Before holding elected office, Barack Obama's was a professor of Constitutional Law. So you would think he would know what the Constitution actually says. And I'm sure he does, but there is a great disconnect between the layperson and the scholar.
The layperson reads about the history, purpose, and language of the Constitution and concludes that it strictly limits the ability of the federal government to intervene in foreign countries, in the economy, and in our private lives. But "legal scholars," seem to rely more on Supreme Court decisions and "established" practices by the President and Congress to effectively give the federal government carte blanche
to do whatever they please. For instance, they will claim the First Amendment prohibits states from allowing prayer in schools, but allows Congress to regulate political speech. This is an inversion of the First Amendment, because while the First Amendment's language puts a limit on Congress's power, it does not limit state power.
So now Barack Obama is a Presidential candidate whose entire program appears to me to explicitly or implicitly violate the Constitution. But I'm sure he would disagree, and he's the one with the Harvard Law degree. He's the one who taught at the University of Chicago. So his opinion is "respectable." Indeed, I was once told by a lawyer that my views do not constitute "serious legal reasoning" and he used that as the sole reason for cutting off the discussion, without showing me where I was wrong.
The same problem is seen in economics. The "Austrian School" of Economics
is accessible to the layperson, but Austrian School economists are few and far between at universities. The Austrian School uses logic, as opposed to complicated mathematical formulas, to explain economic activity. But it reaches conclusions that undermine faith in State bureaucracies. For example, that destruction of property, such as is seen in war, is not economically productive. Or that inflating a fiat money supply will not rev up the economy, but rather lead to its destruction.
Yet, I was told by a professional economist that, although this sounds all well and good, it has been disproved by modern economics - that is, by statistical formulas. According to this line of thinking, all you need to do is compare the GDP of 1945 to 1940 to conclude that war must be good for the economy, and never mind the 300,000 dead American servicemen. On the one hand, economics is so complicated that only trained professionals can understand it, but on the other hand the economy should be controlled by politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint.
Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.
The mainstream or "Establishment" positions on the Constitution and economics are logically inconsistent, or at least raise serious questions. And politics and economics are things we all must make a decision about, but the Establishment seems to confuse and mislead us. What, then, is the average person to make of Evolution? Of Global Warming?
Here's why I ask. The natural sciences are also called the "hard sciences," in part because they're precisely that: hard. Difficult to understand. Intimidating to many, boring to many more. And because of this, we're expected to just believe the Establishment line: the experts know more about this than I do; I will follow their recommendations.
The Establishment can bury Constitutional interpretation in legalese and precedent. It can confuse our knowledge of economics with statistics, formulas, and jargon. But the intelligent layperson, with a relatively small amount of study, can cut through the baloney and get to the truth.
With the hard sciences, this is impossible. You have to understand a lot, and know a lot. And even then, there will always be somebody smarter than you who may make more convincing arguments.
I have not studied either issue thoroughly. It seems to me that Evolution is very convincing . . . if we lived in a four-dimensional universe. But I understand that physicists believe the universe has as many as eight or eleven dimensions. I do not know the nature of those dimensions. Is consciousness, or Thought, one of them, or a product of them (in the sense that "space" is the product of three dimensions)? It seems that Evolution's biggest defenders are obsessed with branding all who disagree with them "Creationists," much the same way that Constitutionalists are branded "fringe" and critics of the Federal Reserve are called "conspiracy theorists" and "gold bugs." Name-calling does not constitute a refutation. Besides, this question of consciousness isn't necessarily Christian. Is Evolution compatible with New Thought, New Age, or Eastern religious beliefs? Does it leave open doors that may be answered by quantum physics?
The Darwinian position has been caricatured as a militant, atheistic one. But this seems to me a position that rules out any serious investigation of consciousness, branding it either as religion or as "pseudo-science." Which makes the Darwinist position extremely close-minded.
But is this a staged controversy? Is the obsession of "religion vs. science" not only a false dichotomy, but one that rules out alternative theories? It seems to me that the alternative theories are often more persuasive.
Likewise, I have doubts about global warming. Not because this year seems to have been cooler than recent ones: "this was a cold day, therefore global warming is false" is an argument that insults the intelligence of the person making it. Rather, I have doubts because the Establishment insists upon it. That "respected scientists" from "leading universities" believe so-and-so, does not make it true. After all, Barack Obama was a "respected" Constitutional Law professor, and I'm convinced that all his views regarding the Constitution are misguided, self-serving, or both.
Moreover, the history of the Scientific Establishment is that it was always wrong. The "respectable" scientific community is held hostage to threats of grant and tenure denials, and similar problems have hurt scientists through the ages. Was not Einstein a patent clerk when he came up with the theory of Relativity? What were the "respectable" scientists doing? Their theories may have been based on the "best science available," but it didn't make them true. What's different today is that the "orthodox" position on global warming is affixed to a political agenda that would infringe on national sovereignty and individual liberty. If "mainstream" economists have their work cut out for them to prove the Austrians wrong, mainstream scientists have an even bigger task persuading a public that should be skeptical about any complicated, scientific claim that would lead to less liberty.
I'm not saying that Evolution is wrong. I'm not saying that Global Warming doesn't exist. But to believe either, I am asked to either put a lot of study into the sciences, or to believe the Establishment.
I may get to those scientific studies one day. But what I will not
do is believe the Establishment. If you believe I should give the Establishment a break, that on the whole, it's been good for our society, I have a brief story to tell, and I'm not making this up . . .
The Federal Reserve System, which is responsible for "printing up" money and causing inflation, was developed by Paul Warburg
, an immigrant from the German Warburg banking dynasty. He sat on the Fed's Board of Directors during World War I, while at the same time his brother Max
was head of the German secret services. Paul, another brother Felix
, and Felix's father-in-law Jacob Schiff
, head of the powerful Wall Street banking firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co., spent $20 million on Russia's Communist Revolution and gave Leon Trotsky safe passage to Russia, while Max gave Vladimir Lenin $6 million in gold and safe passage to Russia
Paul Warburg established the Federal Reserve, and then, working with his brother working on the enemy side of a declared war, help finance Russia's communist revolution. The Communists then made terms with Germany, who then transferred their troops from the Eastern to the Western Front to shoot at American soldiers. Paul Warburg later helped found the Council on Foreign Relations, whose membership constitutes the ultimate Who's Who
, or The Establishment.
The Warburg brothers provide an example of how the powerful, how the Establishment, deliberately foments crises and conflicts to increase their own profit and power. To such people, Democrat vs. Republican, USA vs. Russia, and atheism vs. fundamentalism are all part of one sick joke: they laugh (and profit) at our expense. Because of this, their claims to "truth" and "respectability" are automatically to be doubted. They get by through saying enough truisms to maintain credibility, but that just hides their fraud all the more.
Because they are clearly wrong on the Constitution and economics, their scientific claims must be doubted from the get-go. They seek not truth, but power. Therefore, no matter where one stands on a particular issue, we should all refuse to fight on the terms set by the Establishment. We should go on strike, and refuse to recognize their organs such as the Ivy League and The New York Times as respectable sources for shaping our opinions. If we won't play by the Establishment's rules, they will no longer control the game.