More on the Revolutionary Mentality

As an addition to my August 13 article, here are some other traits that define the revolutionary mentality:

1. A revolutionary does not understand injustice and evil as factors inherent in the human condition that can be attenuated but not eliminated, but rather as temporary anomalies created by a segment of humanity—the bourgeoisie, the Jews, Christians, etc.—which can be identified and punished, thereby extirpating the root of evil.

2. The guilty segment of mankind spreads evil and sin by exercising a power—economic, political, military, and cultural. Hence, it must be eliminated by means of a superior power, the revolutionary power, deliberately created to achieve this purpose.

3. Evil power dominates society as a whole, molding it after the image and likeness of its own interests, ends, and purposes. The eradication of evil must therefore take on the form of a radical restructuring of the entire social order. Nothing can remain untouched. The revolutionary power, like the Biblical God, “makes all things new.” There are no limits to the range and depth of revolutionary action. It can reach even the victims of a previous situation of oppression by accusing them of having become so used to evil that they have become its accomplices, thus requiring purifying punishment to the same or greater extent than the old power elite.

4. Though brought about by a specific segment of the human race, evil has spread everywhere so thoroughly that it has become difficult to conceive of life without it. Therefore, the new society of order, justice, and peace can be imagined only in very broad outlines, so different will it be from everything that has existed thus far. Revolutionaries therefore have no obligation—not even the possibility—to explain in plain details the plan for the new society, let alone to prove its viability or demonstrate, in terms of cost vs. benefit, the advantages of the transformation. These are given as fundamental premises, so that the demand for proof is automatically impugned as a subterfuge for avoiding change and condemned ipso facto as an element to be eliminated. The revolution is its own foundation and cannot be questioned from the outside.

5. Though known only as a very general vague image, the future society puts itself above all human judgment and itself becomes the fundamental premise of all values, all judgment, all reasoning. An immediate consequence of this is that the future, which cannot be conceived of rationally, can be known only via its image in the current revolutionary action, which in its turn, for this very reason, removes itself from all human judgment, except from that of revolutionary leaders who incarnate and personify that action. But even these people may represent it imperfectly, by virtue of their being children of the old society and of their carrying within themselves, at least partially, the germs of the ancient evil. The prophetic and intellectual authority of revolutionary leaders is therefore provisional and only lasts as long as they have the material power to secure it. The capacity of leader of nations towards a beatific future is therefore uncertain and revocable, depending on the irregularities of the revolutionary pathway. The crimes and mistakes of a fallen leader, not imputable to the future society, nor to the revolutionary process as such, nor to the revolutionary movement as a whole, can therefore only be explained as a residual effect of the condemned past: a revolutionary, by definition, sins only by not being sufficiently revolutionary.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on October 10, 2007 and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

Kinsey Consequences: It’s Rotten Research-ers. Part 3.

A Few Sample Case Studies

The following briefly are a spectrum of contemporary federal reports and/or findings that use fraudulent and criminal Kinseyan data and disciples as authorities for the nation’s legal and public policy decisions. Chapters 8 and 9 document the effects of these frauds in more detail.

1. 1969 U.S. INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH (NIMH) “TASK FORCE ON HOMOSEXUALITY” Kinsey’s co-author and Institute Director, Dr. Paul Gebhard as well as Dr. John Money (a contributor to The Journal Of Paedophilia) typified the “fourteen experts” on human sexuality whose formal report cited Kinsey’s data as authority to urge nationwide legalization of homosexuality[1]

2. 1969 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE) and the U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE (PHS) Almost all DoE and PHS reports post 1969 which address human sexuality cite to Kinsey and/or his disciples as their key authorities

3. 1974 U.S. CONGRESS CREATES “STATUS OFFENDER” LEGISLATION. This well intentioned legislation made it illegal to place minors in protective custody unless they were committing “adult” crimes, hence opening the floodgates to child prostitution and child pornography. The view of children as wholly autonomous and as not requiring some kind of protective intervention by the state reflects a dramatic shift from the evolution to traditional American views of child care to the Kinseyan view of the child as unharmed by broad freedom and license.

4. 1977-1985 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DO J) “THE NATIONAL SURVEY OF CRIME SEVERITY” (SET PRECEDENT FOR FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES, CIRCA 1990’s): In his academic scholarship, Principal Investigator, Marvin Wolfgang, former member of the President’s Commission on Pornography and Obscenity (1970) cites Kinsey and his colleagues for sexual authority, the Commissioners having been trained at the Kinsey Institute during a “sexuality” site visit. The Kinsey model is reflected above in the NSCS sentencing guidelines. By excluding child rape or other forms of serious child abuse as crimes, the authors mischievously directed judges and juries nationwide into dismissals of child sex crimes, and into leniency and paroles for violent crimes against children, inevitably also trivializing violent sex crimes against women and legitimizing sundry other Kinseyan pansexual standards.

5. 1986 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, (NRC) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES on ‘TEENAGE SEX.’ When he was Secretary of Education, William Bennett pointed out that the report of the NRC (apparently chartered by Congress, hence an authoritative arm of the federal government) called for condoms in schools despite the data that disproved this as a solution to early sexual activity. A review of this NRC report finds Kinsey’s pansexual philosophy and disciples extensively cited as authority.

6. 1989 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, (NRC) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: “AIDS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND INTRAVENOUS DRUG USE.” Kinsey’s former chief researcher, John Gagnon is part of the research team. The report fully cites to Kinsey and his disciples as sexual authority, suggesting that while Kinsey did outstanding work, these data are not too useable since they were derived largely from white, college males. This false claim about the nature of the fraud serves many purposes, among which, a) it intimates that the deviancy data are understated rather than overstated, hence b) it allows continued, even fuller use of the data. Were the NRC to admit that the data reflect prisoners, sex offenders, homosexual males, boy prostitutes, thieves, hold-up men and feeble-minded subjects, Kinsey’s data would be used to define abnormal males, by definition. After claiming it’s flaws, the authors deify and continue to cite Kinsey as authority, finding homosexuality and other nontraditional sex to be normal

7. 1989 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JUVENILE JUSTICE (Do J) “REPORT TO THE NATION ON CRIME AND JUSTICE.” This DoJ report on crime purges the 1986 Attorney General’s Commission report on Pornography that found massive crimes of child abuse and child pornography. Hence, the crime report “to the nation” does not list child pornography as a crime. Moreover, the AG’s Pornography Commission testimony from the former director of SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, as well as Kinsey colleagues C.A. Tripp, John Money and others would have significantly impacted the Commission’s findings.

