Saint Thomas a Becket resisted the lawless intrusion of King Henry 11 into Church affairs~~to the point of martyrdom~~where today at Washington is a man in this government~~or in the Church~~who will face the blade to do what is lawful, just and pleasing to God?~~
This government’s inclination to publicly announce its intent to take unilateral action well outside its scope of Constitutional authority hastens me to resubmit for your review and comment the essay attending which has as its subject my critique of unilateral action driven in the main by caprice and whimsy~~
The reprinting of my article attending is occasioned by this news item for which I thank The Personal Liberty Digest of this evening and likewise the writer, Mr. Sam Rolley~~both of whom I commence now to quote and will continue to do so until noted by me cease quoting~~
Agriculture Secretary: Government Will Not Wait For Congress, Laws In Implementing Obama Climate Plan
February 5, 2014 by Sam Rolley
During a press conference on Wednesday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the unilateral creation of new “climate action hubs” that will be placed in seven locations around the country.
“On the heels of passage of the farm bill, the administration will take executive action to help farmers, ranchers and rural communities combat climate change and adapt to extreme weather and other damage it causes,” a White House official said in an email ahead of Wednesday’s announcement.
The hubs will link a network of universities, nonprofits and Federal and State agencies to help further the President’s climate change agenda without legislative help.
“These climate action hubs are really part of the president’s climate action plan and its directive of us to actually act, not wait for Congress, not wait for laws to be passed, but to do it on our own,” Vilsack said at the White House.
According to the official, the new Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change are designed to address fires, invasive pests, floods and droughts that environmentalists deem products of climate change on a regional basis.
Asked why the hubs were created without Congressional input, Vilsack said that Administration officials feel it is time to do everything possible to address climate change without Congressional gridlock getting in the way.
“As the president has said repeatedly, if there is an opportunity to work with Congress, we will work with Congress, and we did,” Vilsack said. “We’ve been waiting a while for Congress to work on climate. Fair enough. There are multiple reasons why they haven’t. But in the meantime, we’re going to take action because 51 percent of the land mass of the United States is a lot of land. It’s over 1.2 billion acres of land.”
He added, “I think we’re trying to work with Congress when we can and when they can’t or won’t, we’re going to continue to act. That’s what I think the American public wants us to do.”
The hubs will be located in Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon and New Mexico. Sub-hubs will exist in Michigan, Puerto Rico and California.~~
The reprinting of my article attending is occasioned by this news item for which I thank The Personal Liberty Digest of this evening and likewise the writer, Mr. Sam Rolley~~both of whom I commence now to quote and will continue to do so until noted by me cease quoting~~and I here do thank these gentlemen and cease quoting them
The codification of caprice and its aftermath of rule by whimsy~~
The codification of caprice and its aftermath of rule by whimsy
John Daniel Begg
These words from Washington are occasioned by the ongoing, serious and very distressing rift between the Administration and the Church the flash point for which respecting issues of contraception. There are a number of levels at which this debate can be joined but it strikes the writer that the Administration’s position that the Executive can, by fiat, simply ordain changes in private Church policy because he feels like it,suggests logical consequences likely not anticipated or intended by the Executive and his supporters. Regarded properly, this debate is not about a particular disagreement. Properly understood, it is, by extension of logic, about morality.
Fiat rule, among other very nasty things, smacks of Royalism, dictatorship and governmental absolutism.Fiat rule is itself governed by caprice, seasoned by mere whimsy and sparks the harrowing abnegation of civilized legal process and of morality itself. All of these things, in turn, obviate against the possibility of having a civilized society. And, that’s not good news.
The merits of the particular argument lines thus far put forth by the opposing sides left to one side for a moment, it appears clear enough that, for the Executive to lay claim to such powers of fiat governance, occasions the observer to think a bit about both historical and present day parallels that are troubling indeed.
Fiat government is government by caprice and raw force. Lamentably, history is replete with sad and alarming parallels. The reader is asked to consider carefully the instant and longer term ramifications of Executive intervention based upon the notion that “I’ll do it because, well, I feel like it.” This is not a new affectation. Absolute monarchs lived, and effectively do yet live, by the credo “I will it therefore it will be done.”
Consider please the implications of a society in which from the top down the message is that my actions are in the main governed by the dictum: “I will do what I feel like.” Man generally agrees not to rob banks and shoot the girls behind the counter. Such agreement is part of a generally accepted social compact between the government and its citizens. Yet, some clearly think that if they feel like doing so, it’s perfectly fine. Daily evidence that this is so can be seen in the newspapers. Banks are routinely robbed and the girls likewise routinely shot during the robberies. All right-minded men would agree that a social construct such as that, driven as it is by mere caprice, is both dangerous and invidious to society. That is why the flip side of the prevailing social compact harshly punishes cavalier bank robbers and murderers. Yet, many men feel they are law unto themselves. It’s perfectly fine to rob money in Wall Street, to cheat, to lie, to lay waste to other nations in savage war and exploitation because, put to the quick, well, “I just feel like it.”
