How We Can Choose A Constitutional President In A Celebrity Age

by David Corbin and Matt Parks

Authors Note: This is part of a series of essays examining the prospects for electing a republican president in 2016 and ultimately reining in the modern imperial presidency through the lens of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist essays on the executive branch.

(Excerpts below reprinted with permission)

There is no way to write happy endings out of these troubles, despite the best efforts of the president’s speech writers. From the beginning, the Obama administration has doggedly attempted to live in a postmodern world, constructed or reconstructed by the president’s words, which, in imitation of the Divine Creation, are supposed to summon new realities into being.

… This rhetorical presidency has failed, in progressively obvious and dramatic ways, as unimpressed realities confront blurred thinking and unreal words. Please read the full essay on Choosing a Constitutional President

Cowardice in Battle: Can We Trust Our Allies?

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

When Japan attacked the United States in World War II, they knew that the U.S.would eventually have an overwhelming superiority in material terms, yet they were confident of victory. Why? The Japanese leaders pointed out that the Japanese had the warrior spirit, and would prevail in battle, while the Americans, they thought, would run and hide, and meet certain defeat, well before American industry could come to the rescue.

Of course, the Japanese could not have been more mistaken. Even when outgunned and outnumbered, the Americans proved to be every bit as brave and dedicated as their Japanese enemies. The tradition of American valor in combat has continued unbroken from 1776 until today.

Not everyone has the warrior spirit. In recent weeks, we have seen the Iraqi army wilt in the face of brutal attacks by the terrorist army known as ISIS. Reports coming out of Afghanistan presage a similar outcome there. As American and British troops withdraw, there seems little doubt that the Afghan army will soon run and hide from the Taliban terrorists. Indeed, in large measure, they are already doing so, according to American soldiers on the scene.

All the while, Kurdish resistance to ISIS is so fierce that even Kurdish women are fighting in the front lines.

Why? Why are some groups of people courageous in battle, while others cower in fear at the first sound of gunfire?

Two factors come immediately to mind. When I was in the armed forces, I always knew that if I were wounded, even grievously, I would receive medical care for the rest of my life. (I was unaware that the Veterans Administration was infested with corruption.) If I were killed, my wife and child would receive compensation and assistance from the government.

The second factor was (and is) that I am convinced that the United States, with all its flaws, is a good and just nation. When we win, things are always better, both for us and for our defeated enemies, than if we lose. The principles of the Constitution are, and this should not be a statement taken lightly, worth dying for.

The Iraqi army collapsed under fire in part because its Sunni Moslem soldiers knew that they would get no support from their Shia Moslem government. If wounded or killed, they and their families would be abandoned, without so much as a ‘thank you.’

In Afghanistan, the second factor seems to predominate. Afghanistan is not a unified nation, but an assortment of competing tribes that distrust each other, often for good reason. Its constitution is not considered, by its people, worth dying for. As a consequence, many Afghan soldiers (with some commendable exceptions), cower, hide and run, at the first sound of gunfire.

There was a time when I feared that Americans were losing the basic character of courage. While in the armed forces, I noticed that quite a few of the new recruits were of such poor quality that they were more of a burden than a blessing to the mission. On the other hand, I noticed that those who were good soldiers were more than merely good, they excelled. In other words, Americans could no longer be graded on a smooth scale from worst to medium to best. The medium was gone. Only the lowest rung of the ladder, and the highest, remain. I feel intense pride for our present day heroes.

I estimate now that about half the American youth are utterly unqualified for military duty, many for physical reasons such as obesity or drug use, but also, because so many of them are ideologically warped. Many of them actually sympathize with our enemies.

Someone recently stated, borrowing from the last lines of our national anthem, that we are the ‘land of the free,’ precisely because we are ‘the home of the brave.’

Courage is not bravado. It does not boast, taunt, or persecute a defeated enemy. Instead, courage is the end product of faith, commitment and selflessness.

Courage cannot be taught, but only developed through a lifetime of tradition and context.

The next time we pick an ally, let’s apply some common sense.

Correctly Breaking the Law

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

In 1989, while serving at Osan Air Base in Korea, I was assigned the duty of destroying some top secret material. This was contained in an area marked by signs which said, “Authorized Personnel Only,” and, “Use of Deadly Force Authorized.” Armed military guards, I knew, took these signs seriously, and therefore, so did I. Despite having official access to the area, and a badge to prove it, I was hugely nervous about being entrusted with the secret papers. If I screwed this up, I would almost certainly be court-martialed and still be in prison today. I told my partner in this duty that if for one instant I lost sight of the material, I would not certify that it had been destroyed. This would bring down the wrath of some very secret government agency. I wasn’t kidding, and my partner knew it. We therefore followed exact procedures to the letter and comma, and ensured that the destroyed material could never be recovered, even grinding the ashes into the dirt, and then spreading the dirt wide and far, precisely as instructed in our orders.

