Islamist Victory in Antisemitic Public Relations Battle Spells Doom for Freedom, Completes Conquest of Europe

By Alan W. Cohen

Congratulations must go out to the propagandists of Islam. For decades, they have used the classic carrot and stick, i.e,  oil and terrorism, to send Europe to its knees, permitting the completion of the Muslim invasion that was last thwarted in the the 17th Century. And as every year passes by they have succeeded in lessening Europe’s guilt over the Holocaust, and its long history of Antisemitism, especially in the United Nations, where as U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley does daily battle with an anti-Israel bias that would make Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels proud.  After all, it was Great Britain and France, not the United States, that supported the State of Israel and its fight for independence. As ISIS supporters espoused recently on British television, soon Sharia Law will prevail at Number 10 Downing Street. The conquest will be complete.

While the horrific massacre of young girls in Manchester, Great Britain, should make it perfectly clear to anyone sane that evil lurks among us, it turns out that there are three types of Muslims, ones that openly work for Sharia takeover of the world peacefully, ones that want to use violence to achieve that goal, and the ones that silently root for it. European leaders continue to do their best impersonation of Neville Chamberlain who defiantly waved a copy of the Hitler signed Munich Accords like a white flag of surrender. As British journalist Katie Hopkins observed, the political leadership Great Britain are perfectly willing to have its young girls murdered, or in many instances raped, rather than suffer the consequences of being called Islamophobic. The same can be said for France and the rest of Europe, even Germany, and land where the killing fields of Antisemitism came to a boil just 70 years ago. These leaders are so fearful of the label that they have virtually outlawed truth, if that truth would at all save them from that horrific label.

Yet, with the 2017 UNESCO Declaration,  the Islamist propagandists have achieve their greatest feat in the revisionist history that now stands as the United Nations. Jews have always been the majority in Judea, especially in Jerusalem, where archaeologists are daily finding more evidence to support assertions in the Bible that it has always been the Jewish capital. Recently, they have proven that East Jerusalem is the City of David, where King David and his son, King Solomon, once ruled. From 1967 until present, with the obvious exception of the Obama administration, the United States has stood with its veto power in the increasingly Antisemitic organization. As Nikki Haley has pointed out, the the entire organization is obsessed with destroying Israel, and have become the embodiment of a socialist order that even George Orwell could not have imagined possible. And why not? Coming up on 70 years after its existence, a total of 31 United Nations member states do not recognize the State of Israel: 18 of the 21 UN members in the Arab League, including our allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. After World War II, Egypt took its cues from a former Nazi commander who taught them the ways of Antisemitism, with Yasser Arafat as one of his finest pupils. In fact, since the Six-Day War, it has been Saudi Arabia that has funded the cause of the Arab refugees, creating the fictional cause of Palestinians that their land was stolen, when, in fact, after Jordan occupied the area after Israel’s battle for independence, it systematically destroyed hundreds of synagogues to eradicate any signs of Jewish presence much like ISIS did in destroying ancient Sumerian sites in Iraq.

And yet Islamist scholars have successfully billed the Israelis as the bad guy, pushing the false narrative that Israel is an apartheid state, despite the fact that Arabs participate in the national assembly and have equal rights, while on the other hand, Jews have zero rights in Arab states, and would deserve the same systematic eradication as Christians and homosexuals. And that false narrative has spread across college campuses across America, forcing states to pass laws preventing colleges from boycotting Israel.  Western Civilization is losing the public relations battle. and Joseph Goebbels would have been proud.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His new book Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Recent Blogs:

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

75 Notre Dame Students Embarrass Themselves, The University, Their Parents, and Especially America

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

 

 

 

 

75 Notre Dame Students Embarrass Themselves, The University, Their Parents, and Especially America

By Alan W. Cohen

About 18 months ago I was truly embarrassed to be a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia. I was not embarrassed because of the stated reasons for the protests, as they turned out to be completely fraudulent, but because professors and students alike, particularly Melissa Klick (who soon after would be fired), participated in such a complete disrespect for the University.

