Category Supreme Court Striks Down Affirmative Action in College Admissions

Aug 6 2023

The Democrats Trying to Destroy the Supreme Court – AGAIN!


Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Aug 6, 2023 by Martin Armstron

The Democrats sent a letter demanding Alito recuse himself on any such question regarding the power of the Supreme Court. Once again, just as FDR tried to stack the court to turn the United States into his vision of a Marxist Utopia following Stalin after he recognized the Communists as a legitimate government, they are at it again. They are out to utterly destroy the freedom of the United States and are attempting to regulate the Supreme Court to only rule in their favor. This is all part of 2032 where our nation is so divided, it will no longer be able to stand as one nation.

The Democrats are beside themselves after Justice Alito told the Wall Street Journal that Congress lacks the authority to regulate the Court. He expressly stated:

“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” Alito said. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it.

No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

Justice Alito is correct – there is ABSOLUTELY no power in the Constitution that would allow these extremist Democrats to regulate how the Supreme Court decides anything. “It just can’t be that the court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else. We’re not imperial,” Justice Kagan told the conference in remarks first reported by Politico. “Can Congress do various things to regulate the Supreme Court? I think the answer is: yes.” Not only is she unquestionably wrong, but she was also the 45th Solicitor  General of the United States who represents the government. She was there when my case got to the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court ordered the government to reply, she obviously had no basis to justify my false imprisonment. To be accurate, the fantasy they used was Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988), which held that corporations do not have constitutional rights, so I was thrown in contempt NOT as an individual, but as a corporate officer. Kagan was afraid that my case would have overturned the law, so she ordered them to release me and then told the Supreme Court my case was MOOT since I was released.

Kagan never saw the power of the government has ever been a problem and now wants to advocate that Congress can use politics to change the Constitution. Under strict construction, the Constitution has no authority to downgrade the Supreme Court even as a discretionary court. The framers of the Constitution only created the Supreme Court. There cannot be any such power to diminish the Supreme Court by Congress. This is a violation of the Separation of Powers that she is advocating the Congress as an imperial dictatorial power.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE

Montesquieu-3

Even the Judiciary Act of 1925 held that the Supreme Court would have the discretion to select what it wants to hear in direct violation of the Constitution, which has NEVER been addressed. The Constitution ONLY established the Supreme Court as part of a tripartite government and the separation of powers as laid out as essential to constrain tyranny by Montesquieu, who was also the inspiration for the Second Amendment, which was to keep citizens armed rather than maintain standing armies to prevent war.

As such, the lower courts were created ONLY by statute under Congress and could just as easily be shut down. The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court, and every Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office –

(1) the Constitutional Oath to defend it and

(2) the Judicial Oath.

Therefore, anyone can see on its face that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional, for it violates their oath to defend the constitution when they have the discretion not to hear cases. Previously, the Supreme Court ruled and ignored this time when it defined “discretion” by saying, “the term ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.” Langnes v Green, 282 US 531, 541 (1931). This means that those in power do not have to obey any law, even the Constitution. The Supreme Court also said, “it is obvious that discretion does not exist where there is no power to act except in one way.” Jones v SEC, 298 US 1, 18 (1936). When judges and politicians claim discretion, they claim to be ABOVE the law of men.

“[I]t is a Constitution we are expounding.” M’Culloch v Maryland, 17 US 326 (1819). “The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and binds every forum whether it derives its authority from a state of from the United States.” Cook v Moffat 46 US 295 (1847). The Supreme Court held that 28 USC §455 statute government recusal of judges was intended “to provide public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.” Liljeberg v Health Serv v Corp, 486 US 847, 859-860 (1988). That lofty goal cannot be upheld as long as judges in inferior courts know that the odds of ever being overturned by the Supreme Court are on par with winning the lottery.

The Supreme Court has NO DISCRETION whatsoever to deny any petition – PERIOD!

& Congress has NO POWER to interfere in the Judicial Process under the Separation of Powers

Congress has abused its power by refusing to expand the court to cope with the nation’s size and instead directing that it should be discretionary, which is NOT in Article III authority of Congress. The Supreme Court, under the Separation of Powers and under its Inherent Supervisory Power, cannot be now diminished by these LEFTIST Democrats seeking once again to overthrow the Constitution in pursuit of their Marxist Authoritarian views for the future. The Supreme Court relies on inherent power to shield the exercise of judicial authority from legislative interference. I would argue that the scope of this inherent power was best described in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Eash v. Riggins Trucking Inc. characterized these cases as relying on the use of an “irreducible inherent authority . . . involving activity so fundamental to the essence of a court as a constitutional tribunal that to divest the court of absolute command within this sphere is really to render practically meaningless the terms ‘court’ and ‘judicial power.’”