When Edward Snowden leaked secrets from the National Security Agency, he exposed high level government wrongdoing, about which highly placed administration officials had knowingly lied to Congress, or at least, asDirector of National Intelligence James Clapper claimed, made the “least untruthful” statement he could under the circumstances. Snowden is accused of treachery, even of treason. He is defended by his supporters on the grounds that he had no other way to protect the American people from a rogue agency. Based on the facts available to me, I remain undecided, but I will presume Snowden innocent until proof beyond a reasonable doubt causes me to consider him guilty.

Lois Lerner, the now retired, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), was accused of violating the rights of American people to dissent from their government. She has been charged by some TEA Party groups of illegally sharing their private information with their left wing political opponents, and using other nefarious means, to prevent conservatives from enjoying equal protection of the tax laws to participate in the political process. In other words, her detractors say, Lois Lerner illegally abused her official position.

I have little doubt that, in their minds, both Snowden and Lerner were doing the right thing. Snowden believes he was protecting me from the government. Lerner believes she was protecting the government from me. Each of them can make at least a tenuous defense of their actions based on the time honored concept of civil disobedience.

Or can they?

Civil disobedience was famously practiced by both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. In both cases, the lawbreakers were opposing laws that many people considered unjust, deplorable, and devastatingly harmful. The harm being done was not only damaging people, but indeed, even arguably undermining the government itself.

One of the central features of justifiable civil disobedience is that the person committing the crime does not seek to avoid the penalty for doing so. Indeed, facing the penalties is a further way of publicizing the alleged official injustice, and of garnering support to overturn the unjust law. Both Gandhi and King willingly submitted to imprisonment for their violations.

Lerner certainly does not fit into that category. Her efforts were not to overturn an unjust law, but rather, to apply just laws unjustly. Don’t get me wrong. I am sure that Lerner regards me as an evil, bigoted, danger to the republic. She felt that she had to do something to protect Barack Obama’s reelection campaign from people like me, people she regards as villainous. Believing that as she did, Lerner was obliged to do all she could to stop me.

She was also obliged to face the legal consequences, instead of hiding behind the exact Constitution which she violated. She was courageous in the battle for liberalism until courage meant something.

Much the same has been said about Snowden. If he wished to expose government wrongdoing, he could have done so through legal channels, or else gone public, and subjected himself to trial.

The difference between him and Lerner is that the government was sympathetic to Lerner. She even collaborated with the Justice Department to both protect herself and to promote administration interests.

Snowden’s only hope of a fair trial under the Constitution, lay with the very government administration he was exposing as violating the Constitution. Not only was the government not the least bit sympathetic to Snowden’s actions, it is very possible, and in my mind very probable, that had Snowden gone to any government official with his complaint, neither he nor his complaint would ever have seen the light of day again. If Snowden feared for his very life, can we blame him?

I do not have enough facts concerning the Snowden case, and probably never will. However, he has in a sort of way been held to account. He has very likely been exiled for the remainder of his life. He will never again sleep securely, knowing that at any instant, the Russian government might use him in a “trade” for a captured Russian spy, in which case, Snowden will meet a dark fate.

Lerner needs fear only a relatively comfortable jail cell, if even that.

De-dollarization: Et tu, Britannia?

by Don Hank

My recent article on dedollarization ( mentioned several countries that were dedollarizing but not the UK, which had not yet joined the fray.

However, the UK has meanwhile taken the most significant and daring step of all. Friday’s morning paper says the United Kingdom is issuing SOVEREIGN BONDS denominated in…are you ready for this?

RENMINBI… You can now buy UK bonds denominated in the Chinese yuan!

The UK is the first Western country to do such a thing. Their other bonds were denominated in USD, euros, Japanese yuan and Canadian dollars.

However, don’t expect the MSM will ever call this “dedollarization,” even thought that is exactly what it is intended.

Anyone who believes that dedollarization is limited to Russia and the BRICS or who believes that dedollarization is not going to affect the supremacy of the dollar in world trade is on the wrong track — the same track on which the freight train is bearing down on us all.

Time to get off that track.

What is that track called?

