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

 

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

By Alan W. Cohen

It would be John McCain’s biggest nightmare. It would be an equivalent blow to the mainstream media, and particularly Mitch McConnell. What if Republicans only nominate those who meet the approval of Conservative and Libertarian media? Each candidate must meet a basic litmus test. If elected, they will be under constant scrutiny of those that supported them. That would mean, gasp, honesty in politics.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz tells us he was shocked to find out that 95 percent of what his colleagues did in the Swamp was to work for their re-election, and their morbid fear of destruction in the mainstream media, particularly the Washington Post, the New York Times and the major networks. Yet, Mark Levin’s CRTV and other social media sites have stepped in to fill a void that Fox News has failed to do, to teach Americanism. Now,   perhaps for the first time in more than a century, Americans want to know how the Founders would have seen this issue or that, whether their view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence might apply to a particular issue.  We tune in to Rush or Levin or even Hannity,  who collectively take a machete to the D.C. jungle to clear a path for us to see right and wrong.

Yet, it’s not enough just to complain about it. Rush, who has worked for decades to establish a Republican majority, can barely believe his ears (no offense intended) as he hears about their refusal to tow the capitalist line and adopt Progressivism (a/k/a Socialism).  Hannity screeches his despondence on a daily basis. His show so depressing that its hard to listen without wanting to throw yourself off the nearest highrise in utter despair. Levin gives us perspective. All agree that the Republican Party is a joke. We cannot trust the label. Politicians are addicts, but instead of cocaine or heroin or opium, they are addicted to power. And with any other addict, you know when they are lying don’t you? When they open their mouths. They will say anything and do anything to maintain their addiction. And, as long as cronies like Mitch McConnell are the pushers, we have no prayer. Imagine the Senate as a huge opium den, filled with stoners sucking from the public teat.  The temptation is overwhelming for most, and going straight might result in utter destruction, if not their political death. McConnell runs the D.C. cartel and has the keys to the Senate stash that bankrolls Senate campaigns, and to maintain his power, a power he uses to attack anyone that might be a threat, particularly Freedom Caucus associate member Mo Brooks who is running for the Senate in Alabama, and anyone who might dare to support him.  Why? Because Brooks would join true believers Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee, three men who have refused to indulge in McConnell’s treason.  Mark Levin openly endorses Brooks on his radio show, and is urging Alabamans to reject McConnell and his arrogance and audacity to tell them who they should select as their Senator.

Yet, McConnell’s fears are real, and his destruction might be at hand. Last week, John McCain went on the mainstream to instruct his fellow Republicans to stop listening to “the bombastic loudmouths” on talk radio or other Conservative media. I don’t know if McCain is just that stupid, swamp infested, or is so addicted to power that he doesn’t get the fact that we don’t watch or listen to the mainstream media who have moved so far left that they actually walk in circles. Doesn’t he read the polls? Republican voters trust politicians more than they do the mainstream media, that is about 2 percent of the time. God knows, the networks even skew the weather forecast to spin their craziness on so called climate change. So, the only way that we even know that John McCain said what he did about talk radio is from … da da da da … Conservative media. What a dipshit. Sorry for that language, but there is no other word to describe McCain. I would say brain damaged, but that would be cutting it too close to the heart considering his present health condition. So, I’ll stick with dipshit. Sorry.

So, how do we keep these elected officials on the straight and narrow? How do we keep them out of McConnell’s opium den, and eventually close it down.  Two ways. First, taking from Bernie Sanders, we select only candidates that refuse financing from large corporations or super PACs. They must rely exclusively on private donations from a website. Second, these candidates must achieve a good review from Levin, who, above all, can grill them on the wisdom of the Founders and instruct them on the evils of Progressivism (a/k/a/ Marxism). A perfect candidate is Austin Peterson of Missouri, whose background is solidly in Freedomworks and is truly libertarian in his beliefs. If he survives a primary fight against the RINO candidate (likely Josh Hawley the state AG), Peterson would be the perfect foil for left of left #FireClaire McCaskill who, after due consideration, might not even run considering Donald Trump won the state by double digits.

But I digress. Political action groups give number or letter grades to candidates. Conservative and Libertarian media should do the same. We need a ten issue litmus test that they must promise to abide, or else. And, if, once elected, they might stumble into the opium den, well, then we call them out. It will take time, but sooner or later we will end up with legislators who are dedicated public servants, dedicated to the Constitution and their constituents, not to their pocketbooks ala Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders and, of course, the Clintons. But most of all, we will end up with legislators who are faithful to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in a way that the Founders intended, a world of right reason and the Golden Rule, where our only ruler is Natural Law, not a select group of elitists in the never never land that is Washington, D.C. Eventually, if we hold are course, our selected representatives will attain leadership status, where they, like McConnell, would hold the financial key to the D.C. washroom. Only then would we be able to drain the swamp.

Thirty years ago to the day, Rush Limbaugh plowed through the liberal muck and emerged as a national voice. In 1994, he was credited as a motivating force in the Contract for America. And, while that success was short lived, he is now one of many voices that outshine the now quickly dissolving mainstream media’s control of the daily message. With the election of Donald Trump, they have lost both their collective minds and their credibility. They are no longer the gatekeepers to power. Now the Conservative/Libertarian media’s turn at the wheel.

Alan W. Cohen retired after more than 25 years as a family law attorney. Besides this blog, he is also the author of seven books, all available on Amazon.  His latest book is Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, a deep dive into unconstitutional state and federal control of the family and its contribution to the destruction of marriage.

Comments:

Email him at: alan@privatevows.com

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