8. 1989 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (OJJDP) “THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF MISSING CHILDREN.” Three months prior to the following HHS Youth Suicide Report, among other unsubstantiated Kinseyan claims, the OJJDP researchers said the “data” found religious and parental “harassment” of biologically homosexual children to be responsible for child runaways, prostitutes and suicides. Finkehor et. al., have long cited Kinsey and his disciples as scientific authority and this OJJDP report reflects the author’s continued reliance on the Kinsey “model” of homosexuality, prostitution, pornography and the like.

9. 1989 ADAMHA: ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION IN ADAMHA NEWS “The Most Forgotten Teens” builds on the Kinseyan authority, blaming children’s emotional problems ‘not on the many causal factors which often lead youths into homosexual conduct, but on social hostility to homosexuality. The article ignores the extant data on adult or older juvenile sex abuse, etc., as precipitating many harmful responses, including homosexual acting-out.

10. 1989 U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)” THE SECRETARY’S TASK FORCE ON YOUTH SUICIDE.” This report cites Dr Kinsey and his disciples as sexual authorities to disregard any environmental factors triggering homosexual conduct, claiming a biological imperative and blaming parents, churches and traditional American values as causing the suicides of “gay youth”

11. 1991 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) “HOMOSEXUALITY AND PERSONNEL SECURITY.” The author, Theodore Sarbin cites as his human sexuality authorities, Kinsey and his disciples, including Dr John Money and Verne Bullough, self-identified pedophile editor of The Journal of Paedophilia Hence, Sarbin disengenuously concludes that “no empirical data have been developed to support any connection between homosexuality and security” (p 31)

The above eleven are a few of similar reports that sway or direct current laws and public policies on human sexuality. Now, just briefly let’s look at several other recent research gems on children: First, the cyberporn data on parental assault, next the alleged “decline” in child sex abuse and the harmlessness of pornography for children and finally a “well being” report that says children are safer today than in the days of Ozzie and Harriet.



[1] Karlan, Arno, interview in Sexuality and Homosexuality (1971). NYC: W.W. Norton & CO., Inc., p. 612

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Can Judges Be Impeached?

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on this particular topic. I’m going to take a little bit of a different approach than I know the rest of the panel members are going to take, and that’s perhaps good because I think we need to examine this question in a more full constitutional context, particularly with regard to the Federal Judiciary. And so I’m focusing my remarks not so much on impeachment as it is to focus upon a forgotten part of Article III of the United States Constitution, Section 1, which says that federal judges hold office during good behavior. We have, I believe, in this country assumed that when a person is appointed as a federal judge, that that person has a life-time appointment to the federal bench. That is not what the Constitution says. He has an appointment only during good behavior.

Now the reason why this is important is because we have been told—and I remember when I was in law school – I was taught the notion that the only remedy that there was available to a misbehaving judge was the impeachment remedy, or perhaps that the judges themselves would finally go to that judge’s office and ship him off to pasture. As a matter of fact, I believe in my lifetime we’ve seen where judges finally came together and got a judge to retire because they no longer could perform their duties as a judge. But that’s just simply not what was envisioned in the original constitutional text – that impeachment is only one remedy with regard to a judge who is not doing his job; that as a matter of fact, the good behavior is not only a standard, but it is also a remedy that’s available to us for judges who are usurping, particularly usurping legislative power.

Now, let’s look at this structurally because you will see some parallel structures in the Constitution where there’s an ordinary remedy for every elected member of the executive and . . . of the legislative and then the one of the executive branch and every appointed member of the judicial branch, there’s an ordinary removal remedy and there’s an extraordinary removal remedy. Now, of course, with the president, the ordinary removal remedy is, you vote him out of office or you don’t vote them in office. It’s a direct people-election remedy. And, of course, the extraordinary remedy with regard to the president is impeachment, and that’s very clear from the constitutional text.

Likewise, with regard to members of Congress. The ordinary remedy with regard to a member of the House or the Senate is again, election. With the House members, it’s every two years. With regard to the Senate, it’s every six years. The extraordinary remedy, which is not well known with regard to a disorderly member of the House or the Senate, is found in Article I, Section 5, where the House or the Senate itself has the power by a two-thirds vote to remove from the House or from the Senate a disorderly member. That’s the extraordinary remedy.

Likewise with regard to courts. The ordinary remedy of a judge who is misbehaving is a remedy that was well known at the Common Law, and that was a civil remedy for forfeiture of office upon proof of misbehavior. Impeachment was considered to be the extraordinary remedy for a judge who had committed extraordinary offenses rather than the ordinary offense of misbehaving, violating the standard of good behavior.

Now, Congressman David Stone—and this is not a well-known story—from North Carolina, spoke in a House debate and it was dated January 13, 1802. And this is what he said about these two remedies available with regard to judges: He says, “A judge doubtless shall be removed from office by conviction or impeachment and conviction, but it does not follow that they may not be removed by other means.” He said, “High crimes and misdemeanors, which is the standard for impeachment, always includes those that would be guilty of misbehavior in office. But there’s a various species of misbehavior which may render it exceedingly improper for a judge to continue in office that doesn’t reach the level of a high crime and a misdemeanor as the Constitution defines it.”

Now, Stone is right about that. The impeachment process was well known at Common Law which involved the legislative branch and, of course, as our Constitution sets it forth, the House of Representatives exercises executive power. They’re like the prosecuting attorney that investigates the charge and brings the charge – that’s what impeachment means. The Senate then performs the judicial function of trying whoever it is who’s charged on those charges, and the Constitution, of course, defines what a high crime and misdemeanor is. It sets it forth as the standard upon which the impeachment process is governed. That was well known at the Common Law. The parliament, of course, having that authority, the House of Commons like the House of Representatives, the prosecutorial power and the House of Lords having the trial power such as the Senate.

But there was also a proceeding at Common Law that was known as a “civil proceeding for forfeiture of one’s office for misbehavior.” This civil proceeding could be brought in a Common Law court by the person who appointed the officer; and then through a judicial proceeding, that person could be removed from office for misbehavior, and misbehavior was a standard that you might say is lower than high crime and misdemeanor.

