Modest Proposals to Restore America

There are many ways in which the United States of America has wandered from its inspired roots. It doesn't help that the Left can't shut up about, say, slavery, which America inherited from the immemorial past and then, at great cost in lives, abolished. But then, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. And the Left doesn't really care about slavery: We never hear about slavery in ʾIslām from them, even though the whole slave trade was created by the Arabs, and slavery, including sex slavery and trafficking, has lately been revived by Islamist radicals (if it ever really disappeared).

What I have seen recently is a claim that some large percentage of the slaves brought to North America were Muslims. This is all but impossible. The African Kingdoms that sold slaves to Europeans obtained them by capturing neighboring peoples in their area, along the Coast of Africa. This is the same area into which Arab slavers raided from the North, unless the Arabs didn't want to go that far and instead captured Black Muslims from the Black Muslim Kingdoms along the way, which they were not supposed to do. The Kings of Mali (who were slavers themselves) objected to this directly to the ʾAmīrs of Morocco. Thus, the new claim is an attempt to reverse history and portray Muslims as victims rather than as themselves enslavers. It is not the first lie we see in this business.

The African slaving kingdoms, like Dahomey and Benin, continued their practices even after Britain and the United States abolished and suppressed the slave trade in 1808. They were not stopped until the French and British occupied the kingdoms. Thus, "colonialism," in East and North Africa also, is what finally ended slaving -- the Barbary slave trade, which had raided as far as Iceland and Newfoundland, was finally ended when France occupied Algeria in 1830. By the time Somali pirates became a problem, at its peak around 2011, there was at first little but confusion about how to deal with it. It has still not been completely suppressed -- despite a single RPG being enought sink the pirate boats [note].

No, attacks on American history are all a smokescreen to hide the real agenda, which first of all is just money, "reparations," and second is a communist totalitarian dictatorship, as in Cuba, to which Democrat politicians and elite "celebrities" have been making pilgrimages for years.

Constantly hearing about slavery, "America's original sin," is just a way of discrediting everything about America -- while slavery doesn't seem to be the "original sin" of ʾIslām,

Communist and Anti-Semitic Hero Zohran Mamdani (second from Left) laughing it up with his Communist friends in the Cuban United Nations Delegation -- Party Members who don't need to wait in line just to get bread in Cuba.

or to discredit anything about it -- that would be criminal, racist "Islamophobia." Instead, the eternal American guilt for slavery can only be remedied by a communist dictatorship, such as openly described by Ibram X. Kendi.

A recent poll found that 46% of college students agreed that Cuba and even the Soviet Union "offer a better economic model than capitalist countries like the United States." One must marvel at the ignorance and folly of anyone believing anything of the sort. But they didn't come up with this on their own. They've been taught.

And we can see the preparation for totalitarianism at the universities, where freedom of thought and speech is systematically suppressed, if not violently attacked (now including the assassination of Charlie Kirk) -- and supplemented with rabid (sometimes violent) anti-Semitism. There is little that isn't viciously Anti-American at the schools, from sinecure professors, at taxpayers' expense. This is "higher education" in America.

Students have been taught that disagreement is "violence" and so can be met with violence, even death. Conservatives, Christians, Zionists, landlords, health insurance executives, etc. deserve to die. Masked and black-clad Fascisti attack dissenters or even just observers (like Andy Ngo, at left), while ironically claiming to be "anti-Fascist." The Left makes some small efforts to hide this stuff -- which is why Andy Ngo was attacked, to the opposite effect of silencing him -- but they don't really try very hard. We get the message.

They want us to be threatened -- but then they play the victim when anyone fights back: Just like the peasant proclaiming, "He's oppressing me!" to King Arthur, who is doing nothing, in Monty Python and the Holy Grail [1975]. Complaining about their violence and threats is attacking "free speech," which they don't believe in at all.

The threats of the Left are not always subtle. On Wednesday, November 19th, 2025, an anti-Semitic mob stormed the historic Orthodox Park East Synagogue on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Among other things, rioters shouted, "We need to make them scared." Ironically, the meeting at the Synagogue was about immigration to Israel, which we might say the mob was actually encouraging. Little was done to prevent the mobsters from harassing attendees at the Synagogue.

This is becoming common in cities where Democrats tolerate, if not encourage, anti-Semitism. As it happens, it is illegal in New York to block the entrance to a house of worship. But no mobsters were arrested; and idiot Manhattanites just reelected the pro-crime DA Alvin Bragg, who wouldn't have prosecuted the mobsters anyway. In New York, where about a third of the Jewish population voted for the anti-Semite Zohran Mamdani, we even see a sort of Death Wish among Jews themselves. Leftist Jews may still be yearning for Communism, or they fail to see that "sympathy" for Palestinians is actually a seriously misplaced endorsement of Terrorism, whose program is to kill Jews. Go figure.

A favorite trope of the Democrats and the Left now, which shameless Democrat politicians and discredited talkshow hosts have claimed, is to deny that the "anti-Fascists," "Antifa," even exist, now that President Trump has declared them a "domestic terrorist" organization. But here we see Antifa soldiers prepared for battle, with shields, masks, and helmets, all in their black (Anarchist) and red (Communist) colors. These are the people who have already beaten Andy Ngo twice to within an inch of his life -- for which no one has ever been arrested or prosecuted, since it is in Portland, where politicians protect criminals and terrorists -- the militia of the Democrat Party. One beating was right in front of the Portland central Police Station, with officers watching, perhaps with approval.

One problem with the "Antifa doesn't exist" approach is Rutgers University Professor Mark Bray, who has written a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook [Melville House 2017]. Mark had apparently not gotten the memo about non-existence. But the Rutgers chapter of Turning Point USA noticed Mark and called him out -- with the result that the University wants to disqualify, or something, the Turning Point officers, while other students are circulating a petition that the University should protect Bray from the Fascist government that is defaming him. Meanwhile, Bray himself says that, to escape Fascism, he is fleeing to Spain, whose own great tradition of Anarchism, and Fascism, he has written about.

But America has truly wandered in other ways, most importantly that the foundation principles of American government and the Constitution have really been forgotten. We see this every time someone defines "Republican government" as simply meaning the election of representatives to govern, in contrast to "direct democracy," where citizens assemble to rule directly. They have forgotten that a "republic" is based on the structure of the Roman Republic, whose unique principles were first described by the Greek historian Polybius (and echoed by Machiavelli). The best approach to this now I explore in my discussion of the book by Anthony Kaldellis, The Byzantine Republic, where forms of republican and imperial government are examined. On this page, the nature of Republican government is discussed below with the "Reapportionment Cases."

