MR. SMITH THINKS

LIBERTY FROM TYRANNY

2012-02-09T11:53:00.000-08:00

Mark Levin is the host of a radio talk show, frequent guest on national tv talk shows like Hannity, lawyer, and perhaps most importantly one of the best minds in America in terms of understanding the direction that our country has taken since the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt.

Levin understands so well what is going on that his book Liberty and Tyranny ought to be required reading in every high school and college in America (though that is not likely to happen due to the liberal control of those institutions).

Having just finished reading the book I was greatly impressed with both his understanding and his blueprint for America. For this reason I want to share one short chapter here with you. As a bit of background, Levin mentions "Statists" throughout his work. He defines this term as those who eschew the divine grant of rights from our creator, and presume that all rights come from the "state" or government, and that follow a collectivist or socialist view of subjecting the rights of others to the good of the collective. In this view he mirrors much of what was written by Ayn Rand in her seminal works on individual achievement and rights. This is entitled, "A American Manifesto" and is the concluding chapter of his book. Enjoy and please give this thought and action.

A C O N S E R V A T I V E M A N I F E S T O

So distant is America today from its founding principles that it is difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government. It is not strictly a constitutional republic, becausethe Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, the Statist's agenda. It is not strictly a representative republic, because somany edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment.

It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. What, then, is it? It is a society steadily transitioning toward statism. If the Conservative does not come to grips with the significance of this transformation, he will be devoured by i t . The Republican Party acts as i f it is without recourse. Republican administrations—with the exception of a brief eight-year respite under Ronald Reagan—more or less remain on the glide path set by Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. The latest and most stunning example is the trillions of dollars in various bailout schemes that President George W. Bush oversaw in the last months of his administration. When asked about it, he made this remarkable statement: "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."1 And he did more than that. In approving the expenditure of $17.4 billion in loans to General Motors and Chrysler, President Bush overrode Congress, which had rejected the plan, and in doing so violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Just as another Republican president, Herbert Hoover, laid the foundation for Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Bush has, in words and actions, done the same for President Barack Obama—the most ideologically pure Statist and committed counterrevolutionary to occupy the Oval Office.

Republicans seem clueless on how to slow, contain, and reverse the Statist's agenda. They seem to fear returning to first principles, lest they be rejected by the electorate, and so prefer to tinker ineffectively and timidly on the edges. As such, are they not abandoning what they claim ro support? If the bulk of the people reject the civil society for the Statist's Utopia, preferring subjugation to citizenship, then the end is near anyway. But even in winning an election, governing without advancing first principles is a hollow victory indeed. Its imprudence is self-evident. This is not the way of the Conservative; it is the way of the neo-Statist—subservient to a "reality" created by the Statist rather than the reality of unalienable rights granted by the Creator.

So, what can he done? I do not pretend to have all the answers. Moreover, the act of writing a book places practical limits on what can be said at a given time. However, I do have some thoughts.

The Conservative must become more engaged in public matters. It is in his nature to live and let live, to attend to his family, to volunteer time with his church and synagogue, and to quietly assist a friend, a neighbor, or even a stranger. These are certainly admirable qualities that contribute to the overall health of the community. But it is no longer enough. The Statist's counterrevolution has turned the instrumentalities of public affairs and public governance against the c i v i l society. They can no longer be left to the devices of the Statist, which is largely the case today. This will require a new generation of conservative activists, larger in number, shrewder, and more articulate than before, who seek to blunt the Statist's counterrevolution—not imitate i t—and gradually and steadily reverse course. More conservatives than before will need to seek elective and appointed office, fill the ranks of the administrative state, hold teaching positions in public schools and universities, and find positions in Hollywood and the media where they can make a difference in infinite ways. The Statist does not have a birthright ownership to these institutions. The Conservative must fight for them, mold them, and where appropriate, eliminate them where they are destructive to the preservation and improvement of the civil society.

Parents and grandparents must take it upon themselves to teach their children and grandchildren to believe i n and appreciate the principles of the American civil society and stress the import of preserving and improving the society. They will need to teach their offspring that the Statist threatens their generation's liberty and prosperity, and to resist ideologically alluring trends and fads. Parents and grandparents by the millions can counteract the Statist's indoctrination of their children and grandchildren in government schools and by other Statist institutions simply by conferring their knowledge, beliefs, and ideals on them over the dinner table, in the car, or at bedtime. If undertaken on an intimate, purposeful, and consistent basis, it will shape a generation of new conservatives.

And education should not stop at the front door. We, the people, are a vast army of educators and communicators. When the occasion arises in conversations with neighbors, friends, coworkers and others, take the time to explain conservative principles and their value to the individual, family, and society generally.

The Conservative should acquire knowledge outside the Statist's universe. He should not ignore the media, Hollywood, government schools, and universities, but they should not be the primary sources of information that shape the Conservative's worldview. Technology has made access easy to an unprecedented wealth of resources that contribute to the Conservative's understanding, including the Avalon Project,2 which makes available online, among other things, a large collection of the nation's founding documents; the Atlas Economic Research Foundation,' which offers sources of free-market thinking; the CATO Institute, which produces scholarly materials oriented around Adam Smith's philosophy; and the Heritage Foundation, which produces scholarly materials oriented around Edmund Burke. Moreover, established publications, such as Human Events and National Review, engage in conservative thought relating to current news events. Talk radio provides a dynamic forum for conservative thought and debate. There are academic institutions, particularly Hillsdale College and Chapman University, that provide formal educational opportunities. Groups such as Young America's Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and the Leadership Institute promote conservatism on college campuses throughout the nation. There are, in fact, many outstanding conservative organizations and institutions, too numerous to list, that are accessible to the public.

The Statist has also become masterful at controlling the public vocabulary. For example, when challenged on global warming, he accuses the skeptic of being a "denier," "favoring corporate polluters," or being "against saving the planet." Draconian measures that threaten liberty and prosperity, such as cap-and-trade, are marketed in appealing and benign slogans, such as "going green." The Statist never destroys, he "reforms." He never disenfranchises, he "empowers."

President Ronald Reagan understood the power of words. He framed the debate on his terms. How can limited government and fiscal restraint be equated with lack of a passion for the poor? How can a tax break that puts a little more money in the weekly paychecks of working people be seen as an attack on the needy? Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes—one rich, one poor—both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?

Reagan dissected the Statist's language and recast the morality of the message. Americans are not at war w i t h each other over money and class. And when Americans keep the fruits of their labor, it is a good thing. This is both seminal and fundamental. The Statist's vocabulary provides the Conservative with opportunities to highlight the Statist's duplicity and the bankruptcy of his ideas by stripping the rhetorical veneer from his message and contrasting it with the wisdom of the Conservative's principles. The battle over language, like the battle over ideas, is one that conservatives should relish.

The Statist has constructed a Rube Goldberg array of laws and policies that have institutionalized his objectives. His success breeds confidence in the limitlessness of his endeavors. For the Conservative, the challenge is daunting and the road will be long and hard. But it took the Statist nearly eighty years to get here, and it will take the Conservative at least as long to change the nation's direction. Still, there is no time to waste. The Conservative must act now. A n d in doing so he must reject the ideological boundaries the Statist and neo-Statist seek to impose on him, since they are self-defeating. He must be resolute in purpose yet flexible in approach. He must search out opportunities and exploit them. He must be both overt and covert. He must not reject compromise if the compromise is likely to advance the founding principles. He must reject compromise if the compromise is of little consequence and a diversionary end in itself.

The Conservative must take heart from, and learn the lessons of, his nation's history. America's founding, the Civil War, and World War I I were epic and, at times, seemingly insurmountable wars of liberty against tyranny, which would have destroyed the civil society had they been lost. The challenge today is in many ways more complicated, because the "soft tyranny" comes from w i t h i n and utilizes the nation's instrumentalities against itself.

However, it is also a bloodless struggle and, therefore, should enlist all conservatives with the courage of their convictions. There is a dynamic to prudential change that makes impossible the production of a step-by-step guide to tactical actions fixed for all circumstances and times. But tactical actions must be taken today, under known conditions, i f the civil society is to survive tomorrow. Therefore, based on my own knowledge, observations, and experiences, herewith are some of the hard things the Conservative will have to do i f the nation is to improve:

A CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO

T A X A T I ON

Eliminate the progressive income tax—replace it w i t h a flat i n come tax or national sales tax—for its purpose is to redistribute wealth, not fund the constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government. A l l residents of the country must be required to pay the tax so they have a stake in limiting its abuse. Eliminate the automatic withholding of taxes, for it conceals the extent to which the federal government is confiscating i n come from its citizens. Eliminate the corporate income tax, for i t is nothing more than double taxation on shareholders and consumers, and penalizes wealth and job creation. Eliminate the death tax, for it denies citizens the right to confer the material value they have created during their lives to whomever they wish, including their family. A l l federal income tax increases will require a super-majority vote of three-fifths of Congress. Limit federal spending each year to less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product.5

2. ENVIRONMENT

Eliminate the special tax-exempt status granted to environmental groups, since they are not nonpartisan charitable foundations. Eliminate special statutory authority granting environmental groups standing to bring lawsuits on behalf of the public, since their main purpose is to pursue the Statist's agenda through litigation. Fight all efforts to use environmental regulations to set governmental industrial policies and diminish the nation's standard of living, such as "cap-and-trade" to regulate "man-made climate change."

3. JUDGES

Limit the Supreme Court's judicial-review power, which far exceeds the Framers' intent, by establishing a legislative veto over Court decisions—perhaps a two-thirds super-majority vote of both houses of Congress, not dissimilar from the congressional override authority of a presidential veto.

Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges, given the extra-constitutional power they have amassed and their routine intervention in political and policy decisions—which the Constitution leaves to the representative branches. No judicial nominee should be confirmed who rejects the jurisprudence of original-ism.

4. T H E ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Sunset all "independent" federal agencies each year, subject to Congress affirmatively reestablishing them. Require federal departments and agencies to reimburse individuals and enterprises for the costs associated with the devaluation of their private property from the issuance of regulations that compromise the use of their property. Eliminate unions for federal government employees, since the purpose of a civil service system is to promote merit and professionalism over patronage, and the purpose of federal unions is to empower themselves and promote statism. Reduce the civilian federal workforce by 20 percent or more.

5. GOVERNMENT EDUCATION

Eliminate monopoly control of government education by applying the antitrust laws to the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers; the monopoly is destructive of quality education and competition and is unresponsive to the taxpayers who fund it. Eliminate tenure for government schoolteachers and college university professors, making them accountable for the quality of instruction they provide students.

Strip the statist agenda from curricula (such as multiculturalism and global warming) and replace it with curricula that reinforce actual education and the preservation of the civil societythrough its core principles. Eliminate the federal Department of Education, since education is primarily a state and local function.

6. IMMIGRATION

Eliminate chain migration, which grants control over immigration policy to aliens and foreign governments, and which the Statist defends to expand his electoral and administrative state constituency.

Secure the nation's borders and discourage those who violate them—illegal alien and citizen lawbreaker alike—by enforcing the immigration laws. End multiculturalism, diversity, and bilingualism in public i n situations, which beget poverty, animosity, and ethnic balkanization; promote assimilation and unity of citizenship, allegiance to American culture, and English as the official national language.

7. ENTITLEMENTS

Social Security is going bankrupt. Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. These programs and others have accumulated more than $50 trillion i n IOUs due and payable by subsequent generations. Educate the young people about the i ntergenerational trap the Statist has laid for them—which will steal their liberty, labor, opportunities, and wealth—and build a future electoral force for whom the elixir of entitlements is understood as poisonous snake oil. These programs were created in politics and will have to be addressed in politics. Only in this way can they be contained, limited, and reformed.

Fight all efforts to nationalize the health-care system. National health care is the mother of all entitlement programs, for through it the Statist controls not only the material wealth of the individual but his physical well-being. Remind the people that politicians and bureaucrats, about whom they are already cynical, will ultimately have the final say over their choice of doctors, hospitals, and treatments—meaning the system will be politicized and bureaucratized. Remind them that this human experiment has been tried and has failed in places like Britain and Canada, where patients have been subjected to arbitrary treatment decisions, long waiting periods for lifesaving surgeries, antiquated medical technologies, the denial of high-cost pharmaceuticals available elsewhere, and the inefficient rationing of health care generally. And remind them that despite past Utopian promises, the Statist rarely delivers. Ensure that all foreign policy decisions are made for the purpose of preserving and improving American society.

8. FOREIGN POLICY AND SECURITY

Reject all treaties, entanglements, institutions, and enterprises that have as their purpose the supplantation of America's best interests, including its physical, cultural, economic, and military sovereignty, to an amorphous "global" interest. Ensure that America remains the world's superpower. Ensure that at all times America's military forces are prepared for war to dissuade attacks, encourage peace, and, if necessary, win any war.

9. FAITH

Oppose all efforts to denude the nation of its founding justification—that is, God-given unalienable, natural rights that the government can neither confer on the individual nor deny to him. The Statist seeks the authority to do both, which explains his contempt for, or misuse of, faith. Moreover, faith provides the moral order that ties one generation to the next, and without which the civil society cannot survive.

10. THE CONSTITUTION

Demand that all public servants, elected or appointed, at all times uphold the Constitution and justify their public acts under the Constitution. Oppose all efforts to "constitutionalize" the statist agenda. Eliminate limits on and rationing of political free speech through unconstitutional "campaign finance" laws, which benefit incumbent politicians, the media, unions, and other Statist-related groups. Any American citizen or group of American citizens should be free to contribute to candidates as they wish, as long as the source, amount, and recipient o f the contributions are made known.

Defeat all efforts to unconstitutionally regulate the content of political speech on broadcast outlets, such as radio. The Statist now seeks to consolidate the power he has accumulated by silencing non-compliant voices through a variety of schemes that would regulate broadcast content.

President Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we w i l l spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." We Conservatives need to get busy.

Footnotes:

1 Candy Crowley interview with George W. Bush, "Bush on Economy, Iraq, Legacy," CNN, Dec. 16, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/l 2/16/intv.crowley.bush. long, cnn? iref=videosearch.

2 Avalon Project, available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/.

3 Atlas Economic Research Foundation available at http://www .atlasusa.org/V2/main/page.php ?page_id=385.

4 National Archives and Records Administration, Ronald Reagan, "Remarks at a Conservative Political Action Conference Dinner," February 26, 1982, Public Papers of Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, http://www.reagan.utexas

5 See Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement (New York: Harcourt, 1980), Appendix B.

6 Ronald Reagan, "Encroaching Control (The Peril of Ever Expanding Government)," A Time for Choosing: The Speeches of Ronald Reagan 1961-1982, ed. Alfred A. Baltizer and Gerald M.

Bonerto (Chicago: Regnery, 1983), 38.

THE POST-RACIAL PRESIDENTS RACIAL POLITICS

2012-02-01T12:13:00.000-08:00

In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama has described himself as the "post-racial" president. His implication that his election as a (at least part) black man eliminated race as an issue in American politics.

These Obama claims could define the term "lip service". Since taking office, and in support of the choruses of the like of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk, Obama continues to pound the racism drum to his political benefit.

Now of course the "black leaders" like Sharpton, Jackson and Rangell don't want racism to go away, because that is the stuff of their support. They have to be able to threaten playing the race card to obtain money from big business to "insure" that they don't have race problems. If racism went away, they would be out of a job.

None of them need to worry about job security. They can count on the fact that in the coming presidential election Barack Obama will use his billion dollar Chicago campaign machine to somehow make it wrong to be white. He will undoubtedly be using the race card, and claims of a lack of racial sensitivity to imply that only a black president (him) can be appropriately respectful to all Americans.

Never mind that the Obama administration has made every effort to demonize successful white American males, personified by Mitt Romney. Obama would have you believe that they only achieve success by somehow wrongfully climbing on the backs of others, and that they are insensitive to the needs and concerns of others. This from the "black" president who has seen his personal net worth go from less than $1 mil. to more than $8 mil. in less than three years on a $400,000. per year salary (is that the new math?). However acolytes will contend that it is not fair to argue that successful blacks are out of touch with their less than successful brethern (unless those successful blacks happen to be conservatives-i.e. Herman Cain-Uncle Tom types).

In the coming campaign it will be as wrong to be "white" as it is to be "right" according to the Obama campaign and its superpacs and celebrities singing the Obama party line.

