Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Posts

The Founders Outsmarted Presidential Election Fraudsters.

/in /by

Who chooses the President of the United States?

This question is by no means rhetorical.  For example, the mass disinformation media has chosen Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.  Many people liked this news, but I must disappoint them – the television broadcasters have, according to the U.S. Constitution, nothing to do with who will live in the White House for the next four years.

Maybe the Supreme Court chooses the President? No, the Constitution does not provide for this.  Could it be that the citizens of America choose their President? Following the U.S. Constitution, no.  So, who then chooses the President?

Before answering this question, let us note that, contrary to popular misconception, the President of the United States is not a representative of the American people.  State legislators and governors are representatives of the people, and at the federal level so are the members of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.  (Currently, senators are also representatives of the people, but before the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913, they were appointed by state legislators).  So, who does the President of America represent?

The President of the United States of America, according to the Constitution, represents state legislators’ interests and no one else.

In general, the federal government’s structure in America reflects the numerous attempts of the Founding Fathers of the United States to introduce a system of effective state control over the federal government.  The fact is that the main difference between our country and all other countries, without exception, is that it was organized “from the bottom up,” that is, individual colonies voluntarily united against a common enemy – the British Empire.  All other “republics” on the planet were created “from the top down,” when the already existing provinces were graciously granted some independence by the already existing central government.

In building the American state, the fundamental principle was state control over the newly created federal power structure.  Therefore, from the Founding Fathers’ point of view, the federal government in Washington should consist of both representatives of the people (congressmen) and representatives of the state leadership – the federal President and senators.  This is how the institution of the Electoral College was invented and implemented.  The electors are appointed by the state legislatures, and they are the ones who elect the President of the country.

So why do American citizens need to participate in the presidential elections? Well, strictly speaking, it is not necessary.  It is just that there is a long tradition in America – state legislators appoint electors in such a way that these appointments correspond to the mood of the people (in some states, this is even enshrined by law).  This is a tradition, but according to the U.S. Constitution, the participation of the people in presidential elections, generally speaking, is not required.  According to the Constitution, the people participate in the direct elections of their legislators, which is quite enough.

There is nothing reprehensible in this – after all, the President of America is not the representative of the American people.  He is the representative of state legislators.  From the point of view of the states, the President (and pre-1913, two senators from each state) are the “overseers” of the federal government.  In other words, the President, from the point of view of state legislators, is “our man in Havana” (that is, in Washington), who is responsible for the observance of state rights by the federal government.

Thus, under the Constitution, state legislators have the right to generally ignore the results of the voting of citizens of their state and appoint those who they deem necessary to the Electoral College.  Why did the Founding Fathers of the United States give state legislators such unprecedented power? Because most of the Founding Fathers were geniuses with impressive foresight.  They did not know precisely when this would happen, but they knew it would eventually happen: the election’s published results would have nothing to do with how the citizens voted.

This is exactly what happened in 2020.

Of course, there have been falsifications in the counting of votes in America before.  However, in 2020, the Democrats went all-in with a scam, and for the first time in American history, they were close to success.  Actually, they simply had no other choice.  They knew very well that another Trump term would be enough to crush the American left to its core.  (However, even if Trump does not manage to stay in the White House, his departure from politics will be such that the left will not be envied.)

Now, more than a week after the elections, it is already clear what the Trump team is doing.  They are working in two directions.

First, they sue in states where there was a clear violation of the electoral law.  Violations include the counting of votes that came after polling stations closed, turnout of more than 100%, the use of computer systems that were systematically “wrong,” always in favor of Biden, the thousands of Pennsylvania voters born on January 1, 1900 (or even on January 1, 1800), and much more.

For example, election results in some Democrat-controlled states violate fundamental laws of both mathematics and physics.  The votes cast for Biden do not comply with the statistical law of distribution of digits (Benford’s Law), while the ballots cast for Trump do adhere to this law.  Thousands of mailed ballots were received even before they were officially sent.  Thus, the 2020 election showed compelling evidence of the possibility of time travel.