I thought that couldn’t be topped. But, alas, thank you to 75 boorish students of the University of Notre Dame.  You did it. I can’t imagine what their parents thought. Here is the Vice President of the United States, given the honor of speaking, to impart the wisdom of his years, of his success, to the eager minds of youthful exuberance. After all, this is one of our nation’s finest institutions, the pinnacle of Catholic colleges, the molder of morality.

How the mighty have fallen. This is the place where Rudy became an icon, where working your butt off just to be accepted, to graduate from such a prestigious college, was an honor in itself. It was where you learned humility. It was where you learned respect, not only your teachers, but your elders, particularly the ones that have succeeded. Mike Pence, whether you agree with his politics or not, has achieved great things, culminating in his election as Vice President of the United States.

To the 75 that walked out on your graduation, what have you proved? That Notre Dame, like so many other colleges in America, is not graduating adults, but boorish brats. If my child participated in that I would do what I had never done; I would spank her, not physically, but emotionally. I would scream at her until she saw what she had done, the embarrassment she caused me, but also how she just diminished the value of the education that we spent tens of thousands of dollars to achieve. Moreover, if I was a graduate of Notre Dame, I would be ashamed. I would be demanding that the students that participated in disrespecting the Vice President immediately apologize or else surrender their diplomas.

To those protesting, there will come a day when you regret your decision to ruin the reputation of yourselves and your university. But you should have thought about that before you acted like idiots because the damage you have done is irreparable.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His latest book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, is available at Amazon.

Prior Blog Posts:

Memo to Elite Media from Mid-America: We Don’t Care! So, Shut Up Already!

Integrity of Rod Rosenstein Shining Beacon in Washington, D.C. Swamp

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

 

Memo to Elite Media from Mid-America: We Don’t Care! So, Shut Up Already!

By Alan W. Cohen

I speak to you from the breadbasket of American journalism, the University of Missouri-Columbia.  As a graduate from the world’s first, and best, journalism school in the nation, and as a dedicated Libertarian, I think I can speak for my fellow Mid-westerners, deep in Trump Country.

Shut up! We don’t care. We have memories. We know that you didn’t mind it when Barrack Obama did far worse than that you daily accuse Donald Trump. And we know you were embedded in the Hillary Clinton campaign, thanks to Wikileaks. Heck, if either of them were Republicans, you have already had them in prison for their offenses.

It does not matter to us that you have rid us of Bill O’Reilly and the conservative, but rational, thought process that used to be Fox News. We don’t have to watch you. We don’t have to, and who actually does, read the New York Times or the Washington Post. We don’t care.

Here is what we do see. Hysteria. And, hysterical people convince no one of anything but the fact they are hysterical. We know that you have anti-Trumpists deep in the federal government who are willing to leak classified information because they are desperate to retain power. We see you for what you are. We went through this with Ronald Reagan and the Bushes. But times are far different. We can listen to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity, and read conservative bloggers, or my fellow Libertarians. So, the only people you are convincing is the ones that are were already convinced. So enough already!

And every day it’s something different. Some new minute detail that you blow completely out of proportion in your Group Think echo chamber. We can turn you off, just like I turned off Fox News when they began their program with the feigned Democrat press conference about how awful it is that Donald Trump may have given away some bit of information that might be classified. Wow! Is that funny or what? Here’s a hint: Think Hillary Clinton.

So, Elite Media, look at yourselves in the mirror. What do you do everyday? You get your deep sources, and publish that same classified information. It has been going off for years. I remember learning how Fidel Castro learned about the Bay of Pigs invasion. He read it in the New York Times.

And, you will notice that the polls haven’t budged. We know who you are and we will never believe you. All you are doing is destroying what is left of your credibility. As I wrote in a blog earlier this year, journalism was never what you said it was, fair and balanced. It has always been political. Therefore, it has always been biased. It was you that had to daily convince us that you were seeking the truth, that you could give us context. But that has stopped, and your credibility is now completely gone.

So, when I have my choice between watching the news and watching some boring pregame show before the Cardinals play, I will choose the latter. I vote you off my island. And so do my fellow citizens from the Heartland.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His latest book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, is available on Amazon.

Recent Blogs:

Integrity of Rod Rosenstein Shining Beacon in Washington, D.C. Swamp

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

 

 

 

 

 

Integrity of Rod Rosenstein Shining Beacon in Washington, D.C. Swamp

By Alan W. Cohen

If there is one thing we learn everyday from the events that followed last year’s election is that integrity and D.C. politics don’t mix. They don’t even know each other.