It is called bullying by the US oligarchy (relax, Mr. American. YOU have nothing to do with this. Your government is not your own. But a word of caution: believing the MSM propaganda makes you unwittingly complicit). Read about it here.

The remedy is called dedollarization, though none dare name its name, as you may read here:

QUOTE: The French Finance Ministry said it was instead seeking support from EU partners to bolster the use of the euro in international business as a way of reducing the potentially very costly exposure of European firms to U.S. sanctions law. [the term dedollarization is commonly found in the world press but a search with that word on the sites of major online US newspapers brings up next to nothing, as my article linked above shows. Trusting these news outlets can only bring you pain in the long run

You see? The US oligarchy, acting like the kid who steals your lunch money, thinks its power is unlimited, but it ignores the signs that the rest of the world is sick of being the 90-pound weakling and is beefing up its arsenal to fight back. This feeling of utter invincibility (a misguided sense of American exceptionalism) on the part of US oligarchs is one reason why none of the major news outlets like NYT, WSJ, and even Stratfor will ever talk about dedollarization. They are all victims of normalcy bias. “It can’t happen to us.” (Here again is my article on dedollarization and the way the press spikes the story)

It is happening right now, but as long as the MSM is muzzled, or muzzle themselves, Americans will be blind-sided by the impact of a world using currencies other than the dollar and the resulting loss of the dollar’s value. 

Further, none of this news even touches on Russia, but Russia is also the victim of costly sanctions and a stealth program aimed at destroying its trade relations with one of its most important partners, ie, Ukraine. The Soros-induced uprising in Ukraine is falsely portrayed as “spontaneous” but it is anything but (how do we know Soros was behind it? He said so as shown here. But the US government also played a large role, as Victoria Nuland admitted here). The meddling in Ukraine was motivated in large part by the Wolfowitz doctrine of isolating Russia. But it is backfiring big time, as reflected by another item in today’s news:

Quote: Germany is the major EU economy most exposed to the Ukraine crisis, given its strong bilateral trade relationship with Russia. In September, the ZEW Index of German business confidence plunged again – hitting a nine-year low.

Here it comes, Folks. The unintended consequences of meddling by the US power elites are raining down on the entire world. Are you ready?

If I had some extra cash, I would invest in one of those renminbi-denominated bonds from the UK or Russia.

Making a Deal with the Devil

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

It was with grave trepidation that Sir Winston Churchill sided with the brutal dictator Josef Stalin against Adolph Hitler in 1941. The alternative, Churchill knew, would be worse. He proved right on both counts. The Soviet Union was indispensable in defeating the Nazis, but the deal with the devil exacted a heavy price after the war: a 45 year standoff between East and West that included the Korean and Vietnam wars, and constantly threatened a global nuclear winter.

Let me use this extreme analogy to emphasize the danger of the present situation.

Siding with Bill Maher against liberal hypocrites is sort of like siding with Syrian dictator and criminal Bashar al-Assad against Islamic extremists. Let me hasten to add that while I am thoroughly disgusted with Bill Maher’s vulgarity, I do not view him as outright evil, but I do consider him to be deceived by the devil, an ignorantly obedient servant. Still, I would not behead Maher for that, but instead seek to persuade him to accept Jesus as his Savior.

In this extremely vulgar video, grossly offensive to Jesus, Maher nevertheless makes an important point.

Here is the video which I urge you not to watch, but will not censor. Its content is framed in disgusting terms. You have been warned.

Maher correctly points out that liberal Americans are outraged by the slightest perceived insult against gays, women and other minorities, while at the same time, defending Islamic extremism as just another culture, off limits to the same criticisms of religion which they hurl at Christians. According to the left, Israelis defending their children are considered terrorists, while their opponents who willingly sacrifice their own children for propaganda are extolled as freedom fighters. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, spokeswoman of the Democrat Party, characterizes Republican governor Scott Walker as pulling the hair of women, but those who support her say little or nothing about Islamic extremists who actually cut off the heads of little girls. Yes, liberals are appalled at the grisly images, but they are careful to restrict their criticisms as tightly as possible, to avoid offending Islamists.

Islamists mercilessly kill homosexuals, and indeed, subject anyone who disagrees with their extremist positions to cruel and barbaric punishments. Yet American liberals, intolerant of even the slightest hint of Christianity in a classroom, make excuses for Islamist radicals.

As Maher points out, there is a practical side to offending Jesus, while walking on eggshells concerning Islam. Christians will forgive you. Islamists will kill you.

