"Conspiracy" Facts vs. Reality

"Conspiracy" Facts vs. Reality

By William T. Barrante, Watertown

As the readers of The Voice have probably gathered by now, I like to engage in philosophical debates, usually against people who hold "liberal" or statist views. It is much less fun to debate fellow "conservatives," but somebody has to do it, lest the liberals and statists think that the American Right is composed entirely of people who believe that this free country is really a dictatorship orchestrated by "globalists."

Both Charles Smith and Marcel LeRoy use facts to support their arguments. But they use only the facts they like, and ignore facts that may lead them to a more realistic view of what is really going on in the world. They are focused on the "small picture." I like to look at the "big picture." For example, Mr. Smith, in an attempt to get me to see the John Birch Society in a more favorable light [More on the John Birch Society, March 15], supports Robert Welch's charge that "Dwight David Eisenhower [was] a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy" with a claim that he doesn't "remember hearing Eisenhower express dismay over the fact that Communist Russia gained access to Berlin before us." It is interesting that even though Mr. Smith doesn't necessarily agree that Mr. Welch "even said it at all," he nevertheless finds it necessary to support the statement. He ignores the fact that at the time Russian troops entered Berlin, Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied commander and also that the Soviet Union was our ally against Hitler. It would have been entirely out of place for General Eisenhower to express public dismay at what the Russians did. Remember what Churchill, long an opponent of Communism, said when he learned that the Germans had invaded Russia: "My goal is to defeat Hitler. If Hitler invaded Hell, I suppose I would have a few good things to say about the devil in the House of Commons."

Mr. Smith supports Marcel LeRoy's claim that Franklin Roosevelt was a "Dictator-in-Chief" because FDR "outlawed the owning of gold coins by United States citizens." First, I believe Congress had something to do with that. Second, if FDR was such a dictator, why did he have to threaten to "pack" the Supreme Court with liberals when much New Deal legislation was being declared unconstitutional? FDR eventually got the court he wanted, but that was done entirely by the book. I agree that the Supreme Court opened the door to use of the Commerce Clause to increase the power of the federal government, but it was Congress that passed those laws, and it was the American people who elected liberals to Congress. And there was still a conservative opposition, something that does not exist in a "dictatorship." Robert Taft was elected to the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 1938.

Mr. Smith also has a problem with the Federal Reserve System, but this was set up by Congress, not by a "Dictator-in-Chief." He apparently agrees with those who believe that the Federal Reserve System is part of a conspiracy of international bankers to turn the United States into a totalitarian state. This is a lot of nonsense. Although the Federal Reserve banks may be private, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is certainly a government agency. Its members are appointed by the President and these appointments must be ratified by the Senate. That sounds like a government agency to me. Mr. Smith does not like the federal reserve note, and believes that these notes violate Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. If he were a constitutional historian, he would know that is not true. Section 10 says that "No State" may "make any Thing other than gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt." First, this is a limitation on the states, not on the federal government. Second, it was put into the Constitution because of a fear by creditors that some states, like Rhode Island, were becoming havens for debtors.

The federal reserve note is a bank note. This country has had bank notes in circulation for a long time. One hundred years ago even small banks issued bank notes. But if Mr. Smith does not want to use a one-dollar federal reserve note, he is free to use four quarters. Those four quarters, even silver quarters if you want to break up a coin collection, will buy Mr. Smith the same cup of coffee that a one-dollar federal reserve note will. Sometimes belief in a "conspiracy" gets in the way of reality.

I am glad that Marcel LeRoy [Constitution vs. Emergency Powers, March 15] set me straight on where he is getting support for his conclusion that we no longer have a written Constitution in this country. The source is a 607-page Senate report issued by a special committee in 1973, the year before the "dictator" Nixon was forced from office. And I guess my problem is indeed with that special committee. But I would advise Mr. LeRoy not to base conclusions on what politicians in Washington say. This Senate report says that there is a federal statute that allows the President "to seize property." Okay. But what would happen if the President decided to seize private property without due process? Some court would rule against him, the way the Supreme Court did more than fifty years ago when Harry Truman tried to take over a steel company. What makes Mr. LeRoy believe that a Supreme Court that is even more protective of private property would not stop the President from seizing private property? Once again, belief in a "conspiracy" is getting in the way of reality. I suggest that Mr. LeRoy stop reading Senate reports and read some books by William F. Buckley, Jr., George F. Will, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Peggy Noonan. This way his passion for freedom will have some real facts for support.