Rescuing a Broken America: Why America is Deeply Divided and How to Heal it Constitutionally
278
Rescuing a Broken America: Why America is Deeply Divided and How to Heal it Constitutionally
278Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
There is hope, however. Although seriously weakened, the Constitution still stands, and its protections are still in most laws at the federal and state level that offers protections for local communities that are generally unknown to most people—even attorneys. Rescuing A Broken America explains why Americans are so divided, how the destruction of liberty occurred, who is behind it, and how Americans can stop this destruction of our way of life by electing constitutionally based candidates to office and protecting their communities from egregious federal and state laws and regulations.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781600378225 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Morgan James Publishing |
| Publication date: | 11/02/2010 |
| Pages: | 278 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.10(w) x 9.10(h) x 0.70(d) |
About the Author
Michael Coffman has a Ph.D. in ecosystems analysis, has led a multimillion dollar research effort in global warming, and has studied other national/international environmental and geopolitical issues. Coffman has written books and produced DVDs about the environmental movement and geopolitics as well as dozens of magazine articles, hundreds of speeches and thousands of radio interviews. He lives in Bangor, Maine.
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
A War of World Views
During much of the twentieth century, America increasingly replaced Constitutional governance with another form of governance — one that systematically destroyed the very principle that has made America the greatest nation in the history of the world.
AMERICA IS DEEPLY DIVIDED. Although the division has been happening incrementally for decades, it became starkly apparent during the 2000 Presidential Campaign. Pundits claimed that the Florida voting recount, scandals, hanging chads and all, caused the division. It did not. Division was threatening our nation before the election occurred. The U.S. Supreme Court was deeply divided before the Court ruled in favor of George Bush in the Florida vote count. The election merely revealed its stark ugliness in ways that we could no longer ignore.
The now famous "red" map published by USA Today following the 2000 election clearly showed that the urban/suburban areas voted for Gore while the more rural counties voted for Bush. The mainstream media explained away this phenomenon with simplistic reasoning like "liberal strongholds" versus "conservative strongholds," or it was a contrast of "urban values" versus "rural values." Hidden within these simplistic explanations was the subtle implication that the hicks from the country do not have the sophistication needed to vote intelligently.
Bigotry and elitism aside, these one-dimensional explanations contain an element of truth. Tragically, however, they gloss over a disturbing fact: a major schism exists between worldviews as America drifts away from the foundation of governance that guarantees each citizen "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The story is the same throughout rural America; a growing realization that the urban-suburban citizen's political power has been plundering their rural brethren for decades. It is not unlike what King George did to the colonists in the 1700s. Now, in the twenty-first century, those who would desire to rule the world are even plundering urbanites through programs like smart growth.
The polarization in America became progressively worse in the years following the 2000 election. As the 2008 election grew near, Democrats generally hated President George Bush with a passion. Contrary to previous elections, however, Independents were also fed up with Bush's big spending programs and increasing federal control. Even many Republicans were disillusioned by a feeling that Bush had betrayed them, especially in rural America. The general underlying feeling was that anyone would be better than Bush and his destructive policies. Very few understood why they felt that way. They just knew what Bush had done was not good for the country.
The country was ripe for a major change. Change was what Candidate Barack Obama's campaign was all about, especially after the financial collapse that started in mid September. While the two presidential candidates were exceptionally civil, their adherents became bitterly partisan. For most conservatives, Obama's message of change did not ring true. They were very nervous about what candidate Obama meant by change. It seemed far too socialistic for them. His association with the likes of William Ayers greatly disturbed conservatives. Ayers is an unrepentant convicted felon and co-founder of the extremely radical, communist Weather Underground. On the other hand, conservatives weren't all that enamored with candidate John McCain either. He seemed far too liberal. But he was at least better in their view than Obama. In spite of Obama's radically left political history, mainstream political analysts assured likely Obama supporters that he would govern from the middle as President Clinton had done in the 1990s. In spite of Obama's dubious past, the mainstream media provided a Teflon coating that deflected the otherwise very serious concerns of his radical beliefs.
The prevailing attitude of the mainstream media was that the country was sick of President Bush and wanted any kind of change. Besides, study after study has shown that the mainstream media were mostly progressive liberals who agreed with, and solidly supported Obama. NBC's Chris Matthews typified this mainstream ideology when he told his audience on February 13, 2008 of his admiration for Obama by saying "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."