Now, how do you define good behavior? If you look at Hamilton’s Federalist #65, you will see that Hamilton understood that when this word “good behavior” was placed in Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, they had not just invented this term. This was a term that dated back to the sixteenth century and perhaps even before. It was a term that was taken from English law and practice of longstanding. In 1597, for example, good behavior was defined this way: “Every voluntary act done by an officer contrary to that which belongs to the office. Every voluntary act done by an officer contrary to that which belongs to the office is a violation of the good behavior standard.

Now notice, what that means is that if a judge exercises legislative power that’s not common to the office of the judge, then that judge has violated the standard of good behavior. Under the Common Law rule, he forfeits his office. He’s out of there. And the executive officer who appointed the judge to that particular position had the authority to go into a court of law and get that person removed from office under the Common Law Civil Forfeiture Proceeding.

Abuse of office, nonuse of power, a refusal to exercise judicial power and neglect of judicial duty – all of these would have been in violation of the standard of good behavior. Now, abuse of office—it was well understood that if a judge usurped the power of another officer, that that judge has clearly violated the standard of good behavior.

Now what does that mean for us today? What it means is this: Judges today believe that they make law. As a matter of fact, in law schools across the country, the first thing that a young lawyer learns before they learn anything else is that judges are the ultimate and supreme law-maker. As a matter of fact, Al Gore couldn’t have had the defense that he had that he didn’t violate any law, except it’s based upon the assumption that until a court decides whether a statute means what someone claims it to mean, it’s not the law. And since no vice president had ever been found guilty under the particular statute, how could he have violated the law? Because the law is what the courts say it is, not what the legislature says it is. And this, of course, is the major problem we have in America today—is that we have judges in courts across America who think that it’s their job to make the law. When it’s as a matter of fact, under the Common Law rule of good behavior, and this is a substantive rule that’s written into the Constitution of the United States, is that the Common Law rule is that a judge is to discover the law, state the law, and apply the law – not make it up.

So any judge that persists in office to claim that he has the authority to make law is violating the standard of good behavior under the Constitution of the United States and therefore, is subject to forfeiture of office under the Common Law procedure of a civil action for the forfeiture of office.

Now, what’s important about this is to recognize that Chief Justice John Marshall, when he decided Marbury and Madison – if you go back and read that case carefully – he understood that he was bound by what was written in the Constitution. Now, you can debate whether or not Chief Justice Marshall read the Constitution correctly or not. But the whole institution of judicial review is based upon the assumption that the Constitution controls the court, not the other way around. What we have in America today are judges who believe that THEY control the Constitution and the Constitution means what THEY say it is.

That is a violation of Article III, Section 1, the standard of good behavior; because what they’re doing is they’re usurping the authority of the people to have written in the Constitution the law of the land.

It’s not the court who decides what the law of the land is – it’s the people who have formed the written covenant for the very purpose of controlling government, including judges. As a matter of fact, if you go back and read Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, you will see he says that the Constitution as it is written is an instrument that governs the court as much as it’s an instrument that governs the legislative body.

So, if we are true to the substantive standard of good behavior, then we would find today that most judges are misbehaving. Most judges who have been appointed to the federal bench today are violating the standard of good behavior because they’re violating the substantive norm of good behavior, namely that a judge cannot make law; a judge can only discover, state it, and apply the law. They have violated that standard; they have usurped legislative power.

Now, one must also examine good behavior as having also established a procedure by which that standard would be applied. If you again go back and look at the term “good behavior” at Common Law, you will find that when the standard of good behavior was used in applicability to an officer of government, it implied or presupposed a certain Common Law procedure by which that substantive standard would be enforced. At Common Law, a Writ of Scire Facias that was available to the one who appointed the officer to go into a Common Law court and file in that court of law a claim that the officer had violated the standard of good behavior.

Now, if you go back and look at history, you will not find in history any judge who is ever charged with misbehavior under the standard of good behavior primarily because in the early history when this particular writ was being developed, judges did not serve under a standard of good behavior. They served at the pleasure of the king. But over a course of time, and you will find this in this seventeenth century beginning in 1628 and on through the late seventeenth century that judges began to win the battle that they didn’t just serve at the pleasure of the king. And you will find a number of judges who claimed that they were removable only upon a Writ of Scire Facias upon proof of misbehavior. So the judges themselves in the Common Law applied to themselves this Common Law procedure of a Writ of Scire Facias to them if there was a charge of misbehavior.

Now I believe that Article III, Section 2 should be understood not only in terms of incorporating the substantive Common Law of good behavior, but also the procedural authority of the appointing officer to bring charges of misbehavior in a court of law on that substantive standard as defined in Article III, Section 1. It is my view that the President then has authority as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States to bring a Writ of Scire Facias in a federal court on the ground that any judge has violated the standard of good behavior and would be able to bring that charge in a federal court against any judge who has been appointed under the appointment power of Article II.

Now, what’s important here is to realize that this is not a breach of separation of powers as many people have argued. Many people have argued that the standard of good behavior is a self-enforcing standard in which the judges would have the executive power, as well as the judicial power, as well as the legislative power. That sounds like a federal judge today. But I believe that the Common Law term acknowledged the separation of power’s principle and therefore, the President – even under a Constitution that separates powers – would still have the authority to initiate a charge and, of course, the legislature would have the authority to further define good behavior.

What’s important in this particular situation, however, and one which I think the Congress of the United States need to be involved, is I do believe that any charge of misbehavior under Article III would have to be brought before an Article III court. Now, some people might think that’s like bringing the fox into the hen house. I mean, how is a federal judge going to sit in judgment upon one who’s a member of the Federal Judiciary. And this is where Congress comes in.

I believe that Congress has the authority in order to have an independent judicial branch exercise this power with regard to good behavior. Congress can authorize the state courts. After all, state judges under Article VI under of the United States Constitution have a duty to support the Constitution. This is a constitutional standard laid down in Article III on federal judges. This would be an opportunity for Congress to pass a statute that authorizes the President to bring the charge in a state court, rather than in a federal court and in that way, establish an independent judicial appraisal of the good behavior standard that governs the federal judiciary. Probably that would have to be at the deference of the United States Supreme Court because the United States Supreme Court has the judicial power by the Constitution and it would ultimately come before the United States Supreme Court should an appeal process be provided for.

