Arizona's New Immigration Law

Arizona recently passed, and signed into law, “strict new” immigration legislation which has brought the State under fire and thrust it into the national spotlight this week. The truth behind this legislation is that it is hardly new and considerably less strict that the opponents would have you believe. Open border advocates are incensed that Arizona would have the nerve to pass a law that basically says that something that is illegal is, well, illegal. The armies of the left are shouting accusations that Arizona has adopted Nazi tactics and will be asking people walking down the street for their “papers”. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are calling for boycotts against Arizona as if California still has enough industry left after their experiment with Progressivism to make all that much of a difference to Arizona. In fact, I think that if Arizona continues down the path of Conservatism and adopts some “business smart” tax policies, they could easily capture what business California has managed to hold on to while that State imposes more ridiculous regulations, falls deeper in debt and taxes climb even higher. Hey, in Arizona you can still get a McDonald's Happy Meal with a toy!

The law Arizona passed is nearly an identical copy of existing Federal law but unlike “Big Brother’s” edition, the Arizona law specifically prohibits race as a consideration. Those subjected to scrutiny under this new law must have been stopped by the police for an obvious infraction of existing law or must be displaying suspicious behavior. Once contact with law enforcement has been made, the police must also have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in this country illegally before asking for identification, excluding race as a cause for suspicion. Of course, that is the part of the story that the main stream press and open border proponents have intentionally left out of their description of what Arizona has done.

There will be no swarms of police harassing Latinos on the streets of Phoenix; there will be no door to door searches of private property and there will be no traffic stops to check citizenship. Arguably, there are some police officers that have engaged in behavior that is prohibited under department rules and in some cases, race was clearly the motivation. That is a sad state of affairs wherever it happens and it has happened all over America at one time or another. While the media would have you believe that this is standard procedure for most police departments the truth is that this is not representative of the vast majority of police and the explosion of camera phones and digital video recorders have been very effective at exposing those individuals and removing them from duty.

The safeguards against racial profiling present in the Arizona law will actually serve to spotlight police officers that believe they can act with impunity and abuse the power they have been given. With every civil rights organization focused on finding those abuses, is there any doubt that the slightest infraction will not be met with a torrent of legal challenges and in the prosecution of the offending officer? In fact, Arizona may well turn out to be the best place in the country for lawful immigrants as police abuses in other cities are dismissed as meaningless because of their enlightened laws where immigration status is concerned. Let’s face it, burglars don’t break into a house across the street from a police station; they go where no one is looking and all eyes are on Arizona right now.

The President has called Arizona’s new law “misguided” and that it only illustrates the need for the Federal government to enact comprehensive immigration reform before other States follow suit. Attorney General Eric Holder is exploring the possibility of challenging the law in court and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. This only displays their lack of understanding of the law that Arizona has passed. Since it is based on existing Federal law, if the Arizona law is unconstitutional and violates civic rights, so does the Federal law. This is little more than political posturing. Lindsey Graham, a Progressive Republican, has long pushed for an amnesty program that would grant legal status to the hoards of people that have already broken American law to be in the United States but we’ve tried amnesty before; haven’t we? The purpose of the last amnesty program was to prevent the hardships that illegal immigrants would face after they had already established a life in this country if they were sought out by new immigration laws and repatriated.

We granted amnesty to those illegal immigrants that had maintained residence in the United States for at least five years with the understanding that we would improve border security and provide for effective enforcement of immigration law in the future. So far, the Federal government failed miserably in its responsibility to secure our borders and that is the reason for Arizona’s new law. Isn’t it funny that one of the things that Congress is clearly responsible for, the defense of the nation, has taken a back seat to healthcare reform, Cap and Trade and the takeover of General Motors; none of which can be found in the Constitution. Clearly, if you want actual examples of misguided legislation, you must look to Washington, not Arizona.

In recent years, Arizona and other Border States have been inundated with a virtual tidal wave of violent criminal activity because of the drug wars in Mexico. In the absence of any meaningful act by the Federal government to prevent this flood of drugs, criminals and yes, innocent Mexican citizens seeking asylum from the brutality of lawless drug gangs in their home land, Arizona was forced into action to preserve law, order and quality of life. Those that are opposed to the law either do not understand its limitations or are located a comfortable distance from the war zone brewing at the Arizona border and just don’t give a damn. The Mexican government is, and always has been, a bad partner in eliminating these problems and has actually encouraged illegal immigration into the United States rather than take the next logical step towards their own legitimacy. When Arizona police have found illegal immigrants, they have never been able to count on the Mexican government to provide accurate information about criminal history and that is what has cast a cloud of suspicion over all illegal immigrants.

Arizona has long been tolerant where immigration is concerned and aside from the questionable activities of the Maricopa Sherriff’s department, has provided a safe and beneficial environment for people seeking a better life. Most of the residents of Arizona go about their lives with out race as a consideration and we have been able to build a pretty decent life here with a level of diversity that most of the country would find baffling. Truth is; we don’t care. What we do care about is crime and how that affects our families. The drug gangs waging war in Mexico are particularly brutal and have no consideration for human life and the Federal government has offered no help against their intrusion into Arizona.

Did it help that Attorney General Eric Holder intruded to make sure that three members of the infamous MS13 (Mara Salvatrucha) gang would not receive the death penalty? The three were in the United States illegally, were arrested in Virginia and charged with murder and conspiracy. As Federal prosecutors were preparing their case, Holder stepped in and instructed them not to seek the death penalty. Holder refused to comment on what prompted his involvement in this case but apparently he believes that Michigan militia men and Arizonans are far more dangerous than your run of the mill, murder for hire foreign drug gangs or international terrorists for that matter.

It is this insane posture assumed by the Federal government that forced Arizona to take unilateral action. If we are to be left to protect ourselves by a disinterested Washington, then they should not be surprised when the people on the front lines actually take action. Los Angeles’s reaction is a little surprising since they have had some of the same issues with their shared border with Mexico. San Francisco had previously announced that they are a “sanctuary city” and would not cooperate with Federal immigration law so who cares what kind of immigration problems San Francisco has. Sanctuary was really only a fun little political ploy but seriously, considering where they are located, who could they possibly be getting flooded with; Oregonians?

Maybe that is where the real racism is in all this? Los Angeles was very quick to denounce Arizona and has called for a boycott of Arizona businesses even though the law was carefully crafted to avoid any possibility of racial profiling. Is it because they believe Arizona’s new law is that outrageous or is there a real fear among Los Angeles politicians that illegal immigrants residing in Arizona may leave the State to avoid deportation and show up in L.A.; posing an additional burden to their local services? Why hasn’t the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco extended their hand to welcome this wave of refugees they have claimed will be driven from Arizona?

Well, to anyone that is in Arizona illegally all you need do is obey the law, respect your neighbors and you have nothing to fear. In fact, I’ll probably see you at the next county fair. If obeying the law is something that is a problem for you, then I would suggest you head to the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They have already said they would not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement so that is your best chance to avoid capture and deportation.

Paul

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The men that drafted the Constitution of The United States added the Amendments in the order of their moral priority. If one looks at the Constitution and the Amendments with an eye on practicality, the Second Amendment then becomes at least, par with the First Amendment in importance. The Second Amendment is the guardian and guarantor of the Bill of Rights, preventing the Federal Government from writing any law that would deny the citizens of this nation the arms they would need to defend the nation, their State and to defend the rights that were secured under the new government.

Without the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would have little meaning and no defense against a corrupt government. Let us not forget that the men who drafted the Constitution had also written into the Declaration of Independence “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It is clear that they possessed a deep and abiding distrust of governments in general and while they labored to create a nation founded in freedom, they recognized that this Republic was a supreme experiment and the outcome was yet to be proven.

Many opponents of the private ownership of firearms use the first few words of this amendment to say that this was strictly to provide for the arming of a State Militia; that it was never intended as a right for the common citizen to possess firearms. Well, once again we will delve into the Federalist Papers. That is where you will always find the clear intent of the men that wrote the Constitution and the Amendments. An excerpt taken from a document written by Alexander Hamilton on January 10, 1788 says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

It was the intent of this Amendment to insure that the citizens are armed to defend this fledgling nation and it is clear by this passage alone, that the entire populace was expected to be armed. The “Militia only” interpretation the detractors of the Second Amendment say is implied in the Constitution clearly does not exist. The “regulation” that is implied in the Constitution was directed at insuring the Citizens were properly armed and is not meant to say that those that may bear arms can only exist as part of a National Guard or regular Army and in fact, this passage indicates that was not to be expected of the people.

Bear in mind that Congress had already created an army that had just secured our independence from Great Britain and there were provisions written into the draft of the Constitution that provided Congress with the means and the authority to raise an army, a navy and to secure the funds to provide for them both. If a militia was the sole intent of the Second Amendment, it would be the one and only redundant provision that appeared in the whole of the Constitution.

I find it mildly interesting that those that claim the intuitive insight to interpret the Constitution on our behalf tend to ignore the very store of documents that are the road map through the minds of the men that wrote it. To ignore the Federalist papers is a gross injustice to the American people and an insult to the honor of the founding fathers of this nation.

So why do I feel that the right to bear arms is so important? I could point to the article I posted here yesterday as one good reason. Pravda has all but written off the United States and quite honestly, if we do not put a stop to the insanity of 3.6 trillion dollar budgets, trillion dollar deficits and the wholesale looting of the treasury by “community organizers”, I agree with them. Rather than spell out a scenario of doom and gloom I will name my second reason, or rather Thomas Jefferson will...