Mark my word, we will now be seeing, as the campaign for the presidency heats up, more and more allegations of racial insensitivity, claims of racial slight, and curiously these claims will be on matters of little real consequence, but will be trumpeted from the housetops by the Obama apologists.

So, remember, most of the allegations you hear will be nonsense. When you consider the coming presidential candidates, please look at their prior history of performance. If you do that there is no way that you can vote for Barack Obama. AOB-Anyone But Obama makes sense. He has no accomplishments that benefit America to run on.

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DEMOCRAT (LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE).

2011-12-07T11:00:00.000-08:00

We’ve all received various political emails, some funny and some not. I thought it worth sharing here as it is so true. All of these 40 items are characteristic of the Democratic Party and the liberal progressive view today and paint them out for what they really are and believe. See if you identify with these values.

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese, North Korean Communists and Iran.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are more affected by human activity than by scientifically documented cyclical changes in the earth’s climate. Public policy should be based on “An Inconvenient Truth.”

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, and that being homosexual, or transgender is natural and normal.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS was invented originally by the government to destroy minorities and is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex and alternative lifestyles.

9. You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but environmental activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion of the Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe that the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high and wealth needs to be redistributed to provide a safety net and level the playing field.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is actually a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.

18. You have to believe that conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a compulsive liar and sex offender deserved to be in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be banned.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

21. You have to believe that it’s okay to give federal workers the day off on Christmas Day, but it’s not okay to say “Merry Christmas.”

22. You have to believe that illegal immigration is okay because they want a better life. So what if their numbers sap the infrastructure as long as they vote Democrat.

23. You must believe that radical Islam is not a threat to the peace and stability of the world, besides Bush invented it to get re-elected.

24. You must believe that more radicals should be allowed to emigrate to the U.S. in the name of diversity and fairness.

25. You have to believe that only ABC, MSNBC and CNN should be allow to exist because they are the most objective and FOX or Talk Radio might confuse you with facts and should be shut down or the “Fairness Doctrine” re-instituted.

26. You have to believe that group rights are more important than individual rights. After all it takes a village to raise a child.

27. You have to believe that Barack Hussein Obama is a messiah and will bring real ”Change” to America although he isn’t able to articulate it.

28. You have to be non-Christian and believe that the practice of Christianity is hate speech against Muslims.

29. You have to believe that Christians are the greatest threat to America and an eventual ”one world government” and that America should relinquish its sovereignty to the U.N. and the World Court.

30. You must believe the US Constitution is an outdated document and that only Democrats have the right to re-write it to meet their liberal satisfaction.

31. You must believe that the federal government is God and only the government can give you your inalienable rights.

32. You must believe it is better to receive than to give, also known as Welfare.

33. You must believe that that having a white anything is racist while Black Entertainment, Black History Month, NAACP, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are not.

34. You must believe that the Mexican flag should be flown above the American flag on Cinco de Mayo (May 5).

35. You must believe that it’s better to give government aid to illegal citizens instead of US citizens.

36. You must believe that it is unconstitutional to require proof of US citizenship to vote while at the same time claiming it is constitutional to require citizens to carry proper ID and proof of insurance.

37. You must believe that is better to supply guns to the Mexican drug cartel than it is allow Americans to own them.

38. You must believe that it is better to release convicted murders and jail law abiding Border Patrol agents.

39. You must believe that a convicted felon has more rights than their victims and are allowed to sue them for damages.

40. You must believe that is acceptable for a teacher to ridicule a student’s Christian believe in front of the entire class but it’s not acceptable for a Christian student or teacher to express their faith.

Are these really the values of America and of the founders when they were willing to risk everything for individual freedoms? I don't think so.

TURKEYS ABOUNDED ON THANKSGIVING!

2011-11-28T14:20:00.000-08:00

Like the frustrated taxpayers in the cartoon, I have a lot of frustration with our president.

It's no secret, I don't like his domestic policies, which clearly seem aimed at destroying our free market economy, subjecting citizens to a nanny government with an oligarchy of political class winners selected by Washington.

But I am really getting concerned about the world situation, and the lack of a response by the condemner in chief. While he is busy apologizing to the world, and appearing a lackey to the socialistic liberal progressive puppet-masters who program his teleprompters pip-squeak countries like Pakistan continue to receive his billions in largess while thumbing their noses at us! While it is unfortunate that some Pakistani soldiers were killed and injured, it's a war, s*** happens, so get over it. Pakistan kills more of their own citizens for political reasons than happened in this accident of war.

Meanwhile, we have a foreign policy which is defined by field trips in Air Force 1, but has no substance. Got a single terrorist to kill, sure, he will loose the Seals. But have a policy to enhance the image of America and remind the world of its strength and resources (which the foreign nations so frequently seek from us-with no attendant support or payback) not a chance.

Are we feared or respected around the world any longer? Nope. Would a Reagan or a Bush have tolerated the disrespect of the worlds "have-nots" as they demanded our resources to support their very existance? Not!

This nation has the resources, the ability to be financially sound, and the leadership to overcome our current problems and establish result oriented solutions. But, we cannot do that until Washington has a house cleaning on both sides of the isle.

There must be a fundamental return to the Constitution to govern all government actions. There must be a end to government intervention in private enterprise to allow it to prosper except in the very limited circumstance where there is a potential serious to public health and safety to mandate regulation. That means about 80% of government regulation will go away, and with it can go the bureaucratic drones who enforce the unnecessary.

Like the lyrics of the Bonnie Tyler song, our nation is "Holding out for a hero".

Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the gods?
Where's the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night I toss and turn and dream
of what I need:

I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night
He's gotta be strong
And he's gotta be fast
And he's gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the morning light
He's gotta be sure
And it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life

We now need that political hero, to step up, put the trappings of power behind the interests of the citizens, and put this nation back on the right path. I'm still holding out. . .

CAMPAIGN MODE-THE PIN IS BACK ON.

2011-11-09T09:21:00.000-08:00

Now as we enter campaign season, which is getting as early as Christmas displays at Costco, we see a subtle change in the anointed one.

Anyone notice that since entering this mode where he is attempting to end-run congress by executing hordes of executive orders to make himself look decisive and presidential, Obama is also now wearing his American Flag lapel pin again.

Much discussion was had of this early in his tenure, when the pin disappeared, failure to salute at the national anthem, or pledge of allegiance raised the specter that this president did not really like his country, and intended to fundamentally reshape it to his vision of a socialist/Marxist/euro type state.

Remembering, this president, who went on around the world apology tours, trying to diminish the stature of the US in the eyes of the world. Portraying the nation as a global bully, Obama has become the laughing stock of world leaders, who consider him the true paper lion. They view him as the man who has the ability to bite, but a lack of will to do so.

Recent disclosures show the political chameleon Obama is, always conscious of the re-election impacts of his every move. It is disclosed in a book just released on the Bin Laden operation, that he stayed on the golf course until just 20 minutes before the actual strike for the express reason of having deny-ability if the action went awry. The famous picture we all saw of him in the command center looking concerned and presidential was taken after he knew his presence there presented no political risk.

So, what are we to take from the new found patriotism of wearing the flag pin and presidential while damning Congress for not acting when he is so decisive? The realists in the audience will take it for exactly what it is. . .pretentious posturing by a president who will put his re-election above all else.

REFLECTION AS ELECTION SEASON NEARS

2011-10-19T10:04:00.000-07:00

As the election season nears, I have spent some time reflecting on the process of selecting leaders for America. In that reflection, I have looked at my own feelings as this process grows to a crescendo with nearly a year of events starting with whoever will end up as the first state to "kick-off" the season. Politics are like a football game, as pictured here. Different sides call for the support of their favorite, often becoming angry or vindictive about the actions of referees, opponents or fellow fans who disagree with their opinion.

As I look at elections as they appear now in America I am immediately struck by several points which I think are hard to deny.

1. Elections have become a process of media marketing giving the voting public little in depth understanding of either the candidates or the issues which really matter to the nation. This has been fostered by a Washington DC culture which is divorced from its constituency and appears to generally act principally to protect prospects of re-election, and the sources of the funding necessary to "buy" the best possible campaign. Despite a new breadth of access to information from the internet, and 24/7 news coverage it depth has been about that of a childrens wading pool, rather than the deep end of an Olympic diving venue. Further and unfortunately, the integrity of the media is woefully lacking. Almost every media source has its political positions, and makes no pretense of impartiality. Talking heads both in news and talk media frequently lie about facts or simply ignore facts in order to support or avoid embarrassment to the positions they support. Journalism, in the pure reporting of news sense has all but disappeared except for the report of the local fire or car accident. National media appear to always report with an agenda, though some appear to try to reach balance more than others.

2. The pool of political candidates is narrowed by the politics of personal destruction. Any candidate who want to run for a national office now must have a pristine personal history, or be prepared for attacks for every little wart in their past, and in fact the making-up of issues if none can be found. An example-candidate Rick Perry's relative leased a ranch in Texas and later Perry took it over. On that ranch when the Perry family leased it was a rock with the "N" word painted on it. Perry on finding that artifact had it painted over, years ago. Now an anti-Perry person reports to the media that rock's existence. The media goes out and looks and claim that you can read the bad word under the paint, and this is somehow an indication that Perry is a racist. Can we get any further from the reality of his qualification for office? Mit Romney is attacked by the Perry camp because of his religious affiliation, just as JFK was when he ran, and opponents claimed the nation would be run by the Pope since he was Catholic. Again, attacks with no real relationship to the fitness or qualification to serve. Serving as a elected official should be a decision made by a person who has been successful in their life, to give a period of service to their nation. It should not be a path to a career, financial gain, or egotistic pandering. Unfortunately, the current approach discourages the truly qualified from running. Example. The election in California for governor. Candidate Meg Whitman is accused of misconduct by a fired domestic servant, and her opponents play that issue into a racial card, to bias Hispanic voters against her. The result-a retreaded politician who will likely harm California's collapsing finances is elected.

3. Integrity is lacking in elected officials. Every elected official takes an oath. That oath should be taken seriously, and with deliberation of their willingness to comply with its terms. That oath requires the official-elect swear to support the United States Constitution. It appears that most in office consider this a pro-forma step to taking office, and then not only never give another thought to the oath, but instead spend the rest of their terms attempting to make end runs around the Constitution when it serves the political or personal purposes. There are of course exceptions to this, but they are clearly in the minority.

So, what can we do, to get the system to make sense. How do we get politicians to act in the interest of the community as a whole, not their own best interest, the special interests of others who fund campaigns, and as true public servants. Well I would offer some suggestions for rule changes which I think would solve that issue.

1. Term limits. No one should be allowed to make a career of elective office. A lifetime limit of 12 years in any national office should be imposed. The Presidency should be excluded from this lifetime limit, as it has its own term limits.

2. Elected Officials Compensation. Elected officials should not set their own compensation. There should be no retirement benefits conveyed beyond social security as available to all citizens, and a 401K program equal to that offered by average private business. i.e. something like a program where you donate and the employer matches a small percentage of the donation to your retirement as an incentive. There should be no health insurance for elected officials other than that offered to general federal employees. Increases in salary or benefits for elected officials should be tied to national economic performance. Just as private employees benefit from successful performance, politicians should be the same.

3. There should be only limited immunity in statements concerning candidates. An action at law for libel or slander should lie even though candidates are public persons for any statements which are demonstrably false, defamatory, or lack substantiating evidence.

We need to reform the financing of campaigns in some way to level the playing field. But that is a bigger issue for another day.

Think about our elected officials today, in comparison to the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Lincolns, and other presidents who served with integrity, honesty and in a true attempt to unite the nation. We don't need the Obamas, Pelosis, and Reids who are willing to divide the nation to serve their own egotistic interests.

OCCUPY WALL STREET-OR MAYBE LOOK FOR A JOB?

2011-10-07T14:38:00.000-07:00

You may have seen the recent "Occupy Wall Street" activities in New York, and now spreading among the wacko lefty's to other cities. This unfocused general complaint of the have nots wanting a hand out from the haves is symptomatic of the class warfare arguments that our divider-in-chief is trying to hinge his re-election on.

The picture here, taken from the uprising's web site, reflects the misinformed view of the protesters that the engines of growth and progress in American business are somehow the devils, and the "kum by ya" generation should rise again, send us back to the farm, and all will be well.

Consider the list of demands (comedic as they are) from the protestors:

"Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy."

Let's address each of these and take a look at their merit.

1. Restore the Living Wage. This is a meritorious goal. So lets look at how our protesting friends want to effect that change. I assume this is also a call for universal employment. The first element they call for is trade tarrifs on all imported goods. Perhaps not a bad idea for those countries who dump into our markets, but in the long haul, what we need is for our goods to be so in demand, because of their innovation and quality, that they are sought on the world market. They also say we should make an arbitrary increase of the minimum wage to $20. per hour. That provision in itself would unemploy millions as business would have to lay off half their staffs to be able to afford the cost of the remaining employees. Small businesses would close, and the effect would be catastrophic. Instead our steadfast protestors might consider reduction of business taxes, reduction of government red tape and bureauracy, and a reduction in the size of government, all lowering the financial burden on business. Then growth, and attendant increases in jobs will occur.

2. The second demand is a call for Obamacare, only with a single payer government bureaucracy taking private insurers out of existence. We all know how well government manages anything, (i.e. the Post Office, Energy Department, Fannie & Freddie, and the general budget) so we would want to hand over the entire health care of the nation to that bureaucracy. I am guessing that this demand is aimed as currying support from Emperor Obama (which has already been expressed). While some health care reforms are certainly in order, co-opting the market is not the approach.

3. Guaranteed free living wage. Universal welfare at $20. an hour for not working. Now there is an entitlement program that is guaranteed to bankrupt government, and in the process require the taxing of business to the point of surrender by businessmen and entrepreneurs. Who among the business world will support oppressive tax rates, rather than cash out, and avoid the grief? The answer is what you are seeing now as wasteful entitlement programs and government spending have depressed the economy to 10% unemployment, and if this proposed benefit were adopted you could up that number to 20 or 30 percent. Another socialist view, with no sense as to how it would be paid for.

4. Free College education. Again a great idea, but the system we have provides partial funding for anyone who wants to attend college. Would the protestors require that we pay for Harvard or Yale for anyone who wants it, or that the colleges be required to accept anyone applying. After all that sounds fair, right? The naivety of the demands is amazing. Do these lib-idiots not understand who really pays for the demands they make?

5. End fossil fuel dependence and adopt alternative energy. Again another failed idea. Just as the tanking of the money sent to Solyndra by the Obama administration, the real need is to utilize the resources we have in the United States to replace dependence on Middle-Eastern oil as we develop alternative resources at a realistic pace. Saying do it now is a unrealistic and childish view reflecting the immediate gratification needs of the protestors.

6. Spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure right now. Not next year, right this minute. Another unfunded mandate from the protestors who are acting like the federal government when they make demands on the states without providing a means to pay for those demands.

7. Spend another trillion on the environment, and killing all nuclear power. Another lefty/environmentalist wacko wet dream that has no basis in reality. The call is for removal of dams, and returning the environment to a state that does not take into account human usage or presence. I don't know about you, but I consider myself as part of the environment, and don't want to be excluded from the equation, not to mention discussing where the trillion dollars would come from.

8. Adopt a racial and gender equal rights amendment. I think we already have this in the existing laws. Racial and gender discrimination is already prohibited. I think the problem is the micro minorities which are trying to define new genders, and races from those which were actually biologically created. It is really not something we need to create new and more and more bizarre protected classes. Pretty soon, if the protesters had their way porcupines would not be allowed to have spines that would create gender/race discrimination as they attempt to breed with hummingbirds.

9. Open the Borders. This happy group which seems to want more from the American pie, then also wants to create more and more diners at the table for that pie. They would open the borders and allow anyone and everyone to come here, and join the feast. Doesn't matter if they mean to attack us, our values, our form of government, or fundamentally transform America into something different, its OK. Again a unrealistic and naive demand from juvenile mentalities.

