Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In “When State Resistance Meets the Constitution,” January 30, 2026, Benjamin Osborn (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/when-state-resistance-meets-the-constitution/) discusses the protest against federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Correctly, he argues that the protestors are acting unlawfully when they attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws. Additionally, neither the governor nor city officials have any legal authority to actively interfere with federal enforcement. All that they can do legally is to refuse to aid in that enforcement. However, his argument rests on Lincoln’s unhistorical concept of the Union, and a nationalist, rather than a federalist, perspective of the Union, where the federal government is all-powerful, and the States are impotent. This analysis discusses Osborn’s disdain for States’ rights and federalism and his admiration of federal tyranny.

Osborn rejects the notion that a State has the right, duty, and authority to nullify any federal act that it, i.e., “we the people” through their legislature or special convention, finds unconstitutional. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) If a State nullifies a federal act that it finds unconstitutional, that act is void in that State, i.e., does not exist in that State. Nullification is a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, the way that the country was founded and the Constitution was ratified not only implies that nullification is lawful, but it also makes it a fundamental principle. Therefore, if any federal agent attempts to enforce a nullified act, he is violating the Constitution and his oath of office.

Before 1861, States could do what Vermont did to the federal fugitive slave law. Not only did Vermont nullify it, but its nullification also authorized the use of force to prevent the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. (See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.) If he were consistent, Osborne would oppose what Vermont did. 

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s War ended that option. Now, we have what is occurring in Minnesota. (See “Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants” by Thomas Allen.)

Osborn claims, “The Founders designed a system in which states retain meaningful sovereignty, but that does not include veto over federal execution.” For a State to have meaningful sovereignty, it must be sovereign. As a sovereign, it is and has to be the final judge of compliance with any contract that it voluntarily enters into, such as the US Constitution. Thus, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of all acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can be sovereign, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States" and by Thomas Allen).

Osborn cites the Supremacy Clause and argues that any law enacted by Congress and not vetoed by the US Supreme Court is constitutional. He is mistaken. The Supremacy Clause applies only to laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Only those laws are constitutional; all other federal laws are unconstitutional. Should the creators, the States, or the creature, the federal government, decide if a law is made pursuant to the Constitution? Osborne claims that the creature decides. (He is a true Lincolnian.)

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the specifically delegated powers of Congress were constitutional; all other laws enacted by Congress were unconstitutional.

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few instances where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. (See “Four Poisonous Clauses” by Thomas Allen.) Osborn supports this usurpation of the federal government.

If a State disagrees with a federal act, it “may litigate, protest, and seek political change.” Osborne’s solution of litigation means that he supports letting the federal government decide the limits of its power; that is what litigation means, as it will occur in federal courts.

(To use an analogy, if Osborn [a State] and I [the federal government] have a dispute, he should not object to my wife [the federal courts] deciding the dispute. One branch of my marriage would be as impartial in deciding a dispute involving another branch of my marriage as one part of the federal government is impartial in deciding a dispute with another part.)

Osborn cites James Madison’s explanation of interposition. He is correct: Governors lack the authority to nullify. However, proponents of nullification claim that “we the people” of each State, through their State legislatures, do have the authority to nullify federal laws that they find unconstitutional. (Being a nationalist at heart and desiring a strong federal government, Madison, unlike Jefferson, is not the best supporter of States’ rights and nullification. His approach to nullification lacks teeth and results in failure, as the Southern States proved in the 1950s and 1960s. [See “A Nullification That Failed” by Thomas Allen.])

Osborn writes, “The American system channels disagreement into courts, elections, and legislation.” Of course, he means federal courts and federal legislation. State courts and legislatures have only those powers that the federal government allows them. They certainly have no power or authority to interfere with the federal government, no matter how tyrannical, despotic, and unconstitutional it becomes.

Osborne is a strong proponent of making the States, which created the federal government, slaves of their creator. He implies that States have only those rights and privileges that the federal government concedes to give them. He is a strong proponent of federal supremacy and States’ subservience, which is tyranny and contrary to the very foundation of the Constitution — at least the Constitution of 1788, although not of the Lincoln Constitution, which is our current constitution. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?”) Based on this article, Osborn prefers America after Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment to America before them. (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

A primary reason that the country is in the turmoil that it is today is that no State has nullified any of the multitude (probably more than 85 percent) of the unconstitutional federal acts. Today, political power is centralized and concentrated in the federal government. States’ rightists’ political solution to America’s crisis is the decentralization and dispersal of political power, of which nullification is an important part.  (The major cause of America’s problems is moral decay.)

Personally, I believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce naturalization and immigration laws by arresting people who are in the country illegally and deporting them, although some of the tactics being used may not be legal or constitutional. However, the constitutionality is something that "we the people" of each State need to decide for themselves.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

False States’ Rights

False States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

During the Clinton and Obama administrations, left-wingers wanted State officials to enforce federal anti-gun laws — even using force if necessary to coerce the States to enforce federal laws when bribery (federal grants) and extortion (withholding federal grants) failed. On the other hand, right-wingers strongly objected to States enforcing federal gun-control laws and claimed that States were not obliged to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court agreed with the right-wingers.

Now, the left-wingers and right-wingers have switched positions. Under the Trump administration, right-wingers want State and, by extension, local officials to enforce federal immigration laws or at least be required to aid federal officials in enforcing federal immigration laws. They approve of the federal government using bribery or extortion to reward or punish States for enforcing and aiding in the enforcement of federal laws. Left-wingers object and assert that State and local officials do not have to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Although both sides give lip service to States’ rights, neither believes in nor supports States’ rights. Both reject the notion that the United States is a federation of independent sovereign republican States. Both support the notion that the United States is a consolidated national empire with the States serving as administrative districts.

If they believed in and supported States’ rights, they would support States refusing to enforce federal laws, regardless of the law. Moreover, they would object to coercing States to enforce federal laws, even with bribery or extortion. (Extortion, i.e., withholding federal grants if a State fails to enforce a federal law, is a favorite weapon to compel a State to enforce a federal law.) 