"…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is quoted as saying: "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." Let’s face it; only someone that intends to deny or destroy our rights and freedoms would be fearful of the people that would stand to defend them. It further tells me that if he could find a way around the Second Amendment, they would have already started collecting guns.

Henry Waxman is one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey or Climate Bill. This bill is supposed to protect the environment by reducing the carbon output of the United States. To do so, this bill will severely cripple the manufacturing industries in this nation and place draconian restrictions on personal power consumption by raising the price of energy to a point that will be unsustainable for the average American household.

The truly criminal part of that legislation is that it will have no effect on the environment whatsoever. China and India are the largest producers of carbon emissions and refuse to hamper their economic growth by enacting similar measures. The bill will certainly reduce carbon emissions in our country but not because we are cleaner. The emissions will be reduced as manufacturing industries relocate to other nations that do not possess costly restrictions on manufacturing and are truly happy for the opportunity to put their citizens to work doing the jobs we once had. Is this why Henry Waxman is nervous?

Gun opponents would cite crime statistics involving the use of firearms. The statistics they ignore is that the vast majority of those crimes are committed with unlawfully obtained firearms and in many cases, by people that are already prohibited from owning firearms because of a felony criminal record. You see, criminals by definition, do not obey the law so weapon legislation does not stop them. They also ignore the statistics that say that gun violence is predominately highest in the cities where they already possess stringent gun ownership laws. That is because the criminals aren’t quite so brave when there is an even chance that you might have a weapon too.

The text written by Alexander Hamilton that was posted above is a clear indication that the nation’s founders looked at the citizens very differently than Congress does now. We were the nation then, equal in status and rights. Now we are treated as the subjects of this massive government, nearly as much as we were under King George and that alone is sufficient to reinforce the need for the Second Amendment.

To make things worse, the Federal government continues to expand its powers beyond those granted to it under the Enumerated Powers Act, which is highly dangerous in a government that is full of people that think they are the new aristocracy. Remember, criminals by definition, do not obey the law and that includes the elected ones.

Paul

The First Amendment - Part Three

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The third and final part of the First Amendment is the freedom to assemble.

"Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the… right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


The freedom to peaceably assemble has been openly exercised throughout the history of this nation. Since Labor Day is one of the left's favorite holidays, is it worthy to note that most legislation that offered protection for unions and for striking workers has been inextricably tied to the First Amendment. It was recognized by the courts that the union busting tactics used by employers and local law enforcement during the height of the industrial revolution denied striking workers their constitutional right to assemble; therefore it was the obligation of government to enact legislation that would prevent these violent reprisals against striking workers.

Prior to the inception of the United States, people still gathered to air grievances, usually with catastrophic consequences. Without the right to assemble most would grumble quietly to themselves until things had become so unbearable that the consequences for public dissent were all but meaningless. We have all seen the images in old movies that show the town folk marching through the night carrying pitch forks and burning torches to protest one thing or another. We also saw that those protests were usually met with armed reprisal by whatever authority existed in that time period. The clash resulted in the deaths of the protestors and within a short period of time, the protests would turn to open and violent insurrection with towns and cities burned to the ground by enraged citizens.

The Boston Massacre was another instance of a protest quelled by the Kings soldiers. That massacre was still fresh in the memories of the colonists when the Constitution was drafted. Since the United States was a government formed by free people, they naturally held their God given rights as paramount over the authority of government. I’m sure people are tired if hearing this from me at this point but it is a critical philosophy if one is to understand the Constitution. The founding fathers recognized that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The States and the people wanted a Federal government that would unite the States and would govern maters of commerce and law between the States; a government that would insure that all would provide for the common defense of the Union in the event that any one of the sister States were assaulted by an outside force. What they did not want was to give unbridled power to that same Federal government or allow it the ability to seize power from the States or the people.

The colonies had just fought a bloody war against the British Crown to obtain their liberty and they were not about to surrender that liberty to a centralized government. With that in mind they established strong constraints over the power the Federal government would be allowed to wield. The bill of rights are the chains that prevent the Federal government from becoming oppressive. After freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the freedom to peacefully assemble is the logical next step to secure the ideals of a democratic republic. After all, if Congress is pledged to represent the will of the people then there had better be a mechanism in place for the people to make themselves heard when they feel their representatives are not adequately addressing their concerns.

Every major event in American history is punctuated by the marches and protests that shook government into action. Unfortunately, the history of this nation says that our government doesn’t act until the protests are large enough and loud enough so that the voice of the people can be heard through the thick walls of the Capitol building not to mention the equally thick skulls of the occupants of that building.

We don’t like to be ignored, especially by our government. We recently saw proof of this at the recent town hall meetings. Once again, the Congress wants to pass legislation that will explode the National Debt and eventually, implode our economy. The American people are already frustrated that the Federal government has accrued a national debt of 12 trillion dollars. Americans want that debt paid and the spending deficits turned into a surplus before we will even consider establishing more spending to grease the so-called social consciousness of the liberal arm of Congress. We are angry and we are obviously not being heard. Since they are not reaching out to us, we are once again using our guaranteed right under the first amendment to bring the message to them.

The people that shouted out their concerns at the town hall meetings were denigrated by the press and by the Congressmen they met with. The protestors were called manufactured and fraudulent and the concerns they brought with them were swept away as these Representatives, Senators and journalists turned the discussion away from the message and instead made it about the people that brought the message to them. How foolish.

Unlike the left that uses bricks, bottles and fire to make their point, teabags were being used to punctuate these protests and the “tea parties” that took place on September 12, 2009, with the largest happening in Washington DC. Even though the protests were peaceful, Congress, Democratic organizations and special interests started up their machines to drown out the voice of these people by calling them “tea baggers” and Nazis” in an attempt to make them seem vile and dangerous. Have they forgotten the lessons that for every person that actually makes the time to protest that there are a hundred more that believe the same thing?

The message is clear and sensible. No more massive spending bills, no government control of healthcare and we do not want a climate bill that will decimate what is left of our economy. This nation is in a recession with more that 200,000 additional jobs being lost every month. Thanks to the spending practices of Congress we are 12 trillion dollars in debt and that equals over $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bailout programs and stimulus plan will add another $80,000 a piece to that and the unfunded liabilities of the social programs given to us by Roosevelt and Johnson mean that we are all pledged to cover the future debt associated with those programs to the tune of an additional $190,000 a piece. To put it simply, the reckless spending of Congress has seen to it that every child born into this nation already owes more than $350,000 in nationally accrued debt before the umbilical cord is even cut.

I hope Congress stops this foolish practice of dismissing the American people. Let’s face it, the colonists revolted and engaged the British in a bloody war because Parliament placed a 2% tax on their breakfast drink. We are the descendents of those brave men and women and we possess the same intolerance of government abuse. We have already passed the point where taxation has become oppressive and burdensome. We were told that there is a healthcare crisis and something had to be done. Once again, the only portion of the healthcare system that is in crisis was the portion that the Federal government already controlled before this disasterous healthcare bill passed.

The climate bill is nothing more than a cleverly disguised energy tax that will yield no benefit to the environment and most Americans know that the Federal government is simply incapable of managing the healthcare system without turning it into an unholy mess. The proof lies in their gross mismanagement of the government social programs that are already bankrupting this nation. Congress must not ignore the cries of the American people. If history has taught us anything it should be that once the words of the governed fail to persuade the leaders of government, it won’t be long before the pitchforks and torches are taken out of storage again.

Join me tomorrow for the guardian of the First Amendment: The Second Amendment.

Paul

The First Amendment - Part Two

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yesterday we covered the freedom of religion, or at least what it has become after the reinterpretation of it by the courts after atheist and leftist tinkerers had finished their work. Today we will address the second clause of the first amendment.“Congress shall make no law ……. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

Some would argue that logical restrictions of free speech are warranted in some cases because the content of that speech is abrasive, intolerant or even violent. We’ve all heard that recently charged in the world of talk radio or political television where a statement made by a commentator is offensive or even hateful. Almost immediately, those claiming to be offended by those statements send out the rally cry to eliminate this voice from the airwaves. I’m sorry, but people will always be offended by one thing or another and that is not a compelling reason to restrict the first amendment. There is however, an effective protection already available to those that are easily offended by these views. It’s called personal responsibility. The last time I looked none of these personalities had a captive audience that is forcibly subjected to their programs. If you don’t like what is being said…don’t listen to it, don’t watch it and for heaven’s sake, don’t buy it. Whew! That was easy!

I will be the first to admit that some of those voices are harsh and intolerant; some are ignorant and some are just plain vicious. Then there are others that are being targeted and ridiculed not because they were overtly cruel in the expression of their ideas but rather because the ideas themselves fundamentally differ from those that would seek to silence them. No matter how conscious I am of keeping my writings centered on the truth and how much I strive to invite rational discussion on these issues to promote a healthy understanding between opposing views, there are some that are so disinterested in the word, that they resort to personal attacks and display a sincere and passionate desire to silence me as well. Believe it or not, I support their right to speak freely too…I simply choose to ignore it.

