Why the Historical Perspective Gives Some Credence to Defense of Judge Roy Moore

By Alan W. Cohen

November 15, 2017

As commentators like Sean Hannity demand explanations for so called inconsistencies in the statements of Judge Roy Moore in defense of recent allegations, it would serve them best to understand that they are making the same mistake as those that wish to destroy Civil War monuments or to disregard George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as slave holders. I am an amatuer historian, author and former attorney who, in my research and writings, had to force myself to look back at the past, especially in my area of family law, with the proper perspective, and see the world from their point of view.

It’s called Zeitgeist. It is the common mistake in looking at a situation in today’s perspective rather than in the context of the times it occurred. Let me begin by saying that I am no fan of Judge Roy Moore. I would have preferred Mo Brooks, but I live in Missouri, and not Alabama, and I have no say. The first time I heard Judge Moore speak was on the Mark Levin program before the primary. Like many of his listeners, and I think Mark himself, Judge Moore came off as an inarticulate boob, married to a past that I cannot relate. The first time I ever heard of Judge Roy Moore was when he challenged the federal authority to demand he remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse. At the time, I accepted the meme that he was just a crazy old man. Looking back now, in his challenge of federal authority over local rule, we could almost say that he was a man ahead of his time as federal overreach has, shall we say, reached epidemic levels.

Zeitgeist has also reached epidemic levels in America today. So let’s look at what appears to be inconsistent statements and put them into the appropriate context. This was the 1970s in a rural state. It was a time not far removed from Elvis Presley picking out his bride at the tender age of 14 or even Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 14-year-old cousin.  But that is hardly the point. This was a time when parents could not wait to marry off their daughters to the most eligible bachelor, for their marriage meant wealth and comfort, not just for her, but for the entire family. Roy Moore was the Beatles in Alabama. He was a veteran. He was a Christian. He was smart, successful and had a bright future. Parents of young girls were probably throwing them at him and begging him to choose them as their wives. Think Tzeitel in Fiddler on the Roof. In most of America, up until and perhaps through the 1960s, it was common for girls to marry straight out of high school. Their entire future was bent on their choice of husband. And they had only one shot, as divorce was social suicide and widowhood might have been even worse. For those want to bes, wealth and power was, and, has always been, quite alluring, and Mrs. Roy Moore would have all of those trappings.

Roy Moore graduated from high school in the tiny town of Attalia, Alabama, in 1965, apparently unencumbered and unattached. He attended West Point and, upon graduation, was a company commander to a military police unit in Vietnam. After his service, in 1974, he be began law school at the University of Alabama. Still apparently without a steady girlfriend, he started his career as an assistant prosecutor in 1977. If he were then looking for a wife, the commodities would have been picked over and his best chance for a quality spouse would have come from those that were of soon to be marrying age, or just turned marrying age. Remember Bye Bye Birdie for a moment. In an era when most girls married out of high school, it was their goal to, in the word of the song, pick out a boy and train him. That picking out would be done before the age of 16 and the training would have been in full force. Roy Moore escaped this fate, but also missed his best chance of finding a life mate.

Thus, after graduating from law school, Roy Moore would have had a hard time finding a suitable mate, especially if was looking for a woman who could match his intellect. When he completed law school, less than 20 percent of women graduated from college nationwide, probably fewer that came from Alabama. Seven years after his graduation from law school, in 1985, Roy Moore married then 24-year-old old Kayla Kisor. He was 38. Although the length of their courtship is unknown, Kayla was a former model and runner up to both Miss Alabama and Miss Alabama World. A college graduate herself, she come from a politically powerful Alabama family. This match illustrates his star status, as well as his value as a mate. All of proper Alabama would have approved. And, if history is any guide, Kayla would have been the driving force in his political career, and would remain so today. Seven years after their marriage, Roy Moore became Judge Roy Moore of the 16th Judicial Circuit Court. The rest is, they say, is history.

So let’s look at this from in the context of Roy Moore’s explanation. From today’s perspective, especially given his inarticulate nature, it seems inconsistent and even confusing. But when he said it was not common practice of him to date a girl of 17, it would have depended on the situation with her parents. Three of the women that came out early last week told the Washington Post reporter that Roy Moore was perfect gentleman, and he said that he would not date them without the permission of their parents. This statement is consistent with the times, as opposed to some commentators who describe the behavior as disgusting. For those, it is important to remember the times. This is not Bill Clinton exposing himself to Paula Jones. This is a man who is the most eligible bachelor around, a man who didn’t need to find girls. He was inundated with them.

This brings me to the two accusers of assault. If a vulture like Gloria Allred is involved, we immediately doubt its veracity. But let’s also look at the circumstances of then assistant prosecuting attorney Roy Moore. If he was indeed the most eligible bachelor, why would he have any interest in a 14-year-old when so many adult women were more than willing to attach themselves to him? Despite his pretentious nature, he was in the service and was certainly no virgin. This was a time when it was acceptable for public officials to engage with those in the oldest profession. And it’s not like Moore was a rock star and was so stoned he couldn’t tell the difference in the age of his groupie. But the strange thing is that this first accuser found herself with Roy Moore not once, but twice. Was there more context to that story? Seeing your life 40 years back is hardly a clear event, and easily subject to suggestion.  Was she really 14? Did her parents hold her out as older than she was just to make him interested? It’s altogether possible. This would not excuse the context of the sexual touching, but that, in itself, makes little self. If he were a pervert, would it really have stopped with clothes on? If he was a pervert, wouldn’t there be scores of women coming out ala Harvey Weinstein?