IF THE CONGRESS CAN REGULATE THE SUPREME COURT, THEN THIS IS TRULY THE END OF THE RULE OF LAW & THE UNITED STATES!

Montesquieu set forth the Separation of Powers to prevent Tyranny. That was the entire intent behind Article III. No clause in the Constitution even states that Congress has any such authority to regulate the Supreme Court. We have already witnessed a coup with the Neocons pushing for war when only the Separation of Powers dictates that EXCLUSIVELY the people are to have the authority to Declare War – the Executive Branch, which they have seized control of. These people fund covert actions to overthrow leaders, provide arms to Ukraine to start a war with Russia deliberately, and then when they retaliate; we claim we have been attacked.

The Neocons used 911 to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911 on the fake claims that they had weapons of mass destruction. Every single war has been launched on fake news. The neocon Robert McNamara (1916 – 2009) who took us into Vietnam cost over 50,000 American lives, and millions of dead Vietnamese needed to clear his conscious before he died. Even Pearl Harbor was provoked by Roosevelt, who could not get Congress to Declare War to enter Europe. The US had broken the code of the Japanese and knew what they were doing. Roosevelt seized all their assets in America, cut off their purchases of energy from the USA, and threatened to blockade them to prevent them from buying fuel from any other country. Hence, the United States did NOT suffer a strategic loss at Pearl Harbor since, conveniently, all the American aircraft carriers, which the Japanese intended to target, were at sea. The ships destroyed were all the old ones from WWI. The outcry against Roosevelt was so strong the Senate had to convene an investigation and claimed it was inconclusive if Roosevelt knew in advance.

It gives me no pleasure to even report that the Computer has our days numbered. This abuse is outrageous, and this latest trick to overthrow the Supreme Court will terminate the rule of law in the United States. It was the Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) decision that held that he was not a citizen of the United States and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. This holding was so off the wall and contrary to the whole concept of Territorial Jurisdiction that this became the catalyst for Civil War. It was the Democrats back then who were the slave owners and pushed their views upon the North and undermined the religious beliefs and even the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson wrote that ALL men were equal.

Without the Rule of Law and fair, independent courts, then NO country can survive. The oppressed have no other choice BUT TO resort to violence. That is precisely what our computer is projecting post-2025. The Democrats are once again trying to control the Supreme Court. They never learn. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court with Marxists, the Chicago Tribune in 1937 called it a threat to Democracy. It is precisely 86 years (10 * 8.6), and once again, the Democrats are seeking to destroy our way of life and end the Separation of Powers. They dared to criminally charge Trump when Biden & his family engaged in Treason, and now they are attempting to overthrow the Separation of Powers by regulating the Supreme Court. That demonstrates they have ZERO respect for the Constitution.

In building a database to forecast the world economy, history has been the key to opening up the mystery behind the Rise and Fall of Nations. The Rule of Law is the cornerstone of any civilization. If there is no Rule of Law, there cannot be any form of a functioning society. From ancient times, the monarch’s role was that he was the judge who presided over the disputes between the people. That is perhaps best illustrated by the Biblical Story of King Solomon deciding who the real mother was of the child.

Gibbon-5

Edward Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted how the Rule of Law collapsed. Once the law only protects the government, as the LEFT is seeking once again, then the end of any nation will not be far behind. The LEFT is demanding that they can regulate the Supreme Court to rule only in its favor. There will go not just our right to Free Speech already under assault, but all our human and civil rights will vanish. The Rule of Law is so essential because otherwise, not even your home will have any value if there is no impartial court to decide who has the title, just as King Solomon did decide the rightful mother of the child.

You cannot protect your civil rights, free speech, or your property without an agreed-upon Rule of Law. As an international hedge fund manager, the first FIRST decision you must make before even looking at an investment is what we call – COUNTRY RISK. This is all about the Rule of Law. Will they simply nationalize assets? Any state that engages in that sort of action MUST be avoided.

Edward Gibbon wrote of the crisis in the Roman Empire under the reign of Commodus (180-192AD):

“distinction of every kind soon became criminal. The possession of wealth stimulated the diligence of the informers; rigid virtue implied a tacit censure of the irregularities of Commodus; important services implied a dangerous superiority of merit; and the friendship of the father always insured the aversion of the son. Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse”

(Book 1, Chapter 4).