The founding fathers were well aware of the intricacies of free speech and knew that some would promote dissent and even hatred. Even still, they recognized that the freedom to express ones thoughts and ideas in both spoken and printed form was essential to the well being of the Republic. On November 23, 1787, James Madison addressed these concerns in a letter written to the people of New York, which was then the seat of the U.S. Government. This letter is part of a collection of writings know as the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers provide clear insight as to the thought and intentions of the men that created our Constitution and the Federal Government as we know it. Mr. Madison said…“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

I know that eighteenth century English is a bit hard to follow at times but the essence of his argument was that to eliminate liberty, including the freedom of speech, because it may feed anger would be similar to eliminating air because it may feed fire. The former would suffocate the Republic to prevent anger while the latter would suffocate life to prevent fire. And yet, we still have people that see fit to advocate just that; the suffocation of the Republic to quell dissent. Mark Lloyd, appointed by Mr. Obama as the Chief Diversity Officer, a newly created position in the FCC says that “…freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction…”

Mr. Lloyd is currently driving a program that will, if allowed to be enacted, effectively shut down privately owned radio and television stations that do not pass his “diversity equation” by requiring fees (let’s just call it what it is, a conservative talk tax) equal to 100% of their operating budget. In the interest of fairness and diversity, those fees will be used to fund public broadcasting. Public broadcasting, whose programming incidentally, supports the Obama administration’s agenda.

Stations that cannot pay the fee will have their broadcast license withdrawn and sold to minority interests that better reflect his idea of diversity. My fear is that his idea of diversity is actually code for programming that is ironically, identical to that of public broadcasting.

Well if that is the new direction of the FCC, then of course the Constitutional protections of free speech and a free press would be a distraction. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Lloyd, they may be a distraction but they are also protected under the word of law and would pose a constitutional quagmire for this Presidency if people in his administration openly sought to erode that protection.

Freedom of the press possesses the same protections under the Constitution and for the same reasons. Fortunately for the press, there is no government equivalent to the FCC so they don’t suffer the same degree of interference that the broadcast media does. Besides, the majority of main stream newspapers overwhelmingly support the Obama administration and therefore, the content in these publications is effectively sterilized before it is printed. I would submit that if the press were actually hostile to this administration that there would be plans to bring the printed press under the guidance of Mr. Lloyd as well.

It is exceedingly hard to find a print paper that contains views that contain a diverse and broad spectrum of views which is why I posted that quote by Abbott Joseph Liebling on the picture that adorns the top of this page. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”. If you want diversity in the press, don’t shut them down, get your own press and compete for the hearts and soul of the American people. That is the fair way; the American way; the Constitutional way.

Film falls under this as well as a medium of expression. We know that a major portion of the Hollywood elite also support the President. The overwhelming majority of documentary and political films are highly critical of conservative ideals and label libertarians as lunatics however, they are vocally supportive of the progressive movement. Why is it that the demands for a fair and diverse representation of opposing views is not being thrust upon film and entertainment industry as fervently as it is in the broadcast media? After all, there is an agency for that. Once again, the majority of Hollywood and their works merge nicely with the agenda of this administration so that is obviously diverse enough to gain a pass from the watchful eye of government. Besides, Hollywood guards themselves far more carefully that government ever could.

Ron Silver was a well known film actor as well as a progressive and liberal activist. He starred in many films and television programs and had a bright future awaiting him in the industry. That was until he was so enraged by the terror attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 that he became a very vocal supporter of President Bush and of the war to bring those responsible to justice. That did not fit the Hollywood mold and the powers that be saw to it that he rarely, if ever worked again. His exclusion from film continued right up to the time of his death.

The internet is now under assault because of the wide spread use of this forum for those who wish to be heard. Most would not take the time if the news reported actual news instead of airing hour long editorial pieces. No one would waste their time on blogs, web pages and web news if the press would fulfill their obligation to accurately and fairly report the unfiltered truth. Since the profusion of people that believe this nation is in danger have taken to the internet to spread the word, that has become a threat similar to that on broadcast networks. New legislation is being drafted that would give the President the authority to deny internet traffic, even private and business internet traffic, in the event of a national crisis.

Well since this administration has assumed the reigns of government how many crisis’s have already been announced in an attempt to fast track legislation in keeping with the President’s agenda? Let’s see….there was the subprime mortgage crisis, the climate crisis, the healthcare crisis, the credit crisis, the banking crisis…on and on. Is it far fetched to assume that if internet journalists and bloggers are impeding the President’s progress in healthcare or the climate by causing doubt in the minds of Americans, could that not be viewed as a “national crisis” all by itself?

No, the founding fathers recognized that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of paramount importance to the Republic and are part of the natural right that all men possessed with or without government consent. We do not need government control of free speech because we have already insured that hand in hand with the freedom of speech there is a responsibility that has tangible and effective enforcements.

If the misuse of your free speech rights has denied a person any one of their basic civil rights then there are legal and civil consequences for that. If you yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater there are legal and civil consequences for that as well, especially if there are injuries. If you slander someone with false accusations there are legal and civil consequences for that too. It seems like the people and the States themselves have done a pretty good job in making sure people use this freedom wisely without the heavy handed oversight of the Federal Government which once again, proves the genius and foresight of those amazing crafters of the Constitution.

Please come back tomorrow for part three of the First Amendment…Freedom of Assembly

Paul

The First Amendment, Part One

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Central to the principals of American Freedom is allegiance to the Constitution. Our elected officials must, to assume office, fulfill a requirement to swear an oath to defend and support the Constitution. Our trust as a nation is placed in the word of law and not the word of a leader. Even the military, under direct orders from the President, have sworn to defend the Constitution as their primary mission and to obey the orders of the President only if his orders do not conflict with that.

The founding fathers added the amendments in order of their importance to the cause of liberty. Therefore, the first amendment must possess the highest degree of importance for the well being of the Republic. This amendment covers a wide area of freedoms that had historically been denied to the common citizen and governmental retribution for the infraction of laws surrounding religion, speech and free assembly had been traditionally, swift and brutal. It was critical to secure the high ideals that this new nation was to represent, that these rights were guarded as aggressively as they had previously been denied. Given the importance of this amendment, we will address each of the clauses individually over the next three days.

The most misunderstood of these principals is the first. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The modern incarnation of this passage is the separation of Church and State. The men who founded our nation were statesmen, lawyers, businessmen, land owners and tradesmen. They were also openly religious and sought to secure the blessings of God on this nation by recognizing His divine word that man was and ought to be, free.

Many of the early settlers to this new continent came here to seek the freedom of religious expression; a freedom denied to them by the Church of England. The founding fathers celebrated their beliefs openly but recognized that belief assumes many forms. That all men should have the comfort of worshiping in the faith of their choice, free from coercion, free from ridicule and free from reprisal. To that end, they established language in the form of a Constitutional Amendment that would prohibit the United States from establishing a “State Religion” similar to the Church of England.

That was meant to allow all citizens to worship in their own way. Unfortunately, modern man brings modern thought into the discussion. Public schools once began each day with a prayer. Atheists saw this as the establishment of religion and bombarded the courts with suits claiming that the freedom of religion, or non-religion, was being trampled on by this practice. Reading the letter of the law, the courts had no alternative but to agree and remove the mandates of prayer from public schools. However, the courts, as usual, went too far and the separation of “Church and State” slowly became the separation of “Church from State”, prohibiting any public display of religion. In essence, it has been mutated to say “freedom from religion” instead of the word of law which is “freedom of religion”.

Remember that the intention was to allow the free worship of God, each in his own way. Now we have adopted a policy where school children that choose to pray are prohibited from doing so in public places. That any public display that acknowledges the faith of the American people is abolished and that public monies can not be used to assist charities and community organizations that are operated by religious organizations. This was never the intent of the First Amendment. I do not believe that the government should endorse one religion over another but it has the obligation to recognize the faith of all of its citizens. It should not lead a school in prayer but neither should it prevent those that wish to pray from doing so. It should not celebrate one religious event over another but it should celebrate the freedom with which American’s celebrate these events for themselves.

I could go to the extreme and point out that by the definition posted in the New Merriam-Webster Dictionary that progressivism meets three of the four definitions given to describe religion and is therefore logically, a religion itself. While progressivism is primarily a political frame of mind the believers in this ideology also eagerly point out the morality of the goals in their political aims. It is dangerous for one to assume that their morality is superior to all others, just as it is dangerous to claim that one religion is superior over another.

Following the logic of the modern Supreme Court and all of the opponents of public displays of religion I would submit that the endorsement and display of progressive ideology be equally expunged from all public venues. That the Congressional Progressive Caucus should be disbanded and a full accounting of the public funds used to support it be made known to the American people and that progressive organizations should also be prohibited from receiving public funding.

We can go down the list of the groups and ideologies, both left and right, that have had a strangle hold on the governmental process and apply this equally among them. In the end, once we weed out the political groups that pursue their aims with “religious” fervor, we will eventually end up with public support for only a small group of individuals that look very much like the men that founded this country; those that would seek justice for all and posses a keen recognition of individual liberties and freedoms.

Hmmm….Sounds like a great idea! Let’s found a nation based on those principals!

Tomorrow: Part two of the First Amendment. Freedom speech and freedom of the press.”

Paul

Target 2010 - Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Barbara Boxer was born Barbara Levy in Brooklyn, New York where she attended public schools, graduating from Wingate High School in 1958. In 1962, she married Stewart Boxer and graduated from Brooklyn College with a Bachelor's Degree in Economics. For the next three years, Boxer worked as a stockbroker while her husband attended law school. The couple later moved to Greenbrae in Marin County, California, and had two children, Doug and Nicole. Boxer's husband, Stewart, is an attorney in Oakland who specializes in worker's compensation cases and is known for keeping a low profile when it comes to politics. Many cases are referred to him by labor unions, including the Teamsters. The Boxers’ son, Douglas, who is also a lawyer, now practices law with Stewart Boxer and is a member of the Oakland Planning Commission, having been appointed to that office by then-mayor Edmund Brown, Jr.