Enter Rod Rosenstein. In the aftermath of the false uproar over the firing of the ultimate D.C. insider and self-promoter, the new Deputy Attorney General could teach a lesson to members of the both political parties and especially to members of the elite media. I can see it now. Mr. Rosenstein giving lectures on the subject of integrity, with politicians eagerly awaiting his next syllable of wisdom, while the media on C-SPAN recording it all for posterity, and endless replays for the public to view.

Rosenstein, who in the midst of the most acrimonious political atmosphere in recent memory, enjoyed wide bi-partisan support, having worked in the federal government under both Democrats and Republican administrations, winning confirmation with just a few dissenters in my former party who would refuse to acknowledge the sky was blue if that utterance came from our President. Heck, they might find some conspiracy, and claim discrimination against other colors. Prejudice! Sorry, my creative mind cannot reach into those dark circles where traitors dwell, traitors not to Donald Trump, but to the Constitution. But I digress.

Listen to want Rod Rosenstein told people who were concerned about his reputation:

“I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in that oath about reputation. If you ask me, one of the main problems in Washington, D.C., is every is so busy running around trying to protect their reputation instead of protecting the republic, which is what the’re supposed to be doing.”

Wow. But it gets even better. Suddenly cast in the spotlight because of his scathing memorandum about the former FBI director, James Comey, friends urged him to get out from under the media firestorm. His response:  “[T]here is no place that I would rather be.” As to the bullying media, Rosenstein said:

“[D]aily newspapers and endless talk shows are not the verdict of history.”

Somebody get this guy on the Supreme Court. I would say run him for President, but I’m afraid he has the one thing that disqualifies him from public office:  Integrity.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His most recent book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, is available on Amazon.

Recent blogs:

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

 

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

By Alan W. Cohen

During oral argument today, May 8, 2017, before the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge asked the ACLU attorney a basic question that pretty much goes like this: If Hillary Clinton had won and issued the identical order, would that order be constitutional. His answer was telling. Yes, of course it would. But this one is not because of comments made by Donald Trump during the election.

Huh? In my 25 years of law practice, and the multitude of oral arguments at the appellate level, this was a first. Judges are to interpret statutes as written, and, only if there is an ambiguity, do they go further to seek the intention of the legislature. Here was a law in place in the 1950s, used many times by many Presidents, including the second most liberal in history, Jimmy Carter, to ban certain foreigners from entering the country. That is the plain language of the statute. It gives the President not discretion, but absolute authority, to exclude entry from the United States he deems is a threat to national security. Period. There is nothing new here.

Yet, it’s not surprising that the judiciary does what it wants to do on an almost daily basis, each knowing that the legislature is pretty much powerless to stop them from interpreting laws however they wish because a higher court, not the elected officials who drafted the law, had the final say. That is our history. In our Mother Country, law was judge created, and opinions of judges were used as precedent, and ironically, permitted a final appeal in the House of Lords. In France, law was always statutory, and the judges were to follow that strict construction of the written language. America began as a judge driven law and gradually morphed into a statute driven law, all while giving to the judiciary the final say on how that law was to be interpreted.

While there are countless examples, nothing better explains it then the treatment of the Fourteenth Amendment. As Mr. Justice Hugo Black once wrote, Congress explicitly passed the Amendment to nullify an 1833 Supreme Court decision excluding state and local government from constitutional scrutiny as it pertained to fundamental rights. Under that ruling, states were free to establish religions, and violate the fundamental freedoms that had agreed to in their compact, those God-given rights to pursue happiness stated in the Declaration of Independence. But when the matter came before that same Supreme Court just a few years after the passage of the post-Civil War Amendments, the Court decided that no, it didn’t, that, despite its clear language stating otherwise, it was just and anti-slavery amendment. As a result of this judicial overreach, our nation endured almost a century of court authorized religious intolerance and racial bigotry, not to mention gender bias.