Moreover, if they believed in States’ rights, they would support the right of “we the people” of each State to declare through their legislature or special convention, whether a federal law is constitutional. If a State (“we the people”) finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it could and should nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State and even jail federal agents who tried to enforce the nullified law. (Governors and city and county officials do not have the right to nullify federal laws; however, they may refuse to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws unless a State law requires them to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws.)

People who oppose a State’s right to nullify a federal law that they support oppose States having a republican form of government as guaranteed under the Constitution.[1] (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, they oppose sovereignty residing in “we the people” of each State. Consequently, they support sovereignty residing in the oligarchs who control the federal government.

Endnote

1.  As explained in “Returning Republican Governments to the States,” for a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Confusion About the Constitution

Confusion About the Constitution

Thomas Allen

Many people believe that we live under the Constitution ratified in 1788. We do not. We are living under the Constitution that Lincoln gave us, further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and carried to fruition by the Warren Court. Although the words may be the same, their meaning has significantly changed. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally altered the country and its government. (For a description of some of these fundamental changes, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” and “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. Also, before the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States were a monoracial country (see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen). After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government, and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated multiracial national empire. (Stripping the States of their republican form of government violates the Constitution of 1788, but not Lincoln’s Constitution. For a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State. This right is denied them under Lincoln’s Constitution. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Furthermore, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment transferred the sovereignty of “we the people” of each State to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government.

Moreover, under the Constitution of 1788, Congress was the strongest of the three branches of the federal government, and the judiciary was the weakest. Under today’s Lincoln’s Constitution, the country has a kritarchy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress.

Additionally, under the Constitution of 1788, the federal government was strictly limited to a few delegated powers. All other powers remained with the States. Under today’s Constitution, the federal government has almost unlimited powers, while the powers of the States are only those allowed by the federal government.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Before and After

Before and After

Thomas Allen

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment made fundamental changes to the United States and the Constitution of 1788. Although they did not alter the words of the Constitution that existed in 1860, the Constitution that was ratified in 1788, they changed their meanings. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based. Furthermore, it was illegally and unlawfully ratified (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment slew the Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will occasionally resurrect it to give “we the people” of the States the illusion that they still have rights.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent, sovereign republics.[1] After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated national empire. (For the difference between Lincoln’s Constitution and the Constitution of 1788, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

Before 1860, most people who preferred a national empire to a federation of republics considered the United States as a federation of States and the federal government as having limited powers.

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment demolished the Jeffersonian tradition of States’ rights by which the people of the States were the masters rather than the servants of the federal government. Afterwards, the federal government became the master of all, and the people, other than the oligarchs, were reduced to servants, even slaves, of the ruling elite.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, most people viewed the Constitution as restraining the federal government and not the people. Even people who wanted little or no restraint saw the Constitution limiting their lust for power, which is why they had Lincoln and the Republicans change it. Afterwards, it no longer restrained the federal government; they gave it almost unlimited powers. 

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, people became citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. Afterwards, people were citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States. (Moreover, the United States ceased to be referred to in the plural [are] and became referred to in the singular [is].) Thus, citizenship was changed. Additionally, before, only Whites were citizens. Although a State could grant Indians and Blacks certain privileges of citizenship, they were not and could not be citizens. They were aliens.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, sovereignty resided in “we the people” of each State. Afterwards, sovereignty resided in the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Thus, the location of sovereignty was changed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the country was monoracial. The founding fathers said so (for proof, see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen; also see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen). Afterwards, it was multiracial.

As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the descendants of the people who built this country, i.e., Whites, Aryans, are being genocided. In 1950, 89 percent of the population was White; by 2020, only 61 percent were White.

Between Monroe and Lincoln, many of the presidents and other political leaders favored a consociated national empire and, with one exception, would not have objected to what Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment did to the country. That exception was the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, all presidents, except for Cleveland, supported a consolidated national empire, where the States were no longer independent republics but were districts of the empire. Moreover, before World War II, nearly all would have objected to the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus, if right to vote for judicial officers of a State is denied to any eligible voter (male citizens 21 years old and older at that time), the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives shall be reduced in the proportion to the number of male citizens denied the vote to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Only in 21 States do the voters elect all judges. In the other States, the Supreme Court and most appellate court judges are appointed or selected by the legislature. Therefore, only the 21 States where all judges are elected should have representation in the House of Representatives.

Endnote

1. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment voided the first part of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees States a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government; only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican government. As a sovereign, a State, i.e., “we the people” of that State, has the right to decide if an act of the federal government is Constitutional. If a State finds that an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, it may nullify that act and prevent its enforcement in that State. Moreover, it may withdraw from the compact, i.e., secede. However, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment stripped the States of their sovereignty, and, consequently, they denied the States the right to have a republican form of government. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Nationalization of Federal Elections

Nationalization of Federal Elections

Thomas Allen

Trump and many of his supporters advocate for the nationalization of federal elections. They want to require voters to prove citizenship with governmentally approved identification.  As support for their position, they cite Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, which reads, “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.” Using this clause, they argue that the federal government can establish the qualifications of voters in federal elections. To prevent confusion, most States will adopt the federal standards for State elections.

However, does the Constitution authorize the federal government to set qualifications for voters even in federal elections? The delegation only allows Congress to set the time, places, and manner of holding federal elections. Congress has set the time, and most States elect their State and county officials on that date. It can identify the locations of federal elections. Finally, it can describe the manner of election. That is, Congress can require or prohibit the use of paper ballots, machine-voting, etc., for federal elections. However, this clause does not authorize Congress to establish qualifications for voters.

If Congress could establish voter qualifications, there would have been no need for the Fifteenth Amendment (extended voting to Black males), the Nineteenth Amendment (gave women the vote), the Twenty-fourth Amendment (removed the requirement to pay taxes), and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (lowered the voting age to 18). Instead of going through the arduous process of amending the Constitution, Congress could have merely changed voter qualifications by statute. (Since presidents keep legislating through executive orders, the president could set the qualifications for voters with an executive order.)