The rule of whimsy has harrowing historical connotations stretching back to man’s abrupt, and jolting, egress from the Garden. Comparatively recent flights of whimsy are downright frightening. Consider, Russia. In that great, yet often very sad, country, I am sure that the last Czar of the Russians, Nicholas II, smitten with the heady elixir of absolute, unchecked and “divine” power, thought it just the right move to unleash his Cassocks to butcher the Jews and other innocents of his Empire to quiet social unrest when the population was visited, as it very often was, with flood, famine and pestilence. Quite clearly, he felt likedoing that. Later, Mr. Stalin appeared to think it his prerogative to butcher and enslave virtually everyone in sight. I am absolutely sure he felt like doing that. The Americans today fret and make faces about Mr. Putin behaving in a manner tyrannical, and perhaps he does, but I am sanguine that Mr. Putin feels unfettered to do so because it catches his fancy and he “just feels like doing it.”
While the incumbent American Executive does not appear to us Czarist, Stalinist or a Mr. Putin, we feel it necessary to issue this cautionary: His recent, and apparently serious, flirtation with the notion that his office confers upon him the authority to codify his caprices and to be unfettered in his whimsy is very dangerous territory to enter. To cultivate such vanities comes at a very high social price. He ought to consider the logical corollaries. They are these: If you act in a manner suggestive of the mindset of these three mentioned Russian leaders, in logical construct, what is really to prevent any citizen of this Republic from doing whatsoever he “feels like?” Surely, the Executive is sage enough to know that people learn lessons from observing the actions of their elders and leaders. After all, the Executive has young children and must daily see that they watch their parents carefully and draw conclusions from what they see their parents doing.
Children, we all know, need very little coaching to adopt with alacrity a keen and ready aptitude for doing just what they “feel like.” We do live in a democracy, lessons are noted by the citizen and, most particularly by youngsters, and those lessons ought appropriately be sound lessons involving making good, and not selfish, choices.
Respecting democracy, the incumbent Executive and, most particularly his supporters, would do well to consider this element of the case if they are unmoved by listed arguments of logic against their codification of caprice: what happens when their caprice no longer stirs the drink? What happens when they are out of power? Do they feel cheered by the notion of their opponent’s fiat, whimsy and caprice holding sway in another day–not too far off? You see, when one opens the ball on the sort of capricious and whimsical mindset cautioned against here, one must make serious consideration of what will happen when men who one finds disagreeable hold all the high trumps. These men likely will not “feel like” wearing the current fashions. Then, the incumbent and his followers will have to adjust to what it “feels like” to wear outdated cloth. Will they like that—I doubt it? Yet, gravy is, as for the goose, so for the gander.
This last is perhaps the most important lesson here. If the precedent thus far established by the Executive to codify his caprices is left to stand, the Americans would do very well to consider what the logical corollaries and logical extensions of codifying those caprices are. Specifically, where does letting such a precedent stand untested end? I assume no other answer but that it leads to a tyranny of caprice, whimsy and fiat government, weather that is the intention of the Executive in the instant case or not. If the American citizens clearly do see future tyranny in the present over-reaching by the Executive in the codification of his caprices and his rule by whimsy and fiat, and the citizens do nothing about these miscues, what rejoinder will they have when such encroachments are visited on their own sacred soil? That is why this is not, at core, a Church versus State issue, but rather a moral concern for all of us.
This is a serious moral issue that, by extension of proper logic, involves all issues of interest to every citizen. No citizen can rest easy in his comfort thinking “well perhaps this exercise in fiat governance,codification of caprice and rule by whimsy in the instant case is wrong-headed and a bit overdone, perhaps even dangerous and surely ill-advised, but it does not apply to me and mine directly in this instance, so I’ll just let it go unremarked for now.” No! Wrong move! Wrong move for anyone in our country to allow such unbridled power grabs go unremarked. If for no other reason than the future projection of enlightened self-interest, all citizens appropriately ought to be very much alarmed by the injection of fiat rule into our democratic system.
I confess that it was through utter inadvertence that recently I stumbled upon a clip of a Mr. George Stephanopoulos on the television speaking at Speaker Gingrich as Speaker Gingrich spoke at George. The level of discourse in American politics has deteriorated to the point that, what were once intended to be serious discussions have become, in the very best of cases, cheap and seedy game shows. In the illustrated case, the two men spent all their allotted time talking to themselves and at the other.