But what’s important here, I believe, is for us today to recognize that judges need to be governed by an ordinary remedy as well as an extraordinary remedy, and the extraordinary remedy – the impeachment process – is probably one that primarily should be brought with regard to the United States Supreme Court because of their ultimate authority in terms of exercising the judicial power of the United States. Is this likely to happen? Well, I don’t know. But it seems to me that Congress has some opportunity here to corral a runaway judiciary that has so long been operating independently of the Constitution, independently of the people, independently of those who appoint them, and I believe it’s time in America to say no, federal judges do NOT have lifetime appointments – they have only as Article III, Section 1 states, “appointments during good behavior,” and we need to put some feet to the good behavior standard.

Thank you very much.

Herbert W. TitusDr. Herbert Titus is IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, and Public Policy.

This lecture was delivered on June 6, 1997, and published by The Christian Committees of Correspondence.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

One World

Freedom as a Servant of Tyranny

For at least the past forty years, the political debate in Brazil has been reduced to a choice between free market and state interventionism, identified with the “Right” and the “Left,” respectively, and charged with automatically defining, on that economic basis, all other human alternatives in all fields of culture, legislation, morality, etc. When a person identifies himself as a “free-market advocate,” he is immediately classed among rightists, conservatives, and reactionaries, becoming, on the other hand, a socialist, a progressive, and a revolutionary as soon as he switches to the field of state interventionism. Roberto Campos and Celso Furtado, both Brazilian economists, are the icons of the first and second factions, respectively.

When factors—of a moral, cultural, military, geopolitical, or any other nature—interfere in the dispute, complicating the picture and depriving the honorable public of the comforts of that primary schematism, the only reaction the Brazilian mind is capable of is an attempt to quickly retrieve its state of homeostatic equilibrium by proclaiming that  Left and Right no longer exist, that the world has entered a stage of paradisiacal unanimity, and that, to sum up, there is nothing left to be discussed, except for the names of those who will fill out the offices in the hierarchy of universal peace.

Transitioning thusly from a silly schematism to an even sillier one, they believe to have overcome all ideological conflict and risen to the heights of some sublime pragmatism, where, with the lower passions already extinguished, techno-scientific reason reigns supreme, nothing else being important but the objective calculation of costs and benefits.

Unfortunately, these are all self-flattering illusions, designed to protect the human mind from a conflict with the painful complexities of the real world.

First of all, the choice between free market and state interventionism is one thing when regarded as a theoretical alternative, or as an abstract model of an ideal society, and a completely different thing when placed in a specific historical and geopolitical context. The banner of economic freedom was first raised against monarchic despotisms. At that time, it was identified with the forces of revolution. A free-market supporter was closer to a socialist than to an ultramontane monarchist. Later on, with the rise of the Russian and German statist totalitarianisms, free-market advocacy became “reactionary.”  By then, free-market proponents would team up with their former enemies, monarchists and Christian conservatives, against the socialist threat. This second form assumed by the ideological debate, upon which the usual Brazilian distinction between Left and Right is based, has long been absorbed and transcended by a third equation. Free market has become the pretext upon which the globalist forces interested in building a controlling and despotic world government have been undermining national sovereignties and inducing entire nations to abdicate all other liberties in exchange for the mere power of buying and selling. The argument that economic freedom brings with it all other freedoms is therein used as an excuse to bring about the opposite result: the suppression of all freedoms but one. Concomitantly, those very globalist forces have been giving billionaire support to all leftist and revolutionary organizations in the world, in order to make them work against the nation-states, causing many supporters of the free market, who nonetheless fancy themselves as men of the “Right,” to ultimately join forces with the leftist rebellion against moral and cultural traditionalisms, which, to some, are obstacles to the revolution, and to others, are impediments to the free market. United by their clinging to old stereotypes dislocated from the present situation, both fail to perceive that, in their fight against the nation-state, which some hate as reactionary, and others as interventionist, they are only aiding the Great Leviathan of the world state to rise upon the ruins of many lesser Leviathans.

The ideological conflict is not over. It is just formidably more complicated. The struggle between freedom and tyranny has taken on a new format, in which the engineers of tyranny, by playing with the conventional symbols of political debate, have managed to enlist to their service even the very supporters of freedom.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on May 25, 2009 and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

Ignoring the Essential

There are some elementary historical data about the communist movement which are ignored by most people and less known or well forgotten by the leading cultivated minorities, but without which it is literally impossible to understand anything whatsoever about recent world history. If you try to inform yourself and to take these data into account, you’ll realize how many obscure issues become automatically transparent, with little interpretative effort.

1. Communism has been, throughout human history, the only – I repeat: the only – globally organized political movement, with ramifications and agents in the most remote places of the Earth, all disciplined and prepared to immediately, coordinately and simultaneously spring into action upon the first call issued from their command centers.

2. Although it has at its disposal a huge number of organizations and mass parties, Communism is substantially a clandestine movement, whose command and action plans must remain invisible to the masses, even in such periods of lawfulness when many communist organizations can move publicly without being persecuted. The primacy of the clandestine elite over the visible leadership has been, at least since Lenin’s time, a keystone clause of the communist strategy. It is impossible to understand this strategy and the tactics that implement it by taking into account only the undisguised role of the most visible communist leaders in each country, and without having access to the internal discussions and the international connections of each organization.

3. Communism has been, throughout the world and throughout the ages, the only political movement that has at its disposal unlimited financial resources, far superior to the West’s biggest known fortunes and to the combined budgets of many governments. Its potentials of action must be measured according to the level of its resources.

4. Only a tiny part of the communist activity consists of directly or indirectly recognizable doctrinarian propaganda. The main and most significant part consists of infiltrating and blending into all sorts of organizations – political parties (liberals and conservatives alike), media, unions, government and private enterprises, cultural, educational and charitable institutions, the armed forces, Freemasonry and so on – it is an endless list – in order to turn them into useful tools for the communist strategy, through which it is possible to control the entire society, making the Party an “omniscient and invisible power” (the phrasing comes from Antonio Gramsci, but the idea itself existed much earlier). It is infantile to believe that, once implanted in those entities, the Communists will then turn to indoctrination or proselytism, as if they were protestant shepherds preaching the Gospel among infidels. Co-opting all forces that may serve the communist strategy is an extremely subtle and complex mechanism, which requires massive doses of camouflage and deceptiveness, with many contradictory moments on its way.

