Skip to comments.50 Years since LBJís Great [Slave] Society
Posted on 01/18/2014 8:23:25 AM PST by Conservative Beacon
50 years ago on May 22, 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson gave a historical Commencement Address at the University of Michigan. That speech introduced America to his utopian vision called the Great Society, the most recent stage in the evolution of Woodrow Wilsons Progressivism and Franklin Roosevelts Second Bill of Rights socialist revolution. Until I started researching for this article I did not know that those grainy recordings I heard of LBJ touting his Marxist vision for America was made at U of M, yet I am not surprised. From 1985-87, I attended graduate school at U of M and in 1989 was an editor at the Michigan Law Review. It was a great experience but Ive never been to a university so reflexively and uncritically in love with everything socialist, Marxist, even communist than my alma mater U of M (although Harvard would be a close second).
Remember the turbulent times in America in the 1960s: LBJ gave his Great Society speech just 6 months after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the country was reeling from societal angst, counter-cultural upheaval and grotesque Jim Crow racism and discrimination against Blacks. President Lyndon Johnson boldly proposed his Leviathan monster he called the Great Society as the antidote to these societal ills. In this speech Johnson conflates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was being filibustered in Congress) with his legions of comprehensive new federal programs the apotheosis of FDRs New Deal, Part 2. The madly utopian expectations and experimental recklessness in social engineering took modern progressives into a crisis and historically prolonged the socialist Leviathan State into every aspect of our daily lives, with all its waste, fraud and abuse, regulatory fascism and bureaucratic entanglements amounting to a verifiable loss of our constitutional liberty, inalienable freedoms and societal morality.
This Great Society, Johnson declares, is no finished work but a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor. As with Wilson, Roosevelt and John Deweys education atheism, the decisive target is by design to obscure, to pervert, to deconstruct American exceptionalism, thus LBJs Great Society is an enterprise well past the material necessity and the eradication of poverty they presuppose. It is an existential enterprise that will never end.
Johnson war on poverty programs are directed to the cities, the environment, and education. In each venue Johnson sought both utility and beauty. Thus, Great Society urban policy should not only rebuild the entire urban United States in the next 50 years (by 2014) but promote community and combat loneliness and boredom and indifference. The environment should not only be unpolluted but allow men to wonder at nature. Education will not only bring children out of poverty, it will give them hours of leisure. Johnson is self-assured that a socialist government, reliant on Deweyan education atheism and social engineering experimentation in government programs, can achieve both political and spiritual transformation. Under the paradigm of creative federalism the Constitutions true principle of federalism is deconstructed and ultimately destroyed without amending one word of the U.S. Constitution. It is all done by autocratic executive decree, an activist, lawless Supreme Court and a lazy, unaccountable Congress: just like Obamacare was passed in our era.
Remember historically like the communists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao or the fascists: Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, education for the socialist left has always been the most irresistible (and effective way) to take over, deconstruct and destroy a society and culture and rebuild it into their own grotesque image. Remember Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin who said regarding education: Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. The Democrat Socialist Party has controlled education at all levels (particularly colleges and the public schools) much longer than the advent of LBJs Great Society 50 years ago which belies the fact that plummeting standardized test scores and public school dropout rates are at an all-time high. This is not by accident but by design because only in a poorly educated country can the majority of sheeple be controlled and manipulated with socialist collectivist public policies like the Great Society.
To advance such populist and uplifting programs, Johnson promised to assemble the best thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America. With their help, he asks students to fight four battles: for civil rights, against poverty, for enduring international peace, and, finally, for the Great Society, which seeks a richer life of mind and spirit. On all these fronts he retains all the utopianism of Progressivism, socialism and secular humanism as his anti-American polices propels society ever deeper into the abyss.
Johnson claims that the Great Society marks a watershed in Americas history, which men will appreciatively look back on this day and say: It was then, after a long and weary way, that man turned the exploits of his genius to the full enrichment of his lifeLBJs myopic view of history implies that great presidents like Jefferson, Lincoln, and Coolidge had no indication about leading a significant life, without demanding an ever-growing socialist state.
Johnson challenges Americas graduating youth to join him in his noble crusade but in reality surrenders to the most radical of them, as his Great Society pronounces the prophecy of the Students for a Democratic Society. Founded in 1962, two years before this address, the SDS protested the Vietnam War while hijacking universities and demanding a complete transformation of society (sound familiar?) along the lines envisioned by Deweys evolution education campaign. This radical utopianism was virtually synonymous with the evolutionary worldview of the man they would soon spew hatred at, Lyndon Johnson. History is filled with such ironic twists in the dialogues of those who abandon the natural law, natural rights and constitutional government of the Framers for the 30 pieces of silver of socialism and evolution atheism.