The most damage done to the government of our Great Republic was during the "New Deal" Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. This was also building on the ideology of the "Progressive" Era, when a President like Woodrow Wilson (a former darling of the Left, whom they have suddenly discovered to have been a virulent racist) did not believe in American government at all, but wanted to replace it with "expert" bureaucrats -- the "Administrative State." This program has been all too successful, and it is not clear than we can ever really recover from its evils. At the same time, the New Deal "National Recovery Act," NRA, of 1933, was based on the obvious success Mussolini was having in Fascist Italy -- which made it a Great Power, until, of course, it was unable to occupy Greece without German help [note].

So I have some modest proposals. Some are mainly symbolic, like the first, others are more substantial, even foundational.

1. Restore Route 66

   First is to restore a highway, US Route 66, which ran from Chicago to Los Angeles (or, more precisely, to Santa Monica). This was begun in 1926, just as Americans were flexing the muscles of the inexpensive automobiles created by Henry Ford. Over the years, Route 66 came to be thought of as "The Main Street of America" and the "Mother Road." It was formally made the "Will Rogers Highway," after the untimely death of the humorist in 1935.

   In time, US 66 would be celebrated in song and literature and then in a dedicated television show, Route 66 (1960-1964). As such, it became an essential part of American history and identity in the 20th Century.

   And then they destroyed it.

   The Interstate Highway System was proposed by President Eisenhower. It was a good idea, based on the Autobahn highways Eisenhower had seen in Germany (which even today often have no speed limits). These would be limited access highways that would bypass clogged surface streets. They would mostly be "freeways," i.e. not toll roads, like the New Jersey or Pennsylvania Turnpikes. Since Eisenhower understood their military value, they could be Constitutionally justified as "National Defense" roads. And the system would be the "Eisenhower Interstate Highway" system.

   Where US highways were numbered from East to West (US 1 to US 101) and from North to South (US 2 to US 90), the Interstates would be numbered from West to East (I-5 to I-95) and South to North (I-8 to I-94). This was a nice tit-for-tat.

   By contrast, when I visited Guadalajara (وَادِي ٱلْحِجَارَة, Wādī-l-ḥijāra, "Valley of the Boulders"), Mexico, in the early 1980's, there were no freeways, no expressways, no throughways, no ring road, no way to get around or across town without a slow trek on the surface streets. It made me appreciate the American roads.

   As the Interstates were built, we began to see them replace US highways. California seems to have been particularly bad about this. US 99, which ran up the East side of the San Joaquin Valley was reduced to a California highway, route 99. South of downtown Los Angeles, where US 101 and I-5 would have coincided, US 101 was abolished. US 466, which ran from Kingman, Arizona, to Morro Bay, California, where James Dean had his fatal accident, was reduced to California 46. This mostly seems gratuitous and malicious.

   US 66 clearly was in the bullseye. By 1985, every State through which the road passed -- California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Illinois -- had abolished it. If you wanted to follow the route, you could drive down I-10, I-15, I-40, I-44, and then I-55, all the way from Santa Monica to Chicago. There remains a US 65, and a US 67; but no US 66, anywhere.

   To add insult to injury, they decided to have an I-66 highway, which runs from I-81 in Virginia on in to Washington DC. I-81 itself runs from Knoxville, Tennessee, all the way to Canada. But if you want to detour to do some political lobbying, you can turn off on I-66. Instead of the "Mainstreet of America," we get another drain into the "Swamp" of DC. Just the right symbolism. Route 66 was entirely over "flyover country," as the Ruling Class sneers down at the Yahoos and Christians on their way to DC, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, etc.

   Abolishing Route 66 was a crime against America. And people soon began to feel it. So now we have a few stretches labelled the "Historic Route 66." But this is for tourists, not for travel or commerce.

   So I say: Use the Interstates, add US 66 signs, but also retain the "Historic Route 66" sidetrips, for those who want to explore. Be sensible that this route totally avoids the East Coast and its Elites, even though LA and Chicago are currently just as corrupt and vicious as the Elites are. Let them do some driving through Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas and see how they like that. I know, New Mexico and Arizona are more than a little corrupt themselves, but they do have their own character. The elites go to Santa Fe, but not a lot of evil comes out of it.
   

   Grand Army of the Republic Highway

   The Devil's Highway

2. Reintroduce Gold Certificates

   Once upon a time, you could buy a loaf of bread for 5¢, a nickel. During World War II, in Los Angeles, you could buy dinner for 25¢, a quarter. In 1968, I could buy a whole Mexican dinner -- enchilada, taco, beans, rice, tortillas, and tea -- at Ortega's Mexican Restaurant, on Ventura Blvd. in Sherman Oaks, for $2.00. I would leave a dollar tip. Still for about $2.00, in 1972 I could buy a hamburger, fries, and a drink at the McDonald's on Kalakaua Ave. in Honolulu. No tip.

   At this point, people might just not believe what prices used to be like. In the Clint Eastwood movie, Changling [2008], we see a father and son who have had breakfast at a diner in Ohio, in 1928. The father doesn't have enough money to pay the bill: $2.00. Unfortunately, in 1928 $2.00 would have fed a large family, not a man and boy for breakfast. Clint Eastwood evidently didn't have anyone run down what prices were really like in 1928. However they came up with that price, it got by everyone in the production, who must have thought it made some kind of sense. Well, that was my dinner in Waikiki in 1972, not a modest breakfast, in rural America, in 1928.

   A few days ago, I bought a Big Mac and fries, no drink, at McDonald's, for about $14.00. A more than seven-fold increase since 1972, after intense inflation in the 1970's and during the Biden Administration. The first of those substantially devalued my parents' savings. Some might call it theft.

   Things have gotten so bad that the physical cent, copper clad, is now worth more than its face value. Just as people tear copper piping out of buildings to sell as scrap, they might consider dong the same with pennies. Consequently, the United States Government plans to stop minting the cent coin. It will go the way of the old French centime, which was discontinued before the Franc itself disappeared into the Euro -- without the intermediate step, apparently, of becoming aluminum, which has happened to some small coins in various currencies. Americans should revolt against this development, or at least be revolted.

   Since going off the Gold Standard, the dollar has done nothing but lost value. The strategy behind this seems to involve a couple of things. One is the idea, presented as "Keynsian Economics" (although it may not be; John Maynard Keynes had simply advocated government spending in a recession, and that wages should be maintained -- which was all wrongheaded enough), that inflation causes economic growth. This was soundly refuted by the 1970's, when serious inflation accompanied poor growth and high unemployment. Nevertheless, it continues to be a popular idea; and Say's Law is rarely invoked to refute it.

   Since deflation is bad for borrowers (making debts more valuable), and inflation is good for borrowers (making debts less valuable), the biggest borrower of all, the Federal Government, has a strong motive to devalue the currency. This piggybacks on the previous notion to justify the Federal Reserve deliberarely trying to engineer inflation at 2% per year. This is not only wrongful (to lenders and savers), but it violates the traditional charge of the Federal Reserve to maintain the value of the dollar. Only once in the history of the Federal Reserve was the value of the dollar actually maintained, and that was in the 1920's, in the time of Benjamin Strong.