10. Paper Ballot Elections. I don't particularly have a problem with this, however it would be costly over not using the technology which exists to expedite the process, however, I suspect that this merry group would object to limiting voting privileges to the actual citizens of the nation and states, and would want the open borders folks voting too. Can you imagine the outcome? Every border jumper will vote for more money in entitlements, without a thought for where it comes from (Big Uncle will take care of it). Like Obama's Aunt (see the U-Tube videos) America owes her and any other person with a need to pay their way.

11. Across the board forgiveness of all debt in the world. Wow, what a concept. All debt is forgiven, all businesses fail as their assets evaporate with the debt and securities provided for that debt, and then we all return again to the "Kum by ya" economy, trading our chickens and vegetables for the neighbors marijuana and mushrooms. What a concept. This again needs no real description to address its ridiculousness and juvenile conception.

12. Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. Now this should not be necessary under the new world order, since all debt would be gone. However, in a real world, there is a need to assess the ability to repay debt, and those agencies have simply met that commercial need.

13. Allow workers to join unions. Well, I believe that right already exists. Or are our friends just throwing that one in to get support from the public employee and teachers unions to continue funding their little junket? These rights exist now, there is no need for a demand.

In conclusion, we might just want to consider the level of maturity of the demands of this small time protest. This is like the "Million Man March" that really was about a fourth or less than that in actuality. They want to act like a big deal, but it seems most of the protestors are dupes to Union bosses, lefty community organizers (kinda like the one in the White House), and other progressives who have no real grasp on financial reality. Go home folks, get a job, and take your rhetoric, your trash, and your filth off someone's private property.

A Footnote: Since this was first published, it has come to light that organizers are paying protestors to appear for the Occupy Wall Street protests. So much for dedication and sincere belief in the cause.

"CONSTITUTION-WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' CONSTITUTION"

2011-09-12T13:11:00.000-07:00

Read the reprint below from a Constitutional blog from Texas. The statements from the President are stunning for a supposed scholar of the Constitution, unless and as is likely the case, he simple discounts its value completely and considers Constitutional scholarship a discipline of how to avoid the precepts of the document.

"Dear Supporters of the Constitution and our Republic,

Last night, in his address to the joint session of Congress, Obama made two of the most startling remarks coming from the mouth of a sitting President. However, the sentiment contained in those remarks is, unfortunately, shared by most of the politicians in Washington D.C. and around the country.

We have come so far from the sound thinking of our Founding Fathers who did not trust a powerful central government and did all they could to create “chains” which would “bind from mischief” politicians of their day and those of future generations.

This distrust of the federal government, in particular, is clearly laid out in both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers., the latter being largely unknown and unread by Americans today. The Constitution, itself, was a clear declaration of the great fear of the Founders that some day the people might again be enslaved by their own government.

Therefore, the separation of powers, the clear and detailed enumeration of delegated powers, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution forge what the wise founders of this once-great Republic envisioned as “chains” to leash the natural consequence of government at any level: the tendency to grow and gain more and more power over the people. Fresh in their memories were the tyrannies of the British crown and the almost totalitarian control of its “subjects.” No more were the people to be considered “subjects” but the government itself was envisioned as being subject to the States and the People.

For those who rarely, if ever, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I will include the two most powerful amendments of them all in restraining centralized government and the schemes they would envision to amass power: (My emphasis added in bold print)

Ninth Amendment

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

Tenth Amendment:

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

Compare these two short sentences to these remarks uttered by Obama in his speech: (about 29 minutes from the beginning)

“How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided (sic) not to support the basic research that led to the internet and the computer chip.”

“What kind of a country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security and Medicare just because it VIOLATED some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?” ( Emphasis added)

Comes now Obama, a self-described Constitutional “lecturer” admitting that violations of the Supreme Law of the Land can be justified for any reason if there be benefits to some areas of the economy. Of course, the socialist/communist theologians and their minions who would destroy our Republic, have historically bemoaned the inconvenience to their schemes posed by the Constitution of the United States.

Their Machiavellian schemes have used Acts of Congress, judicial activism and the creation of “law” by decree, purposefully misinterpreting the plain language of the Constitution, and the institution of clearly un-Constitutional “Administrative Law” which is that “law” resulting from the millions of pages of regulations emanating from the vast bureaucracy which ignores both the Congress and the Constitution. This is not to mention illegal “Executive Orders” and “Signing Statements” issued by Presidents for decades—again, clearly un-Constitutional.

What struck me most, however, was the complete silence of the press and commentators on the above gaff committed by Obama. But should we really be surprised when these same apologists for bigger and more intrusive government have been beating the drum for decades in defense of the scoundrels who are perpetrating the destruction of our Republic and our way of life in favor of international socialism, domestic collectivism, and statism?

Our people MUST recognize that the STATE is not our friend—it is a fearful force like fire, which, if controlled closely, can accomplish limited and proper functions. In the case of a true Republic, the “fire” of the state is charged with protection of life and property rights, protection of individual liberty, and, most of all, protection from government itself. Like fire, the state, left to its own devices and unrestrained, can burn the whole house down.

For Constitutional Government, Liberty, and Accountability,"

Dick Mills, Editor
Keep the Republic Newsletter
Houston, Texas

THUGGERY 101 - JUST ASK SEIU

2011-07-18T12:16:00.000-07:00

We have been seeing more and more examples of union members asserting physical intimidation as a tactic toward the furthering of their union or political goals. This started in earnest with the Obama campaign when SEIU workers block non-Obama supporters from political caucuses where they were entitled to attend.

This blog addressed that issue in January of 2010 talking about the unholy alliance between the White House and the unions. (See blog archives).

The whole issue has continued to escalate with the Obama union favoritism, union bosses being the most frequent visitors to the White House, and millions of union dollars coming into the Obama campaign coffers (along with many other democrats). The battle in Wisconsin showed off the thuggery playbook when the governor limited union bargaining rights for public employees, and continues there as the unions fund the fight to have their way with the State, regardless of its financial condition.

The union mentality seems to be, we are on the bottom, so tax everyone else so we can get a bigger share than we are entitled to. This is reflected by study after study reflecting that union workers (particularly public employee and teachers unions) are paid significantly higher than the public sector for the same services, and receive even more spectacular benefits packages with completely paid insurance, pensions, etc at taxpayer expense. In other words the taxpayers are getting a bad bargain, paying between 120% and 150% what the need to for services from public employees.

Now it gets interesting. There is a federal law suit going on called Sodexo, Inc. v. SEIU where an employer got mad at union tactics, and filed its own suit. It is in Federal Court in the Eastern District of Virginia, case No 1:11-cv-00276-CMH-IDD. It is a RICO case, alleging that the SEIU tactics are an ongoing criminal enterprise from which Sodexo, having been damaged is entitled to reparations from the union.

In discovery (examining evidentiary documents) a 70 page book called "CONTRACT CAMPAIGN MANUAL" was unearthed by Sodexo. That book might as well be named "Thuggery for Unions", as it describes tactics which have nothing to do with across the table contract negotiations to pressure employers into cooperation and acceptance of contracts which benefit the union, even if they are unreasonable.

In Chapter 3 of the book (which is available online) it lists the tactics recommended by the SEIU, for example:

Reduce productivity

Increase (employer) costs

Affect employer's relationship with sources of income

Affect public employer's relationship with government

Create bad publicity that would affect the relationships mentioned above

Cause regulatory or legal review against employer

Directly affect the careers or other interests of individual management officials

Make daily life difficult for management

Distract management from its regular duties

Embarrass management in front of superiors, associates, families, neighbors or friends

In the workplace:

Refuse overtime or optional assignments

Follow instructions to the letter, even if you know they are wrong

Do not make any suggestions or solve problems

Refuse participation in employer-sponsored social events, charity campaigns, awards dinners

Insist on strict following of all employer rules-quibble over interpretation of rules

Then after having done all that, it suggests that instead of negotiating in across the table negotiations for contractual goals create a environment where the employer is prejudiced by being placed in a position to appear to be negotiating against not just the union, but:

Lenders

Investors

Stockholders

Customers

Clients

Suppliers

Regulatory Agencies vs. Employer

Courts

Tax collectors

Politicians

News media

Other unions

Community organizations

Student groups

Religious groups

Other tactics we see mentioned in the manual include some seen recently, as when SEIU sent 14 bus loads of protesters to the home of a bank official, terrifying his young son who was home alone at the time. The say to do the following:

Disruption – disrupt key management from their normal work by forcing them to respond to the union campaign. Tactics such as mass visits, sit ins at management offices, phone calls blocking phone lines.

Investigation of Management – try and find information that will discredit management and make them want to settle. Investigate personal legal history (civil cases, divorces, criminal cases)

Interview employees, disgruntled managers about things to embarrass the company. Prior controversies, personal tensions between managers, outside activities managers are engaged in.

Is this starting to sound familiar? This is the Democratic party playbook on the politics of personal destruction. Does "Borking" ring a bell. Well, here it is again, in the form of a SEIU policy manual. Don't look at the merits of the situation, don't look to balance interests, instead use every dirty trick you can think of to gain unfair advantage. Is this based on American ethics and the values of the Founders? I don't think so. But, it appears to be what politicians and employers are faced with if they want to assert the best interests of the taxpayer and the citizen, because those are concepts that don't matter to the unions, the Democrats, and the liberal progressive movement.

CASEY ANTHONY-NO QUESTIONS ANSWERED

2011-07-05T18:00:00.000-07:00

After 35 days of trial, the jury in the Casey Anthony trial acquits on all significant counts, convicting only on lying to the police.

Some facts remain-Caylee is dead. Neither the defense, neither the prosecution were able to present a convincing explanation for what happened to the child.

Arguably, under the American system of juris prudence, the system worked perfectly, since it was designed to allow 100 guilty persons to go free to prevent the conviction of one innocent person. You can further argue that the jury of her peers (if you can call a group of basically blue collar working people that) held the state to its burden of proving her guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" and failed that burden. You can also cynically say that the demonization of the defendant by the media pundits failed to be the convincing factor to the jury which is as it should be.

Truly, Casey Anthony is not a sympathetic person. There is nothing personally likeable about her unless you happen to be a 20 something male in heat. She made it clear that her values (if you call them that) are a hedonistic life style with little responsibility for herself, of for her child. The father of the child has never been identified, or may be one of a cast of thousands.

Casey's family is not without it warts, though her parents appear to be truly concerned grand parents. The prosecution tried to place the blame everywhere, with the grand parents, her brother, and "the phantom in the woods". Enough mud was thrown at the wall of proof that some stuck, raising a "reasonable doubt".

Why then do we feel so dissatisfied with this verdict? Why is there a nagging sense of wrong here that leaves the visceral sense that justice just wasn't done?

Is it the demeanor of the defendant? Is it is history of her family? Is it the lack of clear physical evidence of what really happened? Is it all of the above?

We may never know what really happened. My money is on the fact that Casey Anthony knows, and I guess it will depend on whether her ego is so large, now having been acquitted that she will fess up and tell us the real story. The pundits think not, in light of some laws that might be invoked to deprive her of profits from a tell all if she admits the crime, or of a federal charge of some sort, or even a civil suit by a putative representative of the estate of Caylee.

The prosecutor had little to say, the defense team crowed their success, save for Jose Biaz who had the grace to admit the outcome answered little.

No one should go away from this case feeling good.

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

2011-06-01T12:04:00.000-07:00

To my readers, I apologize for a bit of hiatus from the blog. Life happens and it makes us have to make decisions and priorities. Even now, time is at a premium, so I am going to share the words of another today.

This is an important issue. We need to understand the mind of Barack Obama to understand the motivations which drive this man in his apparent attempt to destroy the nation the founders envisioned.

Thomas Sowell, a black man himself, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute a think tank at Stanford University, has some answers to that that I will share with you.

Seductive Beliefs

One of the painfully revealing episodes in Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" describes his early experience listening to a sermon by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Among the things said in that sermon was that "white folks' greed runs a world in need." Obama was literally moved to tears by that sermon.

This sermon may have been like a revelation to Barack Obama but its explanation of economic and other differences was among the oldest-- and most factually discredited-- explanations of such difference among all sorts of peoples in all sorts of places. Yet it is an explanation that has long been politically seductive, in countries around the world.

What could be more emotionally satisfying than seeing others who have done better in the world as the villains responsible for your not having done as well? It is the ideal political explanation, from the standpoint of mass appeal, whether or not it makes any sense otherwise.

That has been the politically preferred explanation for economic differences between the Malay majority and the more prosperous Chinese minority in Malaysia, or between the Gentile majority and the Jewish minority in various countries in Europe between the two World Wars.

At various other times and places, it has been the preferred explanation for the economic differences between the Sinhalese and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, the Africans and the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Czechs and the Germans in Bohemia and numerous other groups in countries around the world.

The idea that the rich have gotten rich by making the poor poor has been an ideological theme that has played well in Third World countries, to explain why they lag so far behind the West.

None of this was original with Jeremiah Wright. All he added was his own colorful gutter style of expressing it, which so captivated the man who is now President of the United States.

There is obviously something there with very deep emotional appeal. Moreover, because nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, there will never be a lack of evil deeds to make that explanation seem plausible.

Because the Western culture has been ascendant in the world in recent centuries, the image of rich white people and poor non-white people has made a deep impression, whether in theories of racial superiority-- which were big among "progressives" in the early 20th century-- or in theories of exploitation among "progressives" later on.

In a wider view of history, however, it becomes clear that, for centuries before the European ascendancy, Europe lagged far behind China in many achievements. Since neither of them changed much genetically between those times and the later rise of Europe, it is hard to reconcile this role reversal with racial theories.

More important, the Chinese were not to blame for Europe's problems-- which would not be solved until the Europeans themselves finally got their own act together, instead of blaming others. If they had listened to people like Jeremiah Wright, Europe might still be in the Dark Ages.

It is hard to reconcile "exploitation" theories with the facts. While there have been conquered peoples made poorer by their conquerors, especially by Spanish conquerors in the Western Hemisphere, in general most poor countries were poor for reasons that existed before the conquerors arrived. Some Third World countries are poorer today than they were when they were ruled by Western countries, generations ago.

False theories are not just an intellectual problem to be discussed around a seminar table in some ivy-covered building. When millions of people believe those theories, including people in high places, with the fate of nations in their hands, that is a serious and potentially disastrous fact of life.

Despite a carefully choreographed image of affability and cool, Barack Obama's decisions and appointments as President betray an alienation from the values and the people of this country that are too disturbing to be answered by showing his birth certificate.

Too many of his appointees exhibit a similar alienation, including Attorney General Eric Holder, under whom the Dept. of Justice could more accurately be described as the Dept. of Payback.

THE UNITED STATES-R.I.P - VICTIMS OF THE OBAMACRACY

2011-04-21T13:36:00.000-07:00

As surely as the tornado which caused the damage and destruction in this photo, the action of the U.S. Government under the hand of Barack Obama, which should be helping this country out of its economic malaise, is instead producing self defeating policies which increase unemployment, pick the winners over the losers in private enterprise by government fiat, and try to engineer the lives of the citizens, support crony capitalism, and operate under Chicago rules picking the union winners, and the private sector losers.

The financial disaster in America is wholly predictable to anyone who understands basic economics. As long as government continues to spend like a drunken sailor there will continue to be no real recovery. Instead of enacting tax cuts on business, repealing health care (which is universally hated and causes business uncertainty), Obama trumpets about the evil and radical Republicans attacking them, while his cronies at the big labor unions run rampant continuing to try and corrupt elections, bankrupt states and pay into the Obama campaign coffers. This administration does not sell itself on ideological grounds, it simply sells itself, and whoever will get it financial favor gets political favor.

Nor can Americans rely on the mainstream media to demand any accountability by the administration for their clearly destructive policies. During our last gas crisis, in summer 2008 the administration said no, don't drill our resources, it will take two years to come on line anyway. Now in 2011, had we done that, our huge potential domestic production would be on line. Instead we are paying over $4 per gallon for gas. As the wags say, beer and gas now cost the same, so drink, don't drive.

Instead of building on the resources we have Obama promises a green energy valhalla which will appear if only we tax and regulate enough to force it being brought to fruition. Instead of developing our resources which would aid, if not cure, our energy issues, the administration instead pays taxpayer dollars to Brazil to develop its oil industry. American oil workers starve, American motorists are scalped at the pump, but the slavish devotion of the libs to "mother earth" goes on. The president's advice - pump up your tire pressure.