Obama's socialist views came blazing to the forefront on October 12, 2008, when he was unknowingly caught on video responding to Sam Wurzelbacher, more popularly known as "Joe the Plumber." Sam was a plumber who was concerned some of Obama's ideas would greatly increase his taxes and perhaps put him out of business. Caught by ABC News cameraman Scott Shulman, the world saw and heard Barack Obama's response;
It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too ... and I think when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody.
While the comment was reported by every news organization, and ignited a firestorm with conservatives, the general attitude of the mainstream media was, "so what, what's wrong with that?" Again, the mainstream media protected him from any damage that would have meant certain political death if he had said the same things 25 years earlier.
Candidate Obama never did define what he meant by change. He did, however, repeatedly identify himself with progressive ideology. Obama also gave America a disturbing warning just before Election Day, "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." That's very strong language. What did that mean? Not surprisingly, no one in the mainstream media asked that simple question. In hindsight, it may well be the biggest understatement in the twenty-first century.
What is this fundamental transformation and how does it affect the average American? Americans quickly began to find out during the first year of President Obama's tenure. Massive spending bills were quickly passed by a Democrat controlled Congress. In addition to the massive takeover of America's health care and higher education systems, this will add over eight trillion dollars of new debt (or $26,000 per person), a banking and automobile bailout and takeover. Yet, that was just the start.
All this pales in comparison to proposed economically devastating cap and trade legislation which allegedly "solves" the global warming catastrophe. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) claimed that cap and trade was "the largest tax increase in the history of America." Worse, it would essentially put federal bureaucrats in charge of the American economy by deciding who gets carbon credits and who does not. Although the cap and trade legislation was stalled, it clearly shows the magnitude of the government takeover Obama visualizes.
Democrats and progressives claim that all this is necessary to save the nation and the world from the catastrophic damage allegedly done during the eight-year Bush administration. As successive one to two thousand page bills costing hundreds of billion of dollars each were passed during Obama's first year without even being read by the democratic majority, millions of Americans began to protest. By mid-summer hundreds of unplanned "Tea Party" rallies around the country were held to protest the excessive spending and intrusion into their private lives and finances. The rallies quickly evolved into a massive libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement.
Although attacked, scorned, denigrated and ignored by the mainstream media, a stunning NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll on December 16, 2009 found that 41 percent of the American people viewed the Tea Party movement favorably, compared to only 23 percent who did not. Conversely the Democrat Party only had a 35 percent favorable/45 percent unfavorable rating, and the Republican Party a 28 percent favorable/43 percent unfavorable rating. Yet, the mainstream media continued to act as if the movement did not even exist.
If the Tea Party and Republican polls are added together, a whopping 69 percent of the American people tend to favor fiscally conservative governance. This is probably overstated because many Republicans are liberal-leaning, not true conservatives. Nonetheless, the conservative- leaning citizens see that what the Democrats are doing is socialistic and bankrupting the country. This was made apparent in the January 19, 2010 Senate election of conservative Scott Brown in Massachusetts to replace liberal Ted Kennedy. Yet, the Democrats say it is not socialism, but "social and economic justice," an end to racism, and environmental protection that they are attempting to accomplish. These goals, they claim, are both noble and necessary to attain equality.
Both sides accuse the other of being un-American, bigots, fear mongers and racists. It is just as racist and bigoted for a progressive liberal to assume automatically that someone who is opposed to President Obama, or another black leader, is opposed because he or she hates blacks. These progressive liberals have deliberately created class and gender warfare, urban vs. rural schisms, and federal verses state power struggles.
A January 25, 2010 Gallup Poll found President Obama is the most divisive first-year president in United States history. We are becoming more and more divided at an ever accelerating rate. Why? Who is right? Why is it tearing the very fabric of America apart? An April 18, 2010 Pew Research Center Poll found that nearly 80 percent of Americans were frustrated or angry with the federal government. Why? As important, how can this schism be fixed and how can communities and individuals protect themselves?
The War on the Constitution
What makes America so deeply divided? What happened to the God-given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence? Where has the principle of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people gone? Why are Americans losing the American Dream?
The answer lies in understanding that America is mired in a war of worldviews. Its people no longer understand the principles of unalienable rights and self-government as envisioned by the founding fathers. Children no longer learn the foundations of freedom in public schools. Consequently, they no longer understand the God-given rights that protect each individual from the plundering by others and by their government.