   Of course, discipline could be restored by a return to the Gold Standard, which is advocated by some. However, this courts the risk of a shortfall in gold resulting in the kind of deflation that caused trouble in the late 19th century.

   Franklin Roosevent decided, not just to expand the money supply, but to withdraw all the gold from circulation and even outlaw holding gold for its value. You could have some jewelry, but that was it. Contracts that specified payment in gold ("gold clauses") were voided, despite the Constitutional obligation of the government to "honor the sanctity of contracts." Yet there was deflation anyway, since Hoover and Roosvelt had made the economy collapse -- only World War II spending created actual inflation, which was masked by price freezes until the War was over.

   Today, it is popular for people to hedge their bets and maintain the value of savings by investing in gold. This is awkward, since they must then trust someone else to hold their gold, or they must make provisons to hold it themselves, which is awkward. People also invest in "Bitcoin" and other kinds of "cryptocurrency," which are currencies based on nothing besides their scarcity, with supply limited only by the computer programs that generate them. This seems dubious and risky. There is no reason why cryptocurrencies couldn't collapse in value overnight.

   But there is an alternative. The United States Government used to issue Gold Certificates. These were simply for the gold value of the dollar. After the Civil War, when "greenback" United States Notes were worth less than face value, "greenbacks" and "goldbacks" (orange rather than green on the reverse) circulated together, and banks held deposits in either. As United States Notes slowly gained in value, they eventually traded at par with Gold Certificates. This was part of the general deflation of the age.

   Today, the United States Government again mints gold coins, but they are made by weight, for gold investors. This produces the difficulties that investors have holding them. Gold is heavy. But if Gold Certificates were reintroduced, then gold investors don't need to hold gold, only notes; and banks once again could provide savings accounts in gold, based on the Gold Certificates.

   The United States would then, in effect, have two currencies; but there would be no need to deflate Federal Reserve Notes. The two currencies would be in different values. Nevertheless, a certain discipline might be introduced. If people felt that Reserve Notes were becoming less valuable, they could move their savings over to gold. Merchants might begin pricing things in gold, as some now do in Bitcoin, and Gold Cerificates could become an everyday currency.

   At the same time, if the Federal Reserve maintained discipline, and gold shortages cause a price rise, people might prefer dollars for certain purposes, like loans. You don't want a mortgage on your house to become more valuable if there is a deflation in gold. And you don't want your credit card debt to become more valuable.

   This all seems to me a reasonable compromise, and the system, with gold holdings and cryptocurrencies, seems to be moving in this direction already. It is a mix of a Gold Standard and a flexible fiat currency, with some discipline and safeguards imposed.

   With the sobering presence of Gold Certificates, the crackpot "Modern Monetary Theory" (MMT) would lose purchase. This lunacy, derisively called the "Magical Money Tree," is that you can just create unlimited amounts of money without destroying the economy. Weimar and Zimbabwe would seem to say "No." But it shows how out of touch with reality some popular economists can be.

3. Overrule the "Reapportionment Cases"

   All States, except Nebraska, have two Houses in their State legislatures. It used to be that one house was based on population, the other on a geographical division of the State that usually gave rural populations greater representation in the legislature.

   In the 60's, the Supreme Court ruled that this was unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment provision not to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The argument is that urban voters do not have "equal protection" because rural voters have more political power under the traditional systems.

   The irony of the Supreme Court's rulings about this is that they implicitly condemn the form of the United States Government itself, where the citizens of small or sparcely populated States have just as much representation in the United State Senate as do citizens of large and populous States. If the Court could have abolished the Senate, perhaps it would have, except that the States and their powers are part of the Constitution itself.

   Rural populations used to be larger, so there was less imbalance of the electorate. However, it is obvious that the politicians designing their States preferred rural values over urban ones. In one State after another, their Capitals were not in the major cities, but were removed rather far away from them. Albany is in Upstate New York. Harrisburg is far from Philadelphia. Springfield is far downstate from Chicago. And in a relative latecomer, California, Sacramento is well inland, surrounded by farmland, away from San Francisco. It doesn't make much difference now; but clearly in the 19th Century this made it easier for rural representatives to attend State government, in the midst of their own constituents.

   So who has committed the injustice? The Constitution through the Senate and the Electoral College that is based on it? Or the ruling of the Court that the States cannot follow the principle of the Federal Government itself? Indeed, the Left hates the Senate and the Electoral College, mainly because largely rural States, which tend to be sparcely populated, tend to be more Conservative than the urbanized States.

   As we see on the map for the Presidential election of 2024, there are two States, Oklahoma and West Virginia, where the Democrats carried no counties. Also in two States, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, did the Republicans not carry any counties. Poor Vermont, once the granite foundation of the Republican Party, needs to drive Leftist Democrat New Yorkers, like Ben & Jerry and Bernie Sanders, back down the Hudson. Large rural areas of Arizona and New Mexico contain Indian Reservations, which are heavily dependant on Federal money, a Democrat specialty. We might wonder if the mountainous areas of Colorado have been taken over by the ski lodges of Coastal elites.

   In fact, the "Reapportionment Cases" violate a basic principle of Republican, and American, Government; for the United States was never intended to be a pure democracy, with the "tyranny of the majority" always threatening. Instead, as we see in the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Thus, the protection of rights, not the power of the majority, was the purpose of American Government.

   And the truth is that rural populations tend to rely on different rights, especially property rights, than urban populations, which include many renters, who do not own property. Indeed, "rent control" laws allow renters to encroach on the rights of property owners, often rendering rental properties unsustainable, so that they get abandoned (as in New York, Detroit, etc.). Of course, this is what the Left wants, because they want everyone in the miserable, crime-ridden Stalinist termite mounts of "public housing," which are easily policed, not for crime, but for political conformity. Like in China and Cuba, where every apartment building and neighborhood has a political officer, who informs about dissent and heresy.

   On the other hand, rural properties tend to involve economic activities and resources, especially farming, logging, grazing, mining, etc. And, as noted, rural populations tend to be more Conservative than urban ones, and more religious. The Left hates this, even the essential rural economic activites. Some radicals actually want to "end agriculture," so that most Americans would starve, and the rest reduced to paleolithic hunting and gathering (except that hunting is bad, because white men like it). I kid you not.

   American higher education these days abounds in men and women who disdain modern civilization. For example, we have an abundance of shaman-like professors telling young people that cheap and abundant energy is bad for the planet and we should replace it with expensive and scarce energy. Agriculture likewise is bad and should be replaced with foraging. Modern capitalism has enslaved us to so-called conveniences. To free ourselves, we should embrace poverty.