The second accuser appears to be high school student, and her allegations just don’t seem credible given the timing and her choice of counsel. She makes these claims at a time that people are more than willing to believe the statements of any accuser, especially when the target is so hot for the taking. Yet, as Mark Levin had said, if any man had touched my daughter in that way, given the age differences, and even if I had lived in that era, he would either suffer my personal wrath or that of the law. In rural Alabama, perhaps a shotgun might have been that tool. Either way, it would not have been silent, even if were just the quiet whispers of polite society. Roy Moore was not Ted Kennedy, or even Bill Clinton. Everyone in Democrat politics knew of their antics and measured them against what they could gain for the party. Judge Roy Moore has been public life almost 40 years and has been one of America’s most controversial figures. Yet, up until last week, there was never a small town rumor of these claims. I agree with Mark Levin that the timing of the story is suspicious and certainly came from opposition research, and not good investigative reporting. It certainly is not as clear as Mitch McConnell and the Swamp want it to be, especially when you eliminate the Zeitgeist and give it historical perspective.

It is up to the people of Alabama to measure his past and forthrightness against these recent accusations and to judge for themselves. That was Sean Hannity’s opinion up until yesterday. The people of Alabama know him best. Again, he would not be my choice, but it is high time that we just stopped regurgitating and started listening to the only opinions that count. They will make their decision on election day.

Alan W. Cohen is a blogger, retired family law attorney, and author. His most recent books, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce (2017) and America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century (2015) are available on Amazon.

Some Previous blogs:

Memo to Mark Levin: Article V Convention of States Has One Big Caveat

Simple Health Care Solution Pits Capitalism Against Socialism

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

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Why Libertorian?

Comments:

alan@privatevows.com

 

Memo to Mark Levin: Article V Convention of States Has One Big Caveat

By Alan W. Cohen

Watch out Mark Levin. It has all happened before. The author and conservative radio host has begun a movement under Article V of the Constitution to create a convention of states to amend the constitution to strip the federal government of much of its ill-gotten gains, gains that have diluted freedom from the individual and authority from the states. On his radio show of October 10, 2017, a caller warned him that the federal courts are lurking in the shadows, waiting to override any sweeping changes the convention might pass. In response, Levin was confident that the states would prevail.

Yet, that is exactly what happened with the Fourteenth Amendment, and we still have not recovered almost 150 years later. As I explain in much greater detail in my latest book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, the Civil War ended with a great Republican majority passing a series of Amendments, each with their own purpose. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote. But the Fourteenth Amendment had another, more profound, purpose.

As Mr. Levin explains in great detail in his most recent book, Rediscovering Americanism (please see the link to my review at the end of this blog), the Founders of our nation believed, and declared it in 1776, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. And, with all due respect to those morons on MSNBC and CNN, those rights predated, and are the basis for, the Constitution. That is because we are all individuals, individuals that banded together to protect the rights of other individuals. Yet, somewhere along the line, our nation changed from being a republic to being a democracy. Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett explains that when the Founders created the Constitution, it was based on the Declaration of Independence, and that the preamble said it all. We the People means we the people as a collection of individuals, not of the majority. Unfortunately, a movement began, less than 25 years later, to justify slavery, a movement that became the Jacksonian Democracy. Levin calls it mobocracy. Barnett calls it the Democratic Constitution. A key illustration is this phenomenon is the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, an act that empowered the citizens of those states to vote on whether to enslave a minority of their peers.

The Supreme Court signed onto the Jacksonian Democracy in 1833, the year after Jackson’s landslide victory over Henry Clay for his second term. Here I will invoke the name of a person that Mr. Levin detests as a bigot, a racist and an anti-Semite: Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. Despite his serious flaws, Justice Black proposed in a dissenting opinion in 1948 that we lost our republic in 1833 with the case of Baron ex rel. Tierman v. Mayor of Baltimore, where the Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, but only to actions of the federal government. Black suggests that Chief Justice John Marshall was just a bit dishonest in his four-page opinion, a sparse writing of what was one the most important decisions of the century. In fact, as I explain in Private Vows, Marshall was scared, and had good reason to be. President Jackson was a scoundrel, and had recently refused to abide by a Supreme Court opinion protecting the Cherokee leading to the infamous Trail of Tears. Until Jackson came onto the scene, Marshall had carefully fostered the Supreme Court’s authority to override legislation and executive actions through the power of judicial review. Marshall anxiously wanted to preserve his gains, and knew to tread carefully to avoid Jackson’s wrath.