So when we complain about activist judges seeing everything through a prism of political party, why should we be surprised? That is how the ACLU could argue that if a Democrat issued the same order it would be valid, but since it’s a Republican, it’s not. That is why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will almost assuredly strike down the ban, not for any legal reason, but because it was issued by a Republican. Based on today’s oral argument, despite that glaring admission from the ACLU attorney, this case can go either way. We just have to determine the political leanings of its court members. The law be damned.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available at Amazon.

Most Recent Blogs:

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

 

 

 

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

By Alan W. Cohen

Americans are in an abusive relationship with their federal government. Note that I don’t use the term victim, because we are in fact conspiring with the federal government to abuse our freedom.

What happens in a personal abusive relationship? One party asserts control, and the other party acquiesces. Soon those actions become comfortable and expected. The more the weaker party acquiesces, the more power the dominant party attains. But, whenever the acquiescing party feels a powerful moment and tries to reestablish some control, there is a violent reaction. It might be physical at the beginning, but sooner or later physical violence becomes necessary to assert control and to reestablish authority. As the relationship steadily becomes more volatile, the acquiescing party has a choice. Give in or leave.

Americans now face a similar choice.

As a Libertarian, I am appalled at the lack of outrage of the news media and the population in general about how the Obama administration was spying on tens of thousands of Americans, just as I was outraged how Hillary Clinton got away with a crime that would have landed almost anyone in federal prison for life. For my old party faithful, this is exactly what is wrong with you. You have no moral authority.

Yet, with the new health care bill, Republicans appear no better as they struggle to deal with this dependency on the abuses of government, and an electorate suddenly uneducated in the freedoms that we declared when we broke away from the Mother Country. It was in that Declaration of Independence that we asserted our God-given rights that were so fundamental that we could would not give our elected officials the authority to violate them. But that is exactly what we did. In my book,  Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce , I document the history of Americans surrendering their freedoms to what had become a Christian theocracy. Remember when you were not allowed to open you business on Sundays without special permission from the state? Remember how you were not allowed to buy alcohol on Sundays because that was the Christian Sabbath?

Yet, while Americans believed they were ridding themselves of state control in the 1960s, all we were doing was exchanging their Christian government for a national socialist one, the beginnings of cradle-to-grave control over our daily lives. Day by day, little by little, a growing segment of the population began to realize that there was no point in trying to succeed. And, as I explain my 2015 book, America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, government began to punish men for success, while at the same time, with the Child Support System, punishing poor men, especially African Americans, for the crime of being poor, creating a new form of slavery.

Now in 2017, Nazis have reemerged on college campuses, rioting and refusing to hear speakers with which they disagree, and the national media celebrates it, just as they looked the other way with Hillary Clinton’s felonious activities and Barrack Obama’s KGB- type spy program.  With the election of Donald Trump, America has temporarily reasserted itself, and patriotism is getting one last gasp. But, as with any abusive relationship, that gasp of freedom is met with a violent response from those in control, regardless of party affiliation. This is the swamp that is Washington, D.C.

It is put up or shut up time, America. You have to leave that abuser and make it on your own. You must reassert those freedoms guaranteed to you in the Declaration of Independence. You must educate your children to appreciate and embrace those liberties that exist only in the United States, liberties that had never existed in any nation at any other time in history. Most important, however, we must teach our children to embrace the freedom of others so that they, too, can recognize and embrace ours. Together, we must rid ourselves of our government masters and take control over our lives, because, if we don’t, totalitarianism is right around the corner.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

By Alan W. Cohen

I don’t know about you, but I have friends on all sides of all issues, and I am both frightened and amused at the extremity of their emotions. They throw insults at each other’s views on social media that they would never do in person. Some are them are quite colorful. One social media friend called me a Climate Change Denier.  I guess that’s akin to being called an atheist in Iran.

Then I got to thinking. What exactly does that mean? Well, apparently for many of the undeveloped brains on college campuses, it means the Earth is in imminent danger of destruction. Wow. In the phrasing of my generation, that’s heavy. Really? Well, we must save the planet from this coming disaster! But how do we do that?