   Peter Wood, National Association of Scholars, August 2025, Newsletter, p.9

   As for logging and mining: These all "rape the Earth" and should be stopped -- as Elites text out on their cellphones, which wouldn't exist without Rare Earth mining (by children and women, in Africa, in mines owned by China). There are plenty of Rare Earth resources in the United States, but, at least until recently, Environmentalists have been preventing their exploitation.

   Such notions are "luxury beliefs," which are only held by privileged Elites who don't know what they are talking about and would never need to face the consequences of what they advocate -- like abolishing prisons and releasing criminals onto the public, which the Left has been doing for some time in various jurisdictions, to predictable results. But the Elites don't really care about crime, unless it directly affects them -- like the recent home invasions of Hollywood people in Beverly Hills. That's too far. But good luck getting the Democrats to really do anything about it.

   In many States, the disenfranchisement of rural voters (equal protection?) has resulted in movements to detach the rural parts of the States. Eastern Washington State and Oregon want to join Idaho. And, as we see on the map, the proposal is to split California cleanly in two, with the Coastal Elites confined to the Coastal Counties, where they can continue destroying society and dooming people to live in squallor and crime. Of course, the majoritarian tyrants are not going to allow this.

   The last time something of the sort happened was when West Virginia broke away from Virginia, which had left the Union, so that West Virginia could join the Union against the Confederacy. Now, West Virginia tends to be Conservative in part because the economy relies on coal mining, which the Coastal Elites hate.

   One wonders what kind of Civil War might be necessary to ensure that each State will indeed have "a Republican form of Government," rather than the tyranny dominant in so many, like California, now. There is little public discussion about the wrongfulness of the "Reapportionment Cases," which is part of the general ignorance of Americans for the principles of Republican Government.

4. Restore the Proper Meaning of the "General Welfare" Clause

   Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Secretary of the Treasury, told George Washington that the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution meant that the Federal Government could spend money on absolutely anything, as long this could be construed as for the "General Welfare."

   What Hamilton claimed was immediately contradicted by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. They said that the Federal Government cannot spend money on just anything, but only pursuant to its delegated powers.

   Furthermore, the "General Welfare" clause is actually intended to limit, not expand, Federal power. Thus, a protective tariff, if it helps one business or industry, but harms others, this does not contribute to the General Welfare. So, if there are steel tariffs to protect steel makers, but higher steel prices harm steel users, putting some even out of business, this is not for the General Welfare.

   On the other hand, if China uses free trade (backed up by, say, the slave labor of Tibetans, Uighurs, or political prisoners) to harm American businesses or industries, a protective tariff would be for the General Welfare (as well as a blow for human rights). Cheap Chinese goods may be a good for consumers, but if the larger economy is damaged, those consumers may lose their jobs; and a hostile China may gain a strategic advantage in harming America.

   Hamilton's claim came back in the New Deal, and, after the conscientious Justices had died off, and Roosevelt could put his creatures on the Court, the Supreme Court ruled that "Congress has broad, independent power to tax and spend for the 'General Welfare,' largely leaving the definition of what promotes the general welfare to the discretion of Congress."

   This opened the floodgates of corruption, as Jefferson had feared long before. Votes can be bought. Special interests can be paid off. And money can just be printed or borrowed.

   The majority or the Federal Budget is now consumed by just three programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. None of them is in the Constitution and they are pursuant to no delegated power of the Federal Government, save that they supposedly contribute to the "General Welfare."

   Yet something like Social Security is essentially a "Ponzi Scheme," whereby benefits are paid from revenues, without the intermediate step of productive investment. There is supposedly a Social Security "Trust Fund," but this consists of nothing but IOU's from the Treasury, to eventually return money that the Social Security System provided through tax payments. Thus, the "Trust Fund" is fraudulent. All Social Security taxes were already spent by the Treasury, and obligations to Social Security need to later be paid from other income to the Treasury. Something else to print or borrow, since the Federal Government has more or less never heard of a balanced budget. Or any budget.

   Other Federal programs, like Food Stamps (whatever it is called now), take up less of the budget but are no less unconstitutional. The purpose of such programs, of course, is to reduce cititzens to peons, who will rely on Government even for food, and so become dependants and vassals of politicians. This was once recognized as the "Bread and Circuses" (panem et circenses) problem of Rome.

   This has been thought of as what contributed to the "Fall of Rome," yet its effect was mitigated when the center of Roman politics moved from the City to the Provinces and Emperors rarely even visited Rome. And the real "Fall," of course, didn't happen until 1453. But the corruption of Washington D.C. is spread all around the country, and voting for free stuff has become a way of life. So the corruption is much more widespread than it ever was with Rome. There is no real opposition to the New Deal corruption even among Republicans: Social Security is the "Third Rail" of American politics: Touch it and you die.

   Alexander Hamilton himself probably never would have anticpated the corruption and fraud that would result from his claim about the Constitution -- although Jefferson says that Hamilton believed in corruption as a form of government. So perhaps he would be happy.

   The solution to all this is the privatization of Social Security, and the devolution of Medicare and other Welfare programs onto the States, as Canada has actually done with its socialized medicine system. Then the Federal Government will be restricted to spending that is pursuant to the delegated powers it has in the Constitution.

5. Revoke the Censure of Joseph McCarthy

   Everyone knows what "McCarthyism" is. But if you ask them what Joseph McCarthy actually did, you mostly get back lies and confusions. If you say, "He accused innocent people of being Communists," M. Stanton Evans (1934-2015), who used to give talks about this, liked to ask, "Name one." Even if anyone could think of someone accused of being a Communist, it was rarely, if ever, anyone who had anything to do with Joseph McCarthy.

   Most people think McCarthy ran the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (HUAAC), even though US Senators have nothing to do with committees in the House of Representatives; and that particular House Committee is mostly damned for exposing people who deserved to be exposed: Communists who spied for the Soviet Union, like Alger Hiss, or who concealed their own ideology and Communist loyalties, like Dalton Trumbo (1905-1976).

   Or people think that McCarthy ran a Black List that shut Hollywood actors and writers out of work. Nope. The Black List was kept by the Hollywood Producers Association, and it included people who refused to cooperate with FBI or Congressional investigations (like Trumbo), or who had been convicted of perjury or Contempt of Congress -- almost entirely under Harry Truman. For instance, when Zero Mostel (1915-1977) refused to "name names" of Communists he knew, he was Black Listed, but then he just went and worked on Broadway, which didn't have a Black List. Trumbo wrote scripts submitted, by friends, under pseudonyms. He thought it was all a joke [note].

   When Ronald Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild (1959-1960), one thing he worked on was to make sure that no Guild members had been falsely accused of Communist membership or associations.