The real question in Baron was whether the federal courts had the authority to enforce the inalienable rights recognized in the Declaration, the rights of the individual against the authority of the state or local government that was violating those rights. That same question is with us today. In a dissenting opinion in 2000, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with fellow Justice Clarence Thomas that the Constitution preserves those inalienable rights within the Ninth Amendment, but refused to enforce them because the Constitution did not specifically provide for a remedy. The question for Justice Scalia then, as with Chief Justice Marshall in 1833, is this: What good are rights if there is no place to enforce them? According to Justice Black, Marshall adeptly sidestepped the issue, and for good reason. As I explain in Private Vows, if the federal courts had the authority to enforce inalienable rights against state or local governments in 1833, slaves would have been coming in droves to seek redress and there would have been a civil war. Since Marshall sidestepped the issue, the Court could not enforce Dred Scott’s claims for freedom only a few years later, an event that ironically led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans that Marshall had so greatly sought to avoid. After the Civil War, according to Justice Black, it fell on Congress to right the wrong of Baron and restore the Republic, and individual liberty, with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, making it clear that individuals did indeed have a right to redress of state and local violations of their individual rights in the federal courts (as well as in the state courts).

There was one big problem. The Supreme Court was filled with Jacksonians who refused to comply with Congress’ mandate even if it was the will of the required number of states. In the infamous Slaughter-House Cases in 1873, the Court all but nullified the Fourteenth Amendment by calling it just an anti-slavery amendment:

The constitutional provision there alluded to did not create those rights, which it called privileges and immunities of citizens of the States. It threw around them in that clause no security for the citizen of the State in which they were claimed or exercised. Nor did it profess to control the power of the State governments over the rights of its own citizens

Thus began more than a century of state control over the individual so vast that individual freedom was all but lost, freedom that the Founders intended, freedom that we still don’t have today. Soon after The Slaughter-House Cases, the Supreme Court affirmed state policies based on eugenics, justifying discriminatory laws and, as a means of enforcing them, created out of thin air, as I explain in Private Vows, a justification for state regulation of marriage and divorce. As Levin explains in Rediscovering Americanism, this statist thinking became the fodder for the socialists, the so called Progressives as a means for controlling the masses. It inspired the ever Progressive Woodrow Wilson to re-segregate the entire federal government during his first term of office. It empowered the KKK to rule with a violence, ending black lives on the spot just for the crime of not being white.

Thus, the lesson for Mark Levin and his followers is that that an Amendment to the Constitution is not enough. We have to fill the Supreme Court with those willing to enforce it. While, as with the Trump travel ban, we cry over the illegal nature of the Ninth Circuit and other federal courts, those actions pale in comparison to the 19th Century and a Supreme Court that was hell bent to undo the Union victory, to preserve and restore the Jacksonian Democracy. and to preserve racial and religious discrimination.

Alan W. Cohen practiced law for more than 25 years before retiring. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University School of Law.  Besides Private Vows, he is also the author of America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, as well as several other books on family law.

Recent Blogs:

Three Important Lessons I Learned From Mark Levin’s Rediscovering Americanism

How the Conservative/Libertarian Media Revolution Can Save America from McConnell and his Washington Cartel

Time to End Slavery-like NFL Draft According to Odell Beckham, Jr.

Celebrate America’s Birthday With A True Civics Lesson From Mark Levin

Simple Health Care Solution Pits Capitalism Against Socialism

 

Three Important Lessons I Learned From Mark Levin’s Rediscovering Americanism

By Alan W. Cohen

You are never too old to learn some  new tricks about understanding the Constitution, and Mark Levin just gave me a few pointers on how I can do just that with his new book, Rediscovering Americanism. I am not a longtime fan of Mr. Levin, but I am now. In fact, it was just about four months ago that I turned on my radio and listened to him make an argument that I made in my latest book,  Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce. As you might expect from the title, my conclusion is that government interference in the family is not only unconstitutional, but it has been, especially for the past 50 years, completely destructive to the institution of marriage. Until I read his book, I could not understand why.  Now I know, thanks to Mark Levin.

As Mr. Levin has maintained, the Founders of our great nation believed in Natural Rights, and they considered those rights unalienable (or inalienable), meaning that they cannot be transferred or surrendered.  In the words of the Declaration of Independence, those rights are God-given. We are born with them and they remain with us until our demise. The Founders so believed in what John Locke and Aristotle called right-reason and Natural Law that they did not even consider the possibility that any government in America would interfere in the individual families of its inhabitants. After all, as Locke tells us, religious liberty was and is at the heart of the freedom the Founder fought, and died, to achieve, and the family was and is the heart of religious liberty. After the Revolution, the newborn Republic tossed out the Anglican Church, and with it state control of marriage and the family.  And, at least for the first 50 years of our nation, that was the rule, as the Supreme Court so admitted in 2015, that marriage in America began as a purely private affair. The Founders, with the Contracts Clause, made it part of the Constitution. Marriage is a private contract, and government interference would be prohibited. Yet, a little more than 100 years after the Declaration, couples could not get married or divorced without the permission of the state. And, if they were interracial, they might as well forget it. If they wanted to practice some other religion other than Protestantism, like Mormonism, and marry within its tenants, forget it. Catholic vows were irrelevant. The government was in charge.  Yet, for the vast majority of people, government interference in the family was minimal, if not infinitesimal. That all changed in the 1960s, when socialism began to overtake the religious right and wrestled control of government.

