The Indoctrination of Youth

Everyone has seen the videos that have found their way to the internet and onto select news stations showing school children chanting the praises of Barack Obama. Many parents and conservative news groups are deeply concerned that this represents an attempt on the part of the President’s inner circle to indoctrinate these children into believers of the political agenda of the Obama administration. While these charges have denied by the administration and been met with ridicule from Obama supporters, they cannot be that easily dismissed.

The earliest and easily, the most disturbing, was a video that found its way to You Tube in October of 2008 featuring a group of roughly twenty teen-aged boys dressed in black T-shirts, camouflage pants and gold combat boots. They chanted individually and with military precision, all of the things that Obama had inspired them to do and then the litany of wonderful things that Obama’s healthcare plan would do for the nation before breaking out into a group cheer for Obama. Almost immediately, the cry went out that similar to the Hitler Youth, Barack Obama or his supporters were creating a training program for young militant blacks, loyal to Barack Obama and not to the United States. Those charges were met with countercharges of racism, a charge that would be used over and over by Mr. Obama’s supporters in the coming months. That video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY

After the election, that video faded from memory and the country waited to see exactly what his promise of change would mean as President Obama assumed his position as the forty-fourth President of the United States. In what seems like a blur, the Federal government dolled out hundreds of billions in bailouts, passed an eight-hundred billion dollar stimulus bill, presented a Climate Bill that is currently estimated to cost us three-hundred billion dollars a year (US Treasury Report) and a Healthcare Bill that promises to be equally as crippling to the economy. Who would think there would be time for more?

As children returned to school after their summer vacation it was leaked out that the President planned a grand speech to the nation’s schools. That in and of itself, is not remarkable. Other Presidents including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have addressed the nation’s students during their administrations too. I suppose the difference was the reaction from Congressional Democrats and the National Education Association who deeply criticized both Reagan and Bush for their speeches. In fact, House Democrats actually investigated Bush’s use of public funds for this matter and though he was ultimately found to have done no wrong, was still chided by the NEA for wasting twenty-six thousand dollars to present the speech to school children while his administration had planned to make cuts in the school lunch program. In what amounts to nothing less than hypocrisy, these same groups would ultimately praise Mr. Obama for “reaching out” to the youth of the nation.

The concerns raised by conservative groups and parents over President Obama’s plan to speak to America’s school children were fueled by the materials that were distributed to the school district to accompany the speech. Sections of these materials indicated that they expected teachers to encourage the students to pledge that they would help the President meet his goals while others were apparently designed to fill the students with glowing admiration of Barack Obama. There were to be discussions on setting personal goals, of which the suggested subjects just happened to be in line with the President’s agenda. There was even a celebrity video that was released to go with this “celebration” of Barack Obama that showed numerous movie and music stars pledging support for the President’s agenda and ended with the celebrities pledging to Obama himself. Now maybe I am old fashioned, but I don’t recall anyone in the history of this nation pledging to anything besides the flag and the Constitution and no one has ever pledged allegiance to any one person in America, ever.

Once again, charges were made that the administration was clearly attempting to indoctrinate the youth of America into supporting the President’s agenda and once again, countercharges were levied that any opposition to the President’s speech was strictly a matter of race. It would be nearly a full week before the text of President’s speech was released for parents and school boards to read (one day before the speech was given) which led many to believe, including me, that this was not the original speech but a speech written at the last minute to avoid any additional controversy; a speech that was now, cleverly devoid of any particular political ideology.

Now we have videos appearing of school children singing the praises of Barack Obama. The first video appeared on September 24th featuring an elementary school in New Jersey. When parents saw the video and demanded an answer, school faculty would only say that the video was secretly taped and they were irate that it was posted on YouTube without their knowledge. That sounds eerily like the defense that ACORN used when they were caught on film encouraging people to break the law. While the school insisted that the song was written by the students themselves, the lyrics are clearly more advanced than the grade level of the students involved and in fact, Charisse Carney-Nunes was reportedly at the school helping teachers lead the children in song. We will discuss Ms. Carney-Nunes later but she is someone that is connected to a group that has, as part of its agenda, a program to politicize school aged children. That video can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8grOVPu_sRU

On September 29th, a second video has appeared showing a different school where the children are being led in chants about change, hope, education and national service ending in a boisterous “Yes we can!” Hmmm? I seem to recall that change, hope, national service and “yes we can” were prominent features of Obama campaign posters but again, the charges of indoctrination are being dismissed as the opponents are again being classified as racist. You do realize that when this administration has finished using the term racist, it will have no meaning at all. This newest video can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6IHkuBZtls

Charisse Carney-Nunes is a Senior Vice President of Programs at The Jamestown Project. She was also identified as one of the people leading students in song in the New Jersey video. Her bio on the Jamestown Project not only speaks of her work with the project but it also says she has recently accepted a job with the Obama administration’s Transportation Department. Why, what a coincidence!

“The Jamestown Project” as they describe themselves, “is a diverse action-oriented think tank of new leaders who reach across boundaries and generations to make democracy real. Founded and operated primarily by people of color and women, The Jamestown Project consists of scholars, activists, and communities who use five broad strategies to achieve our mission: generating new ideas; promoting meaningful public conversations and engagement; cultivating new leaders; formulating political strategy and public policy; and using cutting-edge communications techniques that reach a broad public.”

When discussing a curriculum guide they have prepared for grades 3 to 5 they write: “Children Do Democracy Too is an outgrowth of our Doing Democracy work. The purpose of the initiative is to equip children with the knowledge and tools necessary to meaningfully participate in civil society and democracy. The central question we seek to answer is, “How do we instill the values of citizenship and active participation into the youngest, and in many ways the most important, members of our democracy?”The Jamestown Project released A Children’s Curriculum for Civic Engagement in the Fall of 2008 as part of this initiative. The curriculum is based on our book:
“I Dream For You A World: A Covenant For Our Children.”

“The Curriculum adapts the concepts from the book into lessons and activities to promote civic engagement to elementary aged children. Grades 3 – 5 are the optimal age for children to not only understand their place in the world, but also a time to begin to comprehend their power and potential to make a difference in their own lives, their family, their communities, and their country. We are currently piloting the curriculum and seeking new partners to help us evaluate the program, share learning, and to strategize about achieving future goals.”

Ms.Carney-Nunes wrote another book entitled “I Am Barack Obama”. This book encourages children to find their “inner Obama”, which I suppose is the leftist equivalent of finding Jesus in your heart. She presented the book to the third grade children of the Salem Middle School, the colorful pages emblazoned on a big-screen projector above her as she read aloud. School faculty said “the children shouted gleefully “I am Barack Obama!” Her stories are of a hope that often finds confinement within the poverty-stricken city. “The most important thing I think, and the reason the book is called I Am Barack Obama, is because I like when children say I am Barack Obama,” Carney-Nunes said. “They understand that there is a little bit of Barack Obama in all of us.”

The Jamestown Project has a number of laudable goals. Their work with children is meant to enrich their lives; promote self esteem, morality, awareness and to motivate them into actions that will reward them and their community. The problems that I have with what they do and with the videos we have seen emerge from this school of thought is that nowhere, does it seem to include the parents.

There doesn’t seem to be room in this program to allow parents the ability to exercise their right to shape their children to fit their own family structure of religion, morality and yes, even political ideology. It is almost as if they don’t want to risk the parents interjecting anything that doesn’t fit their script for what they want the kids to grow up thinking and that goes against everything we have always believed as a nation. That is also the fundamental definition of indoctrination.

Paul

Are there Un-American Activities?

With roots established as far back as 1918, The House Un-American Activities Committee has provided the means for Congressional investigations of subversive activities conducted within or against, the United States. The direct precursors to The House Un-American Activities Committee can be found in the Overman Committee of 1918, the Fish Committee of 1930, the Special Committee on Un-American Activities of 1934-1937 and the Special Investigations Committee of 1938-1944.