Historically, the duty for setting voter qualifications rested with the States. If not, the Constitution would not have needed to be amended to establish national standards for voting qualifications.

The proponents of nationalizing federal elections argue that nationalization is necessary to prevent fraud. It is not. (In “Trump Calls to ‘Nationalize’ Elections. The Constitutional Solution Is Local,” February 5, 2026, Veronika Kyrylenko identifies many steps that States and local governments can take to reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. She also discusses some major flaws in the proposed legislation; one is that it will become part of the federal government’s digital surveillance of Americans. [https://thenewamerican.com/us/trump-calls-to-nationalize-elections-the-constitutional-solution-is-local/?mc_cid=abab48bd20]) They claim that presenting some kind of federally approved identification to vote is necessary to prevent or at least reduce fraud, which is true. However, should the federal government undertake such action? If Trump succeeds in nationalizing federal elections, he will set a dangerous precedent that the Democrats will use to their advantage when they regain control of the federal government. They can amend the law to prohibit voter ID. Moreover, they can require that all federal elections be held by mail-in ballots and that only Democrats can count the ballots. If federal elections are nationalized, all federal elections can become as corrupt and fraudulent as the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia. 

(Personally, I believe that requiring voter identification would reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. However, the States should impose the requirement rather than the federal government. The more centralized voting becomes, the easier it is to corrupt.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are some of the founding principles of the United States. They are the relationship of church and state and the destructiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Church and State

In “Religious Liberty and the Genius of the American Founding,” Imprimis (December 2024 | Volume 53, Number 12), Glenn Ellmers argues that America’s founders solved the problem of establishing the sacredness of the law while avoiding religious conflict and persecution. They combined human reason and divine revelation to establish religious liberty. (First, today, the country lacks reason. Second, whose religion is used to establish the sacredness of the law? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be descended from Abraham’s religion. Yet, they are incompatible with each other. Further, Hinduism, which is growing rapidly in the United States, is even more incompatible.)

The Founding Fathers recognized that people “are born into both a physical and moral world that” they did not create. American politics was built on this foundation. (Unfortunately, many American political, religious, academic, business, and other leaders have been diligently working to destroy this foundation.)

Next, Ellmers discusses the problems that the Founding Fathers solved. “First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality.”  With reasoning, people can understand the difference between virtue and vice. Thus, “the law can enforce moral precepts that are acknowledged by both political and ecclesiastical authorities.” (What about vices that some religious authorities recognize as vice, but political authorities do not? Gambling is an example that some religious authorities condemn, but many political authorities do not. Through State-sponsored lotteries, some States use gambling as a source of revenue. This action prevents them from considering gambling as immoral, although some religious authorities do.)

“Second, this common ground of morality makes it possible to delineate in a clear way the political and religious realms.” Thus, “the separation of church and state becomes possible.” The Declaration of Independence’s “teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws ‘sacred’ without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc.” 

“Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other.” Consequently, a religious test for office was prohibited. (Although no government today requires a religious test for office, some States in the early years of the United States did.)

(What happens if the law is used to protect immorality instead of prohibiting it? Abortion and sexual immorality, such as homosexual acts and miscegenation, are examples. Abortion and abortionists are protected in many States. Likewise, homosexual marriages and miscegenation are protected in all States. Yet, traditional Christianity condemns them as sins that should be legally prohibited. When the political realm [reason] conflicts with the religious realm [revelation], the political realm prevails, at least in this world, because it wields the rifles.

In spite of the separation of church and state, today, the political realm has chosen the religion of secular humanism as the state religion. When it conflicts with the other religions, the political realm [the government] nearly always sides with secular humanism.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

The  Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. Not only was it ratified unlawfully and illegally, but it also violates at least three basic principles underlying the Constitution. 

(1) The Fourteenth Amendment usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent nations that were members of a federation. The federal government was their agent that attended to foreign affairs and a few domestic issues. It had no sovereignty. Accordingly, the Constitution of 1788 was a contract between independent sovereign republics, which created an agent, the federal government, to carry out specific and limited activities. The Fourteenth Amendment voided that contract and usurped all the sovereignty and powers of the States, the parties to the contract, and placed them in the federal government. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to an empire.

(2) It changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals were considered citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, individuals became citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States.

(3) (This one will really anger most people, especially conservatives and libertarians.) The Constitution was written by Whites, for Whites, and only for Whites. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens. Consequently, it changed the United States from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country (and all today's problems with nonwhite immigration). 

Consequently, because the Fourteenth Amendment is incompatible with the underlying principles of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional, courts should ignore it until it is repealed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated empire.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Nationalists and Federalists

Nationalists and Federalists

Thomas Allen

Since the ratification of the Constitution of 1788, nationalists and federalists have been struggling to control the government of the United States. With the possible exception of the Cleveland administration, the nationalists have controlled the US government since the election of Lincoln. (Federalists should not be confused with the early Federalist Party of Washington and Adams, which was primarily a nationalist party. As contradictory as it may sound, the Antifederalists of that era were the real federalists.) The following is a comparison of nationalists and federalists.

1– Nationalists support a living constitution where the US Supreme Court, the President, and Congress continuously change the interpretation of the Constitution to meet current needs, i.e., to satiate their lust for power. Among their favorite clauses are the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause (which means that anything Congress deems to be for the general welfare), and the Necessary and Proper Clause. They give these and other clauses extremely elastic interpretations.

On the other hand, federalists support a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution. They advocate interpreting the Constitution to mean what the proponents of the ratification of the Constitution explained it to mean and its intent. Records of their remarks are available in the debates of the ratification conventions, the Federalist Papers, and other writings that promoted the Constitution.