Secondly, the Trump team calls on state legislators to use their constitutional powers to rectify the local executive authority’s criminal actions to the point of completely ignoring the falsified voting results.

These are the expected steps.  Any presidential candidate would and should take such measures.  Al Gore did the same in 2000, but then the case concerned only the state of Florida.  In 2000, the country did not know the name of the winner for 35 days, and in 2020 we should not expect a faster resolution of the issue because now we are talking about at least six “problem” states.

Only now is the reason for the frenzy with which the Democrats attacked the three Trump-nominated Supreme Court justices is becoming clear.  The fact is that the Trump-nominated current U.S. Supreme Court justices – Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barrett – were on Bush’s legal team that secured the Supreme Court case in favor of Bush in 2000.

But the main difference between the 2020 elections and the 2000 elections is the involvement of the federal government’s apparatus in investigating violations.  The investigation is carried out by both prosecutors of the Department of Justice and FBI agents.

According to the Constitution, all courts and all other voting problems must be resolved by the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, which falls on December 14 this year.  If on December 14, the Electoral College fails to elect a president, then the Constitution also provides for this scenario.  Per the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, in this case, the President and Vice President will be elected by the House of Representatives (however, if for some reason the Vice President cannot be elected by the House of Representatives, then the right of his choice is transferred to the Senate.)

In the House of Representatives, state delegations will be voting, not theindividual congressmen themselves.  Now in the House of Representatives, the majority of delegations – 26 – belong to Republicans.  In the Senate, the Republicans also have an advantage.  So, the only reason Trump can lose the election now, a week after the election, is his own admission of defeat.  But such a strange decision by Trump is unlikely – this guy is from Queens, and if he gets involved in a fight, he will see it through to the end.

It is also unlikely that Trump does not understand that if the chronic vote-rigging by Democrats is not stopped now, America will end.  The Trump team is well aware that such an opportunity to end the creeping socialist revolution may no longer be presented.

As a result, Democrats will likely not recover from this fraud.  The disinformation media (which Fox News joined on the election night) will not recover from deliberately covering up this fraud, this attempted coup.  If the Democrats went for broke, then Trump could, most likely, also go for broke.

Trump may have already destroyed the Democratic National Committee, but they just do not know it yet.

In military terms, Trump’s team conducted careful reconnaissance and intelligence on the enemy for a week.  They collected numerous affidavits about the electoral fraud of Democrats, witnesses who confirm their testimony under oath.  But on the evening of November 10, the reconnaissance was completed, and massive artillery bombardment began in the form of lawsuits in several key states and the initiation of criminal investigations into violations by the Department of Justice.  If this does not help, Trump will bring into the battle the strategic reserves available only to the President of the American state apparatus – for example, in the form of a complete declassification of Obamagate.  In any case, our country is by no means at the end; we are at the very beginning of this process.

From a legal perspective, Biden is an impostor, a false president, at least until December 14 of this year.  If Biden can declare himself President-elect without any legal basis, then any other American citizen can also declare himself President-elect.

Therefore, I am forced to repeat my advice once again – to survive in this leftist madhouse, turn off the TV and start thinking for yourself.  If you have read the article so far, you will definitely succeed.  And remember – if the laws in our country are still observed, then the chances of the Harris-Biden administration (in this order) are practically zero.  If the laws in America are not followed, then the great American political experiment will unfortunately end.

Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles

Individualism and the Founding Fathers, Part 2: Entrepreneurship and Self-Reliance

/in /by

For July 3 and 4, 2019, we are re-publishing two of our earlier posts on the subject of the American tradition of individualism.

 

In Part 1, we explored the Founding Fathers’ view of individual liberty and limited government. These concepts were important to the Founders because they believed that only a nation of individuals freely pursuing their own unique interests could achieve a prosperous future in the New World. But freedom itself wasn’t enough. The Founders believed that the virtues of individual responsibility and self-reliance were essential for societal well being. These are the cardinal virtues of the individualist.