The Overman Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Senator Lee Slater Overman of North Carolina. The Overman Committee operated from September 1918 to June 1919 and investigated German as well as Bolshevik elements in the United States. Originally tasked with investigation pro-German sentiments in the American liquor industry, the priority shifted after the conclusion of World War One to focus on the affects of Communist Bolshevism in America after the Russian Revolution of 1917. This Committee had a decisive role in constructing an image of a radical threat to America during the First Red Scare.

Similarly, the Fish Committee of 1930 pursued the same interests. NY Congressman Hamilton Fish III, who was a fervent anti-communist, introduced on May 5, 1930, House Resolution 180, which proposed to establish a committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. The resulting committee, commonly known as the Fish Committee, investigated people and organizations suspected of being involved with or supporting communist activities in the United States. Among the committee's targets were the American Civil Liberties Union and communist presidential candidate William Z. Foster. The committee recommended granting the United States Department of Justice more authority to investigate communists, and strengthening of immigration and deportation laws to keep communists out of the United States.

In May 1938, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was established as a special investigating committee. It was chaired by Texas Representative Martin Dies Jr., and therefore known as the Dies Committee. Its work was aimed mostly at German American involvement in Nazi and Ku Klux Klan activity but the committee's chief counsel Ernest Adamson announced that "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe." Instead of the Klan, HUAC concentrated on investigating the possibility that the American Communist Party had infiltrated the Works Progress Administration, including the Federal Theatre Project and the Federal Writers' Project.

Representative Dies, who was a supporter of the New Deal, eventually withdrew his support for FDR’s far reaching social programs in 1937. The Committee fell under attack by members of the Roosevelt administration after their investigations were found to involve child actress Shirley Temple, who was ten years old at the time. The attacks were an intentional misrepresentation of the Committees work since Miss Temple’s name was only mentioned as it had appeared on a list of Hollywood figures that sent greetings to the Communist-owned French newspaper, Ce Soir

Mr. Dies tried to appear before the public to address this deliberate attempt to discredit the Committee but was curiously refused air time by both CBS and NBC as they feared reprisal from the Roosevelt Administration through use of the FCC.

In 1945, The House Un-American Activities Committee became a standing or “permanent” committee. The Un-American Activities Committee has often been mistakenly identified with the anti-communist investigations of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1953-1954. Although the goals were the same where subversive activities were concerned, Senator McCarthy chaired the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and had no direct involvement with The House Un-American Activities Committee.

After the House Un-American Activities Committee achieved status as a permanent committee, it became more focused on Communist subversive activities. Ironically, Democratic Congressman Samuel Dickstein, vice-chairman of the respective committees, would eventually be named in Soviet NKVD documents as a Soviet agent. Congressmen Dickstein, who had actually assisted in forming this committee to root out German fascists, apparently had not anticipated the change in the targets of committee’s investigations. The allegations remained unproven at that time and Dickstein later served as a Justice on the New York Supreme Court until his death in 1954.

In an interesting development, documents discovered in 1990s in the Moscow archives showed Dickstein was paid $1250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD, the Soviet spy agency, which hoped to get secret Congressional information on anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces. Whether Dickstein provided any intelligence is uncertain and when he left the Committee, the Soviets dropped him from their payroll.

Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion. Through his position as Chairman of The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator McCarthy made numerous claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere.

His subcommittee held 169 hearings throughout 1953 and 1954. Of the 653 people called by the Committee during a 15 month period, 83 refused to answer questions about espionage and subversive activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, and their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had worked for the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the Government Printing Office, the Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Veterans Administration. Others were or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratories in New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New Jersey, and General Electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York.

Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. It is clear that Joe McCarthy faced the same opposition as the House Un-American Activities Committee did but were they wrong?

Recent disclosures point to a Soviet program of demoralization that infused money into key areas of our society to fund groups that would reduce the American resistance to socialist ideals. The Soviets funded labor movements in the 1920’s and ‘30s, they infiltrated the film industry and print news, they established socialist professors in American universities and funded the anti-war movement against American involvement in Viet Nam.

Periodically, the news is still punctuated with names like Robert Hanson and Aldrich Ames, both if which were convicted of espionage and conspiracy, both of which are currently serving life sentences and both of which were in the employ of the Soviet Union and later, Russia, which serves to prove that this program of demoralization is still being practiced today.

The protests in Pittsburg this week that erupted into violence at the G20 conference were mostly anti-capitalist factions that acquired their left leaning tilt at the hands of radical professors that are still spreading the disease of socialism. You already know many of the colleges that are famous for this indoctrination by name, such as UCLA Berkeley, Columbia University, Bard College, etc, etc. Just the names invoke a response because the radical teachings in these schools are common knowledge.

Now we also have new threats to our society. Since blatant socialism is still met with resistance the new communist social engineers have found a new host to infect; the environmental or “green” movement. Have you noticed that their message has recently changed from fighting pollution to “creating a green economy”? The new environmentalists (Marxist globalists) have presented their earth-saving agenda to the newest generation of indoctrinates with the added urgency that we must do this now or all is lost. What these clandestinely co-opted college students don’t realize is that these plans will do little to improve the environment since they are really crafted to destroy the U.S. economy and food supply hence, destroying the American citizen’s resistance to socialism as it becomes their only hope for food and warmth.

No, Joe McCarthy isn’t rolling over in his grave and I doubt he would say “I told you so” even if he could. People like Joe McCarthy would have loved nothing more than to have been wrong and to know the nation he loved was safe and sound. If he were alive today he would probably be leading the charge to expose these threats just as he did then. He would be leading the charge to expel those that mean harm to our country not only from the schools, but from all facets of government as well.

Paul

The Roots of Socialism in America

I listen to students and young people comment on politics or society and wonder “how could they possibly believe what they are saying?” It dawned on me that to be able to draw reasonable conclusions, these young minds would have to have been properly educated and have access to all of the facts and not just the select few that suit the political agenda of the educator. While frustrating, there are reasons for this apparent lack of common sense.

The roots of socialism in America are found much as they were in Europe; a revolt against the harsh working conditions of the industrial revolution. It was Karl Marx, a philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist and revolutionary, whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism. Marx summarized his approach in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution in 1917, and few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Teddy Roosevelt would never be known as a Socialist but he did espouse many ideas that were Socialist in nature. He considered himself a progressive and while he did believe in American Imperialism and a strong world military presence, he also believed in heavy government regulation, government control of wages and the redistribution of wealth for the public good.

On the heels of the Russian Revolution, Communist and Socialist movements found an audience in the American Labor movement. The Socialist Party of America was a coalition of local parties based in industrial cities. Even though by 1912 they claimed more than a thousand locally elected officials in 33 states and 160 cities, the party was factionalized. The conservatives, led by Victor Berger, promoted progressive causes of efficiency and an end to corruption. The radicals wanted to overthrow capitalism, tried to infiltrate labor unions, and sought to cooperate with The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). With few exceptions the party had weak or nonexistent links to local labor unions.

Once the stock market collapsed in 1929 forcing enormous numbers of people into unemployment, the communists surged once again and began to organize rallies and marches in support of workers and workers rights. In March, 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party’s Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew by 150 in 1932. The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communists and Socialists, who wanted to organize “unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations.” Workers turned to these radical groups until organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act

While Communists and Socialists did gain a foothold in these turbulent years, Walter Philip Reuther the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) would soon change that. As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic Party.

Labor unions eventually eliminated the public connections between the unions, Communism and Socialism. They traded those links for something less troubling in the public eye, the progressive arm of the Democratic Party which espoused many of the same ideals as Socialists without the negative connotations; what some would call “Communism light”. Now the real work to transform the nation could begin under the American flag and right under the noses of the American people.

Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader 1958 to 1964, had once made a statement is a speech saying that he would “bury” America. Some thought that meant that he meant military action or that he would launch a nuclear attack to bring about his prophecy. That raised even more fear among average Americans during the cold war even though war was hardly his intention.