Barbara Boxer has been in politics since 1976 when she was elected to the Marin County California Board of Supervisors. She first ran for the position in 1972 but was defeated in a close election. It was Barbara’s husband, Stewart, that had originally planned to run for the Board of Supervisors, but decided the campaign would interfere with his law practice, so Barbara ran instead. In 1976, she had the support of Marin Alternative, a Progressive (American Socialist) group that Boxer had helped form a few years earlier. Marin Alternative eventually dissolved in the late 1970’s but since Boxer was already elected to public office, they had apparently served their purpose.

Boxer was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. Serving California’s 6th Congressional District, Boxer represented Marin and Sonoma Counties for the next ten years. During this time she focused on human rights, environmental protection, military procurement reform, and abortion issues from a pro-choice stance. In her first big setback, Boxer was one of the 450 Congressmen and House staffers implicated in the House Banking Scandal of 1992, personally writing eighty-seven overdraft checks while serving in Congress. The degreed economist and former stock broker issued a statement on her part in the scandal saying; “in painful retrospect, I clearly should have paid more attention to my account." To quiet public dissent over her behavior, Boxer wrote a $15 check to the Federal Deficit Reduction Fund for each of her eighty-seven overdraft checks. Well, at least she wasn’t appointed to head the Treasury Department or the House Ways and Means Committee but I think those positions are only offered to tax cheats and not people that merely pass bad checks.

As if to draw attention away from her own fiscal misdealing; Boxer, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee championed the fight for fiscal reform in Military Procurement. I’m sure everyone remembers the stories that came out of those hearings about $400 screwdriver and $10,000 toilet seats, but much of the truth behind those stories were never made as public as the price tags were. Many of the military purchases that were brought under scrutiny were made for special purposes and in very limited numbers, with those few items bearing the entire cost of design and manufacture that would normally amount to pennies per item if they ever went into mass production. Case in point is that $400 screwdriver.

The premier American spy plane of the day was the SR-71 “Blackbird”. The SR-71 has a top speed of no less than Mach 3.3 and to travel at those speeds, nearly the entire surface of the aircraft was made from titanium. Titanium is an exceptionally light weight and strong material but had an adverse and corrosive reaction if scratched by the usual chromium-steel tools used everywhere else in the aerospace industry. Special cadmium plated tools were required for the project but tool manufacturers didn’t make cadmium plated tools for any purpose. Only 32 of these cutting edge aircraft were ever manufactured limiting the number of special tools and equipment the military needed to support them. The few hundred screwdrivers that were needed had to be ordered as a special item so those few tools bore the entire cost of design, tooling costs and manufacture which was added to the material cost of each of the screwdrivers produced, making the price seem absurd to anyone that didn’t know the whole story.

By the way; the $10,000 toilet seat Boxer railed on about was for the Space Shuttle and aside from the few smaller shuttles built for testing, only five full-size, space-worthy shuttles were ever built. Because it is used in zero gravity, I doubt anyone would argue that a toilet seat for the space shuttle is not something you can readily pick up at Home Depot so the end result was a special order for five custom designed and manufactured seats that had to meet strict criteria.

Despite the political setbacks after the House Banking Scandal, otherwise known as “Rubber-gate” because of all the bounced checks, the Liberals in California still elected Boxer to the United States Senate in 1993 where she currently sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Curiously enough, after seventeen years in the Senate, Boxer is still considered a “junior Senator” which only serves to illustrate the need for Congressional term limits as many of the “Senior Senators” have been there for decades; having lost all touch with their States, their constituents and in some cases, their bodily functions.

While Boxer had made some sound choices during her career, many of her votes reflect her Progressive ideology and that ideology has often clouded her judgment in votes that have adversely affected her State and the people she represents. The organizations that focus on taxpayer rights, business opportunities and personal liberties grade Boxer extremely low; in some cases, receiving an absolute zero. Being a Progressive, I’m sure Boxer stands proud that she has received extremely high grades from America’s most notoriously Liberal groups such as the ACLU (87%), the Socialist front Group, Americans for Democratic Action (95%), the AFL-CIO (100%) and the Campaign for America's Future (100%), just to name a few. Incidentally, the Campaign for America's Future is another one of those George Soros funded anti-American groups with links to ACORN, MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote and National Council of La Raza. If that is her support, then we really have to question what they have been getting in return.

Boxer now faces a tough race in California now that many of her policies and beliefs have made their way into the California political spectrum and have done irreversible damage to the State economy. The added taxes imposed by the massive Federal programs she supports promises to bankrupt California altogether and her constituents are facing an uncertain future with State and local services at risk of severe cuts added to dwindling prospects for meaningful work as employers threaten to leave the State or are struggling to remain in business.

Barbara Boxer had some harsh words for the Tea Parties during the Healthcare Debates but is now asking her own supporters to become as energized and involved as the Tea Parties are. Apparently, Boxer hasn’t learned that massive new government programs and the taxes that come with them don’t excite anyone but other Progressives or her Democratic colleagues in Washington. The mask has been stripped away from the Progressive movement and now that many of them have actually dared to speak openly about their agenda, the face that was revealed is not that of a kind and gentle benefactor; but is rather, the harsh and craggy faces of Marxist demagogues that have disgraced the pages of History where ever they came to power.

If America is to ever recover her former glory, the Progressive movement must be exposed, expunged and voted from office where ever they exist. Barbara Boxer is not the whole movement but she is certainly one of the diseased sores left by its infection of the body politic. Her State may never fully recover from their experiment with Progressive politics but unless Californians would prefer that America go down with them, they must act decisively this November to replace Boxer and let her live as a private citizen, burdened with the same load that she expected the mere peasants of California to carry as she enjoyed her life as an elite member of the Progressive ruling class.

Paul

The Obama Plan: Plenty of Change But Little Hope

As if the Obama administration wanted to help me make the point I was illustrating in yesterday’s article, a new flurry of regulatory threats are now emanating from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Apparently the government is taking its stance on healthcare very seriously now that they have made themselves a fixture in your health insurance and by virtue of that, a fixture in your health care decisions. In addition to everything we have already heard in the healthcare bill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now posturing itself to regulate the amount of salt in your foods. This is changing the focus of the agency from protecting you against tainted or diseased foods and assuming the role of deciding what you should eat because a bureaucrat can now decide it is not good for you.

Food without salt through government edict? Somehow I just don’t think that Washington is listening to us. We want government out of our lives; not taking control of our most basic choices. The people that should not have added salt in their foods because of a medical condition already know what they can and cannot have and have been making those decisions for themselves ever since doctors made the link between food and health. Necessarily, the regulation of salt would put some foods normally high in this once crucial condiment on the chopping block. I’m not sure you can even make bacon without salt and even if you could, would it be worth eating? Can you imagine a pretzel that didn’t have a healthy sprinkling of course salt or the summertime favorite, margaritas by the pool without salt encrusting the rim of the glass? New York is already going down this road and it is driving chefs crazy in the Big Apple. Professional cooks know there is nothing more basic to great tasting foods than the salt that enhances the natural flavor of nearly everything it touches.

Unfortunately, we now have a slew of radical advisors in positions of power within the White House and administrative agencies. Some, like Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar that also has a keen interest in animal rights, would prefer to see America abstain from eating meats as well. If we allow the FDA to pick our seasonings; can a government selection of our main course be that far behind? Sunstein’s beliefs are centered on government control of the masses, he also recognizes that direct regulatory actions can at times, be counter productive. Rather than risking confrontation with the people, Sunstein prefers a clandestine approach that would guide the actions of Americans while giving people the illusion of free choice. This would be accomplished by broadening government regulatory authority to limit the range of options people would be offered. Of course, those regulations would be imposed on manufacturers and industries so the resulting limits placed on American citizens would not be such an obvious intrusion of government.

In a 2008 book he co-authored with Richard Thaler titled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein speculates that we should maintain an illusion of liberty where personal decisions are concerned by having the government “nudge” people to make better decisions. Obviously Mr. Sunstein believes that the learned scholars of his alma mater, Harvard, or the Washington agencies chock full of “deep thinkers” are in a far better position to make those critical choices for you. Sunstein’s book is not ashamed to mention that the regulatory power of government and a liberal application of the tax structure could easily be used to nudge people to make “correct” decisions based on the government definition of correct. Just the idea that he thinks that this coercion process is acceptable in a free society protected by unalienable rights deeply concerns me. Our freedoms and rights would have to be, at the very least, “trimmed” before any nudging could lawfully take place. Of course, if the nudge was gentle and hidden under the guise of the “regulation of commerce”, the question of government interference with personal liberties may never actually make headlines.

Even more insidious are the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA chief Lisa Jackson, recently declared an endangerment finding against Carbon Dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases”. The finding allows the agency broad powers to regulate these gases under the existing authority granted to the agency under the Clean Air Act; avoiding the need for Congressional action all together. The purpose is clear. The President wants his Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) passed because of the enormous tax revenues that will be collected under the false premise of protecting the environment. Many in Congress recognize the dangers of this bill and the damage it will do to our economy so the passage of this bill is in question. Much of the resistance is due to the fact that the President’s Energy Bill offers absolutely no benefit to the environment. The general knowledge that the science behind global warming and climate change has been tainted with news of corrupt data and a concerted effort to silence dissent and debate has further complicated passage of the bill.