5. It is foolish to imagine communism as a “doctrine” or an “ideal”, particularly when it purports overtly preaching the abolition of private property. The communist movement has never had nor needed any doctrinal unity, and has proved one thousand times its capacity to tactically adapt to the most disparate ideological formulas, either sequentially or simultaneously, thus leaving the uninformed observer (including politicians in general and the near entirety of liberal and conservative intellectuals) completely bewildered. The most aggressive atheistic campaigns, for instance, coexist pacifically, in the midst of the communist movement, with the practice of taking advantage of the religious discourse to reach the heart of the masses. Mutatis mutandis, exploring radical nationalistic feelings goes side by side with the effort to dilute national sovereignties into bigger, regional or world unities, so that, behind the scenes, the communist movement benefits from the patriotic resistance as well as from the ascendant global power. The unity of the communist movement is strategic and organizational, not ideological. Communism is not a set of theses: it is a power scheme, the most flexible, vast, integrated and efficient one that ever existed. Even Islamic radicalism, which is so quickly expanding nowadays, would be powerless without the support of the world network of communist organizations.

6. An even more egregious form of foolishness is to believe that the logical-formal opposition between the abstract concepts of capitalism and communism can be translated, in the field, into a mortal conflict between capitalists and communists. To the multiple local and temporal situations corresponds a countless number of shades and transitions, which leaves much room for the apparently strangest arrangements and complicities (but only apparently so). No one will understand anything whatsoever about the historical world we live in without taking into consideration the enduring collaboration between the communist movement and some of the West’s greatest fortunes, Rothschild’s and Rockefellers’s for instance. The classic books on this matter are those from the English economist Anthony Sutton, but already in 1956 the US House of Representative’s Reece Committee gathered substantial proof that some billionaire foundations were using their huge resources “to destroy or discredit the same free market system that gave rise to them.” Today these foundations rank among the most solid pillars supporting the socialist government of Barack Obama.

Ignoring or misunderstanding these facts lies at the root of liberals’ and conservatives’ incapacity to resist the triumphant march of communists in Latin America. Many still believe, for example, that democracy will win a big victory by forcing the FARC to abandon the armed struggle and to constitute a legal party. They can’t understand that to create a recognized political force is the final purpose of any armed struggle – in Colombia or anywhere else. Guerrillas don’t win wars: all they want is a politically advantageous defeat. That’s the reason why they open fire on the government forces, in the jungle and in the city, and, at the same time, place their agents in key posts of the legal leftist parties, where they protest the blood shed and appeal dramatically for a return to lawfulness. They did it in Brazil, and they are doing it now in Colombia.

While liberals and conservatives can’t attain a clear vision of the whole and complex phenomenon of communism, while they insist on fighting the most immediate and repugnant aspects of this movement, if not only communist doctrines in abstract, they are doomed to defeat even as they claim victory.

The fact that no international anti-communist movement has emerged makes it difficult for many people to put together this whole picture, which communists themselves so easily get. But the absence of social support cannot work as a pretext for intellectual laziness. There will always be some individual minds capable of thinking above group prospects, when they exist, or without them, when they don’t exist. Nothing justifies that these minds be kept aside from the public discussions, while the ignorant hold the monopoly of the microphones. In this as in all other human affairs, those who have studied nothing are full of simplistic certainties and proclaim them with a huge sense of superiority, totally unaware of their ridiculous role. Those who have studied the issues may look deranged or eccentric, but after all, why do we study if not to learn something that most do not know?

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on April 3, 2009.

The Globalization of American Education

Read the Education Advocate, put out by the Commonwealth Education Organization in Pennsylvania.  The issue for January/February 2007 tells the story of the globalization of American education—a process which began in the 1830’s with Horace Mann, who got his inspiration from the most militaristic nation in the world, Prussia, ruled by the elite Junker class.  They had a state-controlled, tax supported, mandatory school system which kept tight control over their people.  That was what Horace Mann thought America needed.  (Read two books by Samuel Blumenfeld—Is Public Education Necessary? and  NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education.)

Mann was a Unitarian, and hostile to the Christian education system.  It was no “system”.  If you wanted your children educated, go ahead and educate them.  Build your own schools, hire your teachers, design your curriculum.  It was your business.  Freemarket education.  Little or no government control.

When we did it that way, America had the best educated populace in the world.  People marveled that the tradesman and the farmer could read newspapers—published at a higher level than today’s papers (read de’Toqueville’s Democracy in America, written about the same time as Horace Mann).  The Federalist Papers were newspaper fare, and read by nearly everyone.  College students of today’s education often have trouble reading them.

Since government has gotten control of education, beginning in earnest about the 1850’s, the literacy level has steadily and progressively descended, until 1962 when it took an 18-year plunge.

Mann was linked with the New England industrialists who did not want a free and educated people, they wanted a population fit for factory work, and thought enforced public education (which is neither public nor education) would produce such a population.  The so-called “progressive” educators, such as John Dewey, were quite clear that they favored an elitist system in which less than 20% of students would be allowed to go on to higher education.  That could happen only if enforced by government.  No parent would willingly do that to their child.

Everything government does it does at gunpoint.  We seldom see the gun because we agree with the laws.  But if you do not send your child to an approved school, you will see the gun at your doorstep in the guise of a truant officer.  There are some things which government should never, never, never regulate:  Such as religion and education.  Both form the minds and hearts of the people.  And both are thus the target of tyrants.  They want to educate us to vote them back into power.  Government controlled education will always (as in ALWAYS) sooner or later, become a mind-control system.

The January/February issue of Education Advocate is warning America that before Congress are two bills to submit our nationalized education system to the UN, to put it under the control of the thugs and criminals who manipulate the UN for their own power and glory.

Dear reader, control of education is the most dangerous side of the globalist movement, their strategy to control the thinking of America (and everyone else), worse than UN military control.  Globalists have successfully sidelined religion (Church and State, you know…), and have a lock on education.  They are effectively in control of the thinking of most Americans.  And Americans are either are oblivious, too cowardly to stand against it, or on the side of tyranny.

The one thing tyrants fear most is a Biblical spiritual renewal.  They know that if that happens, their days are numbered.  The ONLY way we will turn this back is through a spiritual renewal in the West, and to do what we should have been doing for several centuries—developing the Biblical view of politics, economics, education, etc.  It might just begin in America.  We seem to be the only even slightly “religious” nation in the West.

But our spiritual leaders (and followers) are, so far, incapable of mounting an offensive to recover the West for Jesus Christ.  Most of them, stoutly apathetic, resist any suggestion that they get involved in a reasonable discourse of public policy issues (they do not know how), or that there is a Biblical form of politics and government.  Very few Christians know how to say out loud that “Jesus is Lord”.