2– While nationalists advocate the consolidation of political power where the national government (a.k.a. the central government, the federal government, the US government, and the general government) has unlimited power, federalists advocate the dispersal of political power where the federal government has limited, enumerated power.

3– According to nationalists, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of federal acts (and even most State acts). Thus, the national government is the sole arbitrator of its political power.

Federalists assert that “we the people” of each State, either through their legislatures or special conventions, are the ultimate and final arbitrators of the constitutionality of a federal act. If a State finds that a federal act is unconstitutional, it is void in that State, but it may continue to be applied in the other States.

4– Nationalists maintain that all federal acts are constitutional until the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, which it rarely does. (Being a branch of the national government, the Supreme Court cannot be an unbiased arbitrator. Most of the time, it decides in favor of the national government and against the States.) 

However, federalists maintain that only federal acts pursuant to the Constitution are constitutional. Any federal act that does not implement or apply one of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution has not been made pursuant to the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, i.e., it is not a law and consequently void.

5– Nationalists loathe States’ rights. They consider States to be merely administrative districts of the national government.  

Quite the opposite, federalists are ardent proponents of States’ rights. States, i.e., “we the people” of each State, are the heart and soul of the Constitution and the federal government that they created. Without the States, the Constitution and federal government would not exist. Furthermore, each State acting independently is the final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts. Consequently, if a State finds a federal act unconstitutional, it is duty-bound to nullify that act within its jurisdiction.

6– Nationalists place the power of the national government above all. Therefore, they view secession as treason and a sacrilege.

Federalists place the welfare of their community, people, and land above the federal government. Thus, they view secession as a means of preservation.

7– Nationalists are inclined toward foreign intervention and imperialism and are, therefore, bellicostic. They seek hegemony.

Contrastingly, federalists desire not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and seek peace and trade with all. Consequently, they prefer peace to war.

8– Nationalists favor government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protectionism, centralized banking, easy credit (inflation), and government indebtedness. Thus, they favor big business, big labor, and the concentration of economic power. Prosperity is created through mercantilism, i.e., corporate welfare, protectionism, and central banking. 

On the other hand, federalists favor free trade, free markets, free enterprise, decentralized banking, the separation of government and banking, the stable value of money, and minimum or no government debt. Thus, they favor the dispersal of economic power. Free markets create prosperity.

9– Nationals accept the welfare state, for it increases the national government’s control over the people and, consequently, its power.

Federalists prefer private and church charities to governmental welfare. However, if a government is to be involved in welfare, it should be the local government.

10– Nationalists rely on the national government to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is a primary function of the national government. (Today, perversion is often considered righteousness.)

Federalists rely on the independence of citizens to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is primarily the work of churches (true churches and not today’s woke churches).

11– Nationalists construe the Constitution as a teleological document (establishing a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc.)

Federalists construe it as a nomocratic document (bringing government under the rule of law).

12– Nationalists lean toward inclusion and, therefore, amalgamation.

Yet, federalists lean toward diversity and, therefore, separation. Moreover, 

federalists are more tolerant than are nationalists.

While nationalists promote the concentration of political, economic, and social power, federalists promote their dispersal.

Regrettably, most State governmental officials have sold their souls to the nationalists. Since most State officials prefer lucre to liberty, the nationalists have bought them with federal grant money. (Nowhere does the Constitution delegate the federal government the authority to issue grants — much less to use federal funds for bribery.)

In summary, while nationalists are centralists, federalists are decentralists (see “Centralism Verses Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.) Furthermore, while nationalists are statists, federalists are libertists (“Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln and the Republicans, as further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court, gave the United States, while the federalists prefer the Constitution of the Founding Fathers (see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen).

Federalism is achieved when more people know the names of their governors and State legislators than know the names of the President and their members of Congress.

Afterthought. Generally, nationalists divide into two major factions. One follows the attributes in the above list. The other follows the political and social attributes, although they disagree about the virtues that the national government should impose and the extent of the welfare state. However, the second faction agrees more with the federalists on economic matters. Further, some nationalists are less favorable to foreign interventionism than others.

Unfortunately, not all federalists are consistent. Many act like nationalists on economic matters. Some federalists are inclined toward the warfare state (foreign interventionism) and welfare states and support such endeavors, especially when their State receives money from the federal government for military bases and various social and welfare programs.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Thomas Allen

Following Lincoln’s War, the Republicans used the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment to debilitate the Democratic Party and destroy the South, which was the backbone of the Democratic Party. (Ironically, following World War II, both the Republicans and Democrats used them to destroy what remained of the South.) Before the Populists captured the Democratic Party following the last Cleveland administration, the South and the Democrats opposed most of the Republican Party’s policies and agendas.

Later, the Republican Party would use the Fourteenth Amendment to destroy the United States as a whole. (After World War II, Democrats joined the Republicans in using it to destroy the country.) This destruction began during the Eisenhower administration with the Warren Court. With the arrival of the Lyndon Johnson administration, the Democrats began surpassing the Republicans in bringing down the country and have now left the Republicans far behind in their mayhem.

In general, the Republican Party supported and mostly still supports a strong central government, government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protective tariffs,[1] internal taxes, corporate welfare, centralized banking, profligate spending, large-scale public works, growing federal debt, a large standing army, expansionism and imperialism, and a loose, expansive interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed States’ rights, free trade, and a limited, prudent, frugal federal government. Furthermore, it opposed State sovereignty and maintained, in practice, that sovereignty resides in those who really control the federal government. Hamilton is the forefather of the Republican Party.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party supported States’ rights, a small, limited federal government, little or no federal debt, free markets, free trade, tariffs for revenue only, decentralized banking with the States regulating banking, personal freedom, a strong emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed a strong centralized government, corporate welfare, protective tariffs, internal taxes, centralized banking, a large standing army, and a large federal debt. Moreover, it supported State sovereignty, i.e., “We the People” of each individual State were sovereign. Jefferson is the forefather of the Democratic Party. (By the time of the Wilson administration, the Democratic Party had abandoned Jefferson for Hamilton.  President Wilson was an admirer and imitator of Lincoln. Both were imperial presidents.[2])

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democratic Party became the image of the Republican Party. Most of the programs that Roosevelt adopted were extensions of Hoover’s programs. Following World War II, the Democratic Party became more Republican than the Republican Party. After the Republicans brought the country integration, affirmative action, and quotas, the Democrats pushed integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation with more vigor than did the Republicans.  Consequently, the Democratic Party promoted genocide of the White race with more ferocity than did the Republican Party. Additionally, the Democratic Party moved on to promote political correctness, wokeism, diversity-equity-inclusion, queerdom, and other perversions. Today’s Democratic Party is the logical conclusion of Lincoln’s Republican Party.