Khrushchev was perfectly willing to let America move to the left incrementally; here a little, there a little. When speaking about FDR’s New Deal, Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Changing terminology and calling socialist programs “compassionate conservativism” doesn’t change the nature of the beast itself. Redistributing the wealth to win votes will produce the same devastating end as redistributing the wealth because you are an outright socialist.

From 1959 until 1989, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) received a substantial subsidy from the Soviet Union. Starting with $75,000 in 1959 this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the Party's subservience to the Moscow

Yuri Alexandrovic Bezmenov, now known as Tomas David Schuman, was born in 1939 in the former Soviet Union and worked as a journalist for Pravda. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He decided to defect to the West.

Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s. From his writings and speeches Mr. Bezmenov said: “Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism....

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”

Thanks to the soviet doctrine in “ideological subversion”, America now has over 10,000 avowed socialist professors teaching in our universities that continue the practice of indoctrination. We also have over 70 members of Congress that consider themselves socialists or progressive socialists. In fact, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the authors of the Climate Bill (cap and trade) are two of the Progressive Socialists in Congress which a great reason to oppose that Bill all by itself.

Tomorrow: Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Paul

The Theater of The Absurd

The air was thick with apprehension as the United Nations General Assembly prepared to meet in New York this week. Some of the most distasteful, if not outright eccentric figures in the world arena traveled to the United States to attend.

There was a general mood of distain throughout America as several leaders that are openly hostile to the United States were allowed entry into this county so they could engage in yet more angry ridicule of America and her allies.

While one could easily predict the hateful rhetoric of these “gentlemen”, there were a few surprises. Moammar Gadaffi, leader of Libya since 1979, tore up a copy of the UN charter and demanded an investigation into the assassination of John F Kennedy during his ninety minute rambling dissertation.

While he was giving us a surreal look at his personal quirks he did take a few moments to heap praises upon American President Barack Obama calling him “our son” and expressing the hope that he would remain President forever. I’m not sure what he meant by saying “our son” but I do wonder if that means he might be in a position to help us settle the Obama birth certificate issue once and for all. Truthfully, I was more disturbed at his hopes that Mr. Obama would remain President of The United States forever since I suspect that given the opportunity, the title of President for life would suit Barack Obama just fine.

Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, who remained dedicated to his usual rants to promote socialism had eased his rhetoric of Obama as well. Chavez, who had previously called President Bush a devil that had made the podium “smell” of sulphur, said of Obama, "Yesterday he spoke here and it no longer smells of sulphur. It smells of something better: hope." He then urged Mr Obama to end the embargo on communist-run Cuba and to refrain from deploying military bases in Colombia. "Obama, come and join the socialists," Mr Chavez quipped in the address to the UN General Assembly. "We invite you to join the axis of evil."

Well, why wouldn’t Chavez find Obama a kindred spirit? After all, Chavez and Obama are both Constitutional tinkerers; Chavez to retain power beyond what was lawfully allowed and Obama to place Marxists and radicals in positions within the government that were traditionally off-limits to them. Mr. Obama is not only ignoring the voice of the citizens but the Tenth Amendment itself, to force his vision of healthcare reform and climate regulation on an unwilling nation. His takeovers in the banking and mortgage industries and of General Motors are not really all that different that the nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry.

Even Fidel Castro praised President Obama’s speech on climate calling it “brave”. He added "It would only be fair to recognize that no other United States President would have had the courage to say what he said.”

As an illustration as to how ridiculous the United Nations has become, The UN named Castro a “World Hero of Solidarity” at a recent South American conference in Mexico. In giving that award, the President of the U.N. General Assembly stated that Castro was one of a few South American leaders who “embodies virtues and values worth emulation by all of us.”

By far, the most divisive speech given was that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His assertions that Israel is a ruthless aggressor and is responsible for slaughter of innocent Palestinians of the Gaza region was met in silent protest as delegations from several nations including Canada, The United States, France and Great Britain vacated their seats in the General Assembly. He did not restate his incendiary remarks from previous speeches regarding "the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust" nor did he chant his usual call for the destruction of Israel but he did accuse Israel of 'inhuman policies' in the Palestinian territories and of dominating world political and economic affairs. Of course the million dollar question remains unanswered and there was no mention of Iran’s nuclear program or their intention to continue it in the face of worldwide opposition.

The Most compelling speech was that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He spent nearly the first ten minutes of his speech addressing Iran’s repeated assertions that the Holocaust was a manufactured event founded in lies by producing copies of several documents that were given to Mr. Netanyahu by the German government. The documents not only included the plans for the infamous Auschwitz- Birkenau death camp where one million of the over six million Jews lost to the Holocaust were murdered at the hands of the Nazis, but the actual meeting notes that were kept when the operational plans for carrying out Hitler’s “final solution” were discussed. He asked rhetorically “Did all these people lie too?” He recounted the personal losses suffered by his family and added that no family of the Jewish community was spared the suffering of loss.

While he made an impassioned plea for unity to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms his most memorable moment was his assessment of the United Nations in general. He gratefully acknowledged the delegations that left the chamber during Amahdinejad’s speech but added his disgust that the United Nations would offer a forum for someone so hateful, so corrupt and so devoid of civilized morals. He questioned “Have you no shame? Have you no decency?” I would have added, “Have you no soul” but I fear we already know the answer to that. He admonished the UN’s Human Rights Council for ignoring the Palestinian rocket attacks on the civilian population of Israel and then condemning the measures Israel took in self defense; measures that took great care not to inflict civilian casualties on their enemies.

Mr. Netanyahu reminded the assembly that every time that an Arab nation sought a sincere peace, Israel accepted. They have an honorable peace with Egypt and with Syria and no one notices. They would offer the same peace with Palestine but it must be a peace with security for all and not a safe haven for more faceless attacks. He especially emphasized that this is the twenty-first century and we can no longer tolerate those that would try and revert all of our progress back to the ninth century when barbarism was currency of men.

I think what surprised me the most was the choice of language that Mr. Obama used in his speech; calling the Israeli settlements an “occupation” intimating that he would seek concessions in future peace talks with Israel. This past week President Obama alienated Poland and the Czech Republic by backing out of a deal to install a defensive missile shield in those two countries. Not only did he back out of an agreement, but he foolishly announced it on the seventieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. The move was seen by all as weakness in the face of Russian opposition to the missile system.

There are reports that Obama has also snubbed attempts by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to meet with him not once, but three times. Now he has openly insulted Israel at a time when they desperately need reassurance from her allies or face the choice of taking unilateral military action to disable Iran’s nuclear program. If it happens now, the blame for this will be partially Obama’s. If he stood by Israel he might have been able to convince them that military action was not needed but he didn’t. Now if severe sanctions are not imposed and if Iran does not acquiesce to them, I fear a pre-emptive strike by Israel against the nuclear facilities in Iran is unavoidable and I don’t blame them.

Mr. Obama delivered his speech as if he were Harry Truman and the United States is still holding all the cards. We aren’t. We are financially beholding to China, our Federal Reserve is destabilizing the dollar, we have a President that is more concerned with campaigning for healthcare than the needs of his generals and troops in a war zone and the move to appease Russia by reneging on a promise to two of our allies is being viewed across the planet as irresponsible and spineless.

The coup de gras came today when he presided over a meeting of the UN Security Council in which he obtained unanimous approval of a U.S. drafted resolution to rid the world of all nuclear weapons. The resolution outlines the step that would be taken to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world’s arsenals. Mr. Obama is falling flat on his face at home with his healthcare proposal hopelessly stalled and his climate bill facing almost certain death in the Senate. He needed a victory somewhere and this was as good as any. The fact is: it is meaningless. UN resolutions did not get Iraq out of Kuwait, military intervention did. Nor have UN resolutions dissuaded North Korea or Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons themselves. The fifteen members approved the resolution because not one of them has any intention of enforcing it.

I suppose we should just try and guess which of our closest allies he will insult next as he continues to cuddle up to dictators and despots. This is nothing less than a disturbing display of his naivety and inexperience in dealing with people that haven’t read the same childish manuscripts on how we are all one big family with an underlying desire to take care of each other. I suppose that something amazing could happen that would surprise us all if these thugs were to suddenly change their minds on even one of these issues. And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon.