In 1984, George Washington wrote in a letter that “a people… who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything.” Washington understood that the new nation’s ability to fulfill its potential was inextricably tied to a vibrant spirit of individualism. “Perseverance and spirit,” he wrote during the Revolutionary War, “have done wonders in all ages.”

The value that the Founders placed on self-reliance and entrepreneurship can be seen not only in their writings, but also in the way that they lived their lives. Benjamin Franklin — the original self-made man — famously rose from anonymity as a print shop apprentice to international fame as a leading figure in America’s founding. In his own autobiography, Franklin attributed his success chiefly to his own initiative. “Energy and persistence,” he wrote, “conquer all things.”

George Taylor also embodied the entrepreneurial spirit that animated the founding era. Taylor immigrated to the New World from Ireland without a penny to his name and took a job shoveling coal. Just a few years later, Taylor owned a large business and was eventually selected as Pennsylvania’s delegate to the second Continental Congress. He is remembered today as a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Individualism and the Founding Fathers, Part 1: Liberty and Limited Government

/in /by

For July 3 and 4, 2019, we are re-publishing two of our earlier posts on the subject of the American tradition of individualism.

Individualism is nothing new. Though it may be less familiar today, it was one of the chief ideas that animated the founding of the United States almost 250 years ago. Our nation was built upon the virtues of individual responsibility and self-reliance. Our Constitution was formed around the concepts of limited government and individual liberty. These values — which lie at the heart of individualism — were at the forefront of the Founding Father’s minds as they shaped the political, economic, and cultural institutions of the budding nation.

The Founders placed a particularly high value on individual liberty. Consider these words by John Adams:

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”

Adams and his contemporaries believed that liberty was worth defending no matter the cost. Patrick Henry said it best with his now-famous line, spoken one month before the start of the Revolutionary War: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”

The Founding Fathers understood liberty as the right of each individual to pursue his or her own desires, ambitions, and interests, so long as they did violate the rights of other individuals in the process. Thomas Jefferson enshrined liberty as a natural right in the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming that all have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He later elaborated on his idea of liberty as follows:

“… Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual”

Here, Jefferson introduces another concept that is essential to America and to individualism: limited government. Though the government has the power to pass and enforce laws, it does not have the authority to violate the rights of individuals. Any law that violates the rights of an individual is illegitimate, and any government that enforces such laws is tyrannical.

In his First Inaugural Address, Jefferson more clearly articulated the limits of government power:

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

Again, Jefferson asserts that individuals ought to be free to pursue their own economic and personal interests. Jefferson also states that the government does not have the right to take from an individual that which he or she has rightfully earned. This is another core tenet of individualism. Today, heavy taxation and social entitlement programs are accepted as the norm by many academics and policymakers. However, the Founding Fathers were firmly opposed to collectivist arguments that sought to justify the redistribution of wealth by the government. Here’s Jefferson again:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

The Founding Fathers were adamant proponents of individual liberty and limited government — two values that have formed the basis of every modern individualist society. But how did the Founders feel about individualism itself? Join us for Part 2 to find out.

 

The Classical Roman Consul Who Inspired America’s Classical Liberal Constitution

/in /by

Between October 1787 and April 1788, a series of 77 articles were published in New York City newspapers to promote the ratification of the newly created Constitution of the United States. Each of the thirteen states would hold a Constitutional Convention to ratify or reject it, and a minimum of nine states would need to approve it in order to form a new government. The author of these essays, to which 8 more were added when they were compiled into a book, now known as The Federalist Papers, was none other than Publius.

Publius, also known as Publius Valerius, was one of four ancient Roman aristocrats who led the overthrow of the Roman monarchy in 509 BC, helped create the Roman Republic, and was elected the first of two Roman Consuls. The Republic lasted nearly 500 years until it was destroyed by the dictatorship of Julius Caesar. The pseudonym was chosen as a response to a series of articles against the ratification of the Constitution published under the pseudonyms Cato and Brutus, and later dubbed the Anti-Federalist Papers. It is believed that the Anti-Federalist papers were written by Founding Fathers Patrick Henry, George Clinton, Richard Henry Lee, Mercy Otis Warren, Samuel Bryan, and others.