Despite that rational fear, liberal hypocrisy is so extreme in this matter as to be inexplicable. On the one hand, they support women’s rights, and use the most extreme rhetoric to denounce what they perceive as even a minor affront to liberal women— except that they never perceive any affront as minor.

On the other hand, outspoken liberals refuse to openly condemn the Islamic practice of keeping women tightly under the control of the men in their lives. In countries ruled by Islamic leaders, women— and even small girls— are subject to the death penalty for the smallest infractions, including merely flirting with a man. Simply giving the appearance of impropriety can result in death by stoning— in public to applauding crowds. Sometimes the executions are willingly carried out by family members.

What kind of poison could infect a human soul to this degree of perversion?

Instead of condemning Islamist misogynists, American liberals refer to the Little Sisters of the poor as “dirty,” because they refuse to sign away their rights, refusing to fund certain types of contraception they consider to include abortion. One would think, listening only to Liberals, that the Little Sisters were beheading babies, while they were silent when Kermit Gosnell was, in effect, doing exactly that to babies born alive in an abortion clinic.

One could rant all day about liberal hypocrisy and the enabling complicity of most news media. There were Germans who in the 1930s railed against the Nazis, and were then exterminated for their courage. Yet, the futility of it all did not stop them from speaking out.

None are so deaf as those who will not hear, and speaking to liberals about these matters rarely does any good. Even so, despite the seeming futility of it all, we must speak out, if not to save the world from liberals, then at least to save perhaps one liberal from himself. We must do that, because our duty is to save every soul we can. The stakes are too high to ignore that duty. The penalties for the liberals are even higher.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil. . . .

Oregon’s Democrat ‘First Lady’ Reveals She Received $5K to Illegally Wed

by Karen Colasinski

So…this gal admits to marrying an illegal – committing immigration fraud – and being paid to do it. Now she’s bawling and upset that her fiancé, the Governor of Oregon, had to find out this horrible secret in public, blah, blah, blah, i.e. she’s sorry she got caught. Meanwhile, the Ethiopian she married went, on OUR backs, to college, graduated magna cum laude with a degree in mathematics from Greensboro College in North Carolina and currently lives in the two-story home he owns in a suburb of Washington, D.C. courtesy of his undoubtedly hard work and the opportunities and assistance of our nation.

The average home in suburban DC runs $500K. Not a bad gig for a “starving Ethiopian teenager” who happened to have the “good fortune” to meet a gullible, white “cougar” who just happened to run for Oregon Congress as a Democrat four months after her divorce from the guy was final. She lost to the Republican.

Firstly, is this a pattern or what? Didn’t Obama’s white mama marry his African national papa trying to help him stay here, renew his student visa or something? I’ve never read that he wanted to stay because she was pregnant – only that he wanted to stay in America and keep going to college (i.e. to party based on the photos I’ve seen) even though he had wife and children back in Africa waiting for him.

Secondly, could there at least be some semblance of accountability soon for some of these sharks feeding on the blood, sweat and tears of the rest of us? I don’t recall ever thinking Nixon should get out of consequences for Watergate but people have built entire careers and industries protecting Clinton’s and Obama’s from their lies and subterfuges!

Grrrrr! So ends MY “epistle” for today!

Karen Colasinski is the author of five self help books on family and relationship issues. Her award-winning books have been featured at the Frankfurt Book Fair and translated into Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Braille.

She wrote and line-produced three videos: a children’s aerobic program, an exercise/play tape for pre-school-aged children and a peer-counseling session for teens.

She recently sold her first screenplay to an independent producer. It is in development. Website:

Accountability and Capitalism

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

Zager and Evans, 1969 hit song, In the Year 2525, included this line:

“Everything you think, do and say,

Is in the pill you took today.”

Are we accountable for what we think, do and say? Instead of a pill, are we controlled entirely by mindless forces of nature? Many people believe that we are helpless puppets. Those who believe that, are among the most influential persons in our society. The consequences of that belief are profound, and increasingly destructive. That belief is at the root of why so many people consider themselves unaccountable for their deeds.

You have probably seen the tee shirt which has on its front a photograph of an aging Albert Einstein, and underneath it, the slogan, “It’s all relative.” On college campuses, this often means that the wearer believes there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, but only shades of grey. According to liberals, infanticide may be wrong in our culture, but we should not criticize other cultures where this practice might be common.

Of course, this pretense of tolerance falls apart the instant you disagree with liberalism, even slightly, on even the smallest item on the radical liberal agenda. By radical liberal agenda, I mean what is called, equal rights— by which liberals mean, some are more equal than others. Disagreement with liberalism is the one “absolute wrong” that liberals recognize—killing unborn babies, however, is to be tolerated, even praised.