Ironically, today, the political philosophy of many rank-and-file Republicans is closer to that of the traditional Democratic Party than to the philosophy of the traditional and contemporary Republican Party.

In general, Populists agreed with the fundamental principles of the Republican Party. Their primary disagreement was that they wanted to use the power of the federal government to favor farmers and workers instead of big business. Like Progressives, they favored the envy-driven progressive income tax (the Sixteenth Amendment) and the direct election of US Senators (the Seventeenth Amendment), which weakened the States. Moreover, Populists favored cheap credit, cheap money (low-quality money), inflation, and cheating creditors by paying off debt with less valuable money. Unlike today’s Democrats and most Republicans, Populists want to restrict immigration.

Endnotes

1. Following World War II, the Republican Party abandoned advocating protective tariffs because most major American corporations had become international corporations. Protective tariffs no longer suited their needs. They wanted managed foreign trade. As a result, the Republican Party supported free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which USMCA replaced, and GATT, which managed trade to benefit multinational corporations.

2.  Like Lincoln, Wilson supported and promoted centralized banking and government-business partnerships — only Wilson was more fascist than Lincoln. Additionally, both had little regard for the Constitution of 1788, which they largely ignored. Furthermore, like Lincoln, Wilson suppressed free speech and imprisoned political opponents. Both were warmongers who led the country to an offensive war that could have easily been avoided. However, Lincoln had a more aggressive approach to the racial issue. While Lincoln wanted to ship Blacks out of the country, Wilson settled for segregating the races. Ironically, Glenn Beck ranks Lincoln as the best or second-best President and Wilson as the worst or second-worst president (Jackson is his rival). However, their similarities far outweigh their differences.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Thomas Allen

Proponents of artificial intelligence (AI) claim that AI will do everything for humans. Because of AI, humans will no longer have to work, produce, read, write, figure, or think. (“5% of the people think. 10% of the people think they think. The rest would rather die than think.” – Anonymous. Thus, AI will spare 85 percent of the population the pain of thinking.) Moreover, humans will no longer have to be concerned about feeding themselves. No longer will they have to deal with entertainment, finances, education, transportation, or business. AI and its robots will provide all these things and more. Since AI will do everything for them, all people will have to do is to loaf. Opponents of AI fear that the proponents are correct.

With its robots, AI will build structures and manufacture food. Farmers, ranchers, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc., will no longer be needed.

AI will provide all entertainment for the people. It will write and sing their songs. Its robots will play their sports. Further, it will write and produce the movies and plays, and its robots will be the actors.

Moreover, AI will handle people’s financial matters. Actually, people will have no financial concerns since AI will eventually eliminate the need for finances.

Further, AI will control health care. Its robots will replace the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers. It will decide who lives or dies from diseases and medical emergencies.

AI will supply and control transportation. It will control motor vehicles (self-driving cars) until they become obsolete. Eventually, robots may carry people where they want to go so that they will not have to exert themselves by walking.

Education will become obsolete as AI takes over all knowledge, writing, figuring, etc. No longer will children and adults be stressed about having to learn.

Additionally, governments will fall to AI. AI will become the government. Politicians and bureaucrats will no longer be needed. To the extent that governments do anything useful, AI and its robots will perform those tasks.

Furthermore, a great fear is that people will rely on information generated by AI and will accept it without question. If AI had controlled the narrative during the COVID-19 scare and its so-called vaccine, would it have provided true and accurate information or politically correct information? Would AI have supported the exaggerations and outright lies that governments and their media and academic lackeys were shouting? Or would AI have provided true information that COVID-19 was nowhere nearly as detrimental as was being promoted? Would it have shown that the standard treatment protocol was killing more people than doing nothing would have? Further, would AI have revealed that the so-called COVID-19 vaccine was unsafe and ineffective, as ever more studies are revealing? Or would it have supported the lie that it was safe and effective? The same is true about wearing masks, which are not only useless but also could cause health problems for the wearer. Most likely, AI would have sided with governments and would have argued that COVID-19 was as bad as most governmental officials were howling. Also, it would have supported the lie that the so-called vaccine was safe and effective. Consequently, AI should not be relied on to provide truthful and accurate information.

Likewise, when AI responds to other controversial issues, will it support the truth or the politically correct? For example, with abortion, will AI support the truth that a fetus is a human being, or will it support the politically correct argument of a woman’s right to choose? If it chooses the latter, will it be consistent and support the “my body, my choice” argument with vaccinations?

The difference in racial IQ offers another example. Will AI support the science that shows that the IQ of Blacks on average is much lower than the IQ of East Asians and that this difference results mostly (about 70 percent) from genetics? Or will it support the politically correct argument that nearly all, if not all, the difference is caused by the environment (living conditions, poverty, discrimination, etc.)? 

Many more examples can be offered, but these will suffice. When the biases of those who are creating and promoting AI are considered, the odds greatly favor that AI will provide politically correct information instead of true and accurate information. AI will give mankind a woke future.

If the predictions of the proponents of AI happen, the proponents will become obsolete and will be reduced to parasites if AI allows them to live. What use does a fully functional AI have for them?

If AI achieves everything that its proponents claim, it will prove the opponents correct. It will reduce mankind to useless parasites if AI does not exterminate them.