Now here are the three important lessons I learned from Mark Levin and his new book, Rediscovering Americanism:

  1. We are already a socialist nation. Political parties are useless descriptions.  In fact, with the exception of three in the Senate, and a few more in the House, there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats. That’s because, as Levin tells us, the Mainstream Media has taken charge of the Socialist (Progressive) Agenda. Politicians only care about their reelection, and they are too frightened of bad press to cross it. That fact became all the more clear with the election of Donald Trump. The media is hell bent on his destruction, even more so than that of his Republican predecessors.  As I stated in a prior blog, journalism is not dead. It was never alive. Fair and balanced is nothing more than a tagline to convince the viewer (or reader) of its truthfulness. Even Thomas Jefferson complained about the dark side of the free press, that newspapers were the voice of the wealthy, not of the People. Film buffs will recall Citizen Kane, where the protagonist declares that his newspaper would not report the news, but rather make the news. We see that now with RussiaGate. Many of the Main Stream Media (CNN, Washington Post, New York Times) have thrown off their false bravado to achieve their ultimate goal: what Levin calls a Silent Coup Timid Republicans in Washington acquiesce, cowering in a quiet corner. They know who the boss is and it’s not the People. I join in most of mid-America that have taken Levin’s advice, and have turned off the noise that is the media because we know that they are not looking out for our interests, only their own.
  2.  Socialism is evil  Therefore, we cannot compromise, for every compromise with the Progressives gives up territory that cannot be easily regained.  Just like their compatriots, the Bolsheviks, Progressives chose their name to convince the masses that they speak for the majority, knowing that the opposite is true. And just like the Bolsheviks, Progressives have largely succeeded in taking power. But, as Levin tells us, this is not a new plan, or even, as I had believed, a plan that came to pass in the 1960s. Rather, the counterrevolution in America has been mounting for more than 125 years. In fact, it has been there from the beginning, waiting in the darkness, seeking the right time to strike. When Benjamin Franklin emerged and told his public that we have a Republic if we can keep it, he knew of this darkness. All the Founders did. It was the same tyranny they had fought to overcome. It was not limited to a monarchy. Mob rule was just, if not more, dangerous. As Levin explains, the Founders rejected Rousseau in favor of Locke, unlike the French, whose revolt ended in mass murder and the emergence of a savior who promised order from the madness, Napoleon Bonaparte,  who would, in turn, lead his people to utter destruction. We saw the same with the likes of Hitler and Mussolini, and a slew of dictators of would be socialist countries, most recently Venezuela. For socialists, America’s exceptionalism has proved a more difficult quarry. The ride from freedom to tyranny has been gradual. Socialists understand that, given our stubborn individualism,  it is necessary, to steal our freedom little by little, generation by generation, relying on a left skewed educational system as Levin tells us is their Mein Kampf. For example, historians celebrate Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Yet, as Levin teaches us, those leaders disavowed the Founders as historical creatures, that their time has passed, as had their beliefs in Natural Law and unalienable rights. The Bible teaches us about recognizing evil, and our character is built on how we overcome it. Mark Levin is our filter. He points out for his millions of listeners the sheer folly of compromising with socialists (or Statists) because any breach in the wall of freedom is a pathway to tyranny. Unfortunately, we are well on our way to that end. More than ever we must teach the virtues of capitalism and purge socialism from our midst.
  3. Property rights are just as important as liberty because it is our ability to acquire property and to control it that ensures our liberty. In a recent broadcast, Levin cited a laundry list of Socialist (a/k/a Democrat) politicians that have become super rich as a result of what our Founders described as public service. Bill Clinton was dirt poor as a governor. Now he is worth hundreds of millions, as is Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, and most recently Barrack Obama. Even liberal icon Maxine Waters, who claims to act for the poor, lives in a four million dollar estate in a 95 percent white and affluent neighborhood outside of her poverty-stricken district. She entered into politics, as many of her counterparts, not to serve, but to earn. These so called leaders demonstrate the folly of socialism. Marx and Engels said in their manifesto, each according to their needs, but who would decide those needs? A ruling elite of experts that, by the nature of the system, would be exempt from the scrutiny of the rest of the masses (see e.g., Bernie Sanders wife, Hillary Clinton, etc.). Levin tells us that our Founders  devised a system that divided economic power from political power because they knew that property rights kept tyranny outside that wall. That is why our Founders rejected government interference in the family, because historically, wealth is built on the stability of its shoulders. That is how Great Britain got to be great, by focusing on property rights and the right to inherit. Wealth is the ultimate incentive of capitalism, to not only provide for yourself in the here and now, but to provide for your offspring and their families as well. Socialism disdains wealth, and the destruction of family has been its long term goal, a goal that is within their grasp. As I explain in  Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce,  as well as my 2015 book, America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, federal policy has been, for the past half century, to punish virtuous behavior and to reward bad behavior. Levin explains why. It’s all about control of the all powerful State that we must worship as a deity. Even billionaires, who built their fortunes on capitalism, now disavow it, because they fear the wrath of the so called Progressives, just as Republicans are terrified of the Main Stream Media. Destruction is just a step away, and the Progressives are watching, waiting, and ready to pounce on any indiscretion.

There is much more to learn from Mark Levin and Rediscovering Americanism. But these three lessons stand out for me personally. Every right minded, or as Aristotle said, right-reason minded, American needs to not only read this book, but to study it, and to preach its gospel to anyone who will listen. It is our duty as Americans to save our nation from the tyranny that is already inside our gates.

