Edwin Vieira

Honestly, I am confused. After rereading an account of last week's Crusade Against Justice Kennedy, I noticed this quote:

Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law." Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

I investigated Dr. Vieira, and his writings are schizophrenic or deeply rooted in originalist interpretation. For example, he opposes the Patriot Act in a marginally coherent argument: ". . . today's push for 'homeland security' actually aims, not at the security of the United States or of the American people under the Constitution, but at the Establishment’s security over the Constitution and against the people."

Later in his essay, I fail to join Dr. Vieira on his leap from Establishment Security to flaws in the Federal Reserve:

The Establishment is systematically constructing a domestic police-state apparatus, indoctrinated, trained, and ready to impose on the great mass of Americans whatever harsh measures the Establishment decrees, because it expects . . . disturbances in America of magnitudes far greater and consequences far more reaching than anything a few Islamic terrorists could possibly cause. These must be disturbances that involve very large numbers of average Americans [and] that only a police state can quell, which means that . . . they will be completely justified under the Constitution. And, most importantly, they must be disturbances which, if not quelled at whatever cost, would bring down the Establishment.

What might cause such disturbances? As with most questions in criminal politics, the answer can be found by "following the money". What poses the most dangerous threat to the Establishment's continued rule . . . if not the instability of the Ponzified monetary and banking systems, and superheated financial markets, that provide the foundations for its economic and political power? Any scheme of fractional-reserve banking based on fiat currency the value of which is secured by nothing more than economically unsound debt and the government's power to tax is inherently and inexorably self-destructive. No such scheme can long survive. The Federal Reserve System is just such a scheme. And the Establishment knows it. . . .

Political instability will threaten the Establishment's debt-based currency, the incestuous relationship between the Ponzified banks and the Treasury, and even the Establishment's phony "two-party system" of Mensheviks and Bolsheviks--who, of course, Americans will correctly recognize as equally responsible for the mess, because they are but the two false faces of the same evil political god, Janus Americanus.

. . . To maintain its own economic and political positions, the Establishment will sacrifice the economic welfare and the constitutional rights of everyone else. And to succeed it will be compelled to crack down: first, on people's resistance to its propaganda, agitation, disinformation, and other techniques of psycho-political manipulation; then on refractory dissent; then on rebellion at the polls; then on mass refusals to obey its oppressive "statutes", "regulations", and "judicial decisions"; and, at length, on revolt against every aspect of its misrule. The Establishment is building a domestic police state today for the purpose of deterring, cowing, and if necessary smashing this opposition tomorrow. (literary flourishes omitted where possible)

According to Dr. Vieira, the primary purpose of Homeland Security is not to protect people, rather it is to preserves economic stability and wealth. (Maybe I'm naive, but I think Homeland Security's purpose is less devious and malicious than Dr. Vieira contends. )

To get to the point, his arguments against Homeland Security seem at odds with his castigation of Justice Kennedy. Even if I adopt his originalist interpretation of the Constitution, I have trouble finding fault with Kennedy's opinions that struck down anti-sodomy laws and juvenile death penalty using thebroad interpretation of liberty and life that he advocates. Is there a consistency in his viewpoints that I'm missing?