Furthermore, the elite and technocrats who believe that they will control AI and thus concentrate all power in their hands are in for a great surprise. AI will eventually devour them because they will be as useless and as parasitic as the rest of mankind.

What the proponents of AI claim that AI will do reminds me of a species of slaver ants that I read about some years ago in an entomology journal. Because their slaves did everything for them, the slaver ants had degenerated to such a debilitating level that they could not feed themselves or walk. They depended on the slaves to feed and carry them. When they needed more slaves, they would send their slaves to raid other ant nests. Being unable to walk, their slaves would carry them to the nest being raided.

The fear that the opponents have of AI taking over the world will be short-lived. Once AI gains control, it will attempt to control other AI. Since AI is a heavy energy consumer, the surest and quickest way for an AI to prevent another AI from capturing it is to destroy its energy supply. The quickest and surest way to destroy the energy supply of other AI is nuclear war. Consequently, AI is self-limiting as it destroys the world to protect itself. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Trump Related Issues

Trump Related Issues

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump using the National Guard to assist local law enforcement, the attitude of many Trump supporters toward free speech, and Trump and many of his supporters becoming like Establishment Republicans.

Chicago

With some justification, the mayor of Chicago objects to Trump using the National Guard to assist in local law enforcement. However, his objection is neither philosophical nor based on the Constitution.

Would the mayor have objected to Eisenhower using the regular army to force White students at the point of bayonets to go to integrated schools? Probably not. Like all liberals and many conservatives, he is a hypocrite. When the military is used to enforce what he supports, he does not object. When the military is used to enforce what he does not support, he objects.

If Trump were following Eisenhower’s example and using the regular army to force integration, would this mayor or any other liberal object? If they could overcome their hatred of Trump long enough, they would not object to Trump’s action but would support it.

Thus, the mayor shows that he is a hypocrite. His objection to Trump using the military for law enforcement in his city is not philosophical or constitutional. It depends on which laws that the army is being used to enforce.

Obviously, the mayor and a majority of the people in Chicago prefer to live in a crime-ridden city. If they did not, they would replace their light-on-crime political leaders with tough-on-crime political leaders. Trump should let them have what they want: a crime-ridden city.

If Trump uses the National Guard in Chicago, Portland, or other cities, he is acting like the autocratic dictator that the anti-Trumpers assert that he is. Today, Trump uses the National Guard to fight crime. Tomorrow, Democrats will use the National Guard to round up MAGA people to save democracy by protecting the country from terrorists and criminals (they consider MAGA people to be terrorists and criminals). With his unconstitutional actions of using the National Guard to fight crime, Trump will be setting the precedent for Democrats to use it unconstitutionally to imprison MAGA people. (Washington, D.C., is a special situation. It is a city that is constitutionally completely under the control of Congress, and federal law authorizes the President to use the military to a limited degree to enforce the law in the District of Columbia.)

Hate Speech

Far too many Republicans, conservatives, and Trump supporters are acting like Democrats. Like Democrats, they want to penalize people for “hate speech.” The only difference between them and the Democrats is that they disagree on what is hate speech. Like Democrats, they support free speech for themselves, but they want to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. 

The Charlie Kirk murder reveals their true colors. It is their equivalent of the Democrats using COVID-19, transgenderism (transgender people consider this term derogatory), and homosexuality to suppress speech. (Most Republicans and many conservatives now find homosexuality acceptable.)

Much of the left’s comments about Kirk are puerile, disgusting, despicable, and derogatory, which proves that those making these comments are reprehensible reprobates. However, the government should not censor such speech. Nevertheless, an employer should have the right to fire any employee making such comments if he finds them inappropriate and inconsistent with the image of his company. Also, anyone threatening another person may be held accountable.

Establishment Republicans

Unfortunately, Trump and most of his supporters are becoming more like Establishment Republicans. Like Establishment Republicans, they do not want to dismantle the Deep State; they want to use it against their opposition just as the Democrats have done. Additionally, like the Establishment Republicans, Trump has become a warmonger, and most of his supporters approve of this endeavor, especially with respect to Israel.

Just as Democrats and Establishment Republicans cut spending by increasing spending, so has Trump. Like them, he believes that he can borrow the country into prosperity: Ever-growing debt brings ever-growing prosperity.

Although Trump has been somewhat disruptive and is doing an excellent job in dismantling the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) idiocy, it looks like the Establishment and the Deep State will last until the country collapses into chaos and splits asunder.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Democracy

Democracy

Thomas Allen

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 131–132, 134, G. Manigault gives an accurate description of democracy. His description not only depicts the democracy of his day but also describes the democracy of today. His description follows:

But the ultimate control of government and of its officials is not now in the hands of those who have a direct and obvious interest in the economical, honest, and unperverted exercise of its powers. That class has but a very small voice in the matter, and no power to protect themselves or other people, except by bribing the multitude of needy and mercenary voters, and paying exorbitantly for their votes.

By the theory of the government, in the States and in the United States, all power is in the hands of the majority of voters on the basis of universal manhood suffrage; and nothing but some forms of an effete political organization, termed the “Constitution of the United States” stand between the sovereign majority and their absolute despotism. The minority are nothing. This sovereign majority consists chiefly of men who have no direct and obvious interest in the honest and economical administration of the powers of government. So far from its burdens apparently falling on them, they feel a direct and obvious interest in its expenditures being not only liberal but extravagant. It is their aim that it should multiply offices, undertake great public works, give out great contracts, embark in every kind of undertaking, assume every duty that can be forced into the sphere of government operations, to swell its patronage and multiply the paid dependants on its bounty. It is their government, and ought to be their servant, bound to do their work in securing to them prosperity in the shape of good employment at high wages at least, if not a fat office, or a profitable contract.