Alan W. Cohen retired after practicing family law for more than 25 years in St. Louis, Missouri.

Previous Blogs:

Another Teacher Rape of a Young Boy, Another Future Child Support Claim

RIP: Herma Hill Kay, Creator of No-Fault Divorce, Destroyer of Traditional Marriage

Simple Health Care Solution Pits Capitalism Against Socialism

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

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

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

 

 

Celebrate America’s Birthday With A True Civics Lesson From Mark Levin

By Alan W. Cohen

I begin with an admission. I went to fine schools, including our nation’s first and best journalism school and a top 20 law school. I learned history in high school when high schools actually taught history. I practiced law for more than 25 years, and considered my self fluent in Constitutional Law. Yet, the sheer volume of what I did not know about our nation’s founding is frightening.

Last week, radio host Mark Levin spoke about his time in law school, and how they taught him nothing of the Declaration of Independence, nothing about the true nature of liberty. That was me two years ago, before I began to write for a living, and forced myself to read and study and truly understand the brilliance of our Founding Fathers. A few weeks ago, I heard my former Mizzou fraternity brother, Glenn Klein, on his internet/Wisconsin area radio program query as to the nature of the Right to Privacy. I dutifully called into explain that those rights a vast majority come from the Constitution, are actually Natural Rights, described in the Declaration as unalienable, meaning they cannot be transferred or surrendered. The silence on the other end of the phone was deafening. It was like I was speaking Japanese.

I would think that less than 1 percent of the population of this nation know that fact. We speak of Constitutional rights. We argue over what is and what is not in the Bill of Rights. What does it matter? The Bill of Rights is a negative document, something Levin calls negative rights, meaning it is an insurance policy against the federal government intruding on what the Founders knew to be Natural Law, part of what John Locke called The Social Compact. In essence, those rights are there when we are born. No document grants them. The Declaration adopts them, but they preexist both it and the Constitution.

This weekend I have trudged through Levin’s new book, Rediscovering Americanism,  and, trust me, it is no easy read. But Levin confirms for me the one think I discovered about the birth of the United States of America. They rejected any type of state control in favor of individual liberty. While it is true that, especially for those of African descent, that they never reached their ideals, most of what they believed in proved successful, as opposed to Autocracy, Theocracy and Socialism, all that has failed miserably. I shudder at the ignorance of anti-Trump protesters who call Conservatives Nazis, short for National Socialists, for it is these socialists and communists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro that preached state control over the individual, and annihilated any person, and there were tens of millions of them, that refused to adhere, or were simply considered inferior by their birth.

Levin writes about Woodrow Wilson and other early American Socialists that openly rejected the rights of the individual, who openly trounced the Declaration of Independence as a mere historical document valuable only for how things were in 1776. Socialists like Herbert Croly executed their planned takeover of America without hesitation, and just as Hitler laid out his plan for world domination in a book, so did they. They call themselves Progressives, but are anything but because they want to take us back to a time before liberty, before the Magna Carta, when people were forced to bow to those with Divine Right. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin called his tiny wing of the Socialist Party the Bolsheviks, meaning the majority, claiming, as his fellow socialists did, and as Bernie Sanders still does, pretend they speak for a majority, when they spoke only for a tiny fraction. That trick has worked for Lenin and it has been working for Sanders. But that is the way Socialists work. They lie.

That is because Socialism is a lie. It is an impossibility because it is Utopian, and directly against human nature. Humans are perfectly imperfect, but Socialism predisposes perfection in its elitists who would dictate what is just and what is virtuous. It is said that Vladimir Lenin and his revolutionary brother Leon Trotsky waited by their radios after the October Revolution of 1917, expecting to hear of a worldwide worker’s revolt against those governments that had sacrificed millions of their young men in a useless and stupid war that only proved the ineptitude of their leaders. That revolution never came. The Soviet Union, once considered the darling of the far left, fell thirty years ago. Many of its leaders were still waiting, as Lenin and Trotsky did, for a socialist revolution in America. Little did they know how much they succeeded.

Thanks to Croly and his compatriots, socialist teachings took over our nation’s universities and high schools, even our elementary schools, and Civics, the true understanding of our Founding, has long disappeared from educational requirements as an anachronism, just as Wilson had preached. Bernie Sanders is among those that demand that every American have free college, not because he wants Americans to understand their history, but because he wants to continue what Wilson and Croly started, the creation of generations of Hitler Youth, those that would reject personal liberty in favor of the all mighty State. The past three generations have been so indoctrinated, and seem to have little argument with the idea of state control, that is as long as the state leaves them alone. They have little consideration for the rights of others, especially those that are not in complete agreement with their agenda.

Levin is right when he says that most Republicans are no better. That is why they have refused to eliminate the biggest and most treacherous socialist takeover, Obamacare, and return to an era that preceded the 1960s, when health care was a purely private matter.

Education is the key to counteracting the evils of socialism. The Tea Party movement was just the beginning of that counterrevolution. Levin is an excellent teacher, and I urge all of those reading this blog to listen to his radio program, to read his books, and to educate yourselves of the war that lays ahead. We are at a crossroads, and there are but two paths for which there can be no compromise. There is capitalism, and there is socialism. There is freedom and there is tyranny.