Which brings me to my next favorite phrase in this new ideology: The Carbon Footprint. Well, I consider myself an environmentalist, but I never thought of myself as a polluter. Apparently, that is what I am doing 24/7 for the past 58 years. Every time I take in oxygen and breathe out carbon-dioxide I am polluting the world  So, I am going to throw out everything I know about the climate for a second, everything I know about sun spots, volcanoes, meteors, ocean currents, and the 26,000-year cycle that places us squarely between two ice ages, and consider that problem. How do we reduce our carbon footprint? Let’s go back to 7th grade biology. Hmm. What converts carbon dioxide into oxygen? Oh. I remember. Plants. So, following this problem logically, what we need is more plants and less people. But, unless all of those climate change non-deniers want to commit collective suicide, or wish to become mass murderers, we need a more humane solution.

So let’s get deeper into our scientific brains. What plants are best at eating carbon? Algae.  Well, certainly I am not the first person to realize this phenomenon. It turns out that Americans are a pretty industrious bunch. True. It took Israeli technology to create a cost-effective system that converts seawater to drinking water, but Americans have always been on top of the solving the world’s problems. Technology is providing the answer, as stated in Power:

The bioreactor patented by California-based algal firm PHYCO2 is undergoing a multi-year trial at Michigan State University’s (MSU’s) T.B. Simon Power Plant, a co-generation plant that provides steam, heat, and power to the university and can fire biomass, natural gas, and coal.

The bioreactor absorbs the CO2 from a slipstream of the plant’s boiler exhaust. PHYCO2 says its technology is set apart from other open and closed photobioreactor systems because it eliminates all possible contamination from outside sources, allowing microalgae to grow indoors 24 hours a day, without sunlight.

But let’s get to the root of the problem. Whenever you have billionaires and politicians promoting an idea and demanding that government take charge, you can bet there is profit in it. And, when certain off-shore billionaires promote anti-American ideals in favor of globalism, you can also bet that their profits are the end goal. Pretty ironic, huh? Convince an entire generation that American capitalism is evil just to make a profit. Have to give Tom Stires and George Soros credit for their ingenuity.

But these billionaires do not want young people to process facts, just to react emotionally to fear. Their collective amygdala is firing. It’s fight or flight. It’s a mob mentality. So, here is some free advice for the climate non-deniers. Use the logical part of your collective brains. Go about solving a perceived problem using the scientific method you learned in junior high school. It is not about good and evil. Stare into your smart phone and remember that technology is good. We do not need to return to the Stone Age. That was my generation, when communes and free love was the spirit of the day, and John Lennon sang Imagine. We were wrong.  Communes died out faster than the Mayflower Compact, not because of good and evil, but because human nature would not allow it. Heck, as a teen I had a copy of The Communist Manifesto on my bookshelf. It took me years to understand that their premise was wrong. Each according to his needs. Who decides those needs? Government? Isn’t government made up of people in power? And, wouldn’t the people in power care for their needs ahead of all others? And wouldn’t continuation of their power be their primary need? We only need to look to Washington to see that premise proved. Or, better yet, open up your smart phone and Google Venezuela. Yet, the remnants of that 60s culture chose to go into academia and become your college professors, still convinced that Hippies were right after all.

But I digress. So when you catch yourself being captured by the mass hysteria that is Climate Change, turn on the logic portion of your brain and look at that smart phone in your hand. It has more computing power than the IBM monster that launched Apollo 11. That smart phone did not come from government. It came from an enterprising genius. So, until you develop that filter to discern reality to what billionaires like Tom Stires or George Soros are putting into your empty heads, repeat after me. Capitalism is good. Socialism is bad. America is good. Communism is bad.  Repeat that mantra fifty times every morning. Then, when you grow up, you might have a chance. Maybe.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

By Alan W. Cohen

There is no doubt that certain people in high places want to cast doubt on anything that is America, particularly our founding. But this latest pronouncement coming from two Harvard professors is over the top nuts.

You may have heard on the news that someone in Great Britain discovered a parchment document purported to be an original copy, meaning a true hand written copy of the Declaration of Independence. Assuming that it is a true document, and no one has explained how it could be a true document, what is different from the original? Are there passages different? No. Does the document contain different words? No. Did different people sign the document? No.