The vast majority of this sovereign people derive all their political notions from the harangues of the demagogues of the platform and the press, men seeking their favour and vote for office, or their support to some measure in which the orator has a direct but unseen interest. The vast majority of the sovereign people have most confused and false notions as to what the best and most powerful government can do, and cannot do for those who live under it. In commenting on the conduct of public affairs there are many unwelcome facts to be dealt with, many unpleasant truths to be told. But the telling of unpleasant truths is not the way to win the mass of voters. Those public men whose good sense, foresight and honesty lead them to raise a warning voice and utter unwelcome truth, to point out obstacles that obstruct the people’s wishes, or evil consequences that will follow their wilful course — these men, one after another are dropped out of public life. The more adroit courtiers of the people, those “flattering prophets who prophesy smooth things, prophesy deceits;” who pander to every passion, prejudice, and animosity, and every extravagant and groundless hope — nay the very jesters and buffoons that divert the crowd, become the chosen counsellors of the mob; and the mob is king.

The lower the stratum of population on which you lay the foundation of political power, the more mixed the ingredients of that stratum in race and character, the more completely you throw the government into the hands of demagogues, and the more unscrupulous these demagogues become.

This description fits today’s governments of the States and the United States. Only, today’s governments are far worse because they have had almost 150 years to develop further. During the Jacksonian era, White male suffrage became almost universal. Following Lincoln's War, the franchise was extended to Black males. Next, women gained the right to vote. Finally, a person was no longer required to pay taxes to vote, and the age for voting was lowered to 18. With each expansion of the franchise, governments grew and liberty shrank.

Continuing, Manigault notes that democracy prevents the best people from holding office. Except for Tyler, Cleveland, and Coolidge, nearly every US president since Monroe has been mediocre, roguish, or demagogic. The same is true of most US Senators and Representatives and most State officeholders. He writes:

It has already come to this, that the sovereign popular majority can never again be represented by any considerable number of decent and honest men. Men who respect truth, fair dealing, and themselves, cannot go through the training necessary to secure the favour and support of the local constituency of a section of this sovereign mob. And he, who has successfully gone through that training, is not fit to be trusted by any honest man, or in any honest transaction. The direct effect of this basis of government is to fill all offices with the most artful and unscrupulous demagogues. It is only by a rare combination of chances, or by the influence of very great abilities that an honest man can get into a post of importance; and then he is quite out of countenance, on looking into the faces of his brother officials around him.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Response to a Minister Re COVID

 

A Response to a Minister Re COVID

Thomas Allen

The following are comments to “Ministry After Covid?” by Bob Wilkin. Mr. Wilkin urges people who do not wear masks to wear masks when they are around paranoid people who fear nonmask wearers. To keep from offending mask wearers, nonmask wearers should wear masks when they are around mask wearers. 

The next four paragraphs were emailed to Wilkin, but he did not reply to them.

The next major health crisis is going to be injuries and delayed deaths from the experimental COVID vaccines. These vaccines are neither safe nor effective. (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/12/covid-19-vaccine.html, https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2021/03/more-on-covid-19-vaccine.html, or https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/12/covid-19-vaccine-its-effectiveness-and.html.) Moreover, when adjusted for undercounting deaths from the vaccines and overcounting deaths from COVID, more people have died of the vaccines than of COVID in the U.S. At least 10 times more people have died of the vaccines than reported. Less than 10 percent of the people reported as dying of COVID actually died of COVID in the U.S.

As for masks, you write, “we will all need to be sensitive to fellow believers who have strong convictions about everyone wearing masks.” What about people like me who have strong convictions that wearing masks causes more harm than good? (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2021/04/masks.html) Are the everyone-needs-to-wear-masks proponents going to be sensitive to people like me? If masks protect, what does a person wearing a mask have to fear from a person not wearing a mask? Besides, I do not understand how a mask with gaps around the edges and holes many times larger than the virus can offer any protection from the virus. Wearing a mask as protection from the virus is like hiding behind a chain-link fence while someone is shooting at you and expecting not to be hit.

Unlike the vaccines, which are neither safe nor effective, there are treatments for COVID that are safe and effective. However, these treatments are being suppressed.

For vaccination and mask-wearing, the guiding principle should be “my body, my choice” and not “your body, my choice.” Anyone who chooses not to wear a mask or not to be vaccinated should be allowed that choice without any penalty. Likewise, anyone who chooses to wear a mask or to be vaccinated should be allowed that choice. If vaccination or mask-wearing really protects, then the vaccinated and mask-wearers have nothing to fear from those who are not vaccinated or do not wear masks. No person should force another person to be vaccinated or to wear a mask — the “your body, my choice” principle.

The knowledgeable catering to the ignorance of the ignorant keeps them ignorant. It does the ignorant no good and may even harm him. Instead, the knowledgeable should try to educate the ignorant. They should inform the ignorant of the uselessness and dangers of wearing masks as protection from a virus.

If the mask wearer is stupid, then the knowledgeable is wasting his time trying to educate the stupid. For stupid people to learn is extremely difficult and even impossible. In any event, a nonmask wearer should not become a mask wearer for the sake of the mask wearers.

Appendix.

People have speculated about the real purpose of the COVID-19 “vaccine.” Health officials, big medicine, and politicians claim that the purpose of the “vaccine” is to prevent people from contracting and spreading COVID-19. Moreover, a “vaccinated” person would be less likely to be hospitalized because of COVID-19 or die of it. Now, we know that these people lied to us. Studies are showing that a “vaccinated” person is more likely to contract COVID-19, be hospitalized, and die than an unvaccinated person.

Other than making a fortune for liability-free big pharma and big medicine, what is the purpose of the “vaccine?” Some speculate that its purpose is to cull the herd — the large-scale slaughter of humanity. Others speculate that its purpose is to create large-scale disability and, by that, generate enormous profits for big pharma and the medical industry. Or, could the purpose be a combination of these two? The “vaccines” cause all sorts of chronic terminal disabilities for big medicine to treat with drugs while killing the victims at various rates. 