   Most of that went on before anyone had even heard of Joseph McCarthy -- not until 1950 -- or before McCarthy had any actual power to do anything -- not until 1953. So McCarthy had nothing to do with accusations or investigations in the late 1940's; and not only were the "Hollywood Ten," who blew off the HUAAC, before McCarthy's time, but by the time Hollywood people, like Dashiell Hammett, testified before McCarthy's committee, they knew just to plead the Fifth Amendment, which the "Ten" had not done. Also, McCarthy always allowed witnesses to make any kind of statement they wanted, which the HUAAC had not allowed -- which precipitated some of the most acrimonious moments in the HUAAC hearings, as Committee members would ask witnesses to shut up and answer questions.

   And then, in 1954, President Eisenhower, in the vivid metaphor we like to use, threw McCarthy under the bus. Was that for falsely accusing and smearing people of being Communists? Nope. It was because of what had been going on at Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey. This was actually a group of research laboratories run by the Army, which we now know, from Soviet sources, was penetrated by Soviet spies.

   The Commanding Officer of Ft. Monmouth had been weeding out people who he judged security risks, either because they were known Communists or because they had lied on their job applications, or from other information, some of it classified and not available to the public.

   But people at the Pentagon had been overruling the Commanding Officer and reinstating many of these people. Joseph McCarthy, who by then (1953-1954) was running his own Senate investigating committee, wanted to know who these Pentagon people were and why they were reinstating security risks at Ft. Monmouth. The Army and President Eisenhower refused to provide this information -- invoking "Executive Privilege," which was not allowed when Richard Nixon (Eisenhower's Vice President) tried to use it.

   This whole business is often misrepresented as McCarthy "attacking the Army," or that it was all a tempest in a teapot over one Communist dentist. Nope. Anyone saying any of this is either ignorant or dishonest. As I said, we know from Soviet records that Ft. Monmouth was targeted by Soviet espionage, most of which was left in place when McCarthy's investigation was derailed and a fog was drawn over the whole issue.

   Instead, the Army went after McCarthy, in a series of "witch hunt" attacks. Thus, "McCarthyism" was not what Senator McCarthy did. "McCarthism" is what they did to him. The infamous "Army-McCarthy Hearings," which were televised and are remembered as McCarthy attacking blushing liberals (like Communist Party member Annie Lee Moss, who was moved "from the lunch room to the code room," by some person, as in so much of this, still unknown), were instead a sustained attack on McCarthy. Yet they actually failed. McCarthy had done nothing wrong.

   The Army already had a history of attacking Congressional committees investigating it. What they pulled on McCarthy was to draft one of his staffers, G. David Schine (d.1996), even though Schine had a medical exemption from the draft, a Congressional exemption from the draft, and was also beyond drafting age, at 26. So the whole thing was harassment and an attempt to "send a message" to McCarthy of the Army's hostility. Nevertheless, the Army magnanimously allowed Schine leave to continue his committee work. This was a trick, since McCarthy and his counsel, Roy Cohn (d.1986), were then accused of using undue influence to get Schine out of his important Army duties (peeling potatoes), with the implication that Schine was Cohn's homosexual lover. This is what the "Army-McCarthy Hearings" were all about. Since this was all obviously the Army's own conspiracy, the charges fell apart. But, as with much else here, we don't know who in the Army designed this conspriacy. They are all hidden in the background that McCarthy himself -- and any honest person now -- would want exposed.

   The hearings are mainly remembered now for prosecuting counsel Joseph Welsh saying to McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency?" This was after Welsh asked McCarthy to name anyone with suspected Communist ties, and McCarthy named one of Welsh's own attorneys, Fred Fisher, who had been a member of the "National Lawyers Guild," identified by Harry Truman's own Justice Department as a "Communist Front" organization. Welsh knew this already, and in fact he had told the New York Times that he wasn't taking Fisher to Washington precisely because of this association. It was published in the paper.

   So Welsh's "sense of decency" question to McCarthy was a fraud, something Welsh had actually planned in advance. It was a setup. Without the context and background, it looked good on television. It is still cited as McCarthy's Waterloo, discrediting him utterly. Yet as Welsh carried on about how McCarthy had smeared and damaged young Fisher's reputation, McCarthy could only be puzzled at the performance, when Welsh had just "outed" Fisher's association with the communist organization himself.

   Meanwhile, the "National Lawyers Guild" still exists and is still as communist in its sympathies as in 1954. "McCarthyism" somehow failed to destroy the organization. Observers from the "Guild" were present on March 5, 2023, when dozens of anarchists attacked the new police and fire training center near Atlanta, popularly called "Cop City." With bricks, rocks, and fireworks the attackers damaged construction equipment and facilities at the site. Twenty-three individuals were arrested and charged with "domestic terrorism." Only one was actually from Georgia, and almost all were white, though with a large mix of women. The "Guild" participants, supposedly there to protect the "rights" of the rioters, were suspected of spotting for the anarchists, alerting them about police movements. I don't think any were arrested. But this gives us the drift of their involvements. They were obviously tipped off and recruited to "observe" the attack.

   The grounds for the censure of McCarthy in 1954 were simply that he had been rude to a committee that was investigating him in the previous Congress. The committee was looking for dirt on McCarthy's finances, and even those of his family. This actually exceeded their instructions from Congress. They failed to find anything, but McCarthy had treated the committee with contempt for the political, malicious hit job that it was. No one had ever before been censured for anything they had done in a previous Congress; and it was a Republican controlled Senate that did it.

   It was all dishonest; and honest Senators, like Barry Goldwater (d.1998) and Everett Dirksen (d.1969), voted against it. Senator John F. Kennedy (d.1963), whose father was a friend of McCarthy, and whose brother (Robert Kennedy, d.1968), worked for him, was deliberately absent for the vote.

   The Censure could not have have happened without Eisenhower's support; and Eisenhower had a personal animus against McCarthy, in part because McCarthy had attacked Secretary of State George C. Marshall, whose incompetence had helped the Chinese Communists win their civil war against Chiang Kai-shek. We are still living with the dire consequences of that.

   Meanwhile, we might ask who had been reinstating security risks at Ft. Monmouth? We still don't know. It remains one of the mysteries of the Cold War.

   Who in the Pentagon was motivated to protect Russian spies at Ft. Monmouth? Why was Dwight Eisenhower willing to protect them? Why would J. Edgar Hoover go along with this, when he surely knew what was happening, and he had often fed McCarthy information about Communists? It is hard to imagine that Eisenhower would really protect spies and Communists; and inconceivable that Hoover would.

   We get a sense that something murkier was going on in the background. And, as I've noted elsewhere, all Eisenhower got out of discrediting McCarthy is that the Democrats won Congress in 1956 and kept hold of it for 40 years. He sabotaged his own Party, and the Republicans lost the Presidency in 1960 to a man who was actually friends with McCarthy. None of this adds up to any kind of sense. We still have a right and a duty to find out what was going on, and a good place to start is to revoke the censure vote against Senator McCarthy and retire the lies that have piled up against him.