A part of the offensive that might turn things around is learning to reason in public again.  Christians once led Western Civilization in public reasoning.  No longer.  We must learn what the Biblical worldview is, and how to promote it in public.  We must learn how to use the Bible in public with reason and grace.  All that should be a major part of Christian education, the education of Christians from cradle on up.  But we have given our children over to atheists and others hostile to Biblical faith.  And, as a result, Christians are losing their children at the rate of about 85%.  Their children trust the spiritual, moral, and intellectual judgement of their atheist and pagan teachers over that of their parents.

85%.  That is a prescription for spiritual suicide.

We MUST get our children out of government-controlled education —home school, rebuild our church schools, hire tutors, whatever we can do to rescue our children from the mind-control program of the globalists.

Dr. Earle FoxDr. Earle Fox is IAI’s Senior Fellow in Philosophy of Science and the Worldview of Ethical Monotheism.

See also Dr. Fox’s new Book Abortion, the Bible and America.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Trashing the Constitution: How misconstruction of the monetary powers and disabilities subverted the Founding Fathers’ intent

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. It’s my pleasure to be here all the way from Manassas, Virginia, the very backwater of civilization. It’s outside of Washington. My topic is the monetary powers and disabilities of our Constitution; what the government may do, and what it may not do with respect to coinage, currency, credit, and banking.

Now these, to put it bluntly, are not common knowledge. They’re not common knowledge among lay people, and they’re not common knowledge among lawyers. Indeed, in my experience,  very few people can talk intelligently about this subject.

You may ask, “So what? Isn’t this a matter that’s really best left to Congress, and the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve, and the Supreme Court, and so forth; the legal and political elite?” Well, I could give you a number of very important reasons why that is not the case, why this is a vitally important subject to you. I could talk about economic reasons, the fundamental one being that a free market functions most efficiently and most fairly when the market determines the quality and the quantity of money that’s being used.

I could talk about political reasons: that throughout history we have seen again and again the instability, the turbulence, in fact the self-destructive tendencies of political systems in which politicians and special-interest groups exercise the power to control or manipulate the purchasing power of money.

Today I could give you geostrategic reasons, because one could easily work out a theory whereby Islamic Fundamentalists, if they understood what they were doing, could strike at the Great Satan by attacking the fragile foundations of our monetary and banking system. I’m not going to tell you about that, because I don’t want to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

I shall touch only on the legal reasons why monetary powers and disabilities are of vital importance. I want to emphasize at the outset that this is not a matter of my opinion or my views. This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides. That is a matter of historical investigation and understanding from which objective results can be obtained.

I know it’s a little hard work, as Larry pointed out, to read Pieces of Eight. I had to be purer than Caesar’s wife. Everything has been documented. The reason I did that was to show people that everything can be documented. There is nothing in the book that comes from my pen. It comes from the pen of the Founding Fathers. It comes from the pen of the Supreme Court. It comes from the pen of the people that keep the Congressional records. This is all a historical matter.

My reason for getting into this subject is that I’ve always viewed the legal perspective as being the most important aspect of the problem. Why? Because the legal framework in any society is going to have a controlling, a directive, at least an important influence on what happens economically. A society that is based upon freedom of contract and private property is going to have a different set of economic outcomes than a society that is based on a Stalinesque model of central planning. The legal system has a tremendous effect on the economy.

I’d like to make a point here. The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights. Did you know that? The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction. I give you the famous case Norton v. Shelby County, when they were thinking straight about these issues: 1886. The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” And that applies to any governmental action outside of the Constitution.

Our present constitutional system, with respect to money and banking, is oxymoronic, because in fact, for a very long time, with respect to coinage, currency, credit, and banking, the political class and the judicial class have not conformed to the Constitution. In the grand scheme of things, there are legal consequences that follow from not adhering to constitutional powers and disabilities, especially constitutional disabilities.

What is the genius of, the condition sine qua non, for a free society? It’s limited government, right? A totalitarian society is one in which the government claims all power; there is no freedom that the government doesn’t allow. There’s always a certain interstitial amount of freedom even in totalitarian society. Remember 1984, Winston Smith? There was a little place in his apartment where he could hide from the telescreen, right? And write his memoirs.

So interstitially, even a totalitarian society can’t control everything; but it states, in principle, its right to do so. What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment. Everyone’s familiar with the First Amendment. What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion.

But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” et cetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability. The problem we’ve had in the monetary system is there has been an increasing misuse of Congress’ monetary powers, and an increasing disregard of Congress’ monetary disabilities; and not only in this particular field, of course, in many other fields. But what’s happened in the area of money and banking exemplifies, and in many instances, is the source of what’s happened in other areas.

I can divide this degeneration essentially into two categories. One is the application of the so-called “theory of the Living Constitution.” The other is the overextension of Congressional powers, or the assertion of powers the Congress doesn’t have. Many people may be familiar with the “Living Constitution.” This is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution has to change with the times. The Founding Fathers lived in the horse-and-buggy era. We live in the spaceship era. Obviously, the Constitution has to somehow evolve intellectually to deal with those changes. In effect, this reduces the Constitution to whatever the politically powerful find it expedient to mean from time to time. You could call that “situation law.” I call it “Sante Fe law.” They railroad their ideas through, and they expect us to accept it on faith.

Let me give you an example, the key example in the monetary field. Basic question: “What is a dollar?” Interesting question: “What is a dollar?” That’s the unit of our currency. What is it? Well, if you ask most people, some of them would pull one out these things, a little Sacagawea coin. “This is a dollar.” Or more likely they would probably pull out one of these, a George Washington Federal Reserve Note, and say, “This is a dollar.” And if you asked that person, “Well, why is this thing a dollar?” he or she would probably say, “Well, it’s because Congress says so,” or “the Treasury says so,” or “the Federal Reserve System says so,” or “the Supreme Court says so”—begging the question of whether Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, or the Supreme Court has the authority to say so. Is this simply a matter of raw power?

Let’s have a quick reality check. I have some learning aids here. Here’s a card that says, “One cow.” Is this a cow? Next step: here’s a card that says, “By order of Congress: one cow.” Is this a cow? You’re getting the picture, aren’t you? Here we go, the next step: “By order of the Federal Livestock Board: one cow.” And then the final absurdity: “By order of the Federal Livestock Board: one cow. This is legal tender for all debts public and private.” You don’t have to be a farmer to understand the meaning of this little demonstration.