In the face of the uncertain future of the Energy Bill, the EPA has threatened to use their endangerment finding to impose regulatory sanctions on Carbon emissions in an attempt to blackmail Congress. Jackson argues that regulatory sanctions would be far more damaging to the US economy than the Cap and Trade Bill; in essence, telling Congress they must now pick the lesser of two evils but is climate change what this is really about? China, the world’s largest producer of CO2 and India, another mass producer of the questionable gas, have already said they will not sign an agreement to reduce their Carbon emissions. Best estimates say that the Carbon reduction proposed in the US energy bill will reduce global temperatures by a mere one tenth of one degree Celsius by the year 2050 and the cost factors to achieve this inconsequential reduction stagger the mind.

The implementation of the President’s Energy Bill may show a net decrease in the Carbon emission produced by US industries but the reality is that these Carbon emissions will only have been transferred to foreign nations that have not burdened themselves with self destructive legislative agreements to reduce their Carbon output. This will place the US at a disadvantage as business weighs the cost of these new regulations and that cost difference will drive manufacturers to nations where profitability is still possible. Curiously, this crucial Energy Bill does not place punitive taxes on goods coming from nations that have not agreed to reduce their Carbon output so how serious are we about actually reducing Carbon emissions to “save” the planet? This bill will only allow foreign nations to steal our few remaining industries, forcing millions more into unemployment while facing exponentially rising costs for electricity and fuels right here at home.

Lisa Jackson said something else in a recent speech that is crucial to deciphering the President’s interest in Cap and Trade. Radical Communist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, had once accused “white polluters” of intentionally steering poisons into minority communities; leaving many of us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. Now Lisa Jackson says that instances of pollution and environmental degradation are disproportionately higher in low income and minority communities across America and to combat this, the EPA is building up their “environmental justice” team. The United States Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 with major amendments added to strengthen it in 1970 and again, in 1990. Congress followed that with the Clean Water Act in 1972 which was also amended and strengthened in 1977 and 1987. Since we have already entrusted the government with monitoring pollution and gave them the teeth to aggressively fine violators of these comprehensive environmental laws how can there be such an alarming pollution problem in America, let alone a disparity in the distribution of that pollution if the EPA and other Federal agencies were actually doing their jobs?

If the legislation was impotent after two or more amendments or the EPA was disinterested or incapable of performing their duties with the strength of the legislation already at their disposal, then why should we believe that a multi-trillion dollar energy bill will make them any better at what they do? Secondly, if there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of pollution being steered into low income and minority communities, then a hate crime has been committed and the Justice Department has also fallen down on the job as well. Since Lisa Jackson has been with the EPA for twenty years now….what is her part in this conspiracy? Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, was the head of the EPA under Bill Clinton so what did she know; when did she know it and does that mean indictments are on the way?

The truth is there is no conspiracy; there is no alarming disparity in the level of pollution by community and there is no climate change that isn’t a natural process of a dynamic earth. This is another attempt at the enactment of this administration’s redistributive wish list because, as Barack Obama said, “I don’t believe in reparations (for slavery) because reparations don’t go far enough.” This is not a redistribution of wealth to level some imaginary Progressive playing field. This is a massive redistribution scheme designed to overturn the entire wealth structure of the United States and any policy instituted by government that seeks to pit one segment of the populace against another, must be by its intent, unconstitutional.

Paul

America: Are We Still The Land of The Free?

One of the biggest questions that needs to be asked today is “Who are we?” I was raised to believe that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. That freedom has become harder to find these days mostly because we, as a people, weren’t brave enough to stand up and protect our freedom. There is also a certain degree of selfishness. As long as the latest assault didn’t affect you personally…did you stand up and say “No, this is wrong”? Did you vote for people that proposed raising taxes on “millionaires” simply because you were not a millionaire or did you ask your government “what have you done with the trillions you have already spent?” Does it bother you to know that the millionaire’s tax you voted for kicks in at an annual income of $250,000 or is that still high enough that it doesn’t affect you? Better yet…do you really believe that as the revenue stream from these “quarter-of-a-millionaires” dries up that, eventually, the government won’t have to redefine a “millionaire” again as someone whose income is a little closer to your own?

I warned years ago when a slew of sin taxes were proposed on tobacco products that no matter where you stand on the habit of smoking, that this was a bad idea. The tobacco taxes weren’t really about forcing people to quit, they were about a new source of revenue. As more people realized the hazards associated with smoking, many quit and smoker’s numbers were steadily falling when these new sin taxes were proposed. When it came time to pass the tax, the smokers opposing the tax were in the minority and the tax passed easily. That really wasn’t a surprise because by then, government had already learned how to create support by labeling the target group. This time it wasn’t the greedy rich people we were going to tax but those inconsiderate smokers. In fact, this wasn’t about saving their lives anymore. The theory of second hand smoke had turned the issue away from using sin taxes to encourage healthy choices, into punishing smokers for engaging in a habit that could affect your heath, not to mention raise your health insurance costs because of their increased medical demands.

I said then that this was just the trial balloon. If we would authorize the government to use the tax system to force lifestyle changes where smoking was concerned, then we had just given them the authority to control any personal choice that government deemed unhealthy or dangerous. People thought I was being ridiculous then and some even said I was bordering on becoming a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, my vindication can be found in the pages of the healthcare bill and in local newspapers. The new healthcare bill adds a tax for sugary beverages and tanning salons because they are bad for you. California is now proposing a new “junk food” tax; and if you think that won’t become popular enough to be considered by every cash-strapped State and City government, then think again. I will bet you anything right now that it will even be considered as a new revenue source for the healthcare bill before the plan is fully implemented in 2014. After all, the healthcare bill has already changed the definition of a millionaire to be any individual that makes more that two-hundred thousand dollars or any married couple making more than two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Ink can be very powerful in Washington.

Now that we have vilified smokers, some would like to take that even further. Brooksville, Florida has just announced that it is looking at plans to crack down on smokers in the most egregious display of an abuse of power ever perpetrated by a municipality. During Monday's 5:30 p.m. meeting at City Hall, council members will consider a tobacco policy that forbids smoking or chewing the substance on city property, in city-owned vehicles and personal vehicles that are on city property or are being used for a city function. The policy would apply to city employees and the public alike.

City employees would have one year to quit smoking or chewing tobacco or face disciplinary action that includes termination "Depending on the facts and circumstances of each infraction." Employees could also pay to participate in a smoking cessation program on their own time. Applicants that admit to using tobacco would be denied employment altogether. This is an outrage and people that believe that America is still a free nation and that government has no business interfering in our personal choices should speak out loudly and without reservation. Just as the sin taxes are now being expanded to junk foods and sugary beverages; this is not as much about smoking as it is a direct assault on personal liberty that will more than likely be expanded as well.

The overweight contribute as mightily to the cost of healthcare as smokers do and in fact, as the high taxes on tobacco products reduce the number of people that smoke in this country, some have already claimed that obesity now exceeds smoking as the number one cause of preventable death in America. Those sources also state that obesity related illnesses have already reached parity with smoking in the amount of healthcare dollars used to treat the affects of bad personal choices. Is it a really absurd that one day Brooksville might decide the cost of providing health insurance for the obese had become too prohibitive? Does the American’s with Disabilities Act cover Americans that have “chosen” to become disabled because of their eating habits? Before anyone gets confused, I am not advocating that the obese should become the new target for government oppression but I have more than a sneaky feeling that your Federal government is about to open that door and the States will follow suit.

Don’t forget that after the healthcare bill was signed Nancy Pelosi said that “this is more about diet than diabetes.” Well, that isn’t possible unless Nancy knows that the new law intends to write your diet for you somewhere in the thousands of regulations and directives that have yet to be written by the healthcare advisory board created by the legislation. Michelle Obama has publicly made her cause the fight against childhood obesity and surely, the government will now reflect that battle in their new guidelines for school lunch and fitness programs. The healthcare bill already includes a hefty sum for play yard equipment designed specifically to promote healthy activities.

Again, health is something that should not be taken for granted. A healthy lifestyle can spell the difference between a long and productive life and a long and debilitating illness. The information is out there already and people, so far, have made choices based on their personal beliefs. If we allow government to make those choices for us, or if you believe government should have the power to exclude smokers from even earning a living, then where will it end? Will we have to surrender contact sports and motorcycles? Will high-heels and roller blades be banned? What about the potential for the spread of disease? Since the policy being considered by Brooksville reaches into people’s homes by saying if you use tobacco in any form, at any time and in any place, you cannot work for the City then is stands to reason that allowing this to stand invites the government into our homes to control even more behavior. The worst part about this is that the City and not society, would then establish what in safe and what is not. They would determine your health and welfare choices based on their criteria, not yours.

Suppose they determine that speech could be dangerous because of the anger it could possibly incite? There goes the First Amendment. Guns can be very dangerous depending on whose finger is on the trigger…should we ban guns because of the health implications….goodbye Second Amendment. Ridiculous? With this ban on smoking and the City of Brooksville already planning on testing people to make sure they aren’t smoking at home…where is your Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure? Where is the sovereignty of your person and property? Where the hell is the Constitution?

