Our last class on the Foundations of American Order met tonight.  We spent six weeks studying how America became such a beautiful testament of ordered liberty and three classes noting how it fell from ordered liberty to disordered passions.

Tonight’s class greatly appreciated the wise words of one of America’s leading contemporary jurists, a Man for all Seasons:

This selection was found to be particularly poignant tonight:

•The [Majority's] description of the place of Roe in the social history of the United States is unrecognizable. Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, nat ional abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress before Roe v. Wade was decided. Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue — as it does over other issues , such as the death penalty — but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level. As with many other issues, the division of sentiment within each State was not as closely balanced as it was among the population of the Nation as a whole, meaning not only that more people would be satisfied with the results of state-by-state resolution, but also that those results would be more stable. Pre-Roe, moreover, political compromise was possible.

Aux. Bishop James Conley has known me (Bryan) since 1991.  He is one of my spiritual advisers and has been for 18 years now.  He explains our shared background in this clip which he prepared for our December 8 banquet, before he knew for certain that the federal litigation would be filed.  He prepared a similar — actually even  more glowing — recommendation as to my good moral character and fitness and sent it to the Indiana Board of Law Examiners last June.  They ignored it.

I post this now because I am pretty certain that the same conspirators who focused their collectivist efforts to deny me entrance into the Indiana bar are now plotting to destroy me for daring to set forth their “official” deeds in the federal court pleadings.  (Read the complaint.)

More  revelations and fireworks to follow, so stay tuned  . . .

Or did the generations who set up constitutional republics across North America have a specific Infinite-Personal in mind when they formed their governments?

Wednesday afternoon: Updating with links at end

Tonight a class of more than 20 bright eyed students met in air conditioned comfort in the top floor of the former abortion clinic to continue the study of the Foundations of American Order. We have studied the Natural Law, Roman Republic, Founding Fathers, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Incorporation Doctrine — and even more — over the past eight weeks.

It has been an honor to pass on the fruit of my research on these topics.

Tonight’s discussion of the Incorporation Doctrine and how it has led to American disorder was challenging and personally rewarding. We read Supreme Court cases and discussed the history of the American Left in the very room where young women once waited to have their children killed. It is the room that was to be my law office (and my means for supporting my wife and five minor children)  had I not suffered the substantial setback dealt to me by the Indiana Board of Law Examiners, Indiana Supreme Court and Defendants in Brown v. Bowman for refusing to deny my Lord Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church. (See posts gathered at category Brown v. Bowman and accessible here)

It felt right to teach constitutional law in that room, and especially to present the following prophetic foreshadowing from one the greatest American jurists of the 20th Century:

There are many appeals these days to liberty, often by those who are working for an opportunity to taunt democracy with its stupidity in furnishing them the weapons to destroy it as did Goebbels when he said: ‘When democracy granted democratic methods for us in times of opposition, this (Nazi seizure of power) was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in times of (our) opposition.’ 1 Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression (GPO 1946) 202, Docs. 2500-PS, 2412-PS. [337 U.S. 1 , 36]   Invocation of constitutional liberties as part of the strategy for overthrowing them presents a dilemma to a free people which may not be soluble by constitutional logic alone.

But I would not be understood as suggesting that the United States can or should meet this dilemma by suppression of free, open and public speaking on the part of any group or ideology. Suppression has never been a successful permanent policy; any surface serenity that it creates is a false security, while conspiratorial forces go underground. My confidence in American institutions and in the sound sense of the American people is such that if with a stroke of the pen I could silence every fascist and communist speaker, I would not do it. For I agree with Woodrow Wilson, who said:

‘I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. It cannot be so easily discovered if you allow him to remain silent and look wise, but if you let him speak, the secret is out and the world knows that he is a fool. So it is by the exposure of folly that it is defeated; not by the seclusion of folly, and in this free air of free speech men get into that sort of communication with one another which constitutes the basis of all common achievement.’ Address at the Institute of France, Paris, May 10, 1919. 2 Selected Literary and Political Papers and Addresses of Woodrow Wilson (1926) 333.

But if we maintain a general policy of free speaking, we must recognize that its inevitable consequence will be sporadic local outbreaks of violence, for it is the nature of men to be intolerant of attacks upon institutions, personalities and ideas for which they really care. In [337 U.S. 1 , 37]   the long run, maintenance of free speech will be more endangered if the population can have no protection from the abuses which lead to violence. No liberty is made more secure by holding that its abuses are inseparable from its enjoyment. We must not forget that it is the free democratic communities that ask us to trust them to maintain peace with liberty and that the factions engaged in this battle are not interested permanently in either. What would it matter to Terminiello if the police batter up some communists or, on the other hand, if the communists batter up some policemen? Either result makes grist for his mill; either would help promote hysteria and the demand for strong-arm methods in dealing with his adversaries. And what, on the other hand, have the communist agitators to lose from a battle with the police?

This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

TERMINIELLO V. CITY OF CHICAGO , 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949)(Jackson, J., dissenting, joined by Burton, J.)(emphasis added)

GOD BLESS GREAT PATRIOT JURISTS LIKE JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON! He tried to warn his peers — they did not listen and continued to crash through the gates to the Age of Obama (i.e. the summit of the collectivist suicide pact).

Pictured above:  Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892 – October 9, 1954) was United States Attorney General (1940–1941) and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941–1954).  A “county-seat lawyer“, he remains the last Supreme Court justice appointed who did not graduate from any law school (though Justice Stanley Reed who served from 1938–1957 was the last such justice to serve on the court), although he did attend Albany Law School in Albany, New York for one year. . He was also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.