6. Return Federal Public Lands to the States

   In 1850 the Federal Government began doing something it had not done before. When States joined the Union, it began retaining public lands for the Federal Government rather than surrendering them to the new States. In the Constitution, the Federal Government acquires public lands from the States in this way:

   ...to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

   Most Federal lands and facilities today were not acquired in this way. Texas was the last State to enter the Union where the Federal Government did not retain public lands, mainly because Texas had never been a Territory and the Federal Government had never governed any public lands within it.

   Today, Nevada labors under the most Federal control, with 80 to 87% of its land held by the Federal Government.

   This practice, which began with California in 1850, violated what had been a principle until then: All States were entitled to enter the Union under the same conditions as the original 13 Colonies. There had been no Federal lands in those Colonies, since the current Federal Government didn't yet exist.

   For some reason, there seems to have been little protest or contest about the new practice. Perhaps States were faced with a "take it or leave it" proposition and simply surrendered. But it was not right.

   What changed that were changes in Federal law. A lot of Federal land is made available for grazing, logging, and other economic activities. The whole National Forest system, something for which there is no Constutional provision, is supposed to govern the use of the National Forests, including the economic use, by logging, of the trees. Private parties, allowed to graze, log, and mine on Federal land, tended to get a pretty good deal. It was politics, not economics in the market, that would determine the fees for the use of the land.

   That changed in the 60's, when the "Environmental" movement turned against private economic use of public land. Logging and mining raped the Earth, and even grazing involved killing predators that might attack cattle, sheep, etc. So Environmentalists wanted to remove the lands from private use -- except for hikers from Santa Monica who want to enjoy the untamed wilderness. Mountain lions might kill the occasional hiker, but they had more right to be there.

   The response was the "Sagebrush Rebellion," where Western States, where most Federal lands are located (all entering the Union after 1850), began to consider disputing Federal ownership of public lands. There is, of course, no Constitutional provision for such lands.

   This did not get very far. One might have thought that the Reagan Administration would have been sympathetic; but little was done to help out. And no one believed that the Supreme Court would reverse 130 years of precedent just to, like, Restore the Constitution. Things have gone way too far for that.

   We don't hear much about this anymore. The "Rebellion" petered out; and activists who tried doing something about it, sometimes with violence, were regarded as anarchists and criminals, which sometimes they were. So there is little memory of a legitimate issue.

   But it is not right. People who live near, for instance BLM (Bureau of Land Management) lands, which are dedicated to no use whatsoever, have no love for the attitude and practices of the bureaucrats. But who cares? Urban populations don't run into that, whatever other complaints they may have about the Federal Government. Since rural voters lost much of their power, as we have seen, in the Reapportionment Cases, they could just be ignored.

   In some places, the consequences could be acute. In Northern California, communities were often dependent on logging for their economic health. Closing the forests devastated the economy of many towns. But no one in Los Angles was going to care -- unless it was for the marijuana that could be secretly grown in the forests, with local authorities looking the other way.

   At the same time, in a State like California, controlled for years by the Democrats, who want everyone to be slaves of the Government anyway, limiting Federal power is not on the radar.

   I don't know what it will take to start the "Rebellion" again, but it needs to be done.

7. Each State Determines Term Limits for Congress

   California voters established term limits for its Congressional delegation in Proposition 164 in 1992. This law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1995. The argument of the Court was that the Constitution does not give the States the power to limit Congressional terms.

   However, this stands the Constitution on its head. The Tenth Amendment states that any 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. The Constitution does not prohibit the States from setting term limits; and it does not delegate the power to set term limits to the Federal Government. Therefore, the States have it.

   As in so many cases, the Supreme Court has not enforced the Constitution; but it has invented law, as Jefferson feared, to increase the power of the Federal Goverment, in this case by way of protecting the tenure of career politicians -- those career politicians who mysteriously become milionaires after years of "public service." "Insider trading"? That's fine if you're a politician, jail if you're not. They don't even blush -- while the "watchdog" press seems to join in the windfall.

   I think that there are politicians, statesmen, who should be retained in office. That can be accomplished if they are term limited out unless they can win a supermajority in their election -- 60%, 70%, or whatever.

   Even that, however, will not always work well. Some of the worst people in Congress, like Maxine Waters, keep getting elected with supermajorities already. Her reign, when she doesn't even live in her district, is enough to impeach Democracy itself. But the Republic should be able to survive a few people like that, although Mark Twain already suspected that almost all Congressmen were idiots.

8. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

   One of the evils of the "Progressive Era" was the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which passed in 1913. This Amendment instituted the direct election of United States Senators. The Constitution originally established that Senators were elected by State legislatures. This came to be regarded as insufficiently "democratic," and there were also occasional problems that deadlocked legislatures might actually fail to elect Senators.

   As we have seen, the principle of the Constitution was not "democracy," it was the protection of natural rights. This was accomplished, among other things, by the Separation of Powers and by the System of Checks and Balances. Part of the balance was the control of the Federal Government by the direct election of Representatives by popular vote and by the election of Senators from each State by the vote of the State legislatures.

   Thus, there was the direct voice of the "People" in the House of Representatives and the direct voice of the Government of each State in the United States Senate.

   The direct election of Senators then took away from State Governments the leverage of influence that they had possessed over the Federal Government. This made it easier for the Federal Government to ignore the interests and influence of the States. Popularly elected Senators were not a substitute for that. State legislatures can be expected to be more acutely aware of the needs and problems of the States in relation to the Federal Government. Directly elected Senators can chose their own issues, which may obscure the proper interests of the States with irrelevant appeals about other matters, which may nevertheless engage the attention of voters.

   Indeed, Senators elected by popular vote every six years become in effect independent authorities, who could, if they wished, ignore the interests of their own States. And they could continue in power just by fooling the voters every six years -- the stock-in-trade of politicians. The ability of State legislatures to recall their Senators no longer existed, rendering them relatively unaccountable. State-wide recall elections would mostly be impractical, and otherwise would only apply to Governors.

   Under the old system, if a State legislature failed to elect a Senator, then obviously they could not agree on how their State should be represented in Washington. They would be accountable to their voters for that, and the balance of a State legislature could be altered after no more than two years, when an election would occur. This is proper.

   As we have seen, there is no lack of voters who will elect, over and over again, fools as Representatives to the Federal legislature. But at least they have a chance to wise up every two years. With Senators, now, the fools are rather more secure in power. A good example was Senator Barbara Boxer from California, who was elected, and reelected, to four full terms in the United States Senate: 24 years -- almost a quarter of a century. Yet she was a complete idiot.

   A good example of Boxer's mentality was her rebuke of a testifying Army General when he addressed her as "Ma'am" -- the military equivalent of "Sir" to civilian women. That is also how, at the time, you would address the Queen of England, after initially calling her "Your Majesty." Queen Elizebeth II did not insist on "Your Majesty" after one use. But Barbara Boxer wasn't going to put up with that. It was lèse majesté against her dignity -- greater than a Queen.