Paul

Reality Check

I will be honest with you; I am confused. I think I need a reality check because I must be missing something. President Obama laughs off criticisms that he is creating a “shadow” government through the appointments of radical and Marxist Czars to positions of power within his administration and then we find that Carol Browner, Mr. Obama’s Climate Czar, is at the center of a plan to implement the most onerous portions of the climate bill through the existing Clean Air Act of 1970 with or without Congressional approval. Ms. Browner is yet one more Obama appointee with Marxist tendencies as displayed by her previous involvement with Socialist International, a group that supports global governance.

The insanity Ms. Browner seeks to implement would add a massive amount of new regulations from an 18,000 page blueprint that can only be described as an eco-terrorist manifesto to destroy the economy of the United States. If implemented, it will move beyond automobiles to regulating the U.S. economy. It will eventually regulate everything that moves (light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of equipment that has a motor) and lots of things that don’t (any building over 100,000 square feet could be pulled in, along with smaller carbon dioxide emitters, like restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners).

In an article featured in Politico, Josh Gerstein reports;

“Former Vice President Al Gore and current White House climate change czar Carol Browner are warning companies and lawmakers that the courts will step in to regulate greenhouse gases if Congress fails to act.

"All of the discussion has been about the president and the Congress," Gore told journalists at a U.N. press conference Tuesday. "We have a third branch of government: the courts."

He pointed approvingly to a decision issued Monday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowing public-nuisance lawsuits to proceed against companies that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. (The three-judge panel initially included Judge Sonia Sotomayor, but the two judges resolved the case after she was elevated to the Supreme Court.)

Gore said the trend in the courts was favoring greater regulation. "The Supreme Court ruled over a year ago that CO2 emissions are pollution as covered in the Clean Air Act," he said. "The U.S. EPA as a result of that court ruling has the [authority] to mandate reductions….Yes, there would be some efforts in the legislative branch to remove that authority but anything in the legislative branch of that sort would be vetoed by the president."

"Even in the absence of legislation, existing law will be requiring significant reduction of CO2. As a practical matter, that puts significant pressure on business lobbies resisting legislation to reassess their position," Gore said.
Browner called attention to the same appeals court ruling and also argued that the (electric) train was leaving the station, one way or another. "The courts are starting to take control of this issue. If they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards," Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. "Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants….Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it."

While I know many of you already see the warning signs, there are some that still do not see the dangers. They ask “What would they possibly gain from disrupting industry and destroying the American economy?” I guess that depends on what their ultimate goals are. Carol Browner is an advocate of a single, global government. She is also an environmentalist. What a coincidence! So was Van Jones, the radical and vocal “Green Jobs Czar” that was recently forced to resign his position. The environmental movement has been infiltrated and taken over by radical socialists that look at America as the only thing that is preventing the spread of not only Marxism, but globalism in the Americas.

Mark Lloyd, the Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC, who is another Obama appointee residing in a newly created position was heard praising the assent of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and spoke openly of how a free press nearly crushed his “amazing revolution.” He also has been quoted as saying that “Freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction….”

Then we have John Holdren, the Science Czar, that believes that people are the scourge and depopulation is the answer. Mr. Holdren co-authored a book that proposed mandatory sterilization and forced abortion to bring the human race down to acceptable levels. How did these people slip past both the press and the Congress and be ultimately escorted directly into the halls of government?

For the record, I don’t believe Al Gore is a globalist or a Marxist. He is heavily invested in a software company that will make him a billionaire if the Climate Bill passes so he is just a good old fashion thief and a hypocrite who is merely cashing in on global warming. We know he can’t possibly believe what he says because his lifestyle is so opulent and his energy consumption is ten time higher than the average American. Consuming that much energy is a feat all by itself and it simply doesn’t fit the lifestyle of a real honest-to-goodness environmentalist, now does it?

For those that believe that the only salvation of man is unification under a single world government, the environmental movement is the perfect vehicle since the planet is after all, global. All they would need is some all encompassing environmental crisis to achieve momentum. Well how about that…..global warming certainly fits that description. While America is dutifully engaged in hot debates over healthcare, the environmental socialists are maneuvering to implement plans that can have no other effect than to destroy the biggest roadblock to world governance…The United States of America.

Think about it. If global warming was the real crisis and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was the real objective, then why is this something the United States is doing virtually alone? China and India have already said “No thanks” and many other nations with CO2 emissions on a par with the U.S. would be exempt under the UN climate proposal. In fact, we will be cutting our emissions only to allow developing nations expand their manufacturing base and economy. Oh yes, and we will be throwing billions of dollars to assist them at that too.

If you ask me, this is the first assault in the war of globalism. If other nations are to take an equal place in this new global government then the United States would have to be cut down to size while her wealth and industrial might are portioned and sold off in one giant garage sale. Additionally, if our economy were disrupted beyond repair then we could no longer fund the fight for freedom. If we were impoverished, the American citizens would quickly lose this crazy idea that their wealth and freedoms give them immunity from the enlightened view of global social morality that is prevalent in liberal universities and geopolitical think tanks.

Author and journalist James Tucker has been following the globalist movement for thirty years. He wrote: “In 1990 the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”

Unlike other crises that these groups could have latched on to, global warming has the urgency factor that they needed. It will compel people and nations to act before the full economic consequences of this so-called race to save the planet are fully realized or before the scientific data that supports it dwindles under increasing ridicule.

Slowly more and more people in the scientific communities are seeing data that does not make sense when discussing carbon dioxide induced global warming. The carbon dioxide found in ice core samples are not supporting the man-made crisis theory and the rise in global temperatures are not following the upward curve that would be expected if this were a continuing and unabated man made dilemma. The data actually suggests that natural cycles in solar output may have far more to do with recent warming trends than had previously been thought. These are not fringe scientists either; these are MIT study groups and others that actually have reputations to consider. Regardless of this change in philosophy by so many scientists, the Carol Browners and Al Gores of our nation are moving with alarming speed to force this nation into damaging legislation with dubious climatic benefits as a result of highly questionable science.

One thing is clear. There must be many more marches on Washington equal in size and passion to the one that occurred on September 12th. People must flood their legislator’s offices with letters and phone calls demanding that they put an end to this obvious conspiracy to coalesce powers in the White House that rightfully belong in the hands of Congress and more importantly, the States and people. There must be a unified demand for transparency in government and truth in the press. As long as they think they can dismiss us like ignorant peasants, we might as well dust off the pitchforks and torches and act like ignorant peasants. You know the old saying. “If you’re going to accuse me of stealing a hat, I might as well wear it.”

Paul

Some Myths of the Healthcare Debate

The Obama administration has taken to the precept of government by crisis. Nearly every issue he has placed before the American people has been in the context of a crisis of one sort or another. The most current push is for a healthcare reform plan to save the nation from ruin. Mr. Obama has gone as far as saying that if this plan does not pass, thousands of Americans will die in the streets, which is just plain nonsense. At the same time he is threatening legal action against healthcare insurers for airing advertisements opposing the plan saying their ads are only meant to scare seniors. I guess its ok for the Federal government to frighten people into supporting the bill but it is not ok that the opposition is sharing frightening facts to oppose it.

First, let’s debunk another myth. The President says we have a healthcare crisis that threatens the economic security of the nation. To be fair I will admit it is partially true. Medicare and Medicaid represent half of all medical expenditures in the country. These programs are bloated with administrative waste and are cursed with fraud and corruption. They are the crisis and this is what is threatening the economic security of the nation. The reason private health insurance keeps going up or becomes exclusionary is because the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates keep going down to contain costs to the programs. What the hospitals and doctors cannot charge the government, they charge you, or rather your insurance, in what amounts to another hidden tax courtesy of your Federal government.