The president lectures us to "lower the sea level" a ludicrous idea with no real scientific backing. The Obama administration lectures us with ridiculous assurances that all is well, as the water rises around us (pardon the pun) and as the lecture continues will tell us how life will be so hard under the heartless Republicans. Obama is all about class warfare, race warfare, and dividing to conquer and continue to seek power in America. He has turned the superpower of the globe into a third world country in three years. Not to say he did it alone, there were mistakes before his administration, but there is a difference between mistakes and a clearly directed plan of subjugation of a people and a nation by financial blackmail.

The financial decline really accelerated after election of a majority Democrat congress in 2007, and Obama would now have you believe that the way to fix the problem is elect more of the people who caused the problem. We deserve what we elect. We must get the word to all citizens that there is no honesty, transparency or veracity in the White House or the Democratic Party. The Democratic approach is to buy favor, and then push their ideological agenda. The Republican's on the other hand offer their ideology, and ask you to consider it in terms of the good of the country. Which group do you want representing you?

THIS PIE IS REALLY NOT GOOD FOR YOU!

2011-04-15T12:58:00.000-07:00

GOP congress members are straining their arms patting themselves on the back over the recent budget deal worked with the White House and Democrat controlled Senate. Aside from generating work for physical therapists, massage technicians and escort services, the joy will be short lived. Why? The budget deal worked to settle 2011's budget is mere smoke and mirrors, and the cuts it makes are symbolic at best. The worst take on this is that the GOP is as clueless as the Democrats about the need to truly balance the federal budget, reduce the size of the federal government to do so, and return to "fundamental government" instead of the liberal progressive "Deluxe Model Government" with all the bells, whistles, and creative accounting.

Of the claimed $38 Billion in reduced spending in the current budget deal, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) which is the tool of the Congress even says that the actual "reductions" using the common definition of the word is only about $352 million, less than one tenth of the claimed amount. The remainder are funds in reserve, designated to not be spent, budget amounts that were never budgeted now removed form the budget, and other definitional accounting from the legislators wanting to make their effort look meaningful.

Look at the pie chart above. It is visually informative about what is really going on. The deficit is approximately 45% of the governments income pie. We are spending the income the government receives from its various sources is approximately 55% of total federal spending.

In other words, no real change has happened. No federal agencies have been sunsetted, no departments have been closed, no reduction in federal personnel has been mandated, no across the board wage reductions for government employees have been enacted, no priority listing of government programs with a "need/want" analysis has been drawn up to allow cuts of non-essential programs and then cut those until the budget is in balance.

We continue to pay foreign aid to hostile nations, we continue to support the UN who uniformly provides forums for our enemies to taut us on our alleged sins, and we continue to police the world.

We have not moved toward allowing energy independence by using the oil, natural gas and coal resources our nation has which would substantially reduce reliance on foreign oil and at the same time lower energy costs, thus (with apologies for the pun) energize business through lowered energy costs, create jobs and increase tax revenues. This attacks the deficit from the second front-increased federal income.

As long as congress continues to "game" the process, thinking that they are fooling the citizenry with accounting smoke and mirrors, you will continue to see more and more electoral upheavels, changes of political fortune, and the failure of the economy to improve. If congress will understand that this is real, the nation is hanging on the brink of disaster, and that real changes have to be made, the problems can be fixed.

The solutions do require a public attitude change by about half the populous. We have to change the minds from a dependent on government society to a independent, self reliant citizenry as contemplated by the Founding Fathers.

We can only "Pursue Happiness" when the government is not a millstone around our collective necks.

APRIL FOOL? (NO-NOT APRIL FOOLS)

2011-04-03T12:10:00.000-07:00

Here we are at the national fools day. Can there be any other nominee this year than Barack Obama? As the Obama administration progresses through its term, the strangeness, the duplicity, the outright lies, and the apparent contempt for the intelligence of the American people continue to be more and more clear and apparent.

Barack Obama is not a fool in the classical sense of one who is clueless about everything, and takes nothing seriously. He is instead a fool in his blindness to the intelligence of the American people, and many of them are fools to his promises never kept.

The Obama vision is a nanny government, fueled by cronyism, and the ignorant masses who will continue to pay for his programs of wealth distribution by taking from those that are productive and giving it to those who both need his corporate welfare (in exchange for allegiance of course) and enough of the unproductive citizenry to make them dependent on his largess and maintain a voting body to keep him in office.

His tactics in seeking these aims is self serving, contrary to all Constitutional rules (which he scoffs at and treats as inconvenient) and uses his armies (not military armies, but union armies) to force his rule on any who may object. He has co-opted the mainstream media to parrot his every platitude, and while doing all this gives little attention to the running of the country. His greater concern is preserving his own power, and national concerns are clearly a third place to re-election, recreation and cronyism.

This has been apparent in the current international situations in Libya and other middle east affairs. We have a president who waits for some other nation (in the Libya case France for heavens sake) to lead out, then he will follow, but even then doesn't have a clear vision of why, to what extent we will be involved, what our exit strategy should be, or what our definition of success is.

The Obama economic leadership is multiplying our deficits logarithmically, our states are broke, and when ever a state leader attempts to solve these issues they are attacked by the federal government or Obama union cronies as in the cases of Arizona and Wisconsin.

The Democratic party nationally is starting to act thuglike in threatening, in Wisconsin abandoning their duty as legislators because they could not control the outcome of issues they disagreed with, and encouraged public employees to lie, cheat and steal to protest.

The foolishness of Obama is to think that the majority of American's don't notice the chaos that boils around him, as he fails to lead, acts out of self interest, expresses a clear disregard for national symbols and traditions such as the flag, the Constitution, and the values of the founding fathers.

The outcome of the mid-term elections has apparently been lost on Obama, who while initially paying small lip service to the public voice, immediately retreated to his plans and interests. As our nation is at war on three fronts in the middle east, he vacations around the world, at the citizens expense, and doesn't get it that hard working Americans resent his arrogance. A recent symptom of the tolerance of the people wearing thin has been the resurgence of demands for him to release his birth certificate.

American's don't want an Alinskyite as their president. Those are not their values. We want a leader who understands the leadership America can offer, its strength, and its exceptionalism. Barack Obama doesn't get it.

WHY UNIONS?

2011-03-22T15:00:00.000-07:00

At risk of beating a horse (I can't call it a dead horse yet) and despite having been harping somewhat about public employee and teachers unions lately, they seem to be staying in the forefront of the media. As the unions feel the noose tightening around their money machines fueled by the taxpayers, and like the dragon sensing that his fire is going out and with it his life, they lash out violently in objection to the perceived predicament.

A look back at the rational for unions when they were initiated in the beginning of the industrial period in the United States might help us understand the situation. The first talk of unions arose with small organizations after the Civil War, and grew into the 1880s. Earlier than Henry Ford's assembly lines, the issue of unions came up in America. In the 1910-1940 periods there was a cause for unions due to the working conditions and poor compensation. The first union job action occurred in 1894 at the Pullman Company where the workers struck unsuccessfully. During the early formation of unions there was thuggery on both sides, with employers and workers resorting to violence to achieve their desired goals. In early disputes the government became involved, most often supporting the employers.

Now it should be noted that a this time there was no such thing as a public employee or government employee union, or teachers unions. There was no thought that public employees who enjoyed stability, fair compensation and the security of a government job needed union representation.

In the 1910's the first public employee unions were formed and the first job action came from the Boston Police Department employees in 1919. Thereafter public employee unions grew in popularity with workers, and while regulated or prohibited in various jurisdictions over the years grew to near universal acceptance in the 1950's following WWII.

In the last decade private employer unions have declined as workers found the union bosses were enriching themselves at the cost of the workers, and often involved in criminal activities. The quintessential "Union Boss" was Jimmy Hoffa, Teamsters Union boss, who disappeared in 1975 and was declared dead seven years later, presumed to be a fatality of union infighting.

Union-employer relations have a history of violence from the beginning. In later years, though, it is been entirely the unions who have attempted to use intimidation, threats, riots, protests and destruction of employer property to achieve their goals. In recent years we have seen this spread into the "white collar" unions like AFSCME and SEIU which represent government workers and the NEA which represents teachers. It is no longer truckdrivers and laborers who are breaking knuckles, but now it may be your neighborhood social worker, teacher, or government clerk as was witnessed in Wisconsin recently when the rhetoric rose to death threats against legislators who sought to limit union power.

The political pendulum seems to be swinging against the public employee and teachers unions now. Principally this is a result of the "Pig Principle". The unions have made such untenable demands during the economic downturn of the present decade that they are losing their public support. Their tactics in response to trying to limit their perks and power have spurned returns to violence and threatened violence. No one is buying the "Its for the children" cry of the teachers unions. School districts are spending the bulk of their money paying union labor (both teachers and non-certified) and the huge benefit packages demanded.

The unions have been so successful in getting what they wanted from government because they have a money machine in government collected dues which provides them with huge sums of money to influence elections and support Democratic candidates who are sympathetic to their cause. This has perverted the collective bargaining process, by basically having parties of like interest on both sides of the bargaining table. Unlike private employer unions where the labor and management clearly have conflicting interests, and outcomes are generally more equitable for both, public officials, not spending their own money, but that of taxpayers, grant the unions their every demand.

We are now seeing that pushed back as the toll this has taken on the nation, states, cities, counties and towns has pushed them to the edge of bankruptcy and the taxpayers are rebelling and saying they won't pay continued requests to increase taxes to meet the greedy union demands. The inflexibility of the unions at the bargaining table where the loaf is continually smaller is killing their public support, and I believe we will see more limitation in the public sector on the privilege (no it is not a right) of collective bargaining, and on union power. As I said in my opening paragraph, the unions won't go down without a fight, but it is a fight the taxpayers must win to stop subsidizing this privileged class of workers who are compensated well beyond the private sector peers.

ARE WE BECOMING A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY

2011-03-19T11:18:00.000-07:00

Is the riot helmet the new symbol of our nation? A generation ago it was big news when the government of some third world nation had a riot in their legislative chambers, and we saw videos of legislators punching each other, throwing desks and the demonstrators on the street throwing Molotov cocktails at police and at buildings.

When the economic heads of the worlds leading nations meet (The G8) are met by groups of international anarchists who do millions of dollars of damage to businesses and buildings in protest of capitalism.

Today in Honduras, teachers rioting for restoration of raises given by the previous president, and revoked by the current one caused the death of one school assistant principal and serious injuries to two others. In Greece, government workers and citizens on government dole spurred violent riots demanding money from the government which was proposing small cuts in pensions to try and balance a failing budget.

Now in America we are seeing the same behaviors. Case in point-Wisconsin. A majority of the electorate in Wisconsin elected a conservative slate of legislatures to try and solve the looming financial problems brought on by the economy, and a spendthrift liberal legislature which it replaced. Political tides turned in that state, and you would think then that when that now conservative controlled legislature did its job, its philosophy would control, and in due course be tried as a remedy for the publicly perceived economic ills.

But, that is not how it went. Instead, the liberal minority of legislators fled the state to prevent the vote (by denying the legislative house a quorum) on issues they did not like. At the same time, public employee and teachers unions ginned up mass demonstrations, caused school closures, violated their contracts with the state and the schools, to protest. IT WAS NOT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! Instead it was about a privileged minority (public employees and teachers) wanting to maintain their privileged status. Maintaining wages and benefit levels far above those of workers in private enterprise, and doing it by political manipulation.

The unions were using their dues dollars to support the election of officials (usually liberal) who would enter into cozy collective bargaining agreements in which there was no real bargaining. Unlike in private enterprise where management has clearly differentiated interests than labor, there was no middle ground or give and take to reach agreement. Instead, the discussion was more like this: "We want this. (a proposal no one in their right mind would believe). OK. (then the government or school district would figure out what to cut to meet the contract. Services suffer, education suffers, but the union employees have gotten their demands, get good wages, work short hours with many days off, have health care and pensions all paid in full by the employer (read taxpayers) and the burden as it grows is met by taxing more and more from the citizenry.

Then when that little Valhalla they have worked out with their liberal cronies is threatened, and they might actually have to scale down demands, or even lose collective bargaining privileges (no it is not a right) the proverbial "fit hits the shan". The unions and their members then show their true colors. Its not about anything but maintaining their privilege, and anyone in their way will be bullied, steamrollered, bought off, attacked, threatened (the latest tactic is going to legislators homes and threatening their families) and the democratic process brought to a halt.

I am a little confused. Where is it in our Constitution or laws that says that collective bargaining is a "right", or that those who work for government or teach school are privileged above all others, and should be protected from economic hard times by the taxpayers (despite whatever burdens they already have)? Where do our citizens get the idea that government is obligated to provide for their every need, if they cannot, or will not.

The recent earthquake in Japan is a interesting example of my thesis about America devolving to the less civilized level of third world values, morals, mores, and behavior. In that catastrophic event, with thousands displaced from homes, hungry, short on water and supplies, there has not been one reported case of looting. Conversely, look at the Katrina incident on the Gulf Coast. As the storm hit, surveillance camera caught hordes of looters carrying out, not food or supplies to aid their situations, but instead big screen TV sets, stereo systems, jewelry, and anything else they could steal. Now this is neither a blanket indictment of all Americans, nor a blanket endorsement of the morals of the Japanese, but the comparison is stark.

While it is not wrong to be fierce in our protection of our legal and political rights and freedoms it is important to know that true "rights" are what we are protecting, and not just positions of privilege, comfort or power without lawful standing. Americans are trying (see the results of the last election) to retake those rights to the majority, and eliminate the privileged few, but those few are not going down without a fight. "Average" Americans must see this hypocrisy for what it is and say enough. I don't know about you, but I want to be from the best, strongest, most moral, most just country, not the one where the loudest rule. Stand up to restore that before it is gone.

IS ANARCHY AROUND THE CORNER

2011-02-23T14:49:00.000-08:00

The symbol in the picture is the graphic representation of "Anarchy". Anarchy is defined as a state of absence of government or social order.

Anarchy is contrary to every element of the American system of government and social order.

Since the creation of this nation, we have been a nation of law and order. We recognized that we needed to be able to resolve disputes in an orderly manner, and chose a representative government for that purpose. There have been variations of belief and function which have colored how this system has been practiced since 1776, and there have been changes in interpretation of the laws, intent of the founders, and scope and style of government and how it interacts with the citizens.

Now, I would submit to you that there is a whole new ball game. America has been turned on its head, and it is hard to determine what law and order mean anymore. What do I mean by this. Consider the following:

Around the nation, there is a climate arising that the rule of law no longer matters. Examples?

In Wisconsin, after the last national election cycle the majority changed in the legislature and the governor's office also changed parties. The Republicans won a overwhelming majority. So, the people have spoken, right? Not quite. The Republican governor, facing a huge financial deficit takes action, supported by both houses of his legislature, to reduce costs in public education and public employment by limiting the ability of unions to negotiate benefits.

In a sane world, you would anticipate that the issue would go to the legislature, be acted on, and the outcome would be the will of the majority of the voters who elected representatives who they felt reflected their beliefs and will.

Instead, in Wisconsin we got this: all of the minority party (Democratic) senators left the state to try and prevent a quorum of legislators from being able to be assembled so that no legislation could be considered or passed by the majority party. The literally ran and hid outside of the state so that they could not be compelled to appear on the legislative floor and have their presence constitute a quorum for the purpose of voting.

Now, Indiana has had the same strategy employed by the Democrats, on the same issue, keeping all the union benefits and power, even if it bankrupts the state.

Union protesters in Wisconsin abandoned their jobs (mostly teachers-which closed entire school districts) lied about the reasons for their absences, and got union flunky doctors to write medical excuses for not appearing for work to hundreds of public employees. These notes were issued without any information other than the name of the applicant. No medical exam, no medical history taken, no diagnosis, just the "want one-get one" approach. Medical ethics, out the window. Integrity of medical providers-gone.

The cry of the Union protesters to government-raise taxes and pay us! In Wisconsin it does not matter that the majority of citizens elected representatives who refute this approach, the Unions will have what they want, regardless of the cost to society.