So what is the big deal? It turns out that the order of signatures are different. So what? We all know how the Declaration came to be. Continental Congress met and each colony voted. The Declaration went through the mill until all thirteen colonies voted to consent. So, now two Harvard professors are claiming that there is some special meaning to the order of the signatures. In the original, the signers were organized by their newly founded states. In this new copy, they are randomly signed. Before getting into the weeds of what that difference might signify, lets imagine that this document is authentic. How would it have come about? After signing the original, the Continental Congress needed to spread the word, and that required copies. Since no copy machines were then available, scribes copied the document by hand, and then asked the signers to redo their respective John Hancocks. Therefore, there was no purpose behind the order of signatures for the copies. The scribes probably had to chase down the signors, who just signed somewhere on the page.

But two Harvard professors have declared some hidden meaning behind this difference, that it must mean that federalism is a fiction. Alas, the Founders signed as one nation, not as a collection of states. And,  your point is? Doesn’t the Constitution begin We the People of the United States? Of course, it is from the people. The Declaration itself is about alienable rights and the pursuit of happiness, not of the states, but of the people who live in those states. Those same people divvied up authority between the federal and state governments, reserving those inalienable rights for themselves.  That is what we call federalism.

I am beginning to wonder what they are smoking at Harvard.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

 

 

 

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

By Alan W. Cohen

I am now in rehab. Yes, I was a Bill O’Reilly addict. And now I must go cold turkey. But as with all twelve-step programs, I must start with that admission. I have a problem. Almost every day at 7 p.m. my time, or when it repeated at 10, I watched. Bill O’Reilly kept me going. No, I was not a Bill O’Reilly dot com member. No, I was not a reader of his books, although his historical TV series Legends and Lies was amusing and interesting. I did not attend his frequent tours with Dennis Miller.

I often wondered how he did it all. But, as John Stossel wrote yesterday in his blog, Bill O’Reilly got too big for his britches. He was a cottage industry unto itself. Twenty years as the most watched TV show on cable might do that to anybody. True, his shows were becoming more and more about Bill O’Reilly and less and less about anything else. Still, I watched faithfully. And if I missed it because I had something else to do, I searched for his Talking Points on social media. I had to have my fix.

But in my moment of loss yesterday when I heard he was gone from Fox News, I began to consider all of the good things that Bill O’Reilly had done for me. Contrast The Factor with what Megan Kelly’s program had become before she mercifully left to join her fellow liberals at NBC. Megan Kelly would have nothing but for Bill O’Reilly, and rumor has it … Well, I won’t go there, because I have come to praise Bill O’Reilly, not to bury him. Anyway, Megan Kelly’s show was hideous in comparison. She would put on two Republican and Democrat mouthpieces who would spew their daily talking points without challenge. It just gave me a headache to listen to it. Bill O’Reilly refused to as well. He invented the No Spin Zone, the one place on TV (other now on Tucker Carlson’s show) where real reporters ask real questions, hard questions. In this way, Bill O’Reilly exposed the other networks for what they are, left wing hacks. And for that, he was hated.

Bill O’Reilly’s biggest contribution to our nation, however, was his war on political correctness. With the mainstream media in tow, leftists had adopted the view that everyone was a victim of free speech, something that has devolved into safe spaces and campus protests against conservative speakers. Bill O’Reilly recognized it for what it was. A Leftist Power Play. He called it out almost on a daily basis, and we addicts could not wait to get his take on whatever nonsense was spewing out of the crazies that were featured so prominently on the three big networks and CNN. Bill O’Reilly made it OK for his fellow journalists to challenge those that would threaten or ironically call others Nazis that disagreed with the Leftist viewpoint.

Like Julius Caesar, Bill O’Reilly loved his power too much. I often wondered what his life was like, so immersed in work. I know that he was divorced and he never talked about his family. What else did he have to live for? He was all about his job. He thought highly of himself, and perhaps that was a requirement for his success. Those of us who are willing to challenge the existing narrative appreciate him all the more, because he was willing to take on his detractors, and make himself the television icon that he became. Bill O’Reilly, you were and remain and inspiration to hard work and dedication to a core belief. It would have been so easy to get along with your peers, and live your life out as another TV reporter. You chose to be different. But, like Julius Caesar, the knives were ever present, waiting for the opportunity to strike, in search of the tragic flaw that would end you. Early on, I noticed how you chose your peons. They had to be blonde and pretty. I thought it was a contrast, but apparently it was about something more, a casting couch.