Whether we are addressing the healthcare legislation or the Climate Bill the issue is a matter of trust. We no longer trust the government and with good reason. When they aren’t lying they are exaggerating. Let’s go back sixteen years and look at what President Bill Clinton said in a 1993 speech when he tried to pass healthcare reform.

“Despite the dedication of literally millions of talented health care professionals, our health care is too uncertain and too expensive, too bureaucratic and too wasteful. It has too much fraud and too much greed. At long last, after decades of false starts, we must make this our most urgent priority, giving every American health security — health care that can never be taken away, health care that is always there. That is what we must do tonight.”

In the same speech he added, “…But we also know that we can no longer afford to continue to ignore what is wrong. Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their savings. Millions more are locked into the jobs they have now just because they or someone in their family has once been sick and they have what is called a pre-existing condition. And on any given day, over 37 million Americans, most of them working people and their little children, have no health insurance at all. And in spite of all this, our medical bills are growing at over twice the rate of inflation, and the United States spends over a third more of its income on health care than any other nation on earth, and the gap is growing, causing many of our companies in global competition severe disadvantage.”

That sounds awfully familiar doesn’t it? The only real difference is that Bill Clinton didn’t recklessly accuse doctors of performing unneeded surgeries on our children out of greed as Barack Obama did. Fraud, waste and greed were identified in 1993 as the major reasons why our healthcare costs were out of control just as they are today. Ok, so why hasn’t the Federal government moved one finger to address that in all these years? After all, according to Mr. Clinton, healthcare was in crisis then too. How did he put it? Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their health coverage? They certainly fixed that by passing NAFTA. That allowed companies to relocate from our country to a place where labor costs were only a percentage of what they are here and still have free access to the American marketplace. They must have thought it was more humane to eliminate those worrisome jobs and allow people the excitement and challenge of seeking work instead of living with the stress and fear that they might lose their current jobs.

The sirens that Bill Clinton had been sounding back then possessed all the distress and urgency that Barack Obama is using today. Both Presidents’ pleas point out the same threat of jobs loss, the same thirty plus million Americans without healthcare, the same out of control costs and the same comparisons to “other industrialized nations.” England just reported that there were over 40,000 preventable deaths in their system last year alone but since their plan is so "civilized" their people die in the hospital waiting for rationed services instead of in the proverbial street.

Instead of NAFTA, Barack Obama has endorsed the Climate Bill which promises to eliminate more jobs than NAFTA did as prohibitive taxes for carbon emissions drive businesses to relocate to countries with a less restrictive approach to business. They can still sell their goods in America thanks to NAFTA and GATT but it is doubtful anyone will actually purchase them. Not because of any sense of patriotism or support of American made goods. They will simply be no market for them since by then, the loss of U.S. jobs and the increases in home energy costs as a consequence of the Climate bill will seriously affect the purchasing power of the Average American family; families that are barely getting by now. Only the poorest families will be offered grants to offset the increase in energy costs in yet another hidden program to redistribute even more wealth.

The other issue in the deficit of trust is that the American people are smart enough now to see the lies. The President says this is not a Trojan horse to get to a single payer, national healthcare system while many of his colleagues openly say they will not vote for a plan that does not have that as its ultimate goal. The President says his plan will not cover illegal immigrants even though the house Democrats voted down every attempt to put language into the bill that would exclude them. Now that Senator Baucus actually added the exclusionary language into his version of the plan, Barack Obama is talking about reforming immigration too. So I guess the new thought process is that they won’t be illegal anymore if the President grants them amnesty. The President promised no cuts to Medicaid but there are clearly identified cuts of over $156 billion dollars in black and white. When Representative Joe Wilson was chastised for yelling out “You Lie!” during the President’s speech that was apparently because of where and when he said it and not because it wasn’t true.

The Democrat’s favorite response to criticism of the bill is the lack of substantive alternatives. There have been many great ideas offered during the course of the healthcare debates that were unfortunately killed by The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. They were never acknowledged because the suggestions and ideas, if implemented, would not have resulted in the massive new government program the President and progressive Democrats so desperately want. So what were those ideas?

1- Increase the enforcement in Medicare and Medicaid to root out fraud and waste. To sell the Healthcare Bill, the President claims it can be paid for in full by better management of waste and the prosecution of fraud. First I would have to say that if there is that much fraud and waste then the administrators of those plans should face criminal charges for allowing this to continue for as long as it has. After all, didn’t Bill Clinton point this out and sixteen years later, we are still throwing away that much taxpayer money?

2- Eliminate the Federal prohibitions that prevent healthcare insurers from competing across state lines. That’s right, I said government prohibitions. The Federal government has had those restrictions in place for decades. That is why people in most states can only choose between five or six plans. Competition makes companies better and limits how much they feel they can charge you for their services and products. Federal regulations currently prohibit that.

3- Eliminate the Federal prohibitions that prevent individuals from forming their health insurance groups and offer the same tax incentives to individuals that are offered to employers that provide employee healthcare coverage. I’m sure the insurance companies would love to have the ability to form their own insurance cooperatives that would allow individuals the option to join a particular group with a plan that fit’s their needs but right now, more government restriction prevent that.

4- Tort reform. Doctors pay exorbitant premiums for malpractice insurance because there is no sanity and sense to the legal system when it comes to law suits for damages. General practice doctors pay roughly $80,000 per year for malpractice insurance and OB/GYN can be as high as $200,000 per year. Of course if they actually are involved in a malpractice suit, those insurance costs can easily double. Doctors routinely order entire batteries of unnecessary tests just to make sure they can prevent malpractice claims if they are accused of wrongdoing. Those costs reflect an enormous amount of additional and unjustified expense added to medical

Case in point was Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (1994). Ms Liebeck ordered hot coffee from a McDonalds drive through and placed the cup between her legs to add cream and sugar. As she opened the cup, it spilled, severely burning her. The lawyers eventually got hold of this. She sued McDonalds and was awarded $2.86 million dollars which was reduced by the trial judge to $640,000. McDonald’s threatened to appeal the judgment and both parties agreed to an undisclosed settlement. Truthfully, if I were deciding that case I probably would have awarded her an ice pack and a dunce cap. Coffee is hot and if you place a paper cup full of it between your legs, what can I say. Dumb.

We don’t need to eliminate the ability for people to sue if there is legitimate cause to suspect that the doctor had not properly treated his patient but perhaps the first stop should be a medical review board to determine if the accusation is warranted and should actually be referred to the courts. If we leave it to the lawyers, we will be passing out an awful lot of dunce caps to go with Ms. Liebeck’s.

It is clear that the Federal government has been grossly inept at handling even the small portion of the healthcare system they already control and has prevented much wanted competition and progress in that part that they want to get their hands on now. It would be ridiculous to think they can do any better with all of it under their thumb. If you go back to my August posts, I had written a series of articles on the healthcare plan that addresses the accusation of “death panels”, the Trojan horse theory, privacy issues, the actual crisis of costs and several other issues surrounding this bill. I urge you to go back to those earlier posts for a more in depth analysis of those issues.

Paul

Mythbusters

We just spent nearly two weeks discussing the Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I had toyed with the idea of continuing through the additional list of the seventeen Amendments that were added over the years but most are pretty straight forward such as civil rights, women’s voting rights and term limits for the President. When I reached the sixteenth Amendment clarifying Income tax, my fear was that some of my readers may become suicidal. Honestly, I felt that covering those measures would just delay us from important discussion on the issues of the day.

The discussions we did have on the Constitution will be useful as we gauge what is happening now, against what should be happening within the framework of the Constitution. I also want to expose some myths surrounding modern “political speak” in that context to begin our next segment.

Myth one – FDR’s policies and programs ended the Great Depression.

False - Since President Obama’s proponents are touting him as the new FDR, this myth is the first that needs to be debunked. Nothing can be further from the truth. FDR’s programs were nothing more than keep busy government works projects that kept most at or below the poverty level; actually very similar to today’s Stimulus bill. World War Two sent millions of American men to war taking them off home relief and placing them on the front lines to defend the nation and during the war years, the country’s economy shifted to war production. Since general provisions were limited by the war, a combination of rationing and the tax structure were used to prevent runaway inflation. At the conclusion of the war, nearly every manufacturing center around the world had been destroyed in the fighting except for those located safely within the borders of the United States. From 1945 through the late 1050’s, if you wanted to buy anything, you had to buy it here and that is what ended the Great Depression.