When I recently read LBJs Great Society speech given 50 years ago I felt like it was Groundhogs Day all over again where America, overcome with collective dementia, wakes up each day only to experience the same day as before; everyday Americans are beset by the same retarded rhetoric and failed public policies that our forefathers suffered through 50 years ago. Beginning with the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1990, socialism and an evolution atheist worldview has failed in every country where it was implemented, yet like inmates in a poorly run mental asylum we seem incapable or oblivious to the words of Einstein who said, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush and president of Ari Fleischer Communications wrote a provocative yet compelling critique directed at President Obamas income inequality proposals but indirectly against LBJs 50 year Great Society catastrophe which has decimated the Black family. Since 1965 the Democrat Socialist Party spent according to a Cato Institute study almost $15 trillion to eradicate poverty in America, yet 50 years later every socio-economic demographic proves that the Great Society not only was an utter disaster but pushed more people into poverty where they remained generation after generation after generation without hope or redemption.
Instead of spending trillions to eradicate something that will be with humanity forever (Jesus said, The poor ye have with you forever.) Congress should minimize the negative effects of poverty. For example, Ari Fleischer, using simple, yet profound wisdom reminiscent of the great Jewish Rabbis and philosophers of antiquity like Maimonides (1135-1204) or Moses Mendelsohn (1729-86) wroting, If President Obama wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern poverty: the breakdown of the family. In other words how does America fight Income Inequality: Get Married. As proof Ari offers statistics that in families headed by married couples, the poverty level in 2012 was just 7.5%. Those with a single mother: 33.9%. By contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level jumps to 33.9%. Among black married couples, the poverty rate was only 7%, but the rate for non-married black families was 35.6%.
In conclusion, Ari wrote, Given how deep the problem of poverty is, taking even more money from one citizen and handing it to another will only diminish one while doing very little to help the other. A better and more compassionate policy to fight income inequality would be helping the poor realize that the most important decision they can make is to stay in school, get married and have childrenin that order.
The Democrat Socialist Party (and virtually all of their appointees including secretary heads, administrative agencies and judges) have nothing but utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution, natural law, the original intent of the constitutional Framers and biblical values. Long before he was president, Barack Obama was already plotting to deconstruct and destroy the U.S. Constitution while fundamentally transforming America into a servile socialist state. As far back as 2001 Obama, in a chilling public radio interview, boldly confessed that the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties, full of constraints imposed upon us by our Founding Fathers.
This is what you get for 100+ years of socialism slavery where since the Age of the Imperial Presidencyfrom Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) to Woodrow Wilson (1913-21); from FDRs New Deal and Welfare State (1933-45) to LBJs Great Society and phony civil rights scams (1963-69). Writer Roger Stone in his blockbuster new book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, said of LBJ: I think hes an amoral psychopath, further writing, I think hes crude, evil, vicious, vindictive, drunk. Right up to Obama (2009-present), who contrary to progressive/socialist propaganda isnt at all unique or transcendent; historically hes just another Alinsky demagogue in a long line of political hacks whose Napoleonic, narcissistic ego compels him to rule not as a statesman using presidential restraint, but as an arrogant dictator who in his first speech to lawmakers of 2014 threatened to continue to bypass Congress via his authoritarian rule by executive order. Obama boasted: I have a pen and I have a phone [to make whatever laws I decree].
If America is to survive this existential Progressive Revolution (circa 1859 Darwins Origin of Species present) which systematically seeks to replace Christianity, the Bible, and intelligent design with evolution atheism; natural law with positive law; capitalism with socialism and the rule of law with tyranny and executive decrees, then We the People must tell ObamaYes, President Obama, you have a pen and a phone, but we have a Constitution and a Congress and the Tea Party and God.
Sic Semper TyrannousDown with the tyrant!
A liberal's ideas and the 'work' they want to do that involves your money is never done - EVER.
For his decades long program that has caused all the chaos and the descent into sinful behavior amongst what was once whole negro families he deserves a memorial.
A statue of Lyndon Bird should be sculpted and then sank into the Pedernales River.
Care to guess why ?
Well, he helped get his obstacle to his evil plans, murdered, now we have the lasting results. LBJ was a very confused and troubled democrat/ communist.
Great article speaking truth of the communist threat
so “50 Years a Slave”?