Let’s take it to another level. “One dollar.” Is it a dollar? “By order of Congress: one dollar.” “By order of the Federal Reserve Board: one dollar.” “By order of the Federal Reserve Board: one dollar. This is legal tender for all debts public and private.” Do you follow this? This is kindergarten material. As the Gershwins told us in Porgy and Bess, “it ain’t necessarily so” simply because someone writes it on a piece of paper.

Where do we look to find Congress’ powers and disabilities in this regard? Well, I guess you look in the Constitution. The Constitution actually mentions the word “dollar” in Article One, Section Nine, Clause One, the famous slave tax provision, that provided a tax or duty might be imposed on the importation of slaves, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Do you think that was important at the time? It was one of the provisions that was put in as part of the compromise between the Southern slave-owning states and the Northern states. If something like that hadn’t been put in, the Constitution probably would never have been ratified by all the original colonies.

It’s also found in the Seventh Amendment, the word “dollars”: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” Do you think that was important to those people at that time? Trial by jury was known in that era as the palladium of British liberty, going back to Magna Carta. Do you think those people knew what the word “dollar” meant? Do you think they thought it meant this? [holding up a Federal Reserve Note] It must have had an accepted meaning at that time.

The proponents of the “Living Constitution” will say: “That time has passed, and now we have Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, whatever, to make a new determination”—of course begging the question of whether the definition of the “dollar” can be changed. I want to give you what I think is a conclusive analogy on this point.

If you read the Constitution, you’ll find the word “year” used. For instance: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the United States.” “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature, for six years.” If the meaning of “dollar” can be changed by Congress, why can’t the meaning of “year” be changed?

The principle is exactly the same. Yet we all know that if the Congress passed a statute, and the Supreme Court upheld it, saying that for constitutional purposes the word “year” will no longer mean three hundred and sixty-five days, but seven hundred and thirty days, or fourteen hundred and sixty days, or some arbitrary number, they would he howled down in hoots of ridicule. No one in this country would accept that. In fact, even we the people, amending the Constitution as we can do under Article Five, could not change the true definition of the word “year.” We could change the term of the Representative to something other than two years, the Senator to something other than six years; but we could not amend the Constitution to say that a “year” is something other than what it is. We cannot fly in the face of astronomical reality. Well, if it’s obvious for the word “year,” why isn’t it just as obvious for the word “dollar”?

You all know what the word “year” means in its astronomical significance, and therefore you know what it means in its constitutional significance. And if you knew what the word “dollar” meant in its historical significance, you would know what it meant, or what it means, in its constitutional sense. What did that word mean to the Founding Fathers? It certainly didn’t mean the Sacagawea dollar. It meant this: the Spanish milled dollar. [holding up a coin] And not just in the late 1700s.

The Spanish milled dollar was made the unit or standard for all foreign silver coins in the American colonies in 1704 by Queen Anne (there was a Parliamentary statute in 1707). It was made the standard for the United States by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was even written. So in fact the dollar preceded the writing of the Constitution. It preceded the ratification of the Constitution. It preceded the first Congress, the first President, the first Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve Board, and everything else. Do you think it might be independent of all those things, having preceded them?

As a historical fact, the dollar is independent of the Constitution. The father of the dollar, in our system, was Thomas Jefferson. He was the one who proposed it to the Continental Congress. In the first government under the Constitution, Jefferson was Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury. They didn’t agree on very much, if anything, except this: They both agreed on the monetary system. The Federalists and the Anti-federalists were in complete agreement. And what did Congress and the Treasury do in 1792 with the first coinage act? They went out to determine what the value of this “dollar” was.

How did they do that? They went to the marketplace. In what we would call statistical analysis, they collected a large sampling of Spanish milled dollars that were circulating, and they did a chemical analysis of them to determine on average how much silver they contained. This appears in the Coinage Act of 1792 where they wrote: “The Dollar or Unit shall be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current,” that is, running in the market, “to wit, three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver.”

Now you know something that 99.999% of Americans do not know, and probably a higher percentage of lawyers. The “dollar” is a silver coin containing three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver—and it cannot be changed by constitutional amendment, definitionally, any more than the term “year” can. And yet, as I mentioned before, if you ask the average person what a dollar is, he’ll probably hold this thing up. [holding up a Federal Reserve Note] Is there something wrong here? Do we see some kind of cognitive dissonance when we have a problem with this? I should hope so.

The second area in which the misuse of monetary powers and the disregard for monetary disabilities has corrupted the Constitution, as I said before, is the overextension of powers. I won’t go into these in great detail. If you look at the “Necessary and Proper” clause, which has been wildly expanded to give fantastic powers to Congress, what is the foundational case for that expansion? It’s usually cited to be McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. What was that case about? It was about the Bank of the United States. It was a money case.

If we go to the doctrine of “Emergency Powers,” which is having a great uplift today, for obvious reasons, what was the foundational case that put that doctrine on the constitutional map? It was Knox vs. Lee, the legal tender cases brought after the Civil War. If we go to the doctrine of “Aggregate Powers,” the doctrine that says, “You can take a little here and a little there and kind of sum them all up, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” again we go back to the Knox case, a monetary case.

What’s very interesting is to read a dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen Field, the only Justice on the Supreme Court who had the integrity to dissent in every legal tender case that he heard. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Dooley vs. Smith, in 1872. He wrote, “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.”

You notice he was not talking specifically about the monetary powers. He wasn’t saying that these arguments would lead to the monetary powers being unrestrained. It was destroying the concept of limited government. “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress.” How do you define, or how would you characterize, a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress, or any other political body? It is by definition a totalitarian government.

The philosopher Richard Weaver, and I’m sure you’re familiar with this statement that he made, said, “Ideas have consequences.” He could have gone further than that. He could have said that bad ideas, once they are politicized, almost inevitably generate crises and catastrophes. If we look throughout American history, we will see that failures of various unconstitutional currency and banking situations, and we’ve had different ones over different periods, have inevitably led to crises and catastrophes. Pre-Civil War, we had a series of cycle collapses (they called them panics in those days), which were brought about by the unstable system of state banks and, to a certain extent, by the national banks that Congress created, the two Banks of the United States.

