Austin Peterson’s Narrow Path to Becoming Missouri’s Next Senator

By Alan W. Cohen

Three days after Josh Hawley announced his bid for the Republican nomination for senator to oppose Claire McCaskill in the Trumpland known as Missouri, mainstream news organizations were already measuring his chances for victory in the general election. For more than a month after Austin Peterson announced his bid, those same news organizations claimed no one had emerged on the Republican side to challenge McCaskill. It was if he were never there, that he did not exist. And that is exactly where Mitch McConnell and the mainstream media want him.

Yet, Judge Roy Moore’s victory in Alabama gives Peterson hope. McConnell and his cohorts in the Establishment outspent Moore in their primary by more than ten to one, attempting to whitewash him as anti-Trump, while at the same time claiming their establishment clone, Luther Strange, was a Trump supporter. They didn’t fool the voters, and Moore won handily thanks to help of Mark Levin and his fellow conservatives. Alabama is much like Missouri in one respect. Donald Trump won the state by double digits. And, in its Republican primary, Alabamans continued a two-year wave of anti-establishment fervor in voting against Strange as much as they voted in favor of Moore. Of course, Moore, a highly controversial figure in his willingness to take a stand in federal government overreach, was a well-known public figure.

That is Austin Peterson’s first big problem. Name recognition. Yet, being known is not enough. It is what he is known for. Peterson not only needs to be viewed as a valid candidate, but as the anti-establishment candidate. Historically, Peterson is facing the same dilemma as the Founding Fathers. He is up against steep odds, facing a vastly organized and heavily financed machine bell bent on keeping him irrelevant.. Heck, a St. Louis County millionaire kingmaker selected Hawley as the establishment candidate in the public square at least a month before Hawley even formed a committee.

Peterson must draw on true Conservatives like Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and especially Steve Bannon. Yet, they have limited resources and are not going to waste their time and money on someone who cannot win. He must have develop a winning strategy. So here is my proposed gameplan for Austin Peterson:

  1. Go on the offensive against Hawley immediately. Unlike Strange, who was already a Senator, Hawley is not that well known himself, having won only one statewide election. Poll the Republican electorate and get a pulse on how the electorate feels about Hawley. I am willing to be that there is no opinion at all. Thus, the time will be ripe to paste him with the reputation of being the insider. Two years ago, former Democrat pollster Pat Caddell saw the anger of the electorate, and predicted Trump’s victory on Fox News on a weekly Sunday evening show on a regular basis. McConnell and the establishment still don’t get it. They are beholden to their donors and disdain their voters. Bob Corker spoke for all of them. They hate Donald Trump. When Josh Hawley took up the mantle of the establishment candidate, he could very well have doomed his candidacy. It is up to Peterson to attack this weakness, and, in doing so, create his own name recognition as the candidate willing to slay the lion.
  2. Be the Conservative. Peterson needs to paint himself as a combination of Missouri’s favorite Senators, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Paul is the smart one, the tactician that was the architect of President Trump’s new Obamacare cutbacks. Peterson is a brilliant scholar, but being brilliant is not enough. Missouri Republicans must view him as the savior, a Swamp drainer, a person they can truly trust to keep their promises. Missourians are very aware of pretenders like Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse and Bob Corker. Be Mike Lee. Be Ted Cruz. Be Rand Paul.
  3. Avoid the Libertarian Label. Even though Conservatives like Sean Hannity proclaim themselves as Libertarians, voters see it as a negative when it comes to politics. Two years ago, I attended the Libertarian Party statewide event in Columbia expecting to find hundreds of fellow thinkers, only to find a dozen attendees, most focusing on the legalization of marijuana.  That’s how Missourians see the Libertarian party. Peterson has already begun the process in establishing himself as anti-abortion. But that is not enough. Missourians are common sense Conservatives who care most about their pocketbook and their personal freedom.
  4. Be a Common Man. Missourians feel much like those Jews in Anatevka in Fiddler on the Roof.  When asked about a prayer for the Tsar, the rabbi thought and said: “God bless and keep the Tsar …. far away from us!” So, for Peterson, my advice is keep it simple. You are anti-government, especially anti-federal government. Be that person, not the esoteric thinker who wrote policy papers. We all know that you would best Josh Hawley in an IQ test. But Hawley is a great pretender, a man who was able to reach enough voters to obtain the Republican nomination for Attorney General in the last election. And, again while few people even know Josh Hawley, fewer know you. Thus, while Hawley has already donned the label of the establishment, you have time to go out among the people and be that common man. Sean Hannity likes to say that the last election was about the forgotten man. Be the savior. Listen to farmers and ranchers as well as city folk. Talk the talk. Listen and learn.
  5. Avoid Roy Blunt. Talk about your insiders. I met Roy Blunt’s father more than 35 years ago when I was a journalism student at Mizzou and he was campaigning in a highly Democrat district that was my beat. I followed his career closely, and then of his son. Greene County Republicans protect that name regardless of insider status. No doubt that he will endorse Josh Hawley and support his nomination. But Roy Blunt is not that popular outside of Greene County, and his coattails are highly suspect. Nevertheless, crossing him is a very bad idea. So the best choice is to ignore his existence.
  6. Take Advantage of the McCaskill plan. In 2006, Claire McCaskill rode the wave of Obama supporters to a narrow victory. In 2012, she was supposed to be done, a supporter of Obama, a left-wing extremist in a right leaning state. The Republican field was full of possible contenders and was Nixonest in her thinking, taking out all but the one that she wanted to run against, Todd Akin, an uncouth redneck who was susceptible to the attacks from her friends in the left-wing media. His comments on abortion and rape ended his bid, and he became the butt of jokes nationwide. As soon as  the donors chose Hawley, she went on the offensive against him. She will ignore you because she thinks, as the establishment does, that you have no chance. And there is little to gain by attacking her directly. Just focus on Congress and the establishment and how they don’t care about the common man, how Hawley will only be another crony. Missourian’s know that McCaskill and how her clan got rich on the taxpayer’s dime, how she is corrupt. Save that for the general.

So good luck Austin Peterson. I look forward to meeting you at the Student’s for Liberty conference on October 14.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney and author. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law.  His books include (2017) Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce and (2015) America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century.

Previous blogs:

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

Health Care Compromise: Exempt States with 6 or Fewer Insurers

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

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

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

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

By Alan W. Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior Blog Posts:

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

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

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

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

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

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

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

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

 

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

By Alan W. Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Blogs:

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

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

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

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

By Alan W. Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most Recent Blogs:

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

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

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

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

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

 

 

 

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

By Alan W. Cohen

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

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

Americans now face a similar choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Past Blogs:

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

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

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

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

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

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

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

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

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

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

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

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

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

Why Libertorian?