The whole point of [the New Deal] with FDR was to ensure never-ending power for the Democrat Party by identifying it as the party that cares more about you and is going to make sure you never have to suffer at all at any time for any reason – and people bought it.

~ Rush Limbaugh

Constitutional scholar and historian David Barton appeared recently on the Glenn Beck show and urged viewers not to “fall into progressives’ traps.” Barton continued: “On my property in Texas I have to set traps for skunks. I can only catch them if they don’t recognize my traps; therefore, don’t accept progressives’ paradigms.” Barton’s comments reminded me of something Rush Limbaugh has been saying for years but few Republicans seem to take heed – “Don’t accept the premises of liberalism.”

I believe that Barton and Limbaugh want Americans to question all of what we accept as normal in modern society – from abortion, the welfare state, universal health care, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, Department of Education, to the Federal Reserve, the IRS, income tax, death tax, separation of church and state and thousands of other examples. These progressive policies are the results of Democrats using the techniques of Fabian socialism (gradualism).

That said, how many times have you and I watched the state-controlled media sponsor a debate between the Left and the Right when any one of the progressive policies cited above is ipso facto assumed to be constitutional and viewed by both ideological sides as for the common good? The debate usually follows that the Democrat wants even more money for government programs and entitlements and the so-called Republican candidate wants to tweak liberal entitlement programs (mend it, don’t end it).

Like any tyranny, progressivism always starts off with a pretext – here, the economic collapse of the banking industry and free market in October 1929. In the early 1930s, people were unemployed at unprecedented numbers, starving, suffering, and didn’t care about the Constitution, limited government or Natural Law. Therefore, the Great Depression was music to FDR and socialist Democrats’ ears.

For example, Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his outstanding 2006 book, “The Constitution in Exile,” about an FDR–New Deal 1934 landmark case, “Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell,” being responsible for multiple liberal Democratic boondoggles that have plagued America to this day, including the home mortgage collapse, destroying separation of powers and the Contracts Clause, while promoting the big socialist lie that you can live outside your means because the government will provide all your needs.

In the Blaisdell case, the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that prevented mortgage holders from foreclosing on mortgages for a two-year period. Sound familiar? I recently came across this article in Chicagoland: “Chicago sheriff says no to enforcing foreclosures.” This law was exactly the kind of legislation the Contracts Clause was written to stop, as it kept irresponsible borrowers from defaulting on their home mortgages and relieved them of their contractual obligations – entered freely under agreement – to their lenders. The Court allowed the Minnesota law under the pretext of “emergency legislation.”

Blaisdell started the Court down the slippery slope of antibusiness judicial policymaking. Once achieved, the Court and the legislature would deem whatever they viewed was a “valid police purpose.” It also ended the founders’ intent for the Contracts Clause, rendering it a dead letter by 1937.

Remember that progressives love a crisis and thrive under controlled chaos and Trotskyite “perpetual revolution.” Progressives like Obama and liberal Democrats are masters at using the government as a means of helping the people by way of an “emergency,” when in reality they are unconstitutionally seizing more power for the federal government while depriving power from We the People.

The Blaisdell Court showed utter contempt for the Constitution by rendering the founders’ original intent to be irrelevant in the interpretation of constitutional language. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (a progressive Republican) said as early as 1907, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges says it means.”

Liberal arrogance and hatred of the Constitution wasn’t always so evident. In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 and removed 18 out of 35 circuit court judges from the bench when these judges demonstrated derision of the Constitution in their rulings. Judge Napolitano notes that judges must be made to learn that “the Constitution is not some guideline to be consulted from time to time by politicians, lawmakers and judges. It is the supreme law of the land.

The Blaisdell case notwithstanding, FDR wanted even more control over American businesses. In 1935, the high court had invalidated the National Industrial Recovery Act and in 1936 the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. FDR was acutely aware that the Court, through the so-called “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” – James McReynolds, Pierce Butler, Willis Van Devanter and George Sutherland, with Owen Roberts as the swing vote – could well invalidate the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act, two pillars of New Deal legislation.

Flushed with his second-term victory, FDR resolved to control the Court through increasing the bureaucracy, so in 1937 Roosevelt crafted legislation innocuously referred to as the “Judiciary Reorganization Bill.” FDR had the hubris to threaten the Court with six additional members if they didn’t rule his New Deal legislation constitutional. The Court caved in to FDR’s fascist tactics, thus in effect killing the Constitution and delegitimizing the Court.

If you think I write from hyperbole, please read some of the majority and dissenting opinions of progressive justices like William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, William Blackmun, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O’Connor, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Sonia Sotomayor. All of these people (some appointed by Republican presidents) have done great harm to the Constitution, violating Natural Law and our unalienable natural rights. Therefore …

America must stop accepting progressive premises.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.