As we celebrate our 241st birthday this week, we must educate our children of the miracle of our founding, rejoice in our Natural Law and unalienable rights, for, if we do not, we are soon to lose them forever.

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, a rejection of socialist takeover of the family, is available on Amazon, as is his 2015 book, America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century.

Recent blogs:

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

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

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

 

Another Teacher Rape of a Young Boy, Another Future Child Support Claim

By Alan W. Cohen

It seems like it happens every year. Some loco female teacher go gaga over a young boy, and is found out only when a child results. It happened again this week, when it was reported:

“Marissa A. Mowry, 25, was arrested by the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office and taken to the county’s jail, Fox 13 reported.

Mowry reportedly started a sexual relationship with an 11-year-old boy in 2014 when she was 22, police said, adding that the relationship went on until the boy was 14.

In October 2014, Mowry gave birth to a child who is now 3, deputies said.

Mowry is facing sexual battery and sexual assault charges. The Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office Child Protective Division is also investigating the incident, WFLA added.”

Here’s the bad news for that boy. In just four years, he will be a legal adult, and that same rapist will likely go after him for child support and win. Yes, being the victim of a rape is no defense to child support. That was something that was decided in the family courts more than 25 years ago when a Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that a being raped as a minor was no defense to paternity, that the resulting child was the innocent one, and all children deserve to be supported. Period. All 50 states have adopted this principle, as has our federal government. All that matters is that the sperm hits the egg.

A more immoral statement has never been spoken. And that is what our nation has turned into, a land where right is wrong and wrong is right, where the Natural Law that Aristotle spoke of, is turned completely on its head. The Roman senator Cicero distinguished between the laws of nature and the law of man. The law of nature was moral and incorruptible, while the law of man changes with the wind, the will of the mob against the rights of the individual.

What we have in America, and have had for more than 150 years, is man made law trumping natural law. As I explain in my new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, the Founders of our great nation believed in the Natural Law, that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, “we were endowed by Our Creator with certain unalienable rights” including the Right to Parent and the Right to Marry, rights that are forever entwined in Religious Liberty. When our Supreme Court, beginning in 1833, turned away from individual liberty in favor of majority rule, it turned against Natural Law. As Locke once said, Natural Law is right reason, that is purely ethical. Our Founders agreed, finding that government had no authority under the Constitution to compel anyone to do anything when it came to how to raise their children.

In 1888, the Supreme Court rejected the Founders and adopted a bastardized version of English marriage law that was based on the canons of the Anglican Church, forcing all Americans to adhere to what was, in England, a voluntary choice. The government was thus free to compel individuals to adhere to its rules, one being that a husband must support his children or be subject to state determined punishment. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that children had no right to financial support from their fathers, but if a state required fathers to support their children, it could not discriminate based on marital status. The federal government pounced, and issued laws requiring all fathers to support their children until age 18, creating an immense bureaucracy that puts the IRS to shame, to enforce that edict.

So, for this now 14-year-old boy, who will be forever traumatized, the rape is not over. It will continue for the next 15 years thanks to the federal government and the Supreme Court.

Alan W. Cohen is retired after more than 25 years as an attorney practicing Family Law. He is also the author of America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, a scathing review of what he calls The Child Support System.

Recent Past Blogs:

RIP: Herma Hill Kay, Creator of No-Fault Divorce, Destroyer of Traditional Marriage

Simple Health Care Solution Pits Capitalism Against Socialism

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

 

RIP: Herma Hill Kay, Creator of No-Fault Divorce, Destroyer of Traditional Marriage

By Alan W. Cohen

There is one law that neither state legislatures, nor the United States Congress, can destroy. That is the Law of Unintended Consequences, the law that suggests that drastic changes in the status quo might sound good on paper, but in reality lead to disastrous results. So it was with no-fault divorce, and its matriarch, the late University of California-Berkeley law professor Herma Hill Kay, who died last week at the age of 82. Kay, who was three times married, felt that the patriarchal society had imprisoned in her marriage, and wished that all women could be freed to make their own choices. Kay’s problem was not that she was wrong, but that her solution was completely one-sided, creating an full scale war on men that would be the focal point of second wave feminism.

Sharon Presley explains that in a 2015 essay that all Kay and the second wave feminists did was exchange one patriarchy for another. “Libertarians fail to see how women—or men—can be free of domination when they are dominated by a coercive government. If one of the goals of feminism to achieve a society in which women are free to make their own decisions about their own lives independent of the coercive domination of men, we fail to see how a government currently dominated by men is an improvement, let alone feminist.” Presley cites a discussion paper of the Association of Libertarian Feminists that stated in 1975: “…turning to the government just changes the sort of oppression women face, not the fact. Instead of being overburdened as mothers or wives, we become overburdened as taxpayers since child-care workers, doctors, etc., have to be paid by someone unless they are to be enslaved also! Turning to the government to solve our problems just replaces oppression by patriarchs we know—father, husband, boss—with oppression by patriarchs we don’t know—the hordes of legislators and bureaucrats who are increasingly prying into every nook and cranny of our lives!”