So the question again is “Who are we?” What is the America you believe in? Have we surrendered so many of our rights already that the government is already poised to take more based on the precedent set by our silence with sin taxes. After all if you can tax it, you can control it and if you control it, you can ban it and if you ban it….America just isn’t America anymore, now is it?

Paul

More Tax and Spend But Where Are The Jobs?

So the news these days is that the stock market is rallying after the passage of healthcare and the stimulus bill is finally bringing us out of the recession. Newsweek (or is it News Weak? I never can remember) ran a story recently that America is back; claiming the recession is over. Well, if we are actually recovering from the recession, where are the jobs? The increase we see in the Dow has nothing to do with the stimulus bill and while it is on the rise, it is not because companies are hopeful about healthcare savings but because they are trying to mitigate the negative effects the tax increases will bring in the future.

There are massive new taxes on the way because of the healthcare bill in addition to the increases business will see after the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. Corporations operate under different tax rules than private citizens and are able to shift their losses around to offset earnings where it will provide the most benefit. In fact, corporations can amend previous returns and move losses back three years or use them as far as twenty years into the future to offset future income. That is what we are seeing this year in the Dow. Companies know their taxes will be substantially higher in 2011 and are posting their income in 2010 when the taxes aren’t great, but they aren’t as insane as they will be next year. Once the tax cuts disappear and the new tax impositions from the healthcare bill are in place, the losses and expenses from this year will be used to offset the tax liabilities in 2011 and that will have a drastic effect on the Dow Jones.

Reagan made the same mistake when he took office. He promised tax cuts to rouse the economy but rather than make them immediate, he phased the cuts in, which allowed companies to post losses during the years of higher taxes; biding their time until the tax cuts took affect. Once the tax cuts were in place, the economy soared, ushering in one of the largest peace-time expansions of the GDP in history but before those cuts were actually made, the economy lagged and jobs suffered. Conversely, businesses are now taking advantage of the temporarily lower tax rates knowing that those rates are guaranteed to rise sharply in 2011. Furthermore, business is counting on the November 2010 elections to restore some sanity to government. While the Republicans cannot secure enough seats to repeal healthcare, they can certainly block the funding needed to implement it; stalling the healthcare legislation until 2012 can bring in a new Congress and a new President.

The President can try to put a happy face on the prospects Democrats are facing this election but he knows that a vote for the healthcare bill was a vote for their own retirement. Going into the healthcare vote, Republicans were no more liked than Democrats were but the scandalous way this legislation was forced through Congress against the will of the people has severely damaged the Democrats. While people are not quite sure they can trust Republicans right now, Republicans do have the distinct advantage in not being Democrats. The President has been trying to label Republicans as “the Party of no” but the Democrats have labeled themselves “the Party of sit down and be quiet you silly people”. In the whole grand scheme of things there is an awful lot you can do to Americans before they get truly angry but ignoring them just isn’t an option.

The frightening part about the President’s predicament is that it has fostered another sense of urgency in the White House and now every program and policy the President really wants is going to be desperately rushed in much the same way that TARP, the Stimulus and Healthcare was. Don’t forget that TARP had to be done right then and there or banks were going to fail, throwing America into a new depression. Well, TARP passed and Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and the President claimed credit for averting financial disaster but isn’t it funny that as soon as executive salaries were capped in the companies that accepted TARP money, those silly companies discovered that they actually did have liquidity and paid the TARP money back as fast as humanly possible. Well, most of them did. Curiously, the only ones that couldn’t pay the taxpayers back, and in fact, still needed more money, were the government’s own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Imagine that!

Then there was the Stimulus Bill. We had to pass that one without thinking about it because joblessness was on the rise and without this critical infusion of money, the unemployment rate would get as high as 8%. Well, we passed that without thinking about it and unemployment climbed above 10% before stagnating at a miserable 9.7%. Recovery.gov still has no idea how much of your money was wasted on frivolous projects like amphibian underpasses so that frogs and salamanders can safely cross the road or funding studies about the drinking habits of Indonesian transgender prostitutes. Billions are listed as being given to Congressional districts that do not exist and since the government cannot say with any accuracy how many (if any) jobs were actually created, the White House has had to claim that the Stimulus Bill saved two million jobs knowing full well there is no way to substantiate a “saved job”.

With the Healthcare Bill we all watched in horror as the legislative process was subverted into a corrupt and underhanded push to pass something nobody wanted. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama all blamed the Republicans for trying to stonewall the legislation when the bare fact is that the resistance that nearly derailed the bill was entirely on the other side of the aisle. Reluctant Democrats had to be bullied, threatened and bought off just to get the votes they needed to push this through. Once Scott Brown had been elected to the Senate, it was thought that the bill would finally die the death it deserved but the Senate Bill was taken behind closed doors once more where Pelosi and Obama abused House Democrats. They would use the same tactics Harry Reid used, forcing them to vote for the Senate Bill so they could ram it through under reconciliation; requiring only a simple majority in the Senate, effectively negating Scott Brown’s vote.

Now that the healthcare bill has passed all the nasty little details are emerging. The Medicare cuts, the tax increases and the admission by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, that the healthcare bill is designed to “correct a mal-distribution” of wealth in America. For those of us that warned about the redistributive goals of the bill, a healthy “told you so” might certainly be warranted but what good would that do now? Then there are the unintended consequences to deal with. America’s largest corporations are reporting that they will loose hundreds of millions in profits because of the healthcare bill; something that Henry Waxman fumed over, demanding that these companies appear before his committee and explain themselves. Waxman claimed that a report prepared prior to the passage of the bill said these companies would see a decrease in healthcare costs amounting to roughly three-thousand dollars per employee and he insisted upon knowing why they were not taking those savings into consideration. As it turns out, the report to which Henry Waxman was referring had nothing to do with the Senate healthcare bill and was based on a limited and incremental approach to healthcare reform similar to what the Republicans had proposed.

I suppose the funniest story came out last week when the Congress found out that the healthcare bill they all told us they read contained a little secret none of them knew about. Unless they act to correct the bill, Congress and their staff members are all going to lose their health insurance and will be forced into the exchange market. The only problem for them is that the way the law is written, they must lose the insurance now and the market they have to purchase from won’t even exist until 2014.

Despite the President’s promise that jobs are going to be his priority in the coming year his next race to get something past the Senate is on the financial reform bill. This bill places drastic and dangerous limits on American financial institutions placing them at a severe disadvantage when competing against foreign banks that are curiously not mentioned in this “much needed” reform bill. Even though Harry Reid said it may not be possible in an election year, the President insists that immigration reform is right behind his Financial Reform Bill. Also tucking into the White House fast track to destroy the country is the infamous Cap and Trade massive energy tax. The Senate is threatening to unveil their copy of that scam as early as the end of next week. So I have to ask the same question I started this article with….Where are the jobs?

Paul

The Left Tries Tinkering with the Tea Party

During the course of the last year we have seen a definite change in the perception that Progressives have towards the Tea Party. New Tea Party groups began springing up all over the country as soon as the country recognized that despite his centrist campaign, the newly elected Barack Obama had steered his administration hard to the left. Established Tea Party groups saw an exponential increase in membership as soon as the eight-hundred plus billion dollar stimulus bill passed and the focus in Congress turned to healthcare. At first, the organized opposition to the Tea Party was basically to ignore them and the main stream media did their level best; burying stories about Tea Party activists where no one but hard core, cover-to-cover readers would find them. The thought was that without coverage or recognition that they would fizzle out and disappear.

Well, they didn’t fizzle out and they certainly haven’t disappeared. They showed up at town hall meetings during the August recess and while those that got in aired their opinions, the ones that didn’t stood outside with signs and slogans. After the Tea Party launched a massive protest at the nation’s Capitol, the press could no longer ignore the intensity and passion of the people that, until then, were showing up at Congressional offices and town halls all over the nation. Another means of dealing with this threat to the Progressive agenda had to be found. Nancy Pelosi led the charge with accusations that the Tea Parties were nothing more than an annoyance campaign organized by the Republican Party, health insurance corporations and special interest groups. Pelosi claimed they were not an actual grass roots movement; calling them “Astroturf” and manufactured anger. Ironically, while Nancy labeled the Tea Party manufactured anger, MoveOn.org, Americans for Democratic Action, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Organizing for America and more, were orchestrating counter protests and were in some cases, actually paying people to attend; a move which would prove disastrous later.

When Tea Party members began appearing on news programs, mostly on Fox, the main stream media went on an information search to discredit the people that were speaking for the movement. If Nancy Pelosi said they were paid for by the Republicans, surely they should be able to find those links and bring this manufactured hoax to a grinding halt. Looking in every dark corner and alley; under each rock and behind every tree the media found nothing but retirees, small business owners and private citizens that had never even been part of a political protest in their lives. Rather than change her tune when confronted with the total absence of Republican influence in the Tea Party movement, Nancy Pelosi shifted gears and began speaking about the rage that had permeated the town hall meetings and protests. If we can’t prove they are Astroturf, then maybe we can prove they are nothing but an ugly, racist and irrational mob. Pelosi spoke tearfully about how much this hateful discourse reminded her of the anger that had been part of the political scene in San Francisco during the 1970’s and how that anger had quickly descended into violence.