Myth two – Reagan’s tax cuts and policies of “trickle down economics” failed and ultimately quadrupled the National Debt.

Partially true - First of all, to gain the tax cuts Reagan wanted to stimulate the economy, Reagan had to agree to the TEFRA act (Tax Equity and Reform Act) of 1986. Before the Reagan tax cuts, the tax on the wealthiest Americans were roughly 50% (already down from the top marginal tax rates of 80% to 95% during the world war two years). TEFRA eliminated many of the deductions that high earning American’s used to reduce their taxable income. You may want to note that even after the marginal tax rates for the top earners began to climb during the first Bush administration, none of the deductions eliminated under TEFRA had been restored.

Now to the bare facts: OMB figures indicate that the explosion of the economy directly related the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a tripling of revenues to the United States Treasury. Unfortunately, the Congress immediately wrote legislation that spent $1.34 for every new dollar they received. Admittedly, part of that was to fund the military expansion that Reagan insisted was necessary for the security of the nation; but a great deal were pork barrel projects injected into the legislation. Don’t forget, Reagan asked for the line item veto to be able to weed that reckless spending out of the legislation but Congress refused to offer him that power. If he were to move forward on the agenda he felt was vital to the nation, Reagan was given no alternative but to sign these pork laden bills into law. President Clinton was eventually given the power of the line item veto and never used it to weed out frivolous spending. In all fairness, neither did the second Bush administration.

Myth three - Deregulation created the mortgage crisis of 2007.

Partially true - Deregulation certainly allowed for the lapse in accountability that made this possible but to find the roots of the crisis, we need to travel back in time to the Clinton administration. During the Clinton administration there was a push to expand the “American Dream” of home ownership to a segment of the population where it had never existed before. That “push” was in the form of the Federal government fining banks that would not issue what were traditionally considered high risk loans to allow low income people access to home mortgages.

That practice drove the median prices of homes skyward since the law of supply and demand was now challenged by an artificially created marketplace. Those that already owned homes took advantage of the lenient lending terms and free flow of cash to refinance their mortgages based on the inflated value of the property, in essence turning their homes into an ATM machine with a garage and two and a half baths. Many took adjustable rate or interest only loans because they were cheaper thinking they would get into a conventional loan later. They took the difference in cash with some, purchasing additional properties with the idea that property values would continue to go nowhere but up.

Well, you knew it would happen sooner or later but an awful lot of those high risk loans started going sour. Banks that saw trouble on the horizon packaged these loans and sold them to investors. They sold them as securities thinking that the good paper would offset the bad paper, because property values always go up. Well that might have worked if property values weren’t artificially inflated and if property owners hadn’t already cashed in on that.

The net result was due to the high rate of loan failures (the high risk ones the government had forced on lenders) property values plummeted. When it came time for the ATM people to refinance, their home were worth substantially less that the principal they already owed. Unfortunately, the cash they withdrew from the “ATM” was already spent. You already know the story from there.

Myth four - The Stimulus plan (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) is responsible for the creation of millions of jobs.

False - Again, no; only a portion of the $800 billion allocated in the stimulus bill has actually been distributed. As opposed to The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which consisted of tax rebate checks put into the hands of tax payers, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 doled out money to the States and Cities. As a note, The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 consisted of roughly $152 billion given back to the tax payers while The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 scripted over $800 billion to fund projects administrated through the States and Cities. They still haven’t figured out that we spend money far better than they do.

In my home town of Phoenix, the stimulus money they received was used to purchase additional traffic enforcement cameras. Well that put a lot of people to work, now didn’t it? Much of the stimulus money in other areas was used to fund other previously committed projects like roads or transportation.

The facts: much of the stimulus money was used to fund projects that were already awarded to contractors (no new jobs) or was used for “make work” jobs, some of which lasted a total of 36 hours, less than a full work week, before these people were once again, unemployed. The “new jobs” were far less than temporary and the balance of what they claimed credit for, were jobs that had already existed.

As a note, The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 only failed because people used the money they received to satisfy existing debt. In essence, the government had already taken too much and waited too long only to give too little back.

So where am I going with this and is there a common thread? Those of you that have read my work before already know there must be something that ties all of this together. That “thread” is the Federal government’s inability to affect positive change through the manipulation of the free market system. Every time they have tried they have failed and failed miserably. Partly because they are following an ideology that mainstream America does not share and partly because they are so divided amongst themselves.

The nation’s capitol has become nothing more that a battlefield of the extreme right and the radical left with the bulk of the nation, meaning you and me, caught in the crossfire. Accusation is met with counter-accusation and whatever party is in control tries to force their agenda through while accusing the other of having no vision and no alternatives.

Since there is apparently a lack of common sense solutions in Congress, over the next few days let’s see if we can’t frame the real issues and identify some reasonable solutions for them. I know, I know….we are just regular people. Truthfully, I can’t think of any better reason to try since the “professional” legislators have made such an unholy mess of things already. Besides, this is still our country….isn’t it?

Paul

The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment
Powers of the States and People.
Ratified 12/15/1791.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

We are addressing the Tenth Amendment on The Vigilance Project with the same alacrity that we did the First and Second Amendments. Not because of what it is, but rather, because of how badly it has been ignored. This amendment, more than any other, has been diluted and intentionally misinterpreted by many administrations and those administrations have to date found willing coconspirators in the nation’s courts.

Since President Obama has taken the oath of office it appears to anyone outside of his inner circle that they have embarked on a course of massively increasing the scope and power of the Federal Government. The new powers they seek are being highly contested and the speed at which they are attempting to force legislation through Congress suggests that those that are opposed to this “fattening of the Federal hog” do not have the luxury of waiting until the mid-term Congressional elections to seek reasonable restraints. They are seeking to move the agenda forward before the Constitutionality of this power grab can even be determined.

The Tenth Amendment has been looked at by many as the only hope we currently have to restore balance to the union. We created this lumbering giant through our own ignorance and complacency and we are fast approaching a point of no return. If several new and extremely large bills such as the Climate Bill and the Healthcare Bill actually pass, the Federal government will be so big and their powers so all encompassing that the chains of the U.S. Constitution may no longer be strong enough to restrain this super agency.

Why did that just sound like I blamed the average American for this? It sounds like I did because I did. Thomas Jefferson warned that Democracy can only work with an informed and educated electorate. Most of the electorate in this nation are poorly informed and improperly educated. We watched the evening news transform from the daily reporting of important events into a scripted endorsement of the political views of the editor at large and we did nothing. We watched as our schools systems began the teaching of revisionist history and promoted the ignorance of the civil legislative process and we did nothing. We watched as Congress passed one questionable law after another and still did nothing. We did nothing and for our efforts, we got what we paid for.

The Federal Government has been engaged in the practice of siphoning powers from the states through random acts of legislation that were ‘tweaked” into existence through a loose interpretation of the enumerated powers that the Federal Government was originally entrusted with. FDR had sweeping powers granted to the Federal government during the Great Depression to empower his attempts to stabilize the economy during a time of crisis. To gain those powers, FDR and the Supreme Court had to stretch reason and the Constitution to the breaking point.

According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only those matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). The Commerce Clause in Article 1 Section 8 is one of the powers specifically delegated to Congress and how it is interpreted is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power.

In the twentieth century the complex economic challenges of the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court. This reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause gave the Federal government the ability to act outside of the enumerated powers in an attempt to correct a faltering national economy. It was after all, a crisis of international proportion. Of course, once you allow a breach of the Constitution for one thing, it sets the stage for further transgressions in the name of precedence.

During the Second World War (1942), the Court ruled that in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm; that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The government’s argument was that a farmer growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers exceeded their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat which justified government regulation under the commerce clause.