Next case, today the Justice Department announced that it will no longer enforce the "Defense of Marriage Act". Their rational, supported by the White House, is that they don't think this is a valid (read Constitutional) law. No court ruling to that effect, no declaration by a court of the invalidity of the law, just a political decision. Citizens should be truly concerned. What law will the administration next decide not to enforce? How about allowing non-citizens to vote? How about 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? How about using the military as a police force within the nations boundries? Far fetched ideas, yes, but then so were the idea that the Justice Department would enforce voter rights only for non-whites (the New Black Panther case in Detroit). How about forcing citizens to buy a privately sold commercial product (health insurance). This is complete foreign to American law. Every freshman law student knows this even at liberal law schools. What next?

I cannot help be think that if this disturbing trend of government by decibel continues (i.e. those who protest the most and make the most noise win) we will end up with a second civil war in the United States. There is a building anger in the middle class, and chaos which is covertly supported by the government to create confusion, and thus justify tightening control over citizens in pursuit of power and management by government of every move the public make. The patience of the people (the "silent majority") and they are "Mad as Hell and Not Going to Take It Anymore".

THE WISCONSIN FLU - HOPE IS THE PATIENTS DON'T SURVIVE.

2011-02-16T13:47:00.000-08:00

The mug at the left represents the faces of many teachers in Wisconsin today. Over a thousand teachers in Madison alone have called in "sick" (though a union representative on Fox news admitted "sick" may not be accurate) due to the actions of the Governor of Wisconsin in taking action to limit collective bargaining rights of teachers and public employees in an attempt to balance a $3.6 billion dollar budget shortfall.

The Governors strategy is simple. The state will bargain with the unions for salary levels. But benefits, pensions, and other perks will be at the discretion of the state, and regulated by budgetary concerns.

Wisconsin in this is becoming the bell weather for the nation, as more and more states have economic crisis on the horizon, and much of it is brought on by unsustainable obligations to public employees, teachers, and the benefits that have been negotiated in the past.

Gov. Scott Walker is not taking this lightly. He has put the Wisconsin National Guard on standby to handle unrest, or man the vacated positions as may be needed should the public employee union members walk off their jobs.

Shame on the Madison area teachers who lied about being sick to protest. What a great example they set for the children. By their actions they tell their charges "lying is OK to try and get what you want". The teachers and other public employees seem to think that they have some kind of a right to be held harmless from the economic woes now plaguing America. I didn't read that exception in the Constitution anywhere.

We encourage Gov. Walker to stick to his guns. His state will set the blueprint for many other states similarly situated and in similar financial trouble, if he folds to union pressure it will embolden those in other states. There should be no protected classes. Take tax load off the private sector by sharing reality with the public sector workers. In the real word workers pay part of their medical insurance, and pay part of their pension costs. Real world workers work an average of 48 weeks a year (assuming full time employment). Teachers work an average of 30-35 weeks a year, when you consider "teacher prep days", summer vacation, school holidays, Christmas (oops, I was politically incorrect-Winter) vacation, spring break, etc. For that period they receive the same or more than the private sector worker who works a third of the year more, and wants it with full benefits with no contribution by themselves to accruing pension obligations.

Oregon is the classic example of this with a "defined benefit" PERS plan which is obligated to pay a certain benefit on retirement, regardless of whether enough funds were paid in by the state or the employee to fund the payout. In the public sector, almost all such plans are "defined contribution" and the employee pays and sometimes the employer contributes to the pay in. Then when the retirement time comes, the employee gets a benefit based on the fund paid in. No insolvency of the retirement fund, no ongoing obligation to the employers.

The states simply cannot afford the demands of the teachers and public employee unions any longer. We need to get parity with the public sector.

The irony of all this is the "professionalism, education, and skills" touted by the teachers at negotiation time, then when they don't get what they want, or their little "special treatment" plans are challenged by common sense leaders, they are on the picket lines, lying to their employers about being sick, and in Wisconsin even getting their students to come to the demonstrations when the kids don't even understand why they are there. Student's interviewed at the State House demonstrations in Wisconsin said the reasons they were there "my teacher had us come", "some dude did something", or "I don't know it was just something to do". Shame on you teachers who used your students as pawns. There is noting professional about that.

THE INEPT EGOTIST-EGYPT AS EXAMPLE

2011-02-11T09:30:00.000-08:00

After 18 days of mostly peaceful protests in Egypt, only punctuated with violence when the Mubarak regime tried to subvert the tide. Now, the 30 year reign of a US backed dictator has ended, and a "tea party" like pressure is moving Egypt toward the popular desire for a democratic government and free elections. Much remains to be seen.

So what was the role of America in this event, and how did our leaders handle it? - Well, the answer is "not so well" for the proper protection of American interests. Our leaders, particularly the President, the Secretary of State, and their chief advisers such as the National Intelligence Chief and the CIA, seemed ill informed. Their acts and comments seemed behind the curve, and acting based upon testing the political winds, rather than adopting a policy consistent with American values and Constitutional standards. Further, the President rather than recognizing the need to handle this discreetly, instead chose to grand stand making pronouncements and expressing opinions prematurely, and imprudently, thus creating a world opinion that 1) we don't support our friends in foreign leadership, 2) we are not decisive in handling a problem with a foreign ally, 3) as usual it is all about us, not the other nation.

When the first demonstrations took place in Cairo, we initially heard from Sec. of State Clinton that all was well in Egypt, the regime was solid, and things would calm down. Next, as the demonstrations escalated we heard from the President and the Secretary of State that all was well again, but that perhaps Pres. Mubarak needed to make some changes in his governance.

Then, as the demonstrations began to turn violent, and the covert government operatives spurred much of that violence, which injured and killed not only Egyptians, but was often focused on international press corps, Obama began to bad mouth Mubarak, take the position that it was time for him to go, and both in public and private pushed him toward an exit from power, to the dismay of other US ally nations who began to wonder "Am I next?".

Intelligence assessments about who might step into the void of power if Mubarak resigned included the vocal minority the "Muslim Brotherhood". Grave concerns were expressed by many in the government about their ties to radical Islam, and it appears that James Clapper, National Intelligence Adviser to Obama was either uninformed or misinformed about the links between the Muslim Brotherhood, their desire to invoke Sharia Law, and their ties to Bin Laden. He described them as a loosely connected secular organization anything but the correct description of the fundamentalist Muslim group, with close ties to Sharia law and the radical views of Al Qaeda.

Obama then further demonstrated his egotism in a speech at a university, by factually turning what was happening in Egypt on its head, asserting that it was the "young people" of Egypt, the emerging generation that was leading the revolt there, when that simply was not the case. The age group in the Cairo demonstrations was across the board, but the President cynically spoke to support of the young people of Egypt in a blatant attempt to curry favor with the collegiate audience he was in front of and the youth vote in the United States, as he again, as since his election, acts with his first eye toward boosting his re-election chances.

So long as our government and its leaders continue to make their decisions on political grounds, not simply following the principles that govern our nation and our Constitutional guarantees they will continue to bungle our foreign policy, and will weaken our role in global relations.

It is really time that we clean house in Washington, reestablish the standards our nation was founded for, and reassert our role at a leader by example in the world.

FIRE WASHINGTON - HIRE WALMART

2011-02-10T10:19:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows Walmart. Its presence is pervasive in our society in America, and now in many locations around the world.

When your cruise ship pulls into Cabo San Lucas in Mexico, from the deck you look to the scenic shore and see. . .Walmart (and Costco) stores.

Walmart seems to continue to thrive as the economy of the nation continues to swirl around the drain barely avoiding the final flush. So is there a lesson here. Consider this:

Wal-Mart vs. Congress

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

It is now apparent that the majority of congress are corrupt or incompetent-you decide:

a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. They have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

b. Social Security was established in 1935. They have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d. War on Poverty started in 1964. They have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. They had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

The government has FAILED in every "government service" undertaken while overspending our tax dollars. AND NOW WANTS AMERICANS TO BELIEVE THEY CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

WHITE HOUSE HYPOCRASY CONTINUES TO BE STUNNING!

2011-02-07T12:28:00.000-08:00

A recent theme from the Obama White House is that the President has gotten the message, and is moving to the center, and now will be a friend of business having realized that business needs to be unshackled from overly burdensome regulation and rules.

Sounds good? Well, it would be if it was not just pretty typical political double speak from Obama (who we might better call O'really" when he makes noises about changing positions.

After making these statements that government has to get out of the way of business, let them thrive, lets look at the business record, and the real regulation issues.

First, after making these seemingly sensible statements, what are we hearing now. In today's speech to the US Chamber of Commerce he tells us that "Regulation is good for business." While the White House has conceded that onerous business regulation such as the 1099 regulation imposed by the health care bill should be changed, just today, a interesting new move toward business (large and small) was taken by the administration.

In an announcement today, the Obama administration announces that it has set up through the Labor Department, a program where any employee will not be provided phone numbers to call at the American Bar Association to get an attorney to sue their employer for any perceived wrong on a contingent fee basis. Now this program is problematic for a number of reasons. First, why just the ABA getting these referrals through the Labor Department? Could this be payback for the liberal organizations support of the Obama presidency? Secondly, if the administration is trying to ease the burdens of business to encourage growth (i.e. employment) how is a program like this that will not doubt raise business litigation costs (justified or not) attend that goal?

Further, the Obama administrations management in the EPA is also acting contrarily to the interests of business in America. Since Cap & Trade (also known as "Cap & Tax") the scheme of the administration to tax carbon emissions on the theory that these (though science certainly is not settled on this issue) are the culprits of "global warming" which is also subject to scientific dispute.

So, since the legislation could not get through the congress, the EPA is not attempting to enact this by way of regulation by the agency, again at extremely burdensome costs both actual and administrative to business.

Now these are not the acts of an administration that says what it believes. We have to accept the fact that this administration, much like the Clinton administration, though perhaps even more so, tests the political winds before speaking, and speaks always with coming elections and political goals in mind, rather than simply being candid with Americans about its philosophy, intent and methods.

Read your Saul Alinsky folks, the Rules For Radicals are clearly the road map of the Obama administration. "Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. David Alinsky, son of Neo Marxist Saul Alinsky.

Understand that what is said is NOT what is practiced in the Obama administration, which is one of the most deceptive political administrations in modern history. No other political machine has been so misrepresentative to the public, decpetive in its strategies, and lacked so much transparency. Obama knew coming into office he could not accomplish his goals through congress, even a democratically controlled congress, thus we now have 39 czars who are working toward those same goals through regulation which often does not require legislative review.

In summary, what you see is NOT what you get.

A CALL OF GREAT CONCERN-THE DANGER TO RELIGION OF MORAL RELATIVISM

2011-02-05T10:12:00.000-08:00

Again, as is occasionally my practice, I want to share with you the words of an exceptional thinker on an issue of extreme importance in our society.

Dallin Harris Oaks (born August 12, 1932) is an American attorney, jurist and religious leader. Since 1984, he has been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church. He is a former professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School, a former president of Brigham Young University, and a former justice of the Utah Supreme Court. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Oaks was considered by U.S. presidential administrations a top prospect for appointment to the US Supreme Court.

Dallin Oaks spoke at Chapman University School of Law in California this month, and what he had to say is of great import to every American who believes that we need to follow the original Constitutional injunctions to protect religion in America, and give it a place in society which will best serve our nation.

I share with you here his remarks.

Preserving Religious Freedom

I am here to speak of the state of religious freedom in the United States, why it seems to be diminishing, and what can be done about it.

Although I will refer briefly to some implications of the Proposition 8 controversy and its constitutional arguments, I am not here to participate in the debate on the desirability or effects of same-sex marriage. I am here to contend for religious freedom. I am here to describe fundamental principles that I hope will be meaningful for decades to come.

I believe you will find no unique Mormon doctrine in what I say. My sources are law and secular history. I will quote the words of Catholic, Evangelical Christian, and Jewish leaders, among others. I am convinced that on this issue what all believers have in common is far more important than their differences. We must unite to strengthen our freedom to teach and exercise what we have in common, as well as our very real differences in religious doctrine.

I begin with a truth that is increasingly challenged: Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to our free society and therefore deserving of special legal protection. I will cite a few examples.

Our nation's inimitable private sector of charitable works originated and is still furthered most significantly by religious impulses and religious organizations. I refer to such charities as schools and higher education, hospitals, and care for the poor, where religiously motivated persons contribute personal service and financial support of great value to our citizens. Our nation's incredible generosity in many forms of aid to other nations and their peoples are manifestations of our common religious faith that all peoples are children of God. Religious beliefs instill patterns of altruistic behavior.

Many of the great moral advances in Western society have been motivated by religious principles and moved through the public square by pulpit-preaching. The abolition of the slave trade in England and the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States are notable illustrations. These revolutionary steps were not motivated and moved by secular ethics or coalitions of persons who believed in moral relativism. They were driven primarily by individuals who had a clear vision of what was morally right and what was morally wrong. In our time, the Civil Rights movement was, of course, inspired and furthered by religious leaders.

Religion also strengthens our nation in the matter of honesty and integrity. Modern science and technology have given us remarkable devices, but we are frequently reminded that their operation in our economic system and the resulting prosperity of our nation rest on the honesty of the men and women who use them. Americans' honesty is also reflected in our public servants' remarkable resistance to official corruption. These standards and practices of honesty and integrity rest, ultimately, on our ideas of right and wrong, which, for most of us, are grounded in principles of religion and the teachings of religious leaders.

Our society is not held together just by law and its enforcement, but most importantly by voluntary obedience to the unenforceable and by widespread adherence to unwritten norms of right or righteous behavior. Religious belief in right and wrong is a vital influence to advocate and persuade such voluntary compliance by a large proportion of our citizens.1 Others, of course, have a moral compass not expressly grounded in religion. John Adams relied on all of these when he wisely observed that

“we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”2

Even the agnostic Oxford-educated British journalist Melanie Phillips admitted that

“one does not have to be a religious believer to grasp that the core values of Western Civilization are grounded in religion, and to be concerned that the erosion of religious observance therefore undermines those values and the 'secular ideas' they reflect."3

My final example of the importance of religion in our country concerns the origin of the Constitution. Its formation over 200 years ago was made possible by religious principles of human worth and dignity, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that Constitution today.4 I submit that religious values and political realities are so inter-linked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of religion in our public life without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms.

Unfortunately, the extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing.5 Belief in a personal God who defines right and wrong is challenged by many. “By some counts," an article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world—enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”6 Others who do not consider themselves atheists also reject the idea of a supernatural power, but affirm the existence of some impersonal force and the value of compassion and love and justice.7

Organized religion is surely on the decline. Last year's Pew Forum Study on Religion and Public Life found that the percentage of young adults affiliated with a particular religious faith is declining significantly.8 Scholars Robert Putnam and David Campbell have concluded that “the prospects for religious observance in the coming decades are substantially diminished."9

Whatever the extent of formal religious affiliation, I believe that the tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding. A writer for the Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic," with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes."10

A visible measure of the decline of religion in our public life is the diminished mention of religious faith and references to God in our public discourse. One has only to compare the current rhetoric with the major addresses of our political leaders in the 18th, 19th, and the first part of the 20th centuries. Similarly, compare what Lincoln said about God and religious practices like prayer on key occasions with the edited versions of his remarks quoted in current history books.11 It is easy to believe that there is an informal conspiracy of correctness to scrub out references to God and the influence of religion in the founding and preservation of our nation.

The impact of this on the rising generation is detailed in an Oxford University Press book, Souls in Transition. There we read:

“Most of the dynamics of emerging adult culture and life in the United States today seem to have a tendency to reduce the appeal and importance of religious faith and practice. . . . Religion for the most part is just something in the background."12

Granted that reduced religious affiliation puts religion “in the background,” the effect of that on the religious beliefs of young adults is still in controversy. The negative view appears in the Oxford book, whose author concludes that this age group of 18 to 23

“had difficulty seeing the possible distinction between, in this case, objective moral truth and relative human invention. . . . [T]hey simply cannot, for whatever reason, believe in—or sometimes even conceive of—a given, objective truth, fact, reality, or nature of the world that is independent of their subjective self-experience."13

On the positive side, the Pew Forum study reported that over three-quarters of young adults believe that there are absolute standards of right and wrong.14 For reasons explained later, I believe this finding is very positive for the future of religious freedom.

II.

Before reviewing the effects of the decline of religion in our public life, I will speak briefly of the free exercise of religion. The first provision in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is what many believe to be its most important guarantee. It reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to forbid a national church of the kind found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the First Amendment's direction that the United States shall have “no law [prohibiting] the free exercise [of religion].” For almost a century this guarantee of religious freedom has been understood as a limitation on state as well as federal power.