   Since California became a One Party State during Boxer's tenure in the Senate, perhaps we must admit that the voters of the State were the real fools and that Boxer's mentality merely reflected that of her constituents. Perhaps it is true, as they say, that people get the kind of government they deserve, with H.L. Mencken adding that they deserve to get it good and hard. And California has certainly gotten it, good and hard, with power blackouts in Los Angeles on Thanksgiving and people fleeing the State.

   Be that as it may, the direct election of Senators has solved no problems and has not made anything better. It has, however, made the Federal Government less responsive to the interests and control of the States. This is the irony of the push for more "democracy," which we can chalk up again to confusion about the proper nature of American government.

9. Replace the Twenty-Sixth Amendment

   The Twenty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age, nationally, to 18 years. This originated in the objection that 18-year-olds, drafted into the military, might be killed fighting for their country, without ever having been able to vote on the issues that led to war and their deaths in the first place.

   This was a perfectly reasonable issue. What went along with it was also that States lowered the drinking age to 18 years as well. After all, if you're going to die for your country, you ought to be able to have a drink first. Soldiers and sailors about to ship out are known for that.

   However, we notice that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment says nothing about joining the military. It lowered the voting age for everyone, regardless of military service. Since a small fraction of 18-year-olds were ever going to be in the military, this used the military as a kind of pretext to create a group of unrelated young voters. We may become suspicious when activists now want the voting age lowered to 16 years, or less, or to give the vote to aliens, or even illegal aliens. Seems like something funny is going on.

   Someone who enters the military is forced to learn a certain discipline. If they don't learn, they get kicked out, with a bad conduct or even dishonorable discharge. Young soldiers are never free of the follies of youth, but the responsibilities of service impose, to say the least, a certain discipline. Or else.

   Indeed, after service in the military, some find themselves suited for it, not to make a career of the military, to be sure, but to transition into law enforcement. But this crosses an ideological divide. Soldiers don't pull you over for speeding, but the police do. And if you're drunk, they arrest you. And they might also arrest the criminals who have become the heroes of the Democrat Party -- making you an enemy. To them, you should be arresting, or worse, Christians.

   Other 18-years-olds, perhaps still living with their parents, or supported by their parents -- or the government -- away at college, not only may learn no discipline, but they may learn radical ideologies that excuse them from any real responsibility. They may join "Kill the Jews" marches, or participate in anarchist groups that attack people and vandalize property, secure in their own self-righteousness and cleverness. These people do not make responsible voters. The old voting age, of 21 years, usually meant that students were out of college and needed to get a job. That imposes its own discipline.

   Thus, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment did not accomplish what its ostensible motivation implied.

   Meanwhile, something equally odd had been going on about the drinking age. The complaint was that people convicted of multiple drunk driving offenses had been getting slap-on-the-wrist penalties, which meant they were soon out driving drunk again, often causing accidents, where innocent drivers might be horribly injured or killed.

   The resonable response to the situation would have been to stiffen the penalties for drunk driving offenses. That was done, to an extent. However, it was also decided to lower the blood alcohol level for legal intoxication -- from the 0.10%, which was generally the case, to 0.08%, which came to be required (or lose highway funds), by 2003. This meant that many people might be arrested for drunk driving who never would have been before, regardless of any history of drunk driving arrests or slap-on-the-wrist penalties. This seemed irrelevant to the orignal complaint. Also, in 1984, the Federal Government decided to require, as a condition of Federal highway funds, that States raise the drinking age to 21 years again.

   Of course, some States, like New York, had never had a 21 year drinking age. Once upon a time, an 18-year-old could board a flight to New York in Los Angeles and order a drink, since the drinking age in New York was 18 years. Now the Feds, with their heightened sense of the Constitutionally limited and delegated powers of the Federal Govenment, got rid of that. Something about the "General Welfare," I suppose.

   Nevertheless, as we all know, 18-year-olds kept drinking. Just watch American Graffiti [1973]. Where the 18 year age encompassed nearly all college students, the 21 year age excluded them. But college students seem to still be drinking. A lot.

   Thus, again, we got changes in Federal law that seemed irrelevant to the original rationale for them.

   The honest and rational approach is to restrict changes in the law so that they are commensurate with their justification. Thus, the Twenty-Sixth Amendent needs to be repealed and then replaced. You join the military, and you get to vote. And drink. Otherwise, wait until you are 21. It isn't that long, and if you need to get a job, it might teach you something.

   Probably, the objection to this is that, for a period, it creates two classes of citizens. Good. One class is being indoctrinated by Marxist professors, while living off their parents. The other is putting their lives on the line to protect the Nation. It is a meaningful difference.

   This is a very mild version of what Robert Heinlein proposed in Starship Troopers. There, only veterans could vote, at all. I have considered the issues with that separately. Of greatest interest in the furor over the story is that its terms are almost entirely ignored. Heinlein's point, that only those willing to defend the lives their fellow citizens have the right to make laws for them, gets ignored -- usually in a blizzard of Leftist lies and ideology -- leading to the smear and absurdity of Paul Verhoeven's movie in 1997.

   Verhoeven often displays a serious absence of judgment. Thus, we see him claiming a moral equivalence between the Nazis and the Allies in World War II (in Black Book, 2006). For his country, the Netherlands, that deported 78% of its Jews, and also contributed the largest number of non-German recruits to the Nazi SS (the Schutzstaffel), that is a convenient conceit. So it is not surprising that Verhoeven should misunderstand and/or misrepresent Heinlein's arguments in Starship Troopers.

   We don't need to go anywhere near as far as Heinlein. But those who join the miliary are owed thanks by the Nation, a kind of thanks where they will not just be cannon fodder. We have been seeing the brutality of the Russian Army, where officers steal from their men, and often murder them, while committing war crimes in the Ukraine; and we must take care that our regard and benefits for military service are commensurate with the danger to which they may be exposed. With the appropriate change in the law, they will have a say in their exposure, while drunken, anarchist college students will not.

Marxist Value Theory

The Post-Modern Left

Political Economy

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2025 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Modest Proposals to Restore America, Note 1

On November 18, 2025, six Democrat Members of Congress released a video purportedly reminding members of the military, and the "intelligence community," that they are under no legal obligation to obey "illegal orders." Since this matter is part of Basic Training in all of the military, one might wonder why such a video reminder would be necessary. They provided no examples of "illegal orders," but they did say that President Trump was somehow acting against "American Citizens," involving "threats to our Constitution."

Even in interviews, none of the participants could name any "illegal orders" from President Trump, or that constitute any illegal acts against American citizens or that "violate our law or [are] against the Constitution." Since then, the Democrats may have found something where they can urge people in the military to disobey orders.

