernanke era are key Democratic constituencies, such as minorities and the young, who have seen their opportunities dim under the Bernanke regime. The cruelest cuts have been to the poor, whose numbers have surged by more than 2.6 million under a president who has promised relentlessly to reduce poverty.

Things, of course, have not [been] too great for the middle-age and middle-class – more of them now supporting both aging parents and underemployed children. Median income in America is down 8 percent from 2007, and dropping. Things, in reality, are not getting better for anyone but the most affluent.

A particular loser has been small business. As we enter the sixth year since the onset of the Great Recession, and nearly four years after the “recovery” officially began, small business remains in a largely defensive mode. Critically, start-up rates are well below those than following previous downturns in 1976 and 1983. The number of startup jobs per 1000 – a key source of job growth in the past – over the past four years is down a full 30 percent from the Bush and Clinton eras. New firms – those five years or younger – now account for less than 8 percent of all companies, down from 12 percent to 13 percent in the early 1980s, another period following a deep recession.

This calls into question our local lefty claims that the economy is getting better?