As I explain in my new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, state and federal coercion has no constitutional validity, but rather is based on the patriarchy of the Anglican Church, where a woman was property of her husband, and confined as the United States Supreme Court said in Bradwell v. State in 1873 to the role of wife and mother.  Religious freedom is forever intertwined in marriage and parenthood, and the state and federal adoption of the canons of a particular religion are directly counter to our Founding documents. Yet, for a century after, the price of confining women to their predetermined role bore squarely on men who, as modern day writers such as Camille Paglia have pointed out, were pushed to take on professions that could daily end their lives And, thanks to Kay, men continued to pay the price as all fifty states adopted her solution, one that permitted women freedom, but continued to place the financial burden of marriage and eventual divorce on both their husbands and their children. Further, as psychologist Barbara Whitehead pointed out in her iconic study, enshrined in her book, The Divorce Culture, women were the instigators of divorce 85 percent of the time, and their reasons had little to do with the actions of their husbands. Rather, women sought some form of nirvana that they called happiness, a place that Aristotle tells us exists only after a lifetime of achievement.

Instead of freedom, all that Kay achieved for women was weakening of both men and women. Permitting the easy escape from a contractual commitment without dire consequences greatly diminished the nature of the bond. Marriages morphed from a lifetime choice to a temporary one. Marriage is hard work. As a result of the no fault divorce, first women, and later men, decided that it is not really worth the effort, and pale in comparison to the emotional strength of their ancestors. Can you picture the spoiled snowflakes of today living in the harsh realities of the 19th Century?
They wouldn’t make it through a single day without folding. Life is not a fantasy. Chick flicks remain stalwart in their romantic belief that the wedding is the beginning rather than the end of the story of life happily ever after. Reality is far from it.

Camille Paglia puts it best when she writes, “women have lost the daylong companionship and solidarity they once enjoyed with other women when they ruled the private sphere. … An enlightened feminism, animated by a courageous code of personal responsibility, can only be built upon a wary alliance of strong women and strong men.”

From her pen to God’s ears.

Alan W. Cohen is retired after more than 25 years as a family law attorney. He is a  blogger and author. He is also the author of the 2015 book, America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century.

Some of his recent blog posts:

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

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

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

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

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

 

3 Requirements That Must Be Met in Order for Trump’s Jobs Plan to Work

By Alan W. Cohen

During his campaign, Donald Trump was about one thing: Jobs. Without much help from Congress, he is doing everything he can to support business investment in America to stimulate job creation. But the President is up against more than fifty years of failed government policies that have all but destroyed the incentive of those seeking to fill those jobs. He is up against fifty years of destruction of what was once called the Protestant Worth Ethic.

Donald Trump is seeing the world through his era, when couples married young and stayed together for life, when there was little divorce, and an unwanted pregnancy was a community-wide shame. This was the time when young men saw their place in society based on their chosen career. Their purpose was clear. Succeed to attract the best of of spouses, and to create a good life for himself and his family. Young men entered high school in search of both. Some, not all, went to college if that dream required a higher education. Others chose a different path, to create, or, perhaps, just to work and survive, without a family.

Those days are long over. Young men entering college today are less likely to see their future because they see college as an extension of high school, one where they are freer to play and party and chase girls, many who are more willing than ever to participate without any promise of a future. The statistics are daunting. According to Nicholas Eberstadt, in his recent book,  Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis, there is a smaller percentage of working age men in the workforce than at any time since the Great Depression, and the trend is continuing on a downward spiral. That explains why home ownership rates are also falling and are at the lowest rate since the Great Depression. Marriage rates continue to fall to their lowest ever. The same can be said for the average length of marriage. Meanwhile the rate of children born outside of marriage continues to climb to upwards of 40 percent, more than 72 percent in the African American community.

As I said in my 2015 book, America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, the blame for this disaster falls squarely on the federal government and its insidiously stupid child support policies, policies that are more racist than Jim Crow, and more destructive to the African American community than the Ku Klux Klan. In America Solved, I explain how Lyndon Johnson sought to control the African American vote, and how Johnson ignored the findings of the 1965 Moynihan Report that called for a complete reversal of a Kennedy administration policy that not only legislated single-parent families, but required the evicted husbands to pay back to the federal government the sum it was paying as a condition of his eviction. To summarize, the report said: Poor children have poor fathers and, unless immediately changed, would cause irreversible damage.to the African American family. Yet, as I explain in America Solved, those policies remain in place, and those grim statistics are a natural and logical consequence of Johnson’s policy, one that has expanded to a complete federal takeover of family law in America. Incredibly, federal policy is to incarcerate those that fail to pay the sum as determined by the state government agency or court at a cost that far exceeds their debt, even though more than 70 percent of all child support arrears is owed not to the mother, but the federal government, and 90 percent is owed by men earning less than $10,000 a year. It’s insanity on steroids.