This involves the Administration program of sinking drug smuggling speed boats, run by the "Narco-Terrorist" drug Cartels, and probably by the Government of dictator Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela as well. Although President Obama was extra-judicially having American citizens killed by drones, when they had joined Terrorist groups in Yemen, etc., to which few objections were voiced, Democrats now decide it is a "war crime" to kill foreign drug smugglers on the high seas.

When Democrats have already demonstrated their willingness to protect illegal alien criminals, who are often Cartel affiliated, it is perhaps not surprising that they are offended when the equivalent of pirates, engaged in direct attacks on the American People, are taken out. If they want to see this defense of Americans as "war crimes," good luck with that. There will be few indeed in the military not eager to participate in this campaign.

The Members of Congress responsible for the video, who want us to know that they all had been in the military or the "intelligence community," were Senator Elissa Slotkin (MI), Senator Mark Kelly (AZ), and Representatives Chris Deluzio (PA), Maggie Goodlander (NH), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), and Jason Crow (CO).

However, it is not hard to guess what the six Democrats were trying to do. Their objection is not to "illegal orders," but to perfectly legal ones. They do not want Federal immigration law enforced, and they do not want Federal authorities to crack down on the crime that Democrats tolerate in the cities they control, or on the drug Cartels. For their political purposes, they were thus promoting military insubordination and disobedience, leading ultimately to insurrection, rebellion, or a coup against the United States Goverment. These are crimes.

The Democrats could not, of course, actually say they want a coup, since they could be prosecuted. Nevertheless, Democrat politicians, like the Governor of Illinois, have lately been inciting violence against Federal officers, for which they actually should be prosecuted. Trying to promote insubordination and mutiny in the military is step beyond that, but then the six Democrats can claim they were only reminding soldiers about "illegal orders," without any examples of what such orders might be -- "Wink wink, nudge nudge," as Monty Python would say.

Senator Slotkin herself has fantasied about all sorts of illegal things that Trump might do, like ordering the National Guard to shoot American citizens; but then none of it has been anything he has done. The objection of Slotkin and the others is simply to the enforcement of laws that the Biden Administration had ignored and that the Democrats don't like. Democrats, after all, are not just "soft on crime," they are pro-crime, and are indifferent to "American citizens" being victimized by criminals and illegal aliens.

Saying that Trump has been acting against "American Citizens" is cute, since no Democrat really cares about American citizens ("AOC" means "aliens over citizens"). It is not clear that they even believe in citizenship. They believe that their future is with illegal aliens, especially illegal alien criminals and gangsters, whom they go all out to protect. The aliens who rob, rape, or kill American citizens, or fraudulently register to vote, are obviously their heroes.

Return to Text

Modest Proposals to Restore America, Note 2

In popular discussions and even documentaries (as recently on the BBC), we see a great reluctance to mention or admit that African slaves sent to the New World had been caught and enslaved by other Africans. In the 1977 miniseries of Roots (based on the 1976 book, Roots: The Saga of an American Family, by Alex Haley), we are actually shown white slavers heading inland with a team to capture and enslave people. This all but never happened, for at least a couple of reasons.

One is that Europeans died from tropical diseases, to the point where the area was called the "White Man's Grave." Africans themselves had developed some immunity to malaria, with a genetic mutation that, unfortunately, manifested as Sickle Cell Anemia if inherited from both parents. The other reason is that this was not tolerated by the African kingdoms who actually captured slaves and sold them to the Europeans. They would not countenance such competition -- and it was unnecessary, since the Africans captured and sold plenty of slaves already.

We see the intention to conceal agency in some of the new, politically correct terminology. Slave owners are now "enslavers," and all slaves the "enslaved." This leads us to think that all slave owners captured free people and made them slaves, avoiding the issue of who actually enslaved them in the first place.

There is a good reason, consequently, to be suspicious of people using this terminology, especially if they avoid the issue of the African kingdoms, and the Arab kingdoms, who engaged in slaving and in the slave trade. Heaven forbid that they admit that slaving actually was only stopped by "colonialism." That would upset their worldview altogether, whose purpose is to discredit America and all liberal society, replacing it with a Marxist dictatorship -- where all will be "enslaved."

Return to Text

Modest Proposals to Restore America, Note 3

The "Nationcal Recovery Act" assumed that competition between businesses was bad, just as Mussolini thought, and that it was somehow responsible for the Depression. Thus, the NRA mandated business cartels, which would "cooperate" and set prices and production. And we know that cooperation is better than competition, which Feminism tells us women know and practice better than men. This would be the first step towards a consolidation of each industry, until there might be only one producer of each product, as in the Soviet Union. Just what Bernie Sanders wants now, and which many college students know makes Communism better than Capitalism.

When the NRA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, FDR was furious and conceived the plan to "pack the Court," i.e. add new Justices until there would be a majority of his minions. This outraged the nation and went nowhere. Naturally, it is now the program of the Democrat Party. All FDR, who became "President for Life," needed to do was wait until the older Justices died off, and he got his way anyway.

Eventually, the FDR Administration went back and prosecuted the businesses that had participated in the NRA cartels, for Anti-Trust violations. Competition, it seems, is protected by the law. Thus, as we often see with Government: Damned if you do; damned if you don't. The purpose of Government, after all, is not really the "General Welfare," or to enforce Civil Rights, but simply to demonstrate its own power and arbitrary authority. If you are not properly subservient, they will come after you.

Return to Text

Modest Proposals to Restore America, Note 4

Dalton Trumbo's Black Listing was broken when Kirk Douglas (1916-2020) saw to it that he was credited with the script for the movie Spartacus [1960]. But this is a telling event.

Communists identified with the Roman slave Spartacus and his revolt (73-71 BC), on the principle that, under Capitalism, the workers are slaves. Meanwhile, of course, Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) had argued that slave labor in the Soviet Union was simply the workers enslaving themselves, which meant they weren't really enslaved.

The attempted Communist coup in Berlin in 1919 was the "Spartacist Uprising," which involved the "Spartacus League," the Spartakusbund, led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, who were executed in the aftermath of the coup.

The movie Spartacus was based on a book, Spartacus [1951] by Howard Fast (1914-2003). Fast was a Communist Party member, refused to "name names" before the HUAAC, was convicted of Contempt of Congress, imprisoned, and Black Listed. However, after Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 1956, Fast was disillusioned and had broken with the Party.

Yet the purpose and symbolism of the book remained and could hardly be mistaken in its movie incarnation, especially with Trumbo's name on it. Kirk Douglas may have thought he was simply standing up for free speech, although Communists never actually believed in free speech. Their appeal to it was a cynical lie. This cynicism continues in American Universities, whose Leftist ideological intolerance has become a national scandal -- on the principle that disagreement with Anarchism, Communism, etc. is "violence," as we seen above.

Return to Text