The guarantee of religious freedom is one of the supremely important founding principles in the United States Constitution, and it is reflected in the constitutions of all 50 of our states. As noted by many, the guarantee's “pre-eminent place” as the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.”15 The American colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, came to this continent for the freedom to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation's Bill of Rights.

So it is that our federal law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States."16 So it is, I maintain, that in our nation's founding and in our constitutional order religious freedom and its associated First Amendment freedoms of speech and press are the motivating and dominating civil liberties and civil rights.

III.

Notwithstanding its special place in our Constitution, a number of trends are eroding both the protections the free exercise clause was intended to provide and the public esteem this fundamental value has had during most of our history. For some time we have been experiencing laws and official actions that impinge on religious freedom. In a few moments I will give illustrations, but first I offer some generalizations.

The free “exercise" of religion obviously involves both (1) the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and (2) the right to “exercise" or practice those beliefs without government restraint. However, in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs the right of some to act upon their religious beliefs must be qualified by the government's responsibility to further compelling government interests, such as the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens' persons or properties from neighbors whose religious principles compelled practices that threatened others' health or personal security. Government authorities have wrestled with this tension for many years, so we have considerable experience in working out the necessary accommodations.

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom. The problems are not simple, and over the years the United States Supreme Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the Constitution, has struggled to identify principles that can guide its decisions when a law or regulation is claimed to violate someone's free exercise of religion. As would be expected, many of these battles have involved government efforts to restrict the religious practices of small groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Recent experience suggests adding the example of Muslims.

Much of the controversy in recent years has focused on the extent to which state laws that are neutral and generally applicable can override the strong protections contained in the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution. As noted hereafter, in the 1990s the Supreme Court ruled that such state laws could prevail. Fortunately, in a stunning demonstration of the resilience of the guarantee of free exercise of religion, over half of the states have passed legislation or interpreted their state constitutions to preserve a higher standard for protecting religious freedom. Only a handful have followed the Supreme Court's approach that the federal free exercise protection must bow to state laws that are neutral as to religion.17

Another important current debate over religious freedom concerns whether the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives one who acts on religious grounds greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to everyone by other provisions of the constitution, like freedom of speech. I, of course, maintain that unless religious freedom has a unique position we erase the significance of this separate provision in the First Amendment. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief is not enough to satisfy the special guarantee of religious freedom in the United States Constitution. Religion must preserve its preferred status in our pluralistic society in order to make its unique contribution—its recognition and commitment to values that transcend the secular world.

Over a quarter century ago I reviewed the history and predicted the future of church/state law in a lecture at DePaul University in Chicago.18 I took sad notice of the fact that the United States Supreme Court had diminished the significance of free exercise by expanding the definition of religion to include what the Court called “religions" not based on belief in God. I wrote:
“The problem with a definition of religion that includes almost everything is that the practical effect of inclusion comes to mean almost nothing. Free exercise protections become diluted as their scope becomes more diffuse. When religion has no more right to free exercise than irreligion or any other secular philosophy, the whole newly expanded category of ‘religion’ is likely to diminish in significance.”19

Unfortunately, the tide of thought and precedent seems contrary to this position. While I have no concern with expanding comparable protections to non-religious belief systems, as is done in international norms that protect freedom of religion or belief,20 I object to doing so by re-interpreting the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion.

It was apparent twenty-five years ago, and it is undeniable today, that the significance of religious freedom is diminishing. Five years after I gave my DePaul lecture, the United States Supreme Court issued its most important free exercise decision in many years In Employment Division v. Smith,21 the Court significantly narrowed the traditional protection of religion by holding that the guarantee of free exercise did not prevent government from interfering with religious activities when it did so by neutral, generally applicable laws. This ruling removed religious activities from their sanctuary—the preferred position the First Amendment had given them.

Now, over twenty years later, some are contending that a religious message is just another message in a world full of messages, not something to be given unique or special protection. One author takes the extreme position that religious speech should have even less protection In Freedom from Religion, published by the Oxford University Press, a law professor makes this three-step argument:

1. In many nations “society is at risk from religious extremism."22

2. “A follower is far more likely to act on the words of a religious authority figure than other speakers."23

Therefore, “in some cases, society and government should view religious speech as inherently less protected than secular political speech because of its extraordinary ability to influence the listener."24

The professor then offers this shocking conclusion:

“[W]e must begin to consider the possibility that religious speech can no longer hide behind the shield of freedom of expression. . . .25

“Contemporary religious extremism leaves decision-makers and the public alike with no choice but to re-contour constitutionally granted rights as they pertain to religion and speech."26

I believe most thoughtful people would reject that extreme conclusion. All should realize how easy it would be to gradually manipulate the definition of “religious extremism" to suppress any unpopular religion or any unpopular preaching based on religious doctrine. In addition, I hope most would see that it is manifestly unfair and short-sighted to threaten religious freedom by focusing on some undoubted abuses without crediting religion's many benefits. I am grateful that there are responsible voices and evidence affirming the vital importance of religious freedom, worldwide.27

When Cardinal Francis George, then President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke at Brigham Young University last year, he referred to “threats to religious freedom in America that are new to our history and to our tradition."28 He gave two examples, one concerning threats to current religious-based exemptions from participating in abortions and the other “the development of gay rights and the call for same-sex 'marriage.'" He spoke of possible government punishments for churches or religious leaders whose doctrines lead them to refuse to participate in government sponsored programs.

Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a “civil right" of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so.

Religious preaching of the wrongfulness of homosexual relations is beginning to be threatened with criminal prosecution or actually prosecuted or made the subject of civil penalties. Canada has been especially aggressive, charging numerous religious authorities and persons of faith with violating its human rights law by “impacting an individual's sense of self-worth and acceptance."29 Other countries where this has occurred include Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Singapore.30

I do not know enough to comment on whether these suppressions of religious speech violate the laws of other countries, but I do know something of religious freedom in the United States, and I am alarmed at what is reported to be happening here.

In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay.31 In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies. A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties.32 Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful.33 Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations.34 A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor.35 The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.

We must also be concerned at recent official expressions that would narrow the field of activities protected by the free exercise of religion. Thus, when President Obama used the words freedom of worship instead of free exercise of religion, a writer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sounded this warning:

“To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling.

“The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square."36

Fortunately, more recent expressions by President Obama and his state department have used the traditional references to the right to practice religious faith.37

Even more alarming are recent evidences of a narrowing definition of religious expression and an expanding definition of the so-called civil rights of “dignity,""autonomy," and "self-fulfillment" of persons offended by religious preaching. Thus, President Obama's head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldblum, recently framed the issue in terms of a “sexual-orientation liberty" that is such a fundamental right that it should prevail over a competing “religious-belief liberty.”38 Such a radical assertion should not escape analysis. It has three elements. First, the freedom of religion—an express provision of the Bill of Rights that has been recognized as a fundamental right for over 200 years—is recast as a simple “liberty" that ranks among many other liberties. Second, Feldblum asserts that sexual orientation is now to be defined as a “sexual liberty" that has the status of a fundamental right. Finally, it is claimed that “the best framework for dealing with this conflict is to analyze religious people‘s claims as 'belief liberty interest' not as free exercise claims under the First Amendment." The conclusion: Religious expressions are to be overridden by the fundamental right to “sexual liberty.”39

It is well to remember James Madison's warning:

“There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."40

We are beginning to experience the expansion of rhetoric and remedies that seem likely to be used to chill or even to penalize religious expression. Like the professors in Illinois and Wisconsin and the lay clergyman in California, individuals of faith are experiencing real retribution merely because they seek to express their sincerely held religious beliefs.

All of this shows an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the “rights" of those offended by such speech. If that happens, we will have criminal prosecution of those whose religious doctrines or speech offend those whose public influence and political power establish them as an officially protected class.

Closely related to the danger of criminal prosecutions are the current arguments seeking to brand religious beliefs as an unacceptable basis for citizen action or even for argument in the public square. For an example of this we need go no further than the district court's opinion in the Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.41

A few generations ago the idea that religious organizations and religious persons would be unwelcome in the public square would have been unthinkable. Now, such arguments are prominent enough to cause serious concern. It is not difficult to see a conscious strategy to neutralize the influence of religion and churches and religious motivations on any issues that could be characterized as public policy. As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, the proponents of banishment “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn."42 Legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:

“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .

“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening."43

The forces that would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation should answer this question: How would the great movements toward social justice cited earlier have been advocated and pressed toward adoption if their religious proponents had been banned from the public square by insistence that private religious or moral positions were not a rational basis for public discourse?

We have already seen a significant deterioration in the legal position of the family, a key institution defined by religious doctrine. In his essay “The Judicial Assault on the Family," Allan W. Carlson examines the “formal influence of Christianity" on American family law,44 citing many state and United States Supreme Court decisions through the 1950s affirming the fundamental nature of the family.45 He then reviews a series of decisions beginning in the mid-1960s that gave what he calls “an alternate vision of family life and family law."46 For example, he quotes a 1972 decision in which the Court characterized marriage as “an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup."47 “Through these words,” Carlson concludes, “the U.S. Supreme Court essentially enlisted in the Sexual Revolution."48 Over these same years, “the federal courts also radically altered the meaning of parenthood."49

I quote Carlson again:

“The broad trend has been from a view of marriage as a social institution with binding claims of its own and with prescribed rules for men and women into a free association, easily entered and easily broken, with a focus on the needs of individuals. However, the ironical result of so expanding the 'freedom to marry' has been to enhance the authority and sway of government.”50

“As the American founders understood, marriage and the autonomous family were the true bulwarks of liberty, for they were the principal rivals to the state. . . . And surely, as the American judiciary has deconstructed marriage and the family over the last 40 years, the result has been the growth of government."51

All of this has culminated in attempts to redefine marriage or to urge its complete abolition. The debate continues in the press and elsewhere.52

IV.

What has caused the current public and legal climate of mounting threats to religious freedom? I believe the cause is not legal but cultural and religious. I believe the diminished value being attached to religious freedom stems from the ascendency of moral relativism.

More and more of our citizens support the idea that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made and can be accepted or rejected as one chooses. Each person is free to decide for himself or herself what is right and wrong. Our children face the challenge of living in an increasingly godless and amoral society.

I have neither the time nor the expertise to define the various aspects of moral relativism or the extent to which they have entered the culture or consciousness of our nation and its people. I can only rely on respected observers whose descriptions feel right to me.

In his book, Modern Times, the British author Paul Johnson writes:

“At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value."53

On this side of the Atlantic, Gertrude Himmelfarb describes how the virtues associated with good and evil have been degraded into relative values.54

A variety of observers have described the consequences of moral relativism. All of them affirm the existence of God as the Ultimate Law-giver and the source of the absolute truth that distinguishes good from evil.

Rabbi Harold Kushner speaks of God-given “absolute standards of good and evil built into the human soul.”55 He writes:

“As I see it, there are two possibilities. Either you affirm the existence of a God who stands for morality and makes moral demands of us, who built a law of truthfulness into His world even as He built in a law of gravity. . . . Or else you give everyone the right to decide what is good and what is evil by his or her own lights, balancing the voice of one's conscience against the voice of temptation and need. . . .”56

Rabbi Kushner also observes that a philosophy that rejects the idea of absolute right and wrong inevitably leads to a deadening of conscience.

“Without God, it would be a world where no one was outraged by crime or cruelty, and no one was inspired to put an end to them. . . . [T]here would be no more inspiring goal for our lives than self-interest. . . . Neither room nor reason for tenderness, generosity, helpfulness.”57

Dr. Timothy Keller, a much-published pastor in New York, asks:

“What happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible that offends your sensibility and crosses your will? If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you ever have a God who can contradict you? You won't!. . . .

“Though we have been taught that all moral values are relative to individuals and cultures, we can‘t live like that. In actual practice we inevitably treat some principles as absolute standards by which we judge the behavior of those who don't share our values. . . . People who laugh at the claim that there is a transcendent moral order do not think that racial genocide is just impractical or self-defeating, but that it is wrong. . . .”58

My esteemed fellow Apostle, Elder Neal A. Maxwell, asked:

Related Additional Resources

News release: Apostle Emphasizes the Importance of Religious Freedom to Society
“[H]ow can a society set priorities if there are no basic standards? Are we to make our calculations using only the arithmetic of appetite?”59

He made this practical observation:

“Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being 'society's supervisors.' Such 'supervisors' deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.”60

Elder Maxwell also observed that we increase the power of governments when people do not believe in absolute truths and in a God who will hold them and their government leaders accountable.61

Moral relativism leads to a loss of respect for religion and even to anger against religion and the guilt that is seen to flow from it. As it diminishes religion, it encourages the proliferation of rights that claim ascendency over the free exercise of religion.

The founders who established this nation believed in God and in the existence of moral absolutes—right and wrong—established by this Ultimate Law-giver. The Constitution they established assumed and relied on morality in the actions of its citizens. Where did that morality come from and how was it to be retained? Belief in God and the consequent reality of right and wrong was taught by religious leaders in churches and synagogues, and the founders gave us the First Amendment to preserve that foundation for the Constitution.

The preservation of religious freedom in our nation depends on the value we attach to the teachings of right and wrong in our churches, synagogues and mosques. It is faith in God—however defined—that translates these religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits the nation. As fewer and fewer citizens believe in God and in the existence of the moral absolutes taught by religious leaders, the importance of religious freedom to the totality of our citizens is diminished. We stand to lose that freedom if many believe that religious leaders, who preach right and wrong, make no unique contribution to society and therefore should have no special legal protection.

V. Conclusion

I have made four major points:

Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to our free society and therefore deserving of their special legal protection.

Religious freedom undergirds the origin and existence of this country and is the dominating civil liberty.

The guarantee of free exercise of religion is weakening in its effects and in public esteem.

This weakening is attributable to the ascendancy of moral relativism.

We must never see the day when the public square is not open to religious ideas and religious persons. The religious community must unite to be sure we are not coerced or deterred into silence by the kinds of intimidation or threatening rhetoric that are being experienced. Whether or not such actions are anti-religious, they are surely anti-democratic and should be condemned by all who are interested in democratic government. There should be room for all good-faith views in the public square, be they secular, religious, or a mixture of the two. When expressed sincerely and without sanctimoniousness, the religious voice adds much to the text and tenor of public debate. As Elder Quentin L. Cook has said:

“In our increasingly unrighteous world, it is essential that values based on religious belief be part of the public discourse. Moral positions informed by a religious conscience must be accorded equal access to the public square."62

Religious persons should insist on their constitutional right and duty to exercise their religion, to vote their consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and in debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders and religious organizations In this circumstance, it is imperative that those of us who believe in God and in the reality of right and wrong unite more effectively to protect our religious freedom to preach and practice our faith in God and the principles of right and wrong He has established.

This proposal that we unite more effectively does not require any examination of the doctrinal differences among Christians, Jews, and Muslims, or even an identification of the many common elements of our beliefs. All that is necessary for unity and a broad coalition along the lines I am suggesting is a common belief that there is a right and wrong in human behavior that has been established by a Supreme Being. All who believe in that fundamental should unite more effectively to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are. We must walk together for a ways on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our own beliefs.

I am not proposing a resurrection of the so-called “moral majority," which was identified with a particular religious group and a particular political party. Nor am I proposing an alliance or identification with any current political movement, tea party or other. I speak for a broader principle, non-partisan and, in its own focused objective, ecumenical. I speak for what Cardinal Francis George described in his address at Brigham Young University just a year ago. His title was “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom." He proposed

“that Catholics and Mormons stand with one another and with other defenders of conscience, and that we can and should stand as one in the defense of religious liberty. In the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and for religious institutions should become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces at work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality. At stake is whether or not the religious voice will maintain its right to be heard in the public square."63

We join in that call for religious coalitions to protect religious freedom. In doing so we recall the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin. At another critical time in our nation‘s history, he declared:

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."64

In conclusion, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ I affirm His love for all people on this earth, and I affirm the importance His followers must attach to religious freedom for all people—whatever their beliefs. I pray for the blessings of God upon our cooperative efforts to preserve that freedom.