After Wickard v. Filburn, many such cases were decided solely on the precedent established in this case. In 2009, the Federal government is confidently using this precedent to declare the constitutionality of its pursuit of regulatory control of the healthcare industry. To say that a man in Peoria visiting a doctor in Peoria to arrange for a medical treatment that will be administered in Peoria somehow falls under the auspices of interstate commerce requires the same stretch of the imagination that was used to regulate wheat grown for personal consumption; wheat that not only did not leave the state, but didn’t even leave the farm it was grown on.

The school of thought that justifies these actions is to say the least, a gross misinterpretation of the commerce clause and to say the most, a criminal attempt on the part of the Federal government to harvest powers that were clearly denied to them in the Constitution. Now that many States are considering or have already passed legislation to reaffirm their status as sovereign States, the first logical step is to revisit the decisions that give precedence to the Federal government’s drive to obfuscate even more powers belonging to the States and the people under the guise of interstate commerce. That is now under way and cases like Wickard v. Filburn are being tested again to determine if the decisions in those cases were in fact, correct and appropriate.

Another method used extensively by the Federal government to garner State participation in Federal mandates is through the use of funding. This tactic is widely used to obtain compliance for federal mandates where there is no Constitutional authority to enact the legislation in question.

The Federal government had issued directives that would change the maximum allowable blood alcohol level to .08 in an effort to create a uniform legal statute for intoxicated driving nationwide. States that would not adhere to this statutory change would lose eligibility for part or all of the Federal highway funds for road maintenance and expansion as the adoption of this standard became a requirement of the application for funds.

The same tactic was used to enforce the national 55 mph speed limit in an effort to conserve fuel after the fuel crisis of the early 70’s. The National Maximum Speed Law was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act signed into law by Richard Nixon. It was revised in 1987 to allow certain highway speeds to rise to 65 mph and was eventually repealed in 1995. During the period of time that it was in force, the maximum allowable speed limit set by the Federal government was written into the requirements for eligibility for any State seeking Federal highway funds.

Now that the Federal government has had such wide ranging success in forcing even unconstitutional legislation upon the States through these tactics they have become bolder through the years. The States are being increasingly burdened by partially funded and even totally unfunded mandates. The legislation may have funding allocated for only the first few years leaving the states to figure out how to pay for the projects after the allocated funds have been exhausted. Some mandates do not even pay the total cost to enact the legislation let alone the operating budget to maintain them. The States, like the people living in them have reached a turning point and are now seeking relief from these unfair and unconstitutional practices.

As of August 2009, 37 states have introduced resolutions in support of "state sovereignty" under the 10th Amendment. In seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee). Further, two states (Montana and Tennessee) have passed specific legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state.

While the Federal ATF has issued a letter to State officials in Tennessee reminding them that Federal law supersedes State law and that has the net effect of rendering the Firearms Freedom act invalid, no court challenges have yet to occur. I am sure that once the Federal government carries through with their threat of enacting restrictive legislation of the retail sale of ammunition, Tennessee and the Federal government will be seeking their day in the Supreme Court to settle the matter.

I pray that Tennessee wins that case because that will be the first swing of the axe that will begin to whittle the Federal government back to an acceptable size. In the end, if we cannot deflate the Federal government until it fits back into the box it came in, the budgets will continue to climb, the deficits will continue to defy logic, and the national debt will eventually attain a weight that will crush this nation.

Paul

The Ninth Amendment

The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Construction of Constitution.
Ratified 12/15/1791.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It is clear that the first eight amendments classify a list of clearly “enumerated rights”; rights that are identified and at least, basically described. The Ninth Amendment recognizes that man posses more rights and liberties than those contained in the eight preceding amendments. The Ninth Amendment provides a general protection of those unnamed rights by prohibiting the Federal government from enacting legislation that would deny any other rights simply because they were unnamed.

The Bill of Rights were crafted and added to the Constitution as a concession to the anti-Federalists that did not support the creation of a strong central authority without absolute constraints on its powers. Federalists argued that there was no need to add amendments to protect State and civilian rights since the Federal government would not be allowed to hold powers sufficient to impede those rights. Fortunately, the anti-Federalists won the day and judging by the number of challenges that the Supreme Court has faced over the years on the denial of Constitutional rights, the anti-Federalists have been vindicated in their fear of that power.

There were a number of unresolved issues during the forming of this nation, including slavery, which would nearly destroy the United States as we descended into a bloody Civil War to determine once and for all, the moral course of the country. As we discussed in earlier posts, the Declaration of Independence was nearly scrapped because of the allusions to the barbarous practice of slavery. The Southern States would have let it die then and there if the “offending” remarks were not stricken. The crafters of the Declaration withdrew what the Southern States considered “offensive remarks” knowing that a nation had to exist first and that the opportunity to correct this issue would present itself at a later date if they were diligent in the preparation of the Constitution that would govern this new nation.

The abolition of Slavery was really an eventuality because once the conscience of the nation recognized that the slaves were indeed men and women and not merely property, the Federal government would have to confer and guarantee the same protection of the enumerated rights upon them that the rest of the nation enjoyed. The Ninth Amendment will come into play almost exactly 100 years after the Civil War as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clarified some of the rights there were not “enumerated” within the first eight Amendments.

In our discussions of some of the previous Amendments we saw that the Supreme Court had been charged with deciding the specifics details of some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. What is a speedy trial? What is cruel and unusual punishment? And so on. Those decisions also fall under the Ninth Amendment protection of non-enumerated rights. While those decisions were based primarily on definitions of existing rights the legalists could have easily argued that those provisions were never written into the Amendments and therefore had no basis in law. It is only because the Constitution includes language that prohibits the government from denying unwritten rights that allows us the ability to argue in the cause of common sense, decency and justice. Without the Ninth Amendment there would be no basis for many of the challenges to the Constitution that have already taken place as those who were in control at the moment would have the discretion to adjust the criteria for things such as “cruel and unusual” and Speedy” to suit the prevailing social climate.

Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we saw situations where the justice system of an entire State endorsed and allowed all manner of illegal behaviors only because those acts were perpetrated against blacks. Segregation was the rule, reprisals were encouraged, investigations were thwarted and murderers, when finally apprehended, were released through mock trials. Not that the Civil Rights Act put an end to these practices overnight, but it did provide the Federal government the tools to place the full weight of the nation’s resources against those crimes and to prosecute the responsible under new Federal Statutes free from the interference of local politics.

The Ninth Amendment may become even more important as no less that 33 States have either proposed or passed legislation that reaffirms the sovereignty of the State as it appears in the Tenth Amendment. This is being done in the face of proposed Federal legislation that would place increasing financial burdens on States to fund mandatory programs that are only partially funded by the Federal government or in some cases, not funded at all. Also, if the healthcare bill passes there is the Constitutional question as to whether or not the Federal has the authority to impose fines to force individuals to purchase healthcare insurance as they plan to do or if one or more of our un-enumerated rights are being violated as our choices for healthcare are impeded by Federal programs.

Then there is the real insult of Cap and Trade that is designed to force behavioral changes in the area of personal energy consumption through the use of punitive taxes. I would think that any government program designed to effect behavioral changes in the personal consumption of anything should be considered a violation of our un-enumerated rights. If passed, I am sure this will meet the criteria for a challenge based on those rights.

As though the insult of cap and trade was not enough, then let’s look at the proposals for a new tax on “sugary beverages”. In the effort to find more play money for Congress, they are considering placing a penny per ounce tax on any beverage that contains sugar. Of course this is cleverly disguised as a weapon in the war on obesity, but we can see the real intent when the proponents have dollars and cents figures in mind of what this tax will generate in revenue while they have a hard time establishing actuarial figures, what the expected health benefits will be over the same period of time. Again, a tax disguised as a tool to modify our behavior, the Constitutionality of which is in serious question.