So, the bottom line for President Donald Trump is to do three things that he alone can do from the Oval Office without a Congress that has been hell-bent for more than fifty years to continue its socialist expansion:

  1. End Mass Incarceration: Send a message to those men, especially those in poverty and those in the African American community that you hear their cries by issuing pardons to anyone who was ever convicted of criminal nonsupport, and by stopping the funding of federal paid jailing of those convicted. America was supposed to have banned debtor’s prisons at the turn of the 19th Century, but recreated them with the ill-fated 1996 Welfare Reform Bill.
  2. Stop Collection of Government Owed Debt for Back Child Support. As I explain in America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, federal law does not permit this debt (unlike back taxes) to be discounted, or in any way forgiven, despite the fact that 90 percent of those who owe it are the same chronically poor that the Welfare program was supposed to help. While President Trump is forbidden from forgiving the debt, a hiatus on all collection efforts will create a momentum that future presidents will have to continue. As well, it will shine a light on this incredibly stupid and racist policy.
  3. Push Male Contraceptives: Only Congress can reverse the illogical belief that men have any control over procreation, and thus should be punished for creating children they cannot support. Condoms are insufficient and the CDC claims only a 5 in 6 success rate. Big Pharma is reluctant to invest in new, inexpensive methods for both the Male Pill, and especially an inoculation procedure created by a doctor in India that would physically block sperm from being ejaculated with the remainder of the semen, a procedure that could be reversed with a similar inoculation.  By forcing these medical procedures and drugs into the open market, and even pushing its distribution, President Trump would be telling these young men that they can live their lives without the fear that their success will be punished. Current child support policies are outdated, and, as I explain in my 2017 book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, unconstitutional. Those policies assume that people will continue to earn more as they get older, and project that higher income on any person who is not presently earning that amount, despite the fact that, if that assumption were ever true, it hasn’t been for at least a generation. As a result, men are saying to America in the most passive aggressive way possible: Why bother? Better to hang around their parents’ house, play video games and get high.

If President Trump wants young men in America to sign on to his program, they must have the idea that he has their back, that he understands their plight. But mostly he must create the incentive for success that is sorely missing in our great nation. They must be free to find their purpose in life, and free to pursue their happiness. Mostly, however, they need to know that the hard work will be worth it. While you cannot reverse fifty years of bad policy overnight, these three measures will be a start. Congress has been asleep at the wheel or headed in the wrong direction, showing no signs of a course correction. That leaves it up to one man. Good luck Mr. President.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author.

Past blogs:

 Why Anti-Sharia Protests Are Misguided

Islamist Victory in Antisemitic Public Relations Battle Spells Doom for Freedom,

Completes Conquest of Europe

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

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

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

Comey Confirms that Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal

Why Anti-Sharia Protests Are Misguided

By Alan W. Cohen

History dictates that anti-Sharia protests are both wrongheaded and unconstitutional.

In 1862, Congress passed its first attempt to destroy a religion that competed with the Christian majority. The Anti-Bigamy laws pushed the followers of the Mormon faith outside the boundaries of the states and into a God forsaken land surrounding an undrinkable lake. A decade later, federal prosecutors were hot on the trail of those individuals that continued to live in Mormonism despite federal edicts. In 1879, the case came before the Supreme Court as an unfortunate man by the name of Reynolds was found guilty for the act of practicing his faith as guaranteed under the First Amendment. Unfortunately for Mr.Reynolds, however, the White Christian majority of the Supreme Court did not agree, finding that polygamy was immoral and had no place in Western Civilization. Almost two decades later, Utah was permitted to enter into the Union only on the condition that it ban polygamy.

Fast forward to 2013. Thanks to the work of George Washington University law school professor Jonathan Turley, the State of Utah files with the federal court an affidavit promising to end prosecution of polygamy. That’s right. Despite the furious, but fruitless, prosecutions, polygamy survived, and at the turn of the 21st century became a popular fare in television shows Big Love and Sister Wives. And, what would happen if polygamists demanded the right to license polygamous marriages? Given the Supreme Court’s latest decision on same-sex marriage, as I explain in my new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, the federal courts would have no choice but to find that the state has no authority under the Constitution to license marriage, much less dictate the private conduct of those engaged in purely private behavior when it comes to the family. In fact, as I argue in Private Vows, the federal court would have to find that the legal basis for regulating marriage and divorce is a violation of religious liberty because the Supreme Court in 1888 adopted a bastardized interpretation of the Anglican Church’s canons regarding marriage and divorce and made it part of American law, and it did so to promote the same racist and bigoted agenda as the Ku Klux Klan.

But I digress. Why did polygamy survive? As the Supreme Court noted in a late 19th Century decision, prosecuting it required cooperating witnesses, and that would require that those actively practicing polygamy would have to testify. It proved to be an impossible burden. As long as they do no harm to others, or commit no other crime, people who wish to be free to practice their faith will do so even in the face of an intrusive and powerful federal government. The same can be said for those that want to live under Sharia Law. True believers are not going to come forward to testify against violators.

So, what’s the answer to those that fear the voices of those that would oppose the religious liberty of others, and wish to, as the Supreme Court did in the late 19th Century, impose a specific set of beliefs on the rest of the nation? Should we exclude Muslims from entering the country the way that President Trump is supposed to have done with his travel ban? Clearly, we could not even if we wanted to do so. Rather, we must turn to the reason our forefathers came to America in the first place: Freedom. Only by promoting the liberties of others can we truly be free. Only by respecting the beliefs of others can we truly be the nation that our Founders espoused. For those that say that Sharia Law professes hate speech, the answer is more speech, not prohibition. Will those that advocate for Sharia Law ever understand? Of course not. But the same freedom that permits them to worship will be their greatest obstacle to the world domination they desire.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. 

Recent past blogs:

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

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

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

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

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

 

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