The exact attributions are not known, but they were all credible and heartfelt defenses against centralized government power. For example, Mercy Otis Warren was a correspondent and adviser to the likes of George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams. Besides her historical account of the American revolution, she published a series of poems in 1790 under her own name, which was highly unusual for a woman to do at the time.

Republicanism versus Democracy

In Federalist 10, considered the most consequential of the Federalist Papers, Publius makes the case against direct democracy and the factionalism it incites. In it he expresses his contempt for majority rule at the expense of the natural rights of each individual. The Founders’ experience under the Articles of Confederation convinced them that people with similar interests and resources should not be able to rule as a mob.

Publius describes the Constitution as a “happy combination” of a republic and democracy. “The great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.” The result of this is American style Federalism, a decentralized governmental structure, that as Publius explains, would make it “more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried.”

One of the Anti-Federalist criticisms is that centralized government over a large territory couldn’t succeed, failure would result in the rise to power of an autocratic ruler, and revert to an oppressive regime. In Federalist 14, Publius argues that this is not possible in a republic that has three branches of government, each with its own responsibilities and powers, and with checks and balances over the others. What Publius does in this case is to refute the Anti-Federalist argument that relies on the thinking of the French political philosopher Montesquieu by using Montesquieu’s own solution to the problem.

Bill of Rights or No Bill of Rights

In our postmodern world, the debate over the Bill of Rights is about the efficacy of each of the first ten Amendments individually. Freedom of speech is under attack by the political correctness elites, the right to bear arms is under attack by state media and their elected minions, illegal search and seizure is under attack by the surveillance state, and the tenth amendment, the one that reserves powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the States, aka Federalism, has been effectively abrogated.

However, in 1787 the debate was over the need for a Bill of Rights at all. As Publius writes in Federalist 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

The fear was that if specific rights were enumerated, they would be the only rights that were protected, and that government could expand its powers to control behavior that was not specified in the Constitution. While the Bill of  Rights eventually passed – this was necessary for ratification – the foresight is extraordinary.

The Publius writers are Poetic Justice Warriors with all of the character traits – reason, purpose and pride. Those who dismiss the relevance of the Constitution in our postmodern world have but a fraction of the intellect or character of Publius. Or as historian Richard B. Morris explains, in the essays that make up The Federalist Papers, Publius has created an “incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer.”

Original Intent

There is a lot of debate these days about how the Constitution should be interpreted. Do we consider it a ‘living document’ whose meaning changes according to the whims of the political majority, as the progressive movement insists, or do we interpret it according to the meaning of the words as they were written, also known as constructionism and originalism? But at the beginning of the Constitutional Convention there was no original intent, many delegates were there to fix the Articles of Confederation, and others like Publius understood the need to scrap the Articles and start over. After four months of debates, compromises, and draft copies, all while sequestered in the sweltering heat of Independence Hall, the new Constitution was perfected and ready to go on the road for ratification by the States.

Unanimous consent was existential for the new republic in order to insulate the union from foreign powers, and Publius knew this. These eloquent political philosophers were the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay, the first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and the father of the Constitution James Madison. And as poetic justice would have it, their principles, compromises, meticulous language, and most important of all, their incredible understanding of human nature, paved the way for the abolition of slavery four score and seven years after the Declaration of Independence. Or as escaped slave (and advisor to President Lincoln) Frederick Douglass put it:

I hold that the Federal Government was never, in its essence, anything but an anti-slavery government. Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or a syllable to the Constitution need be altered. It was purposely so framed as to give no claim, no sanction to the claim, of property in man. If, in its origin, slavery had any relation to the government, it was only as the scaffolding to the magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed.

 

 

 

Write for CFI