But I have come to praise Bill O’Reilly, not to bury him.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

By Alan W. Cohen

The one thing I learned while I was in college was that scholars are pretty much set in their ways, and are rarely open to new ideas, especially if those new ideas challenge their entire way of thinking. At 57, I was pretty set in my ways. I had attended a top journalism and law school, had practiced in my field for more than 25 years, writing and teaching seminars. I thought I knew it all, or at least had a firm grasp. I had just published my book, America Solved, my attempt to reverse the destructive federal  child support policies of the past fifty years.

That was almost a year ago. I had been a converted Democrat, and time had transformed me into a Libertarian, with Reason Magazine as my bible. That is where I learned about Randy Barnett and his new book, Our Republican Constitution, and it was in that book that I learned the three important lessons that would lead me to my book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce.

Lesson One: When in law school, I was taught that the source of fundamental rights was the Constitution. It made sense. We have First Amendment rights to free speech, etc. Yet, as are most Americans, I didn’t quite understand the source of those rights not specifically mentioned, especially the Right to Privacy. Practicing in family law, I relied on two of those rights not enumerated, the Right to Parent and the Right to Marry. I accepted those rights because the Supreme Court recognized them as fundamental, although I held on to the view of Mr. Justice Goldberg that those rights exist in the Ninth Amendment. Randy Barnett taught me, however, that the source of these rights lay not in the Constitution, but what was written in the Declaration of Independence. The People have inalienable rights. They transfer some authority to state government, where their elected servants administer their appointed duties for the public good. The People also transfer some to the federal government, i.e., the Constitution, to protect them from foreign intrusion. But since those rights are inalienable, the People lack the ability to transfer, or give up those rights, and thus any act of state or federal legislatures that violate those fundamental rights is void at is inception. Suddenly, it all made sense. The Bill of Rights does not confer rights. It defends them. Congress shall make no law …

Lesson Two:  Elections are based on majority rule, and it has been drilled into us that the view of that majority that should prevail.  We are constantly bombarded from the left and the right, each claiming that their view is correct because they represent the majority. What I learned from Randy Barnett, however, is it that the Constitution is not We the People as the majority, but We the People as a collection of  individuals. As an amateur historian, I recall the folly of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, based on a theory that one group of people could vote to enslave another.  The same question applies to those majority who would restrict the Right to Marry. In 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court made a finding that marriage in America began as a purely private affair, and then evolved. My book,  Private Vows, answers the question of how that happened. But I could not have accomplished that goal without this lesson that I learned from Randy Barnett. Since We the People is a collection of individuals endowed with inalienable rights, and since one of those rights is the Right to Marry, the People could not transfer to their elected representatives the authority to restrict that right. Therefore, state regulation of marriage and divorce is unconstitutional, as are federal laws that impact the Right to Parent.

Lesson Three: Whether it be the current state action to void the Trump Travel Ban or during the Civil Rights Era, where George Wallace and his fellow segregationists so argued, the idea of State’s Rights always intrigued me. Yet, Randy Barnett taught me that State’s Rights is a fiction. States don’t have rights. The Tenth Amendment recognizes that the people did not give complete authority to the federal government. Elected state officials have authority, and that authority is limited to what is specifically conferred. For Private Vows,  Barnett made me fully appreciate that the Tenth Amendment is not a source of authority for what the Supreme Court as recently as 2013 declared, that domestic relations was traditionally left to the states to regulate. Barnett taught me that tradition is not a Constitutional argument. We have to look to our Founding Documents.  Rather, the Declaration of Independence instructs us that the People have the inalienable right to marry, to parent, and to the Pursuit of Happiness. States do not have the authority to regulate marriage and divorce because the Constitution gives the the People’s elected servants no such authority, and any act to interfere in purely private acts is void at its inception.

Thank you Randy Barnett for teaching this old dog a new trick, and I will be forever grateful. You have given me a greater appreciation of the wisdom of our Founders than I thought possible. My personal goal is to share what I learned from you, and to broadcast it for the better of the people of the United States of America.

Alan W. Cohen is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law. Now a full-time author and blogger, he practiced Family Law in the St. Louis area for more than 25 years. His books are available on Amazon.