A PREDICTABLE ATTACK - HEALTHCARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL-MUST BE THE JUDGES FAULT!

2011-02-01T17:23:00.000-08:00

As the courts continue striking down Obama Care, as yesterday's ruling in Florida which voided the entire act, you could anticipate the responses from the administration to be right out of the liberal play book, and you would not be far wrong.

So what does the White House have to say about the court ruling. . .?

Well, lets see, while Cairo is burning, the upheaval in Egypt and the middle east is spiking oil prices, and gas prices at the pump, and there is substantial security concern, our president is taking a mild mannered wait and see approach, which is continuing his reputation with the world as a spineless leader, who can't make a decision or take a hard stand when necessary. Now I'm not a foreign relations specialist, but this event in Egypt would seem to cry for the US to support the calls for democratic elections, and to provide support to see that this happens and that neither despots in office or radicals seeing an opportunity manipulate the will of the people to govern their own fate.

But, the White House can't find time for that important work, however, they can find time to comment on the Obama Care decision. What do they have to say? Well, right out of the liberal progressive playbook, their move is to attack the messenger, i.e. the judge who made the ruling. Roger Vinson, a Senior Federal Judge and a twenty eight year plus jurist, appointed by President Ronald Reagan has now become the whipping boy for the liberals after finding consistently with the Constitution that the individual mandate in the act does not pass Constitutional muster, and also is not severable from the rest of the Act, which must be totally voided.

The White House states through its mouthpiece Ms. Stephanie Cutter:

"Judicial Activism and the Affordable Care Act

Posted by Stephanie Cutter on January 31, 2011 at 04:49 PM EST

Today, a judge in Florida issued a decision in a case filed by 25 Republican Attorneys General and Governors striking down the Affordable Care Act. This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion. Twelve federal judges have already dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the health reform law, and two judges – in the Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Virginia – have upheld the law. In one other case, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a very narrow ruling on the constitutionality of the health reform law’s “individual responsibility” provision and upheld the rest of the law.

Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s “individual responsibility” provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain. And the judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision. This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge’s decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk."

Now, Ms. Cutter who renders this opinion is a "democratic operative" according to Wikipedia. From what I can determine, she has a law degree, but has never practiced, having worked in the political side of government since leaving school. She was Michelle Obama's chief of staff during the campaign in 2008, and has worked for Ted Kennedy, and the White House before her current appointment as "Special Advisor" to the president, to handle communications for the heath care issue and act. In other words she is a public relations flack trying to sell the White House's view on the health care law. Little qualification to attack the credibility of a federal judge with more than a generation of experience in both routine and high profile cases.

Curiously, there is no indication in Judge Vinson's twenty eight year history on the bench which would lead anyone to conclude he is a judicial maverick, or off the reservation in his rulings. He does not have high reversal rates, and is respected by his peers having served as the Chief Judge in his district for several years

Ms Cutter cites no case authority for her positions in her blog, nor really any authority aside from a theory that "we will win the day" which she claims is supported by over 100 legal scholars. Unfortunately for those of us who like to verify before trusting, none of those scholars are named, nor are any court decisions which support her view.

So, what can we conclude from this? You weigh the facts. Judge Vinson and his experience, tenure and record, along with his well reasoned opinion (which is public record) versus Ms Cutter, a public relations flack for the Obama White House, who has never used her law degree to practice law, who has never worked except in partisan political appointments, who has to sell the bosses product. Where do you think the credibility lies?

I don't have too much trouble with the question at all.

BUREAUCRACY AT WORK - FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUREAURACY

2011-01-18T17:04:00.000-08:00

I recently came across the Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Initiative. Impressive title, right? What it is you might wonder, since it isn't well known.

Big Uncle in Washington deemed to grace Oregon with a token $220 million dollars from the funds aimed to "heal America through spending" (aka "the stimulus) programs coming out of Washington. This particular program is supposed to use these funds to assist homeowners who are having a hard time paying their house payments due to loss of income in the declining economy.

As a microcosm, let me tell you about Jackson County. The program gives a one time grant to qualifying families of up to $20K to pay up to a year of house payments and property taxes and any arrears they may have.

To apply for the program, you fill out a online application, then go in for an interview where a large staff of presumably state workers, examine your financial records, input them into a preset computer program, and if you meet their criteria, you go into the pot of qualified recipients. Jackson County is funded to provide for 226 such grants. The application process is closed, and they have as of today 169 approvals. If they had more than the 226 there would be a lottery drawing to select the winners of the grants.

Here is where the bureaucracy problem sets in. There have been over 1000. applicants in Jackson County. So, since 85% have been screened out of the process, perhaps we need to look at the criteria.

The program takes the last two months of income a family has, and then annualizes that amount and compares it to your prior two years income to see if there is a quantitative calculation of a 25% decrease in income. A eligibility worker at the program told me this particular point was the principle disqualifier of applicants. If you meet this test and some other objective criteria are met, you win.

But there are problems with that, particularly for people living in Jackson County. Applications closed January 14th. Many people in this situation in Jackson County work at Harry & David for November and December, and thus push up their income for those two months. Thus there is a bias against Jackson County applicants in particular as so many are temporarily employed by Harry & David seasonally.

This program then annualizes those earnings presuming that the worker earned that amount of money earned from Harry & David during their rush season all year long. Thus a worker who earns $1500. per month for those two months would have it presumed that they earned that amount all year long. This variation in calculation will skew the result, and disqualify them from the program. The house payments are still behind, the ability to catch them up still does not exist, but Oregon has established a standard which will disqualify them from the program.

It gets worse. An applicant also was disqualified because a few months before applying for the program the family began to draw social security. Though that money only partially replaces income lost in the declining economy it reduced the difference between prior year income, and the annualized income from the previous two months from showing the real spread, and being under the magic 25% figure the state has decreed, disqualified this senior citizen family who now face losing a home at an age where financial recovery is unlikely. The one time grant would have made all the difference, and allowed them to get current on house payments and taxes, and then would be able to go forward on their existing income. The testing criteria are bias against many applicants who are trying to work when they can to get by, particularly in Jackson County where its largest employer is offering principally seasonal work.

So, why is the state being stingy with the huge fund of monies? Well, consider this. The plan is implemented, administered and executed by state employees funded by the plan in every county in the state. While the plan continues, and the money holds out, their jobs are protected.

Thus if the administrators can spend ninety percent of the money administering the plan, and disbursing ten percent to participants, guess what happens to their jobs, salaries, benefits, pensions, etc. They all continue. Conversely, if the standards of the plan were loosened, allowing a qualification of enough applicants to consume the funds, you might have the reverse situation. Ten percent of the money would be spent in administration and ninety percent distributed where it was intended to go.

Under the present program we pay a beehive of state employees to screen five to six applications for the program for every one approved. The Medford office alone had two receptionists, six to eight screeners seeing the applicants, and a newly installed and sophisticated data system serving every employee. I don't know how long they have been in place but would assume it has been at least six months.

So, lets do some math. 10 frontline employees, that means at least 4 administrators somewhere, and one top administrator just to deal with Jackson County. 15 employees, average salaries probably $36k minimum and a benefit load of one half of that or $18k. That totals up to including estimated capital costs for equipment and furnishings, leasehold on the office space, utilities, etc, to over $1m per year. For a program that will give out approximately $3m in program benefits. This equates to 25% overhead costs. Most good charities do similar management for 10% or less. Then of course are the layers of supervisors, administrators, directors and others who of course are at even higher levels of salary and benefits.

And just think-this is only $4 million out of $220 million state wide. So, Oregonians, are you having a hard time paying the home loan, or the real estate taxes that continue to go up as your property value goes down? Perhaps it is time to contact your legislators, that is if you can find one with an interest in efficiency and economic justice. Very little of the "stimulus" money our federal government spent appears to be trickling down to the average Joe. Now it appears that Oregon is practicing that same mantra.

ONLY YESTERDAY. . .

2011-01-18T12:50:00.000-08:00

Having seen the changes in life in America over the last 60 years, it is sometimes disheartening that we cannot return to the simplicity and values that we had a half century ago.

I, for one, think that while a total return to life in the '50s or 60's is not likely, there is no reason that we cannot secure, and protect many of those values.

We are presently under assault by our government and an administration that wants to remake America in to their socialistic, European version of "what life should be". Well, they are wrong. We live in the greatest nation on the earth, even in its present situation. We need to make some changes, and fix some problems, but it can be done. We will not make it happen by following the present governmental path, as we are slowly but surely (and less slowly these day) led down to hell.

I present for your consideration an anonymous fable going around on the internet. When you read it, remember, while we are not there yet, we are on the way, unless we remind Washington that they work for us, and that it is the will of the people which must govern. The old platitude that "the government which governs best governs least" should become everyone's mantra until common sense is returned to government.

Remember, it's happening. . .

“John, come into the dining room, it’s time to eat,” Julia yelled to her husband.

“In a minute, honey, it’s a tie score,” he answered. Actually John wasn’t very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington . Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its “unseemly violence” and the “bad example it sets for the rest of the world,” John was far less of a football fan than he used to be.. Two-hand touch wasn’t nearly as exciting.

Yet it wasn’t the game that John was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another TofuTurkey. Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn’t anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of “Thanksgiving Day” to “A National Day of Atonement” in 2020, to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims’ historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats—which were monitored and controlled by the electric company — be kept at 65 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. John missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of live-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. “The RHC’s resources are limited,” explained the government bureaucrat John spoke with on the phone. “Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I’m sorry for your loss.”

Ed couldn’t make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 outlawed the use of the combustion engines — for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn’t want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.

Thankfully, John’s brother, Jim, and his wife were flying in. John made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than Jim about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government - mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids.

Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added “inconvenience” was an “absolute necessity” in order to stay “one step ahead of the terrorists.” John’s own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for “unequal scrutiny,” even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. “A living Constitution is extremely flexible,” said the Court’s eldest member, Elena Kagan. “ Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example,” she added.

John’s thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. John had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were “just around the corner,” but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn’t help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. John paid the $5,000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to “spur economic growth.” This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but John was not particularly hopeful.

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, John thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement... At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life “fair for everyone” realized their full potential. John, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn’t happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.

He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2009, when all the real nonsense began. “Maybe we wouldn’t be where we are today if we’d just said ‘enough is enough’ when we had the chance,” he thought.

Maybe so John, maybe so. . .

WATCH THE TACTICS - DECEPTION IS THE RULE

2011-01-17T10:35:00.000-08:00

There is a difference between "angry rhetoric" and speaking the truth forcefully. Since the beginning of liberalism, and growing to its highest levels today, the strategy of liberal/progressives is to limit speech which opposes their viewpoint. David Limbaugh, pictured at the left will help me make this point. They seize on every opportunity (or make one up if there isn't one handy) to prevent the conservative viewpoint from being heard. Their platitudes hide their actual actions, which focus on control, power, and changing the basic tenets America was built upon by the founding fathers.

Look at the Tucson case. A deranged young man, with visible mental problems, mildly political, with a leaning toward the left shoots up a political event and kills and wounds innocent people including a Congresswoman. With ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE liberal writers and talkers seized on the event before the ambulances arrived to place blame on conservatives who threaten their strangle hold on America.

Every citizen needs to understand the basic difference between the liberal and conservative in tactics. We know the agendas of both, and voters have repudiated the liberal agenda as too costly, too invasive and generally contrary to Constitutional standards. What you must understand about tactics is that the liberal view is that the "means" no matter whether honest, truthful, or an outright lie, justifies the ends of achieving their vision of our nation. They do not respect majority rule, and believe their self "elevated intellects" know better what we need than we do ourselves.

The Obama administration has demonstrated this many times, buy its back room deals, misrepresentations about laws it sought to pass, back-dooring unpassable laws through regulatory manipulations, threats and demonizing of anyone who may dispute its positions.

The Mail Tribune apparently supports this approach, and tries to silence the right. David Limbaugh, lawyer, columnist, writer and critic of the Obama administration and Brother of Rush Limbaugh spoke at the Craterian Theater on Saturday night, January 14th. Not one word of his appearance was published in the Tribune, and no coverage was given after his appearance. Let me hazard a guess that if a liberal/progressive of similar stature, a national figure with a New York Times bestselling book(s) were to appear in Medford, it would be a front page article. Instead, it is treated by the Tribune as a non-event. - Silencing conservative speech.

Now the liberals will tell you this column is hate speech because it accuses them unfairly, and incites fellow conservatives, or thinking Americans to distrust their judgment. The will tell you they are the "kum-bi-ya" folks who just want peace and fuzzy good feelings. Well, that is true, as long as that peace and fuzz includes their absolute control of you and how you live. Its for your own good of course, but they understand what you need.

Just a little test for those of you who have been around a while - if you have lived the last half century or so, aside from the postman, and filing your tax returns how much contact did you have with federal government in 1960 as opposed to now? How much have federal mandates affected your local community in that half century, with things like OSHA, BLM, FDA, DOT, DOJ, and all the other acronym agencies. People wonder why there is more talk against the federal government now - its because we have almost continual examples of its bad decisions, bad management, and intrusion into our lives placed in front of us daily.

We are in a fight for the life of America as it was viewed by our founding fathers. Be alert, understand the tactics, and remember the exceptionalism that built this great country, and that it came from the people, NOT FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

READY, AIM, MISFIRE!

2011-01-11T12:15:00.000-08:00

Expression of objection to the actions of political foes is a tradition in America. It has ranged the scale from peaceful disagreement in debate to violent confrontation on the field of honor (i.e. the Burr-Hamilton deul).

Over the last couple of decades the political discussion has heated considerably. After things calmed down from the turbulent 60's, greater levels of dialogue took place addressing the political differences in the country.

In the 60's we had a completely different climate. The SDS, the Weather Underground, and other groups, really globally, not just nationally, expressed political dissent through violence, bombings, crime, and an anarchistic approach to obtaining their version of political justice.

In earlier days, the duel was a act of choice to settle political disputes. Hamilton and Burr had a long history of political vitriol, which culminated in the duel which killed Hamilton. Hamilton's son was also killed in a duel after he was accused of "hooliganism" in his objection to a derogatory letter written about his father.

We like to think that we have risen past such conduct, and have gotten to the point in our political discourse where words are the swords in the political joust. For the most part that is the case. Periodically we have an individual, usually someone with some degree of mental health issues who steps outside the dialogue and commits a violent act. Then the question arises. . .did the rhetoric provoke the act?

The answer, is that we generally don't know, and probably never will. The workings of a troubled mind is uncharted territory which is mostly inaccessible, unless a cure is worked and the actor can tell us, and a reliable level of candor what they were thinking and why.

More often we just never know.

So, what is society to do. Do we start designating words, symbols, types of communication as being unlawful? How does that impact our right of free speech under the Constitution? Can we reasonably expect to define explicitly "bad word" or "bad symbols" and bar them from speech. We apparently cannot lawfully bar filthy language, the "F" word and other such language in public based on recent court rulings.

Censorship and political correctness seem to go hand in hand. We recently have the revision of classic literature by Mark Twain with the alteration of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn to remove politically incorrect words like "nigger" and "injun" from the works. Appropriate or not?

An interesting factual observation seems to be that the political left feels it can say whatever it chooses, and assert the protection of that language by "free speech" while asserting that political opponents on the right are somehow prescribed from "hate speech" as they characterize views which challenge the lefts actions, policies or positions. This double standard in political speech is supported by both left-wing and mainstream media, and often used to target conservative talk radio and publications.

In an ideal world, both side would have equal rights, and responsibilities to use political speech in constructive ways, to bring to light political differences, and allow the people to decide those issues by election or legislation, and avoid the vitriol. Will that happen-unlikely. Will it be handled fairly by the media-unlikely. Will we go on, doing what we are doing, with occasional wake-up calls with the resulting of short term quieting of the unproductive speech-more likely.

As citizens we need to give this thought, and decide if we can use our votes to address this issue, and take the pettifoggery out of elected office, and an end to unproductive vitriolic speech. If we are electing the right caliber of people, with a professional approach to serving the citizens, this problem will take care of itself.

PC DOESN'T MEAN PERSONAL COMPUTER

2010-12-29T11:24:00.000-08:00

Political correctness runs rampant again. This time its the Society of Professional Journalists who have launched a year long campaign to bar the use of the term "illegal immigrants", offering instead options such as "undocumented immigrants", "undocumented workers" and other alternatives.