MORE from Justice Robert Jackson on this website here and here

I just could not say goodbye without posting Michael’s (in my opinion) magnus opus.  It has comforted my soul a thousand times.

I can see night in the day time
Into the woods I quietly go
It takes all the strength I have in me
These are the woods
The night of the soul
Painful to see
Love without action
Painful to see years of neglect
Achin’ to see all that they see
Still telling lies to the remains of respect
Creatures we are worth defending
It takes the right word said from the heart
Given to you without ending
Given to you, the purpose of art
Thousands of plans, I’ve made many
I wonder just how many plans I have made
Feelin’ this mood overtake me
Finally to see the truth as it fades
Out of these woods will you take me
Out of these woods, out of the storm
Oh Sinless Child can you save me
Oh guilty man, freedom is yours

When I (Bryan J. Brown) was last in Topeka I lunched with my former boss and current friend Eric Rucker.  “Ruck” was Chief Deputy of the Attorney General’s Office, reporting directly to Phil Kline, while I was Deputy AG and Chief of the Consumer Protection, Antitrust and No Call Division.  (I supervised about 20 employees, Assistant Attorney Generals, Investigators, paralegals and other staff.)

Over our three hour (no martinis) lunch, Eric informed me that (more…)

The ArchAngel Institute is dedicated to advancing the Natural Law as the cure to the ailment that is killing Christendom.  Our mission statement (upper right hand button) presents this in length, and our programs and projects all have in common a Natural Law focus.

One does not have to be Catholic to affirm the Natural Law.  Martin Luther and almost all of the Protestant Reformers taught the Natural Law.  As our series on Elena Kagan demonstrated, American law was based upon the Natural Law.  Mormonism, Masonry and even Moslem teaching also affirms and builds upon Natural Law.

Until recent generations the Natural Law was unquestioned.  Since the 1960’s Natural Law has been questioned — and ever overthrown in our social order, with disastrous result.   Nowhere is this rejection of Natural Law better recognized than (more…)

The following (in red)  is more text from Deacon Keith Fournier’s essay on the need to embrace the Natural Law as the cure for our national apostasy.  This is the same Natural Law that animated our nation’s birth (in the Declaration of Independence and almost every state’s constitution).  Note that Christ is not – simply cannot be – divorced from this explanation of the rightful foundation of our social order since we find ourselves standing in Christendom – the geopolitical fruit of the Christian faith.  This Christian-faith informed Natural Law is the only wooden stake that can pierce the rapidly metastasizing cancer (more…)

Bill O’Reilly recently aired an  interview with Glenn Beck that was seemingly designed by the Fox News Network to delineate the marketing niche difference between Bill and Beck. In that interview (click the arrow below to play) Beck refused to state that same sex marriage was a threat to the stability of our social order. He also demurred on the question of legalized childkilling.  O’Reilly challenged Beck as not being a true “culture warrior,” but then revealed weaknesses in his own foundation.

It seems that O’Reilly bases his culture warring on social custom and social custom (tradition) alone. We must, he said, uphold the values of our history.  He did not specify any font for those values, or any standard outside of history from which to judge those values.

Glenn Beck countered a vague, general “faith” as the key to values, but then rendered all spirituality equal, regardless of religion (as long it was nonviolent, which the OT certainly was not).

Here, don’t just take my spin on it …. watch the interview yourself:

Both great televangelists (more…)

This one will not hurt the new Justice’s feelings one bit.

At the beginning of the summer the ArchAngel Institute sent out a mailing to more than 2500 local households presenting my (brown’s) predicament before the Indiana authorities (click here for a nutshell on that) and an aggressive summer educational and committee program.  We also noted that things were going badly on the national level, and that our summer was thus best called a summer of discontent.

Our new SCOTUS “justice”, Elana Kagan, certainly demonstrates the source of our discontent.  Add this to our analysis of her:  Elana Kagan is no Bryan Brown.  Consider:  She has a pro-abortion activist background, Brown has a pro-life activist background.  She has an allegation of gross misconduct pending before the United States Supreme Court that could, if true, result in disbarment; Brown has had two minor complaints filed against his Kansas license in 12 years — both were dismissed on the merits without any disciplinary action taken (and both arose out of my work in the culture wars and were filed by those advancing pro-abortion agendas).  Brown is a conservative, white, Christian, heterosexual male (zero diversity points — or is it -10?), Kagan is a … well let’s just say she hits a bullseye on diversity points.  Kagan’s religious perspectives are lauded, her arguing with an “orthodox” rabbi and all, Browns are vilified, him defending the Blessed Virgin Mary and all.  (Click here)  Brown cited Sir Thomas More as his hero, Kagan cites a socialist Israeli judge.   Kagan is respected by the Left for her “over the line” work to ensure the right to kill babies at birth, Brown is derided by the government for his actions on behalf of a tramautized 83 year old woman.  Kagan enjoys the full and unified support of the Left, Brown enjoys little to no support from the Right, local or national.

Last but not least, Kagan has no view affirming the clear teaching of the Declaration of Independence and was bold in stating that fact before the Senate, Brown defended his belief in this teaching before the Indiana Board of Law Examiners, and was then punished for that audacity of Hope. (Click here and click here)

Elana Kagan is now one of the most powerful judges on Earth, and will likely remain in that position for the rest of her life.

Brown, by comparison, has been denied admission to the Indiana bar and told that he cannot even ask for admission again until 2014, at which time he will presumably meet the same religious biases if he has not abandoned his historic Christian faith.

Kagan empowered to the max, Brown unempowered to the max. (more…)