What Ms. Pelosi failed to mention was that the San Francisco mobs inciting violence in the 1970’s were overwhelmingly people on the left; Progressives like herself that did not have a legitimate voice in politics and had taken the radical activist route to force their issues on an unwilling public. The left had always taken to the streets and those marches nearly always became a violent clash between radical mobs and the authorities. Despite the inaccuracies, the main stream media had their new marching orders and began to dig through the Tea Party protests looking for signs that could be interpreted as hateful or racist and started reporting about people shouting out vile comments or wearing Swastikas. Curiously, the photographs that were taken showed plenty of American flags and signs reading “Hands off my healthcare” but none of the pictures were hateful, racist or even vulgar. There were no images of people wearing Swastikas or raising their arms in Nazi salutes. There were miles of footage showing people chanting “Kill the Bill” or speaking about the outrage they felt because Congress had been ignoring them but I still haven’t heard any racial slurs or provocative language. One would think that if any of those things were evident at Tea Party rallies, that the media would have led their national coverage with that. They did not.

Then in August it happened. The Democratic headquarters in Denver Colorado was vandalized. The media storm was immediate and centered on the anger that the Tea Party was fomenting against the supporters of healthcare reform. Every window that had been shattered contained a poster supporting the President’s healthcare initiative illustrating how dangerous these protests were becoming. Within days, the police apprehended 24 year old Maurice Schwenkler for the attack. In a curious twist of fate, Schwenkler was neither a right wing zealot nor was he a member of the Tea Party. Schwenkler was in fact, a Democrat activist and a supporter of the Healthcare Bill. He had previously been arrested for misdemeanor unlawful assembly at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN and had actually worked for the Democratic Party in the past. Schwenkler had also been paid five-hundred dollars by the Colorado Citizens Coalition, a non profit group that supports Democratic candidates, for his work in a door to door campaign to drum up last minute support for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

There was very little coverage of Schwenkler’s arrest and no retractions of the damning rhetoric the press used as they attempted to link the attack with Tea Party activists. No indications were ever made as to Schwenkler’s motive for the vandalism leaving us to wonder “why?” It could simply be that he had an argument with people at the office and had an axe to grind with them but it may very well be that Schwenkler assumed that an attack of vandalism launched against Democratic offices would automatically be attributed to the Tea Party providing Nancy Pelosi with new speaking points about Tea Party violence.

Similarly, the charges of Tea Party hate and bigotry hoisted on the news networks after the House healthcare vote have failed to be substantiated with a single video clip or sound bite. Stenny Hoyer is now saying that anyone that doesn’t believe that racial slurs were lobbed at black Congressmen or that they weren’t spat upon are no different than the kooks that believe the Holocaust never happened during World War II. Sadly, there are miles of records and films to substantiate the brutal slaughter of more than six million Jews during World War II. Those films were taken in a nation that was ruled by a totalitarian military regime that had complete control over the media and yet, these films survived and exist to this day. However, here in the United States none of the hundreds of news cameras and microphones that accompanied those Congressmen as they walked through the Tea Party crowds to take their historic vote captured one scrap of evidence…..not one! If I were a member of the Jewish leadership I would be furious at Stenny Hoyer for even suggesting this charade could possibly be compared to the Holocaust.

The main stream news still hasn’t covered the brutal beating of Kenneth Gladney, a black Tea Party activist that was assaulted by counter protesters wearing SEIU shirts and jackets. The Missouri man was knocked to the ground and kicked for handing out literature during a Tea Party rally. A video taken of the incident clearly shows racial epithets were used as the assailants pummeled this man yet, the gang of thugs were basically charged with a misdemeanor when a civil rights violation and hate crime, had obviously taken place. A similar incident happened in Thousand Oaks, California where a 65 year old bystander that stopped to see what was happening at a Tea Party gathering was attacked and had part of his finger bitten off by a paid counter-protester bused in by MoveOn.org, a civilian activist group organized by the Democratic Party. Local police pursued that crime as vigorously as they did the incident in Missouri, with the charges against the attacker being little more than the equivalent of a ticket of littering. If the press really wants to see protest violence, they are obviously following the wrong groups because there is tons of video they can air if they follow the President’s supporters.

Now we have a new name and face to add to the list of Democrats manufacturing anger at Tea Party protests. Obviously the press can’t find the violence that Nancy Pelosi has accused the Tea Party of so he is going to help her by organizing people to infiltrate the Tea Party protests to create the disturbances the press couldn’t legitimately find. Jason Levin, a media lab school teacher at Beaverton, Oregon’s Conestoga Middle School says they want to “exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them”.

He adds “We’re going to attend their rally, but plan to have a bunch of truly ludicrous signs. Things that say “Obama drinks Christian Baby Blood” or “Jesus wrote the constitution”. The more misspelled words the better…You could also dress in overalls with no shirt, or a stained “wifebeater” t-shirt, But you get the general idea. Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks. The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!”

All Levin has done was to provide the smoking gun the Tea Party needed all along. The main stream media has yet to uncover these crazy signs and acts of violence in previous Tea Party protests so the assumption will now be that any violent or rude behavior at future Tea Party events must be the work of one of “Levin’s Losers”. Like that name? I made it up myself! Levin may have created more problems for himself than simply undermining the effectiveness of his own cause. He has apparently been working on his blog and website while he was supposed to be teaching his Oregon students and has drawn some unexpected and unpleasant attention from the school district. Hopefully his lack of involvement with the students actually spared them from the usual radical indoctrination routinely perpetrated by Socialist teachers and they are now better prepared for the realities of life than Mr. Levin is.

Paul

Target 2010 - Phil Hare (D-IL)

Phil Hare was elected to Congress as part of the 2006 Democratic sweep brought on by America’s general dissatisfaction with George Bush’s policies. The anti-war movement aided by liberals in the main stream media had certainly strived to make Bush toxic by linking him with the rising number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the allegations of US mistreatment of terror suspects. While that certainly didn’t help Bush, his downfall, like his father, had more to do with fiscal policies and the perception that he was disconnected from the true concerns of the American people.

Phil Hare came from a blue-collar family which is a plus to anyone running for public office in Illinois. He worked at the Seaford Clothing Factory in Rock Island where he spent thirteen years. During the time he worked at the Seaford Clothing Factory, Phil served as a union leader and as President of the Unite Here Local 617, an offshoot of the AFL-CIO. He also served six years as an Army reservist.

Proving that Illinois really doesn’t ask much of their elected officials, Mr. Hare is a product of Alleman High School in Rock Island and had earned an Associates Degree from Black Hawk College in Moline. An Associates Degree is an undergraduate academic degree awarded by community colleges, junior colleges and some four year colleges after completion of a course of study usually lasting two years. Since Hare doesn’t expand on the studies he completed to earn his degree, I can only assume it was Liberal Arts, P.E. or perhaps underwater basket weaving; the favored subject of limited achievers.

Hare began dabbling in politics when he ran as an Alternate Delegate to the Democratic Presidential Convention in support of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts in 1980. One of the three delegates for Kennedy, Hare and his fellow Kennedy supporters were defeated by the delegates running in support of Jimmy Carter. In 1982 Phil left his union position to help Lane Evans, who was running for the US Congress against Republican incumbent, Tom Railsback. Hare and Evans had been close friends since 1976 when they worked together as volunteers for Senator Fred R. Harris' campaign for President. Surprisingly, Tom Railsback was defeated in the Republican primary by conservative challenger, State Senator Kenneth McMillan forcing Evans and Hare to shift gears and turn their attention to McMillan. Evans would defeat McMillan in November, and in appreciation, appointed Hare as district director.

For the next twenty-four years, Hare worked as an aide to Evans and assisted him mostly in the areas of constituent issues and labor problems. As an aide to Evans, Phil Hare oversaw the closings of Case International Harvestor plant in East Moline and the Maytag plant in Galesburg. The closings of these major businesses and many others resulted in a loss of more than 2,200 jobs in the 17th district as US companies began to flee over-regulation and high taxes in the US for countries that were a little more appreciative of the role successful corporations play in the health of an economy.

After Evans announced his retirement in March of 2006, Hare announced his candidacy to succeed Evans. Hare received the endorsement of Lane Evans and in a special Democratic caucus of precinct committee members from the 17th Congressional District, Hare defeated the four other candidates and became the district’s Democratic candidate for the 2006 Congressional race where Hare focused much of his campaign on labor issues. Since Illinois is not a right to work State, many people of the 17th district are union members (whether they like it or not) and let’s face it, labor issues in a State that loves to drive business away with union interference is an important issue for the people left looking for work. Apparently his promises worked and Hare defeated Republican Andrea Zinga in the general election of 2006 and ran unopposed in 2008 counting on America’s dissatisfaction with Bush and an easy ride on Obama’s coat tails.

Hare has followed Evans’s lead and his voting record is not just Liberal, it is very Liberal. That shouldn’t surprise anyone; especially since the mask came off shortly after the election and people found that Hare was not merely a Democrat, a Liberal or a union man….he was a Progressive and would become one of the founding members of the of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and an ardent supporter of the Progressive Caucus’s Socialist agenda.

Hare is an unapologetic supporter of Labor Unions and unfortunately, Labor Unions are for the most part, unapologetic supporters of Socialist ideology. Curiously, Hare doesn’t appear to be an unapologetic supporter of the actual union members and has openly supported Card Check, a provision in a recently proposed bill that would strip union members of the right to cast a secret ballot in union elections. The secret ballot was the membership’s only protection against intimidation and scare tactics used by corrupt and violent union leaders and while this maybe something a former union President would love to offer his “friends” as a gift, it is certainly something the rank and file is overwhelmingly opposed to.