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is negative, meaning it is a restraint upon government, in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). That means without any clues expressly giving Congress any right to regulate the Supreme Court is an attempt to constructively amend the Constitution with interpretation.  The Supreme Court has no Constitutional right or permission to exercise even “discretion” to hear a case. They must hear every case presented to them, for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by a statute written by Congress or by its own rule-making practice.

The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each term (year). The court grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases annually in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous, and this practice denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government (3 branches), with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the government structure crafted by the Founding Fathers created.

Marshall John Chief Justice - 1

Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803), where he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When the nation began, the Supreme Court justices rode on “circuits.” Each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits around the country for there were no circuit courts with federal judges. Article III, Section I of the Constitution expressly states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution guaranteed the Supreme Court. It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound, for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly:

“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”

Gillis v California, 293 US 52, 66 (1934)

Your constitutional right to the Separation of Power, which DEMANDS an independent Supreme Court, will be forever DENIED under this latest coup by the Democrats. There can be no guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like and Congress alters the rules so they always win. The media never writes about this and does not find it strange that we have no unified rule of law in the United States because of the discretion of the Supreme Court, which allows all the circuits to do as they please.

Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:

“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…” 

Cohen v Virgina, 19 US 264 (6 Wheat) (1821) id/324

Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court by eliminating the constitutional status of the court by enabling them to decide to hear cases at their “discretion,” but that is totally unconstitutional, for no statute can amend the Constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!

In Marbury v Madison, Chief Justice Marshall also stated bluntly: “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.” (id/ 5 US at 163). Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in 1967: “It is a judge’s duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense feelings in the litigants.” (Pierson v Ray, 386 US 547, 554 1967). None of this has any force of law unless the Supreme Court is returned to its constitutional role and mandates the right to be heard.

Taft William

Previously, the Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and rendered a small part of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction “discretionary” and subject to the grant of a writ of certiorari. This began the process of reducing the workload of the Supreme Court, yet it remained obliged to rule. In December 1921, Chief Justice William Howard Taft appointed three justices to draw up a proposal to reduce the obligation of the Supreme Court further to hear cases. This became the Judiciary Act of 1925.

The Judiciary Act of 1925 was clearly unconstitutional since Congress could not reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Yet, William Howard Taft (1857 – 1930) served as the 27th President of the United States (1909–1913) and then became the 10th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1921–1930). It was Chief Justice Taft who lobbied with Congress to reduce the role of the Supreme Court. This is up there with Goldman Sachs sending in Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury to eliminate Glass-Steagall, which was enacted because Goldman Sachs lost more money than any public trust during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1925.

franklin-2

The ONLY way to save some sense of credibility is to overrule the Judiciary Act of 1925 and in so doing, shut down Congress’ claim that it has any right to ignore the Separation of Powers.  How about we then adopt the original proposal of Ben Franklin, who said that the legal community should nominate judges instead of politicians? That was the system in Scotland, and he proposed we eliminate politics from the judiciary. That is the only possible way to achieve a fundamental rule of law.

The Democrats are out to destroy our very way of life in pursuit of their own self-interest.

It is time the claims of power to violate the Separation of Powers by Congress are terminated or there will be NOTHING left and we will collapse into civil war as no other alternative.

Jul 4 2023

Did the Supreme Court Properly Rule in Moore v Harper?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Jul 3, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

There will be repercussions from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that rejected a GOP-led effort to change federal election rules through the “independent state legislature theory” (ISL). In Moore v. Harper, the Court voted 6-3 on Tuesday to reject the ISL theory, which claims that an election clause in the Constitution gives state legislature authority to control federal elections through gerrymandering electoral maps and passing laws that could harm voter rights.

This ISL legal theory argues that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state’s elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or any other bodies with legislative power, which would include independent commissions and even constitutional conventions. This theory has been interpreted from two clauses found in the Constitution – Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 (The Elections Clause) and Article II, Section 1, Clause 2.

Article I, Section 4: Clause 1  Elections

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

A plain reading of this language would support that the state legislatures have discretion. However, it then states that Congress “may at any time” alter those regulations by passing legislation that would then need to be signed by the President.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: Presidential Electors Clause

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The phrase “the Legislature thereof” in both the Electors Clause and the Elections Clause is interpreted under ISL to refer specifically to a state’s elected representative body, not other parts of the state government. The issue at hand in Moore v. Harper was filed after North Carolina’s Supreme Court struck down a congressional map drawn in the GOP-led state legislature over alleged gerrymandering. During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, it was presented that the state court violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause when it overturned the map citing the ISL theory that state legislatures have more authority than state courts and state constitutions regarding federal elections.