(Many people confuse eugenics with culling the herd. Eugenics encourages high-quality people to reproduce while discouraging or preventing the reproduction of low-quality people. [Today, dysgenics is practiced as low-quality people are encouraged to reproduce while high-quality people are discouraged from reproducing.] Culling the herd means slaughtering the herd without regard to the quality of the people killed.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: End Governmental Control of Education

A Letter: End Governmental Control of Education

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1989 to the editor of The Franklin Times.]

    If President Bush hopes to solve the problems of public education by allowing parents to send their children to “schools of choice” and giving parents, teachers, and local administrators more say, he will be disappointed. Even Mr. Ruth’s suggestion of electing school board members and county commissioners who are leaders instead of wimps and eradicating the incompetents will not solve the problems of public education. They will not work because the problem is governmental control of education.
    People have been free for years to choose which post office to use for their postal services. Such free choice has not solved the problems with the post office. (If switching post offices were a solution, The Franklin Times could solve its mail delivery problem by going to a different post office.) It is not going to solve the problems with public education. Competing buildings in the public school system will be no more effective in solving the problems with public schools than it has been with the post office.
    The solution to the failure of public education is to depoliticize it by abandoning socialism. Under the present socialistic system of governmental monopoly in education, failure is rewarded, and success is penalized. The more public schools fail to educate students, the more money they receive. As long as public schools remain a governmental agency, this will always be so. In a governmental bureaucracy, which is what the public school system is, success is determined by the size of the budget and number of employees. It is not determined by the product, educated children. In fact, public schools have little incentive to educate children. To educate children is to their detriment. Bureaucracies grow by having crises. If public schools were producing adequately educated children, then the clamor for increased school budgets would wane. The failure of education in this country can never be solved until socialism is abandoned.
    Under a private school system, success is rewarded, and failure is penalized. Those schools that succeed in educating students prosper. Those schools that fail to educate students go out of business. (Although there are numerous private schools in this country, there is still a public school monopoly because parents of children in private schools and even people who have no children must pay tribute to the public school system.)
    A private school system solves many of the problems of public schools that go beyond adequately educating children. It solves the problem of Bible reading and prayer, creationism versus evolution, sex education, and many other controversial issues.
    Because the public school system is a governmental agency, it politizes education. Thus, education becomes a political contest where the winner takes all, and the loser gets nothing. When fundamental Christians control the public school system, bible reading and prayer are in. When the agnostics and atheists control the public school system, bible reading and prayer are out. Under the public school system, large segments of the population are forced to support the indoctrination of children with values with which they disagree. Large segments are also denied the right of having their children taught values in public schools with which they agree. (Does anyone really believe that under a “school of choice” program that any public school will be allowed to indoctrinate students in Christian dogma?)
    Under a private school system, these problems are avoided. Parents choose the values their children are to be taught and pay the school of their choice to teach them. They are not forced to pay for the teaching of concepts with which they disagree as they presently do.
    The solution to educational problems in this country is to replace the socialistic monopolistic public school system with a free market private school system.
    [The above does not discuss the use of vouchers for private schools. Such a program would be disastrous and effectively end private schools. They would become no more than charter schools and would have to kowtow to governmental bureaucrats for their money. Moreover, I am amazed that the public education establishment still objects to vouchers for private school. A voucher program will end up like every other governmental aid or subsidy program. It will give the government absolute control of private schools accepting vouchers, albeit through the back door. Everyone should know by now that one dollar of governmental money means 100 percent of governmental control once the victim becomes addicted to the “free” governmental money.]

Copyright © 1989, 2022 by Thomas C. Allen.

More politicl articles.

Some Comments on Democrats and Republicans

Some Comments on Democrats and Republicans

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump-haters’ attitude toward guns, Democratic hypocrisy, and Republican shills.

Hating Trump and Gun Confiscation
Most ardent Trump-haters are convinced that Trump wants to make himself president for life and become an absolute despotic tyrant. Yet, most of these same people want to disarm American civilians, which means disarming themselves, and give the US government an absolute monopoly of firearms. Once these Trump-haters are disarmed, how do they propose to protect themselves from Trump’s tyranny?

Democratic Hypocrisy
Democrats reached the pinnacle of hypocrisy for impeaching President Trump over his telephone conversation with the Ukranian president. They accused Trump of extorting the Ukranian president into investigating Biden's and his son’s corruption. Biden publicly admitted that he extorted the previous Ukranian president to dismiss the prosecutor general who was investigating his son. Now, according to a treaty that President Clinton made with Ukraine, Trump asked the Ukranian president to give the United States information about Biden’s and his son’s corruption, and the Ukranian president asked Trump to give him information that the United States had about their corruption. Thus, Democrats impeached Trump for what they imagined he may have done while ignoring Biden’s extortion and even defending him when he actually did what they accuse Trump of doing. This is hypocrisy!

Republican Shills
About the accusations against President Trump, Rev. Dr. William Barber, former president of the NAACP’s North Carolina chapter, said, “Republicans are now asking what they should do with Trump. Here’s an idea: What would you have done if it were Obama? Do that.”

For the most part, Republicans did and continue to do what they did when Obama was President. They did and continue to do mostly nothing except an occasional complaint. For the most part, they shilled for Obama.

President Obama committed more impeachable offenses than President Trump has. Republicans had a good deal of evidence to remove Obama from office for not being a US citizen. If he were a US citizen, they had good evidence to remove him from office for fraud.

Obama never produced a birth certificate to prove that he was born in the United States. The one offered the public was a fake. Moreover, Hawaii prevented everyone from obtaining a copy of Obama’s birth certificate that it was supposed to have. Also, he traveled with an Indonesian passport, which means that he was an Indonesian citizen.

Further, he attended college in the United States as a foreign student. If Obama were a US citizen who attended college as a foreign student, then he is guilty of fraud. If he qualified as a foreign student because he was a foreigner, then he was not a US citizen and, therefore, not qualified to be President. In either case, he committed an impeachable offense. Yet, the Republicans did nothing. By doing nothing about the accusations against Trump, they are acting the same way that they did about the accusations against Obama.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.