If you go into the Civil War, you have the crisis of massive inflation that was caused by the emission of the greenbacks, and then the tremendous political controversy over the continuation or the termination of paper money inflationism. Then we come to the Federal Reserve System. Some people here may know of the arguments that were made in favor of the Federal Reserve System. It would have an elastic currency. Through scientific management of the monetary system, depressions would be eliminated. There would be stability in the banking system. What happened?

The Federal Reserve System was there when the greatest banking collapse in American history occurred, in 1932-1933, and in what was called the Great Depression of the 1930s. In that period what happened? The Roosevelt New Deal. What were the powers they were screaming for? Emergency powers. You’ll find that written into many statutes, e.g., The Emergency Banking Act of 1933. You should pay attention to the title, The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, and the “Aggregate Powers” doctrine. It’s been all downhill since then.

I will not say, and I doubt that anyone could say, or defend the idea, that if the constitutional monetary system had been strictly enforced throughout American history there would have been no economic crises, because we all know that economic crises are not caused solely by bad monetary and banking arrangements. But, as sure as I am standing here, I can say that if the Constitution had been observed during that period, there would have been none of the crises that did in fact occur. They would have been essentially impossible, bringing me back to the point I made earlier about the primacy of law.

How should that have been done? Well, Americans would have had to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? [holding a copy of the Constitution] It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “we the people.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the people. We the people are the principals.

The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers, if I can find the right place. [referring to a book]

The Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political philosophy. Their mentor in that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly here in the United States. What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”

We the people are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters. But we all know that no people leads itself. Every people, for whatever reason, needs leadership. I look out on you people here today. You are representatives, or a cross-section, if you will, of this country’s elite. I don’t say that to be flattering. I don’t say that to be patronizing. In fact, I’m a messenger who, in a sense, is bringing you some bad news, because the American people out there have to depend on people like you in here, and others like you, for leadership. There’s a very simple reason for that. There’s no one else. Therefore, here’s the bad news: it ultimately is your responsibility to find out what your Constitution means with respect to monetary powers and disabilities, and then to do something about it, before history takes the opportunity out of your hands, and we all suffer the consequences.

Thank you.

vieiraDr. Edwin Vieira  is IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow in Jurisprudence and Constitutional and Monetary Law.

This lecture was presented by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Esq., FAME Foundation Scholar to The Rotary Club of New York March 25th, 2003 at the Princeton Club, New York, NY. It was originally published originally published at

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.


Kinsey Consequences: It’s Rotten Research-ers. Part 2.

Rotten Research Yields Rotten Results

Kinsey’s research was based on fraud. Yet, this “Patron Saint of Sex,” (Esquire) who launched “the first wave of the sexual revolution” is, said sexologist Morton Hunt (and more recently, Dr. Ruth), the giant on whose shoulders all sex researchers since his time have stood. WebMD reports that “Ruth Westheimer, PhD” regularly pays “some type of homage to famed 1950s sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey, PhD.” saying “we are taught that if you stand on the shoulders of giants, you can see farther.”[1]

Homosexual researchers John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, in their book Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, also give proper credit to Kinseyan research for changing society. “[T]he strongest assault on sexual reticence in the public realm emerged not from the pornographic fringe, nor from the popular culture, but from the respectable domain of science,” with the publication of Kinsey’s Male and Female reports. By allegedly proving that Americans were sexual buccaneers pretending to be sexually chaste, meant “cultural values surrounding sex needed revision.”[2]

D’Emilio and Freedman said that Kinsey’s “scientific credentials gave legitimacy” to the media publicity and the public had to believe his claims were somewhat true. The authors also credited “The Kinsey studies, as much as pornography, [for shaping] the context in which the Supreme Court responded to the obscenity issue.”[3]

And, in 2003 D’Emilio and Freedman’s rotten research in Intimate Matters—as it relied largely on Kinsey and other rotten research relying on Kinsey—became a key authority cited by US Supreme Court Justice, Anthony M. Kennedy for the Court’s majority decision to legalize sodomy. Yes, Yes, rotten research yields rotten results.

Kinseyfying Medical/Academia For Now and Tomorrow

Rotten Research tentacles reach out to infect us all. Kinsey lectured to medical groups nationwide, and by the hundreds of thousands to overwhelming crowds, like that at left, university youth who came to worship at the feet of the new sexuality guru. These were our future leaders, writers, entertainers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, prosecutors, and the like. Christie Hefner reported that in the 1960s the Playboy Foundation became the major research sponsor of the Masters and Johnson Institute and made the initial grant to establish an Office of Research Services of the Sex Information and Education. Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) [4]. The latter organization is heavily involved in the incorporation of Kinsey’s basic sexual philosophy into school sex education programs, explained elsewhere in this book.

In 1971, Playboy, according to Hefner junior, “awarded a grant to establish a pilot program at the University of Minnesota” with the aim of “changing the attitudes of men and women medical students.”[5] Why bring rotten research into the medical community? Because, said Hefner, “today’s medical students and practicing physicians perpetuate arbitrary judgments about normal and abnormal sexuality… [and] are ignorant of the variety of possible human sexual expression.” This was corrected by the infusion of pornography money into the medical community.

Following in Kinsey’s footsteps, “sexologists” invaded the medical schools with Kinsey’s infamous scale (left) claiming to “prove” that 10% to 37% of men are sometime homosexual and that all humans are naturally bisexual. This opened the door to Playboy in the wings, laying down track for its future medical consumers.

In the early 1970s young, naïve medical residents in most of the major medical schools were doused with Kinsey’s “science” followed up by Hefner’s “pamphleteering” via allegedly scientific pornographic shows. The Sexual Attitude Restructuring was allegedly to “desensitize” students so they could more easily accept and treat their patient’s sexual problems. No, these were not slides of venereal disease, such unpleasant images were carefully avoided. The medical SAR included “obscene” or “erotic” or “pornographic” films and slides of sex between women and men, same sex, animals and sometimes children, as were all of the SAR presentations.




[1] Denise Mann WebMD Feature (undated, Nov. 2004).

[2] John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, Harper & Row, 1988.

[3] D’Emilio and Freedman, Ibid.

[4]Christie Hefner, in the Foreword to Sexuality and Medicine, Volume 11, Earl E. Shelp (ed.), Reidel Publishing Co., 1987.

[5]Hefner, Ibid.

[1] Karlan, Arno, interview in Sexuality and Homosexuality (1971). NYC: W.W. Norton & CO., Inc., p. 612

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.