Do you see the course this nation is taking? We used to fund education programs so that people could make informed decisions about how they will live their own lives. Now we are using the tax structure to force behavioral changes simply because the think tanks in Washington believe you are incapable of making reasonable choices on your own. You know, when the punitive cigarette taxes came into play; the smoking opponents cheered. I agree it’s a nasty, filthy habit but provided smokers were courteous and businesses were willing to construct separate and filtered smoking areas, it should have remained a nasty, filthy personal choice.

I warned those that cheered that this was just the beginning. I recognized then that this was about the revenue and not the cigarette. After all then as now, the dollars were added up and spent before the heath risk benefits were still being debated. If it was not just about the money then why are the States crying that cigarette tax revenues are drying up as people quit and they may have to cut the programs that benefited from that tax money. No one believed me then but now that they want to tax your kids “Hi C”, what do you think of me now? The tax will add roughly fifty-cents to a two liter bottle of soda and a dollar fifty to a 12 pack case of cans. Curiously diet soda will be exempt even though the heath impact of artificial sweeteners is still hotly debated. If this one get’s past us the “Big Mac and Fries Act” can’t be that far behind.

As our choices are slowly being steered by the heavy hand of government to implement another Federal grab for the few dollars we have left, I implore you to learn about your rights and fight fiercely to preserve them. Is it a stretch of the imagination to suggest that if Washington feels totally justified in taxing us into compliance with their idea of what a healthy American should be, that they may eventually use the same tactics to gain compliance for other more radical ideas? Maybe what things American’s should “think” are important? Something to consider, huh? Big brother is watching and if you don’t squeal soon, the intrusions will just get worse as your silence convinces them that they can do damned near anything.

Paul

Are You Kidding Me?

I had intended to get on with the Ninth Amendment today but once again, I am being diverted by even more ridiculous antics that require a closer look in the name of common sense. The remarks made by former President James Carter during an NBC Nightly News broadcast on Tuesday evening that he reiterated on Wednesday during a speech at Emory University defy logic.

In response to the outburst of Representative Joe Wilson during President Obama’s address to Congress, Mr. Carter said "I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American.”

He continued, "It's a racist attitude and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States."

To compound matters further, the former President discussed the opposition to the President’s healthcare initiative in which he also said, "That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply,"

Most Ex Presidents retire gracefully, open their libraries, write their memoirs and smile for the cameras. Rarely do they comment on the current President and even more rarely, do they insert themselves into the current body politic unless asked to do so. Bill Clinton was asked to intervene in the case of two American journalists that were arrested in North Korea which he did successfully and without question. His mission accomplished, he returned to the duties that any Former President has which includes support of the current President.

Sometimes support of the President is most effectively served by what is not done as opposed to any direct action a former President may take. It serves no one when a former President makes statements and comments that create a storm of controversy around the sitting President. Mr. Carter’s comments were not only a display of his ignorance but his reckless arrogance.

Mr. Wilson was wrong to have shouted out “You Lie!” during the President’s speech. What’s more is that he knew it was wrong and that is why he called the White House and apologized directly to the President. The President, to his credit, recognized that for the good of the nation it was in everyone’s best interest to accept Mr. Wilson’s apology so that the Congress could resume the business that the American people pay them to do rather than to allow this to become a distraction.

I have faced some criticism for not supporting Mr. Wilson’s outburst. To clarify, I felt the President’s speech spoke down to the Republican’s of Congress and unfairly characterized their efforts and involvement in the healthcare debate. In fact, many of them were holding up copies of the amendments they offered to bring bipartisanship to the discussion, amendments that Nancy Pelosi refused to debate, amendments the President refused to acknowledge. This angered many of the people sitting in Congress that night. The truth is that his speech may not have included outright lies, but there were a number of gross inaccuracies and the President chose to hide behind semantics rather than honestly answer the concerns that everyone from Republicans and moderate Democrats as well as those that attended the town hall meetings had raised.

There is a decorum that we expect of our representatives and whether or not you agree with the President’s agenda, there is a respect that must be maintained for the office of the Presidency. Mr. Wilson has a forum for his dissent that we do not. This was not a town hall meeting and he is not “Joe the Plumber”. While I support his assessment of the President’s speech, I can not condone his behavior. He could have, and should have reserved his comments for the news cameras that were stationed all around the capitol that night. He could have called some of the Sunday political shows and made an appearance to explain the inaccuracies in the President speech. But no, he decided to act like an unruly child in a school assembly. Mr. Wilson chose to make an ass out of himself but to spite what Jimmy Carter may think, that only makes him an ass, not a racist.

As a note, the Congressional Democrats routinely called Bush a liar although it was never done during a speech to a joint session of Congress. They did however; boo him during the course of a speech to a joint session of Congress back in 2003 and I just don’t recall any one of them ever calling the White House to apologize. Oh but I forgot….the Democrats controlled Congress then too so that must have been ok.

What I really take issue with is Mr. Carter’s statement that if you are one of the people that oppose this administration that your opposition is evidence of your own bigotry. I not only find that disgusting but personally insulting. You would have to be blind not to have noticed that the people who marched in Washington on September 12th were representative of every race and every walk of life. Their anger is based solely on this administration’s policies. They want tax relief, not more taxes to support massive new social programs. They do not want redistributive politics. They are angry over $3.6 trillion dollar budgets with $1 trillion dollar deficits. They do not want government controlled healthcare. They would still have marched regardless of who occupied the White House if they were trying to sell the same programs.

This President had a seventy percent approval rating when he assumed office. Roughly twenty percent disapproved and the rest had no opinion. Of the more than twenty percent that disapproved immediately following the election, many had deep ideological differences in his approach to the roll of government. Those are the same people that categorically disapproved of all of the Democratic candidates during the campaign. The President’s current approval rating is roughly fifty percent. He did not lose thirty percent of his support because people all of a sudden discovered he was black. He lost the support of moderate and independent voters because he jumped on the fast track of big government and massive spending bills. This is not the change he promised and this was not the change they had voted for.

I am not foolish enough to suggest that there is no such thing as racism in the country; it is unfortunately alive and well and no one group of people has a monopoly on it. I will say that unlike the early days of the civil rights movement that racism is no longer tolerated in most circles and in fact, those that still practice it have been ostracized for holding such vile beliefs. America has black celebrities, black entrepreneurs, black CEO’s, black Congressmen, Black General’s, black ambassadors, black professors, black astronauts, black Supreme Court Justices and yes, even a black President; which means a majority of the people that Mr. Carter just accused of racism had in fact, voted for Mr. Obama.

I can tell you that I base my decisions about people on character, ideology, morality and yes, even a person’s political views and that I do not base my judgments on race nor do I know anyone that does. I have no opinion about who President. Obama is because I don’t know him personally. I’ve seen people on television that have known him for years and speak highly of his character. He appears from all evidence to be a dedicated father and husband. In fact, I don’t think I have heard anyone besmirch him on a personal level. All of the opposition that I know of is centered on his policies and with the radical beliefs of the people he has chosen as his circle of advisors; some of which have made far more serious and racially motivated comments than “You lie”.

So where is this culture of bigotry that the former President is speaking of? Could any of the people I mentioned above hold these positions of power in an overwhelmingly racist nation? Well if that is Mr. Carter’s first assumption, then maybe he is gauging the rest of us by the evil that resides in his own heart. I seriously hope that Mr. Carter is simply suffering the ravages of old age and that these comments were a flashback to his early years when racism was prevalent. If not then I would have to suspect that his comments were carefully crafted to intimidate those that oppose the President’s plans into half-hearted support or face the threat of being labeled a racist or that maybe, he is a racist himself and just assumes we all believe as he does.

Jimmy Carter has disgraced himself and this nation. He has deeply insulted the American people with his despicable claims and he should apologize in a venue just as public as the one he used to insult the integrity of the citizens of this nation. I would then suggest he consult a life coach that can train him to act with the dignity and decorum that we expect from a former President of the United States. I would also recommend to those in the media that the next time Mr. Carter reaches for a microphone that someone takes the batteries out of it first. I just don’t think he can help himself.

Paul