The ideal society of the secular humanists is a society that creates self-actualized individuals.So,if one's growth and self-realization is accomplished by homosexuality,bisexuality,other alternative lifestyles,and permissive morality, then those are acceptable.Their ideal society is created by through growth of size and power of government,socialist economics,remodeling the family, and activism in the classroom.
Yes, and they have held to the idea that the American Constitution is something they have called a "living constitution." In the following essay, reprinted with permission from a Bicentennial (1987) volume entitled "Our Ageless Constitution," Dr. Walter Berns explodes their interpretation of the "living constitution" idea by pointing out its fraudulent basis in a quotation from
Do We Have A Living Constitution?
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:
... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government fromreflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even know ledge of their sentiments, can warrant their represen tatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."
The Congress, unlike the British Parliament, was not given final authority over the Constitution, which partly explains why the judicial authority was lodged in a separate and independent branch of government. In Britain the supreme judicial authority is exercised by a committee of the House of Lords, which is appropriate in a system of parliamentary supremacy, but, although it was suggested they do so, the Framers refused to follow the British example.
The American system is one of constitutional supremacy, which means that sovereignty resides in the people, not in the King-in-Parliament; and the idea that the Constitution may be changed by an act of the legislature-even an act subsequently authorized by the judiciary-is simply incompatible with the natural right of the people to determine how (and even whether) they shall be governed.
Unlike in Britain where, formally at least, the queen rules by the grace of God (Dei gratia regina), American government rests on the consent of the people; and, according to natural right, the consent must be given formally. In fact, it must be given in a written compact entered into by the people. Here is Madison on the compacts underlying American government:
"Altho' the old idea of a compact between the Govt. & the people be justly exploded, the idea of a compact among those who are parties to a Govt. is a fundamental principle of free Govt.
"The original compact is the one implied or presumed, but nowhere reduced to writing, by which a people agree to form one society. The next is a compact, here for the first time reduced to writing, by which the people in their social state agree to a Govt. over them." (In a letter to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830)
Neither civil society (or as Madison puts it, "the people in their social state') nor government exists by nature. By nature everyone is sovereign with respect to himself, free to do whatever in his judgment is necessary to preserve his own life - or, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, everyone is endowed by nature with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of a happiness that he defines for himself. Civil society is an artificial person (constituted by the first of the compacts), and it is civil society that institutes and empowers government. So it was that they became "the People of the United States" in 1776 and, in 1787-88, WE, THE PEOPLE ordained and established "this Constitution for the United States of America."
In this formal compact THE PEOPLE specified the terms and conditions under which "ourselves and posterity," would be governed: granting some powers and withholding others, and organizing the powers granted with a view to preventing their misuse by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches alike. WE THE PEOPLE were authorized by natural right to do this, and were authorized to act on behalf of posterity only insofar as the rights of posterity to change those terms and conditions were respected. This was accomplished in Article V of the Constitution, the amending article, which prescribed the forms to be followed when exercising that power in the future.
What THE PEOPLE were not permitted to do in 1787-88 was to deprive - or pretend to deprive - posterity of their natural right to do in the future what the founding generation had done in 1776. Nor could they, by pretending to delegate it to Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court, deprive them of their sovereign power to change the Constitution. Instead, that power was recognized in the Constitution's provisions in Article V.
The Framers had designed a constitutional structure for a government which would be limited by that structure - by the distribution of power into distinct departments, a system of legislative balances and checks, an independent judiciary, a system of representation, and an enlargement of the orbit 11 within which such systems are to revolve" And to the judges they assigned the duty, as "faithful guardians of the Constitution," to preserve the integrity of the structure, for it is by the structure (more than by "parchment barriers") that the government is limited. It would he only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the judgment of the Founders, the Constitution would "live" as long as that structure was preserved.
The Enduring American Constitution
Now, almost 200 years later, one can read Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 1 and conclude that, under some conditions, some "societies of men" are capable of "establishing good government," but that most are not. This is not for lack of trying; on the contrary, constitutions are being written all the time - of some 164 countries in the world, all but a small handful (seven by the latest count) have written constitutions - but most of them are not long-lived.
In September 1983, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored an international conference on constitution writing at the Supreme Court of the United States; some twenty-odd countries were represented. With the exception of the Americans, the persons present had themselves played a role - in some cases a major role - in the writing of their countries' constitutions, most of them written since 1970. Only the constitution of the French Fifth Republic predated 1970; and the Nigerian, so ably discussed and defended at the 1983 conference by one of its own Framers, had subsequently been subverted, much as the four previous French republican constitutions had been subverted. It would seem that many peoples are experienced in the writing of constitutions, but only a few of them - conspicuous among these the people of America - have an experience of stable constitutional government. In that sense, we surely have "a living Constitution." That is not, however, the sense in which the term is ordinarily used in the literature of constitutional law as shall be explored herein.