Since the Supreme Court rejected this ISL theory, the way the law is twisted can create problematic alternatives. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented in this case. The majority wrote:

“Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections…[and] does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.” 

While the decision, on the surface, avoids giving partisan legislatures power to shape election laws, it can still present a REAL CONFLICT WITHIN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. It effectively hands the sole decision in such matters to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, to decide on election disputes. This may lead to even more disputes leading up to the 2024 presidential election.

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, and with whom JUSTICE ALITO joined in dissenting, makes a very important point.

As a corollary of that basic constitutional principle, the Court “is without power to decide
moot questions or to give advisory opinions which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it.” St.
Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41, 42 (1943) (per curiam). To do so would be to violate “the oldest and most consistent
thread in the federal law of justiciability.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 96 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The opinion that the Court releases today breaks that thread. It “affirms” an interlocutory state-court judgment
that has since been overruled and supplanted by a final judgment resolving all claims in petitioners’ favor. The issue on which it opines—a federal defense to claims already
dismissed on other grounds—can no longer affect the judgment in this litigation in any way. As such, the question is
indisputably moot, and today’s majority opinion is plainly advisory. Because the writ of certiorari should be dismissed, I respectfully dissent.

I believe that the majority went out of its way to reject the ISL theory and decided to hear this case that truly did not warrant review. This was yet another overreach of Judicial Power, which seems to be what this was all about – expanding the Judicial Power. This may be highly problematic when the 2024 election takes place. Is the Court setting itself up for an election it knows will be problematic in and of itself?

In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803), it was the first time the Supreme Court struck down an Act of Congress as unconstitutional. This was the case that established the Judicial Power stating that it was emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

Article III, Section 2: 
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Since the case was no longer in a controversy, this is why the dissent of Justice Thomas was correct and it appears that the Court simply wanted to decide the ISL Theory.

Jun 30 2023

Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Ruling Striking Down Affirmative Action, Racial Quotas and Goals in College Admissions


Posted originally on the CTH on June 29, 2023 | Sundance 

In a landmark court ruling released today, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the use of affirmative action in college admissions. {237-page ruling here}

By a vote of 6-3 (UNC) and 6-2 (Harvard) the court ruled the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause barring racial discrimination by government entities.

Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion of the majority said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a woman of notoriously activist disposition defined by her self-image and race, sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board who constructed the rules the Supreme Court now determined were unlawful.

Amy Howe – […] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor emphasized that the majority’s decision had rolled “back decades of precedent and momentous progress” and “cement[ed] a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society.”

Thursday’s ruling was the latest in a series of challenges to the role of race in university admissions. In both the North Carolina and Harvard cases, the plaintiffs had asked the justices to overrule Grutter. In her opinion for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reaffirmed that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,” but she warned that race-conscious admissions policies should not last forever. In 25 years, she suggested, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest” in diversity. (read more)

Associated Press – “Former President Donald Trump, the current GOP presidential frontrunner, wrote on his social media network that the decision marked “a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our Country, are finally being rewarded.”

Former President Barack Obama said in a statement that affirmative action “allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve — and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives.” (more)

In the bigger picture, the need for control is a reaction to fear.

Think in terms or politics and society – the fear behind the leftist worldview is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me.  Fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike, it might affect my life.  Fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me.

A fear that if you make tons of money, it’s means there’s less money out there for me. So, people who believe in leftist ideologies seek control, manipulation and rules as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear.

Conservatives believe in equal opportunity. Leftists believe in equal outcomes.

Modern “liberals”, ie leftists, try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.

The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the tradeoff of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.

But here’s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you.

The conservative person knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity – the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen – but you have to work hard.

The conservative hopes and intends the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward – material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.

The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, but it’s also actually impossible.

Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you’ll find another way around it. So, we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people’s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices. And we want the same in return.

This is where modern democrats’ mis-view conservatives as heartless. But really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence – and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues – welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can’t actually afford – ultimately risk doing a disservice to people as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger – they will ALWAYS backfire and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.

The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.

The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The leftist believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a “perfect” utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)

The conservative tends to be more faithful – and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore, the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment – trust and faith in something bigger.

The leftist believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore, disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and “fix” things.

And therein lies the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, he knows he has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance. For the modern leftist, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.

One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.

And there it is….. There’s where the meanness comes from. The leftist ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear “unfair.” He constantly chooses only to see the “injustices” – and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.