At events, Mr. Stephanopoulos’ game show that day was likely no more or less informed than any other, and, frankly, these vapid modern press conditions are not George’s fault. The news says that things are bleak out there these days and George is, I suppose, rather well paid, as far as that goes, for a reporter, to be vapid, and, vapid he is. Besides, it’s just a job and he, apparently, feels like doing it.
It is only as the ostensible subject, at least in part, being talked at between the two men was this regrettable disharmony between the Church and the Executive, that I recall it here. And I ask Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gingrich both this: is not the logical corollary of fiat governance, a generalized societal fiat behavior in which all the members of the society are moved by this same dictum: “what do I feel like doing today?” Further, do these gentlemen agree that the logical extension of such a dictum is chaos and, far more seriously, a still further extension is the abnegation of any and all morality?
Our society, devoid of morality, will not survive. It is quite that simple. It is from morality that springs personal freedom and its attendant possibilities and responsibilities. Hence, the true glory of America is amoral glory. I ask Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gingrich to comment on what sort of society we will have when all strata of men abnegate morality. It would be most unpleasant. Suppose specifically that, after their game show, Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gingrich go off together to celebrate their individual and collective brilliance with a swell meal and a bottle of Petrus. You lucky fellas! Suppose further that afterwards, Mr. Stephanopoulos, in high good spirits, is headed to his flash car where, astounded, he encounters a young ghetto urchin who decides, by fiat, to shoot Mr. Stephanopoulos in the head and take his car because the urchin “feels like it.” Such a tragedy would likely cause a stir on the television for quite some time, but, logically, the urchin has a sound license in a society that has codified caprice, rules by whimsy and abnegates all moral responsibility.
It is my fervent hope that all right and fair minded men can agree that the codification of caprice in the instant case of this most sad discordance between the Executive and the Church is a very bad path to tread. I hope such men can also agree that men governed by mere whimsy and fiat cannot be free and civilized. I most particularly hope that such men can come to peaceful comity of opinion that the concomitant abnegation of the rule of law and proper process that flows through logical extension from the primacy of caprice, fiat and whimsy, ushers in an immoral society in which men are diminished in stature to the point that they are not men any more at all but have rather repaired back to the jungle as savages.~~
Where in America today is our Saint Thomas a Becket?
–JOHN DANIEL BEGG
john daniel begg public affairs and speechwriting4853 Sedgwick Street
Washington, DC 20016-2323533
Voice Telephone: 1-(202) 966-8029
Telefacsimile: 1-(202) 966-4125
Mobile Telephone: 1-(202) 557-1064Tweets: @jtdbegghttp://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=122865699&trk=hb_tab_pro_top
Website: https://johndanielbegg.wordpress.com~~In sunshine and in shadow~~I hold tight to the Republican view of time and money~~I write night and day~~yet~~while impecunious~~I am vastly overpaid~~in that taking pay to do what I love is unfair~~to my employer~~in a fair system~~under such circumstances~~I should pay him~~not he me~~I am far, far too old a man to be sexually confused~~praise Jesus~~but I am yet young enough to be politically confused~~is anyone not~~in an absolute sense~~I am a Catholic Royalist~~in a practical sense~~I am a Classical Liberal~~a Gaullist~~a Bonapartist~~an American Nationalist Republican~~in either sense~~my head is soon for the chopping block~~to hasten my interlude with Madame La Guillotine~~I write without fear~and without favor of~any man~~
~Non Sibi~~Finis Origine Pendet~
Rejoice and Glad!!
~The Original Angry Bird~~The Catholic University of America Screaming Red Cardinal Mascot~~
~~EX LIBRIS~~~~THEOS EK MĒCHANĒS~~
Thursday, 6th February,~~Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, 2014
"Jean-Marie Le Pen is a friend. He is dangerous for the political set because he's the only one who's sincere. He says out loud what many people think deep down, and what the politicians refrain from saying because they are either too demagogic or too chicken. Le Pen, with all his faults and qualities, is probably the only one who thinks about the interests of France before his own."~~ French actor~~Alain Delon
CONCEPT OF THE CATHOLIC AND ROYAL ARMY OF AMERICA (CRAA)
The Catholic University of AmericaSeal of The Catholic University of America
Motto~~Deus Lux Mea Est~~
~~Our Ubiquitous Presence~~
In office now 62 years on~~
Simply the best President we could ever hope to have~~
Impression, soleil levant~~Avec M. Claude Monet~~1874