Treating The Constitution As A Thing Without Form or Substance: New Definitions Of 'Living'
In the language of many today, a "living Constitution" is not first of all one that is long-lived; rather, its longevity is a secondary or derivative quality which is attributed to its "flexibility" or better, its "adaptability." It is this quality " adaptability" that allows it to be "kept in tune with the times," as the members of this school of thought sometimes say. According to them, a living Constitution is first of all a protean constitution - one whose meaning is not fixed, but variable.
In this respect, it is similar to the Constitution as understood by the "judicial power" school. Some judicial power advocates go so far as to say that, until the judges supply it in the process of adjudication, the Constitution has no meaning whatever. Here are the words of judge Lynn D. Compton of California, writing in 1977 in the pages of the Los Angeles Times:
"Let's be honest with the public. Those courts are policy-making bodies. The policies they set have the effect of law because of the power those courts are given by the Constitution. The so-called "landmark decisions" of both ofU.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court were not compelled by legal precedent. Those decisions are the law and are considered "right" simply because the court had the power to decree the result. The result in any of those cases could have been exactly the opposite and by the same criteria been correct and binding precedent.
"In short, these precedent-setting policy decisions were the products of the social, economic and political philosophy of the majority of the justices who made up the court at a given time in history .."
So extreme a view of judicial power is not likely ever to be expressed in the official reports; there (perhaps in order to be dishonest with the public) even the most inventive judge will claim to be expounding the Constitution, if not its explicit provisions then, at least its emanations, penumbras, or lacunae (Griswold v. Connecticut). What is of interest is that a judge should be willing to express it anywhere - for what it means is that a constitutional provision can be interpreted, but not misinterpreted, construed but not misconstrued. More to the point here is that it means that the Constitution is a living charter of government only because it is repeatedly being reinvented by the judiciary.
"Creating" Constitutional Rights and Dworkin's Influence
The 'Living Constitution' school and the 'Judicial Power' school may be indistinguishable at the margins, but they derive from unrelated and distinct sources. 'Judicial Power' is a product or an extension of legal realism, the school of thought whose advocates, from the beginning of the twentieth century, have argued that the essence of the judicial process consists not in interpreting law, whether statute or constitutional, but in making it. Its advocates today speak with a certain nonchalance of "creating" constitutional rights (Moore v. City of EastCleveland), and, when pressed to cite their authority for doing so are likely to point to the work of contemporary legal theorists like Ronald Dworkin and his bookTaking Rights Seriously . It is Dworkin who has purportedly given this sort of "constitutional lawmaking" what it has always lacked a philosophical underpinning. As he sees it, rights cannot be taken seriously until there has been "a fusion of constitutional law and moral theory," and to make it clear that he is not referring to any particular moral theory that may have informed the Constitution as written, he finishes that sentence by saying that that fusion "has yet to take place."
As it turns out, however, the moral theory he propounds, and which he hopes to "fuse" with constitutional law, proves to be nothing more than a fancy way of justifying what the judge Comptons among us have been doing all along. And what they have been doing is, essentially, treating the Constitution as a thing without form or substance, except insofar as it authorizes the judges to give it substance.
The 'Living Constitution' School's Distortion of Marshall
The living Constitution school also claims to have a source more venerable than legal realism or Ronald Dworkin - justice John Marshall. A former president of the American Political Science Association argues that the idea of a " 'living Constitution'...can trace its lineage back to John Marshall's celebrated advice in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): 'We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding...intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs' " The words quoted are certainly Marshall's but the opinion attributed to him is at odds with his well-known statements that, for example, the "principles" of the Constitution "are deemed fundamental [and] permanent" and, except by means of formalamendment, "unchangeable" (Marbury v. Madison). It is important to note that the discrepancy is not Marshall's; it is largely the consequence of the manner in which he is quoted - ellipses are used to join two statements separated by some eight pages in the original text. Marshall did not say that the Constitution should be adapted to the various crises of human affairs; he said that the powers of Congress are adaptable to meet those crises. The first statement appears in that part of his opinion where he is arguing that the Constitution cannot specify "all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit;" if it attempted to do so, it would "partake of the prolixity of a legal code" (McCulloch v. Maryland), In the second statement, Marshall's subject is the legislative power, and specifically the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the explicitly granted powers.