During much of the twentieth century, America increasingly replaced Constitutional governance with another form of governance — one that systematically destroyed the very principle that has made America the greatest nation in the history of the world. The deep divisions in America are the result of an all-out war between the axiom of freedom and mutual respect best laid down by John Locke (1632-1704) in his Two Treatises on Government (1689), and that of Jean Jacques Rousseau in his Social Contract (1762) and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1754).
While other writers/philosophers also supported one philosophy or the other, this book uses the writings of these two authors to show the contrast between the two philosophies. Also, most historical writings compare the similarities, not the differences between the writings of the two men. While there are important similarities, the two models are diametrically opposed to each other in actual application. These foundational differences are rarely mentioned.
Locke's writings were refined by Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) and others until Thomas Jefferson made them the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson claimed the Declaration is based entirely on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Conversely, Rousseau provided the foundational philosophy that spawned the bloody French Revolution and inspired the writings of Immanuel Kant, Georg W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx and many others. Most of Europe has been infected with the Rousseau model, including England.
Government's purpose, according to Locke, is to join with others to "unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estate, which I call by the general name, property." According to Locke, the primary reason for government "is the preservation of their property" (Italics added). Most Americans today would be amazed to learn that the free right to own property represents the foundation upon which life and liberty depend.
This fundamental principle became the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the United States Constitution; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ..." This clause lays out the critical understanding that every citizen has "equal opportunity" to succeed (or fail), not equal results.
The Founders did not establish the Constitution to grant rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government, which can take away what it grants. Instead they are granted by God, which makes them eternal and not subject to change. Even so, the Founders recognized that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable and eternal, could not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," "Nature's law" or "God's law."
The drafters of the Declaration (which also included John Adams and Benjamin Franklin) used Natural Law instead of natural-rights theory, substituting "the pursuit of happiness" for "property" in the trinity of unalienable rights. There are several reasons for the substitution. To many people, the term property means an object like land and goods that can be bought and sold. Property as Locke used it meant far more; such as the sovereignty of one's self and the right to personal well being that tangible property can bring. "Life, Liberty and Property" is still used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence established the premise that in America each person has all the rights "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them." In other words, God's law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws. It is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind.
Central to natural law is the right to use one's own property in the pursuit of happiness. Most people do not understand that the right to use their own property or "property rights" is far more important than "democracy" in maintaining liberty and building wealth. Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, stated the utter truth of this fundamental principle in his book The Quest for Cosmic Truth, "In India the electoral franchise is wide and elections have long been regular, but property rights are weak. For most of the post-World War II era, in contrast, Hong Kong had no democracy, but property rights there have been among the strongest the world has ever seen. Indians are poor and shackled by a massively corrupt state; the people of Hong Kong are wealthy and free."
Why are property rights so critically important? The Fraser Institute of Canada publishes an annual Economic Freedom of the World report. One of the components of the report is an index of legally protected private property rights based on things like impartial courts, judicial independence, integrity of the legal system, protection of property rights, legal enforcement of contracts, and regulatory restriction on the sale of real property. Although somewhat subjective, when this index is compared with the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) determined by the World Bank, an enlightening curve results, (see graph) The lower the protection of property rights the lower reduced per capita GDP.
Conversely, the higher the protection of property rights, the higher the per capita gross domestic product. While not statistically significant, the graph clearly shows that well defined, legal property rights are critical in a nation's ability to create wealth.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Rescuing A Broken America"
by .
Copyright © 2010 Michael Coffman, Ph.D..
Excerpted by permission of Morgan James Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents:PART I - WHAT’S HAPPENING TO AMERICA
1 – A War of World Views
2 – Constitutional Rights VS Positive Rights
3 –The Constitution and the Rule of Law
4 – The High Cost of Rousseau Socialism
PART II - How Did It Happen
5 – The Global Agenda
6 – Co-Opting of American Institutions
7 – Environmentalism: The Key to Controlling Property Rights
8 – Biodiversity and Global Warming
PART III - Taking Back America
9 – Getting Back to Constitutional Law
10 – Protecting Your Community
11 – Plan for Success
Appendix A
Local Governments Still Retain Police Power
Protect Yourself Using Lawsuits