Hare also voted for the recent healthcare bill even though he had previously stated that he would never support healthcare legislation that did not include, in his words, “a robust public option”. In a recent interview, Hare was asked about the Constitutionality of the healthcare legislation to which he replied: “I don't worry about the Constitution on this to be honest…I worry about the thousands of people that are dying because they don’t have health insurance." As video clips of his dismissive comments about our Constitution made their way across the internet and onto the news, Hare responded saying that his statement was taken out of context and what he really meant was that he was not concerned about the constitutional challenge to the legislation. I’m not so sure about his explanation because as the questioning continued, the interview started to ask what part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to require people to purchase health insurance but Hare interrupted him and blurted out "I don't know! I don't know!... But at the end of the day I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country."

Hare mistakenly added that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An unidentified voice on the tape reminded Congressman Hare that the line he just quoted was from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution but that didn’t matter much either. He waved his hand and said “either one.” Either one? This may come as a shock to the Black Hawk doctor of underwater basket weaving but he swore an oath to support and defend one of those documents when he became a Congressman and most of us think it would be a really good idea if he knew which one it was and what it actually says.

Why would we expect Mr. Hare would have actually read the Constitution when he obviously hasn’t read the bill he had just voted for? When asked if he had read the bill he told the interviewer that he had read the bill three times. Really? To have read the 8100 pages of the bill and the corresponding documents that would have to be read for the bill to make sense in the time the House leadership allowed before the vote, one would have to read one page each minute and then comprehend what it means in totality. That, my friends, would be a feat for a bona fide speed reader let alone a union boss with a two year degree in arts and crafts (or whatever it was).

Clearly Mr. Hare has no respect for the Constitution; no respect for union members and even less respect for his constituents if he can vote for a bill that he could not possibly have read. In fact, to vote for a bill that he openly opposed on principal simply because Nancy Pelosi told him to, Phil Hare must have very little respect for his own convictions and that is something that worries me most of all.

Paul

Tax Day 2010 - Getting Ready for the Next Depression

Tax Day is here and while protests are taking place all over the country, we would do well to realize that April 15, 2010 may be something to celebrate only because these will be the lowest tax rates you will see for the foreseeable future. The spending spree brought on by the election of Barack Obama has accelerated the American free-fall into debt and the lending machine we have been using to finance our deficits has finally warned us that they are about to pull the emergency brake handle; bringing it all to a screeching halt. Think of it…our nation has spent so much money that we have not only exhausted our own ability to finance it, but the ability for an entire pool of foreign nation’s to lend us the difference. That is quite a feat and certainly qualifies as the primary definition of Obama’s proclamation that he would “fundamentally transform” America.

What has happened here? In the timeline of human events it wasn’t all that long ago when we were a nation that innovated self-reliance; which was the catalyst that sparked the solutions to every one of our difficulties. There is a long history of financial cycles where business and employment waxed and waned but the free market responded with dynamic solutions; not under the watchful eye of government, but because government was not involved at all. Today, that dynamic structure is shackled by the heavy hand of government regulatory control.

As the Twentieth Century approached, America found itself allured by the false promises of European thinkers. Progressives had entered the scene armed with the teachings of Marx, Engels and Nietzsche hoping to create an America that could coalesce power under a strong central government with the authority to pool the nation’s resources together to provide a base standard of living for all. Our first truly Progressive President was Theodore Roosevelt and while he didn’t have the power to bring about the change that he wanted to see, he certainly planted the seeds of Marxism thinly veiled behind the uniquely American label of Progressivism. What Roosevelt did do was to create the precedent of creating administrative agencies under a loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause. After all, if you could tweak America’s understanding of the constitutional authority for Congress to “regulate” commerce, then nearly anything could be brought under Federal control.

Woodrow Wilson would be the next Progressive President to assault the Constitution and is in fact, the most damaging. As a man who considered himself a “Progressive intellectual”, Wilson began the process of radicalizing America and using the precedent established by Theodore Roosevelt, created the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Farm Loan Act and of course, the Progressive Income Tax to pay for it all. Curiously, there was no constitutional authority to create any of those programs but since Roosevelt had already started the vilification of the Corporation; it was an easy sale to convince America that it just needed to be done. Of course, since these programs added to the Federal budget that gave Wilson the ability to institute the Progressive Income Tax because the Constitution allows Congress to collect taxes to pay for the debts of government. Incidentally, when the Progressive Income Tax became law, it was promised that the top marginal rate would never exceed 10% and most Americans would accept a minor tax to provide for such important programs.

Wilson narrowly won his second term in 1916 by promising America that he would keep us out of the unpopular war that was raging in Europe; a promise that he would break less than a year later. The war expenditures created the economic conditions that would have Wilson break another promise in short order, when he raised the top marginal income tax rate to 77% to pay for America’s war debt. Wilson’s actions crippled business and investment and led directly to the unknown depression of 1920. The reason it is called the unknown depression is that while there is plenty of data available about this calamity; none of the facts are particularly flattering to Wilson or the Progressive movement so it is simply not discussed in schools, the press or academia. Worse news for our Progressive friends is that the facts surrounding our recovery from that depression soundly refute Progressive policy. President Warren Harding recognized the damage done by Wilson’s wild tax increases and responded by halving Federal spending and eventually reducing the top marginal tax rate to 25%. Within two years, the nation’s economy rebounded and the “Roaring Twenties” had been born.

Progressive Herbert Hoover became President in 1929 and as though he had no recollection of the damages wrought by Woodrow Wilson, immediately sought to use his Presidency to bring about more transformative change. Hoover began by closing what he called “tax loopholes” for the rich and could probably be credited for creating the open war against wealth that modern Progressives use to sway the general population’s support for any program or policy that will punish evil wealth and better the lives of average Americans with the proceeds. Hoover also raised tariffs and farm subsidies while increasing Federal expenditures for public projects such as veteran’s hospitals that for the first time thrust our medical system into a direct an unfair competition with the Federal government. Hoover also cancelled oil leases on government lands (does that sound familiar?); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and homeownership; created an anti-trust division within the department of justice and generally saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism.

It wasn’t a year before the nation slipped back into fiscal chaos as the bottom fell out of the stock market in 1929. Failing to learn the lessons set by Warren Harding in the early 1920’s, Hoover implemented huge public spending projects and raised the top marginal tax rate to 63% in 1932 throwing the nation into a full fledged depression. The Depression allowed the next great Progressive President his shot at transformative change; Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although Roosevelt had accused Hoover of spending and taxing the nation into depression, FDR immediately began his bid to tax and spend the nation out of depression. Yeah, that didn’t make sense to me either but that is what happens when Progressives control what you read, hear and learn. The lessons of history become lost in the fog of “intellectual rhetoric”.

In the midst of a crippling depression, FDR created a huge new Federal entitlement program (Social Security) and saddled us with a labor relations act that would legitimize collective bargaining. He is also the first President that advocated the establishment of a second “bill of rights” that would enumerate certain economic rights that were unnervingly similar to the rights listed in the Constitution adopted by the Communist regime of the Soviet Union. Fortunate, we dodged that bullet or we may be a very different nation today. In a slight of hand, FDR balanced the regular budget but the “emergency budget” created to combat the depression had increased Federal spending from 8% of GDP under Hoover to 10.2% under Roosevelt. As a result, the National Debt increased more than 100% and was 40% of GDP by 1936. To pay for all this spending FDR raised the top tax rate to an insane 79% in 1936 and Truman would continue this ultimately topping out at 94% after World War II.

While FDR’s programs caused a brief drop in unemployment from 25% when he assumed office to 14% in 1937, the tax hikes and new government programs would take their toll and create a new depression within a depression, throwing more people out of work. FDR’s programs are widely credited for ending the depression, which is the white-washed and revised history offered by Progressive historians that again, want to conceal that Progressivism, like its Socialist sister; does not work. The Depression would not end until World War II when the American industrial base was the only untouched manufacturing center left standing and if you wanted to buy anything, you had to buy it here. Of course modern Progressive’s use the artificial manufacturing boom of the ‘50’s to justify higher income tax rates. After all, if the nation had economic expansion with a top marginal tax rate of 94%; doesn’t that negate the validity of the cuts imposed by Harding? Well, since the economic expansion was based on an artificial and temporary demand, those Progressive assumptions must be equally artificial.

So now it’s 2010 and we have another Progressive in the White House and this Progressive is as corrupt, evil and devious as Woodrow Wilson was. While Barack Obama is seemingly ignorant of the historic solutions that are proven to relieve financial problems on a national scale, this Progressive has a willing band of co-conspirators holding absolute control over the Congress making his regime particularly dangerous. Ronald Reagan understood what needed to be done but by then, the Federal agencies created by the Progressives of the early and mid- twentieth century had become so powerful, and the misinformation fed to the general population was so complete that not even the charismatic “great communicator” could restore the Federal government to its basic and most successful roots.

While 2010 may be the lowest taxes we will see in a long time history has taught us that we must now brace for a new “Great Depression” as Obama continues to make the same mistakes that all of his Progressive predecessors made. In his case, I sincerely question whether his actions are actually mistakes. We may be witnessing the only Progressive President that truly understands the history of his actions and is intent on using them to complete the work started by Theodore Roosevelt to create an America based on the principals of Marx, Engels and Nietzsche. God help us all.

Paul