Neither Marshall nor any other prominent members of the founding generation can be 'appropriated' by the living Constitution school to support their erroneous views. Marshall's and the Founders' concern was not to keep the Constitution in tune with the times but, rather, to keep the times to the extent possible, in tune with the Constitution. And that is why the Framers assigned to the judiciary the task of protecting the Constitution as written.
They were under no illusions that this would prove to be an easy task. Nevertheless, they had reason to believe that they had written a constitution that deserved to endure and, properly guarded, would endure. Hence, Madison spoke out forcefully against frequent appeals to the people for change. Marshall had this Madisonian passage in mind when, in his opinion for the Court in Marbury, he wrote:
"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has beenerected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental: and as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."
At this point, it is well to remember Hamilton's strong warning about unwarranted presumptions by those in government of a power to depart from the people's established form as quoted in the title of this essay.
Marshall referred to the "principles" which he called "permanent," and the "basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected" Yet Marshall also chose to address the much broader issue of the general scope of the national powers. The Constitution must be construed to "...allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." It is these powers, not the Constitution, which are flexible and adaptable to meet the crises of "human affairs."
Ironically, the very case cited by the "living Constitution" school, when properly read, demonstrates that John Marshall, at least, saw, no need for flexibility in the Constitution.
Summary: Do We Have A Living Constitution?
What has been undertaken here has been providing (within a very brief compass indeed) an accurate statement of the principles underlying the American Constitution: pointing to (but by no means elaborating) the political theory from which they derive and the constitutional conclusions to which they lead. Among the latter is the untenability of the proposition that constitutional limitations can be jettisoned, constitutional power enhanced, or the constitutional division of powers altered, by means other than formal constitutional amendment.
It will not be argued that it may sometimes be convenient to allow the Senate to originate a bill "for raising revenue," but convenience is not a measure of constitutionality. There is much to be said in favor of the legislative veto - Who would, in principle, deny the need of checks on administrative agencies? - but, as the Supreme Court correctly said, the Framers anticipated that Congress might find reason to employ such devices and, when designing the so-called "presentment clause" in Article 1, Section 7, forbade them ( Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha). And from a particular partisan perspective it is understandably frustrating, simply because the required number of states had not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, to be denied the power to promote the cause of sexual equality; but frustration alone cannot justify a judicial attempt to preclude the necessity of formal ratification, as Justice Brennan is said to have wished to do. In Frontiero v. Richardson (411 U.S. 677, 1973) the Supreme Court was divided on the issue of whether sex, like race, should be treated as a suspect classification. We are told that Justice Brennan circulated a draft opinion in which he proposed to declare classification by sex virtually impermissible and that he knew this would have the effect of "enacting" the pending ERA. "But Brennan was accustomed to having the Court out in front, leading any civil rights movement," a major publication stated. Hence, we are further told, he saw "no reason to wait several years for the states to ratify the amendment." No reason, that is, other than the fact, which Brennan implicitly acknowledged, that the Constitution as then written, and which had not yet been rewritten by the only people authorized to rewrite it, did not support the role he would have the Court hand down.
Those who would use "convenience" or "frustration" as reason, or who insist that it lies within the powers of the Court (or the Congress or the Executive) to effect constitutional change, can be charged with a lack of respect for the principles on which, as Marshall wisely observed: "the whole American fabric has been erected."
We are told that it is unreasonable - even foolish - to expect that the Framers could have written a Constitution suitable alike for a society of husbandman and a society of multinational corporations, to say nothing of one as well adapted to the age of the musket and sailing ship as to the age of intercontinental nuclear-tipped missiles. As the problems have changed, the argument goes, so must the manner in which they are confronted and solved, and the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Indeed, there is no reason to allow it to stand in the way, we are told, because the Framers intended it to be flexible. And we are told that John Marshall would support this position. But it was Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, who stated: "Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported." The United States, in this view was not intended to be a simple society of husbandmen, and Marshall Clearly saw that the Constitution empowered Congress to do what was required to meet the crises of the Republic, and to maintain the Constitutional structure intended by the Framers, changing it only when such change would be in keeping with the structure itself.
That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure.
Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates,1987) Part VII: ISBN 0-937047-01-5: (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum , The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)This essay may be downloaded from here
The New Slavery. Now we all be in it.
The Reader’s Digest reported in 1967, that gainfully employed African-American men were told to quit their jobs to go on welfare.
I know here on FR we generally rank Obama and Carter as the worst presidents, but LBJ is close. The War on Poverty and his conduct of the war qualify him.
The War On Poverty. And poverty won.
add War of Drugs, War on Terror etc.
Yup. War on everything. War on hunger. What does that mean, you shoot lunch?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.