Albert Einstein, the man on the t-shirt, was a scientist who did not believe in God, at least, not in the sort of God to whom we can pray. When he said that science is an attempt to catch a glimpse into “the mind of God,” he was speaking metaphorically. If he believed in a God at all, it was in a creator who had walked away, leaving matters to unfold on their own.

While most of us pay little heed to science outside of a classroom or an entertaining television series, it has had a subtle but profound effect on our thinking, both personally and politically. Einstein probably never intended to declare that all moral decisions are relative, but his scientific Theory of Relativity revolutionized not only the world of science, but also in less calculated ways, the mindset of many people. This mindset now dominates much of our political culture.

Perhaps the most influential teaching error of modern science is also the most puzzling. It teaches that free will does not exist. It goes further. It teaches that free will cannot exist. According to physics, free will is impossible.

If this is true, then none of us is morally accountable for any decision we ever make. The criminal can say to the judge, “I was helpless to commit the crime.” The judge then replies that he himself has no free will, and therefore must impose punishment. Justice becomes a farce.

If there is no free will, then I cannot but write these words, and you cannot but read them (or not), and cannot choose whether to agree or disagree with them. Without free will, we become passive observers of our own lives, not active participants. We cannot be held morally accountable for anything except by hypocrites.

As bizarre as this doctrine sounds, it is the unavoidable result of modern physics, and it is promoted by numerous top tier scientists around the world. We are speaking here of educated men, geniuses, the men who scrawl strange symbols on an acre of blackboards and then, based on those mathematical formulas, send men to the moon and back. It is not as if we can call them stupid. Intellectually speaking, I am not worthy to shine their shoes.

Even so, the greatest of the great minds can make mistakes, and not just small mistakes, but profound ones. I think, therefore I dare to question my superiors.

It’s not science that is doing this to us. Science itself reflects our moral duty to investigate God’s creation. Rather, the fault lies with an underlying philosophy that has come to dominate in science and among scientists. That philosophy may be called by various names, but the one I find most useful is the term, natural-materialism. This philosophy dominates not only physical science, but also, it has embedded itself in many levels of society, including law.

Natural-materialism declares that there is no reality except physical reality, and that no evidence of the spiritual exists.

In this declaration, scientists are flatly wrong. There is plenty of scientific evidence that physical nature is underlay by the supernatural, but that evidence is swept away, sometimes in very unscientific terms.

Another radical teaching of natural-materialism is that humanity itself has no special place in the universe. Instead, it teaches that we are accidental byproducts of nature, mere chemical reactions, and that when humanity becomes extinct, nothing important will have happened—the universe will go on just as before.

If we accept that view of humanity, that we are merely momentary chemical reactions with no spiritual dimension, then what moral value forbids using humans as pawns of war, subjects of experimentation, and tools of social engineers? None.

It is not my intention here to focus on the science. For those who may be interested, I have done that in my self-published book, The God Paradigm which was written for nonscientists (I am not a certified scientist myself).

The purpose here is to contrast the two major groups into which our culture can be divided, those who believe in natural-materialism, and those who believe in the divine.

They are headed in opposite directions. They are on a collision course. They are at the center of what former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan calls the spiritual and cultural war.

Capitalism is an economic system that does not preach personal accountability—instead, it takes it for granted. Under capitalism, no one needs to be told that they are personally accountable. It is assumed. Under capitalism, people quickly discover that their personal choices have consequences. Personal morals are embodied in the values of family, work and thrift. If you violate those morals, no one need jump out from behind a church pulpit and condemn you. Instead, the consequences themselves punish you with poverty and other forms of suffering.

Under liberalism, if you violate those morals, the government jumps out from behind a bureaucracy and rewards you, telling you that your failures are not your fault but someone else’s, and that you have a right to live as self-destructively as you wish at someone else’s expense. As a result, the disease spreads, and eventually, it undermines the entire fabric of society. Worse yet, it does all this under the rubric of compassion.

When you promote policies that demand personal accountability, you will find yourself accused of being cruel, hypocritical (in other words, you owe your success to government), and greedy.

These accusations make as much sense as does the denial that you have free will. They make no sense at all, but how can you persuade people of great intellect that they are making fundamental and tragic mistakes?

How can you persuade people that they are not robots?

* * * * *

For those interested in reading a more thorough (book length) treatment of topics in this commentary, please visit my website at