It should be noted that their reliance is on alleged Constitutional principles that presume innocence until convicted, thus unless already tried they argue that it is improper to called foreign nationals here without following the immigration laws "illegal".

This is a distinction without a difference. Immigration laws are "status" offenses. They are based upon someone not obtaining permission to enter the US and following regulations to maintain that permission. If in fact a person is here without permission, they are here illegally by definition. There does not have to be a trail to determine that. Hence, deportation procedures without trial.

The real thrust of this campaign though is not a sense of correctness about terminology, but rather an attempt by the liberal PC crowd (supported by the media-i.e. journalists) to soften the perception of these scofflaws (principally from south of the border) so that the nation has less resistance to amnesty legislation from congress.

Illegal immigration is a huge problem. Estimates run from 10 million to over 20 million illegals present in the US presently. Most are Hispanic, but there are also large numbers from countries aligned as our enemies who raise safety issues. Some entered legally, i.e. student visa, visitor visas, then remained after they expired. Some entered illegally, using false ID or sneaking over the border and blending into their cultural enclaves, often in our larger cities.

The problem is exacerbated by the large numbers of Hispanic immigrants who come here to rely on public benefits, medical, welfare, housing, disproportionate prison populations, etc, thus taking a huge toll on our resources with little prospect of becoming contributing citizens. The financial costs for this are huge, and in our faltering economy are the proverbial straw breaking the camels back.

As Arizona has had the courage to do, enforce the law. As the wag says in the billboard below, the presence of the illegals is a great detriment to orderly society, and a undue consumer of public resources.

My conclusion on all this is that Arizona is right. First close the borders. Then figure out how to deal with those here illegally. But for heavens sake, don't assume that Americans are stupid to the point of being persuaded to grant amnesty just based upon what terms we use to refer to those who violate our laws and steal our resources.

A MODERN ANACRONISM-TED "KILL 'EM AND GRILL'EM" NUGENT

2010-12-27T12:12:00.000-08:00

Many of you are familiar with the music of Ted Nugent, who began as a member of the Amboy Dukes in his native Michigan in the 60's. He's had the usual rocker lapses of judgment, and some moral slips as well. Not someone you might want to spend much thought on. However, he has morphed into a critter of a different color.

More recently (the last decade or two), more of you are familiar with the intensely conservative libertarian who espouses a unusual mix of God, guns and rock and roll.

Nugent who is my age (62) grew up in Michigan and went on to attain rock star status. In his middle years, he developed a passion for supporting the independent American way of life, and a fundamental interpretation of the Constitution, particularly when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. An outspoken critic of Barack Obama, he has stated that Obama is a Mao Tse Tung communist and that the nation should be ashamed [of electing him].

Nugent is an avid hunter, with ranches in Michigan, and presently living on another ranch in well known Crawford, Texas as a neighbor of former President George W. Bush. Beside his music career, Nugent operates commercial hunting ranches, guiding hunts himself. He has failed to endear himself with PETA, and in fact personally took down and restrained a PETA representative who assaulted him in New York City until police arrived to arrest the critter hugger.

For guys my age at least (I doubt that Nugent is on the younger kids radar anyway), I have mixed feelings about this rock icon, now quasi political personality. I enjoy some of his music, but not the overtly sexualized (ala Mick Jagger) image he chooses for his album covers and marketing.

Nugent was of the generation that fried their brains with drugs from the 60's to the 90's. He was no exception. He has since had a "Aha" moment, and now is a vigorous opponent of drug use, to the point of saying that he would like to have been appointed Obama's drug czar and he would have reigned terror on both kingpins and users alike to clean up America.

I like the political Nugent. He mirrors a lot of my own beliefs about American exeptionalism, and conservative values (though his enlightenment came later in life). He also has a grip on the ills of government, and describes them in every-man's language in a column in the the Washington Times. Kind of a channeling of a serious Jeff Foxworthy persona.

What inspired me to address the chameleon character which is Ted Nugent was his grandfatherly Christmas column in the Washington Times. I include it here for your consideration. It just doesn't have the sound of a doped out rocker, or the arrogance of a music multi-millionaire, but instead brings the tenor of a humble American with a lot of faith in the strength of his nation, its core values and its people. Enjoy and Merry Christmas.

______________________________________

"THE SPIRIT OF SANTA IS ALIVE AND WELL IN AMERICA - We are a nation built on the essence of Christmas."

"As my grandchildren and I cuddle together on Christmas eve night and look out the window scanning the dark sky for Santa Claus, I will hug them and tell them that Santa Claus is as real as the snow silently falling to the ground outside. With great anticipation, we will sit close together and stare into the heavens searching for Santa Claus and his sleigh being pulled by flying reindeer. In my own grandfatherly way, I will tell them that Santa Claus will live forever in the hearts of those people who live their lives with compassion and love for others. That, I will tell them, is the spirit of Christmas and the spirit of Santa Claus.

Before Christmas Eve, I will take them shopping and find a U.S. Marine Corps Toys for Tots box stuffed full of toys for less fortunate kids. I will tell my grandchildren that Santa Claus put those toys in that box and that the hero warriors of the Marine Corps will deliver them for Santa Claus. Semper Fi.

We will stop and watch people drop their coins in the red buckets of the Salvation Army without any fanfare. I will tell them that Santa Claus lives in the hearts of those people, which is why they put their money in the Salvation Army buckets. God bless them.

I tell my grandchildren that hunters quietly go about providing hundreds of millions of hot meals of pure, healthy venison for the less fortunate all across America through the Hunters Feeding the Hungry program. I will tell them that sharing the annual bounty of God's miraculous creation with the less fortunate is as old as America and pure Christmas spirit.

In my own way, I will tell them that Americans donate millions and millions of dollars to various charities and organizations in hopes of providing a better life for someone else. I will tell them that it is because of the spirit of Santa Claus that they donate their money even when some can't really afford to give any money.

With sleeping, slobbering dogs sprawled at our feet by the fireplace, I will tell my grandkids that whenever a natural disaster happens somewhere around the world, Americans rush to the aid of those hurt, regardless of who they are or what those people believe. That's who Americans are.

I will tell them that far, far away there are Americans fighting evil people so that others can live free. I will tell them that they must keep these brave American military heroes and their families in their prayers each night. They are the best America has to offer. Blessed are the warriors of peace and freedom.

As we stare into the heavens waiting to spot Santa Claus, I will tell them of the time when some people knocked down some of our buildings, and that firefighters and police officers rushed up the stairs of those buildings to try to save people but rushed instead into the comforting hands of God. I will tell my grandkids that those firefighters and police officers who tried to save those people had the spirit of Santa Claus in their hearts.

With the fire crackling and the embers giving off a magical glow, I will make sure to tell them about the news stories I hear of unnamed, ordinary people doing extraordinary things for others. These wonderful, caring people, I will tell my grandkids, are Santa's helpers.

Their eyes will surely grow heavy searching for Santa Claus, and they will slowly drift off to sleep in my arms. I will carefully carry them to bed and tuck them beneath warm covers. Silent night. Sleep in heavenly peace.

Merry Christmas, America. Santa is alive and well in America." Ted Nugent

A NEW "CLAUS" IN FEDERAL RULES COMPLIANCE

2010-12-22T15:17:00.000-08:00

Well, the day is almost upon us. Christmas is just two days away and everyone is scurrying for those lost minute gifts, groceries, or if traveling, is headed for the airport.

Politically, though, we have some other pre-holiday concerns to deal with. Children across the country are concerned that the jolly old elf will make it to their chimneys this year.

In light of heightened security by NORAD, TSA, Homeland Security and other alphabet agencies who plan to apply their politically correct mandates to any potential border busters Santa may be in trouble.

The Jolly Old Elf can't cross the borders without proper "trusted traveler status" (since he is not Hispanic - per Janet Napolitano). He doesn't have the correct "N" numbers on his sleigh (despite the FAA having mislaid the ownership records of hundreds of thousand private aircraft), and hasn't been through the appropriate security checks (including the "toy bag scan" the "reindeer grope" and the "underbeard tickle" (courtesy of the TSA) to determine that he is not bringing any WMEs (weapons of mass enjoyment) like pocket knives, sewing scissors, nail care kits, or other such dangerous items to the boys and girls.

Santa may have trouble as well, if he doesn't have the appropriate license to maintain exotic animal species for the reindeer, a home business license from North Pole County, and of course has documented that he has provided a IRS form 1099 to each gift recipient so that an appropriate income value can be added to their taxable income for 2010.

In addition, the civil rights commission may want to take a look as Santa's subjugation of the minority groups he employs (Elves and toy makers), to see if he has the proper mix of minority and majority group employees. They will also want to determine if the ADA is being complied with (you know those elves are short and may be considered vertically challenged) thus may need accommodations like steps, ladders and such. Also, OSHA may want to take a look at the toy shop to determine if there are sufficient safety protections for the workers.

FDA may need to check the candy kitchen to see if appropriate heath rules are being followed as those Christmas cookies and Candy Canes are being manufactured for global distribution. The State Department will need to review the import/export paperwork to determine if any applicable tariffs have been paid, and to evaluate the exports for restriction from export if too advanced technologically.

Santa also needs to be careful of not running afoul of FCC net neutrality. After all his message is a one sided one of happiness, joy, giving, and charity. The FCC may well want him to give equal time to the Grinch on his web site.

We may also need to evaluate Santa as a home grown terrorist. After all, he would probably make the DHS enemies list, along with military veterans, and the Tea Party members. We need to determine if his "jollyness" and "cheerfulness" are just a facade for a terrorist at heart.

Perhaps Santa should employ Gloria Allred to bring an action for invasion of his rights as a alien (sort of like Niki Diaz who was an alien too).

But maybe again, the best advise we can give this completely altruistic gift giver from the frozen north is to order from Amazon.com, they can get it there on time via Fedex and UPS and you don't even have to tire the reindeer.

READING LIST TO KNOW THE ENEMY

2010-12-17T09:56:00.000-08:00

Unlike the humorous Dr. Evil in the picture, reality is that evil is out there in our world, and much of it is trying to be sold to us in persuasive writing.

Chip Wood of the Personal Liberty Alerts web site presented a reading list of horrors. His explanation makes clear the harm these books have done to free society. Please consider what he has to share.

"Have you read a really bad book lately? No, I don’t mean one of those “beach books” with poor plotting, inane dialogue and pitiful characterization. Lord knows there are plenty of those out there.

No, I’m talking here about some really dreadful books. The ones that helped produce the world’s most ruthless dictators… slaughtered millions of innocent civilians… and created the most misery.

A couple of years ago, Human Events (one of my favorite conservative news-weeklies) asked a group of scholars and public-policy leaders to compile a list of the 10 Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles. They then voted on all books nominated, with the worst (No. 1) getting 10 points, the next getting nine points and so on down the list.

A whole bunch of terrible titles got an Honorable Mention. (Or maybe that should be a Dishonorable Mention.) But here are the Top 10 — the books the scholars credited with causing more harm to mankind than anything else written in the past 250 years.

1. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
There was near-unanimity on the book that deserved the No. 1 slot. The Communist Manifesto received almost twice as many points as the title that captured second place. And is it any wonder? The “dictatorship of the proletariat,” as implemented by Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, led to the wholesale extermination of more than 200 million people.

I’m not talking about the victims of war here, but the systematic slaughter of entire populations as a means of consolidating and preserving state power. Of course the “withering away of the state,” as promised in the Manifesto, has never occurred anywhere communism has been tried. That was nothing more than boob-bait, as H.L. Mencken rightly observed, designed to seduce credulous idealists and immature college students.

2. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) was originally published in two parts in 1925 and 1926, after Hitler was imprisoned for leading the Nazi Brown Shirts in the so-called “Beer Hall Putsch” that tried to overthrow the Bavarian government. In it, Hitler explained exactly what he planned to do once he seized power — murder the Jews, wage war against France and then Russia and establish a thousand-year reign (his “Third Reich”) for the Aryan race.

What a pity that authorities dismissed him as an insignificant annoyance, instead of the evil genius whose efforts would lead directly to World War II, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians, and the slaughter of millions of Jews. They released him from prison instead of saving all of us from a lot of suffering.

3. Quotations from Chairman Mao by Mao Zedong
This tract, also known as “The Little Red Book,” was ostensibly written by the Chinese Communist dictator in 1966, 17 years after he seized power in China and founded the “People’s Republic.” More than a billion copies were distributed in China as part of Mao’s “cultural revolution.”

But believe it or not, Mao’s “Little Red Book” found its greatest popularity among Marxist college professors in the West, who couldn’t get enough of such anti-American pap as this from Chairman Mao: “It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism.”

4. The Kinsey Report by Alfred Kinsey
Kinsey and his staff conducted extensive surveys of American sexual habits, including incredibly explicit one-on-one interviews, in the 1940s. The results appeared in two books — Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, published in 1948, and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, published in 1953. Together, the two became known as The Kinsey Report.

Kinsey, a zoologist at Indiana University, acknowledged that part of his purpose was to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy. One reviewer later noted that Kinsey’s first report “stunned the nation by saying that American men were so sexually wild that 95 percent of them could be accused of some kind of sexual offense under 1940s laws.”

His second report went even further, describing “sexual activity involving girls younger than age 4 and suggest[ing] that sex between adults and children could be beneficial.”

5. Democracy and Education by John Dewey
Here’s a name that isn’t mentioned much anymore, but Dewey’s influence in the first half of the 20th century was enormous. In this 1916 work, Dewey (the “father of progressive education”) denounced education that focused on traditional character development and the accumulation of “hard” knowledge (i.e., facts).

Instead, the secular humanist advocated teaching “thinking skills,” with little concern about what is “right” or “wrong.” We are still paying the price for such idiocy today, nearly 100 years later.

6. Das Kapital by Karl Marx
When he died in 1867, Marx had completed just the first volume of a planned three-volume study. His benefactor Friedrich Engels finished the other two volumes from notes Marx left. In his magnum opus, Marx portrayed capitalism as merely an ugly phase in human development, in which capitalists exploit labor by paying the cheapest wages possible to amass as much wealth as possible. (Sounds like a Barack Obama speech today, doesn’t it?) Such injustice would end, Marx said, in a worldwide proletarian revolution.

7. The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan
In this 1963 bestseller, Betty Friedan, the first of the angry feminists, disparaged stay-at-home motherhood as “a comfortable concentration camp.” Friedan later founded and was for many years the president of the National Organization for Women. Friedan was no mere liberal activist, however. As David Horowitz notes, “from her college days and until her mid-30s, she was a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column, and for a time even the lover of a young communist.”

Friedan’s unattractiveness was much more than skin deep; her ugliness went all the way to the bone.

8. Course of Positive Philosophy by Auguste Comte
I’m not sure how this one made it to Top 10. Like you, I can think of lots of books that have done more damage — starting with Dr. Spock’s baby book, which told generations of parents not to spank their children. Still, this six-volume study, published between 1830 and 1842, is generally credited with creating the field of social studies, or “sociology” (a word Comte coined).
The son of a royalist Catholic family that survived the French revolution, Comte turned his back on theology, bragging that, “I have naturally ceased to believe in God.” Comte taught that man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be, without any reliance on a Higher Power.

9. Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
An oft-scribbled bit of college-campus graffiti goes, “God is dead — Nietzsche,” followed by “Nietzsche is dead — God.” Nietzsche’s contention that “God is dead” first appeared in his 1882 book, The Gay Science, but was expanded and popularized in Beyond Good and Evil, which appeared four years later. In it, the German philosopher argued that all men are driven by an amoral “Will to Power,” and that superior men will sweep aside all obstacles to their ambition, including religiously-inspired moral rules. Not surprisingly, the Nazis loved Nietzsche.

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes
Lord Keynes was an interesting contradiction. A member of the British elite (he was educated at Eton and Cambridge), he did more to popularize ever-expanding government than any other economist of his era. Keynes became immensely wealthy through his investments, yet argued in favor of deficit spending and government borrowing. Long before Richard Nixon famously said, “We are all Keynesians now,” Franklin Roosevelt used Keynes’ arguments to justify the massive growth of government. As a result, today we have a $3.5 trillion Federal budget and a $13.8 trillion national debt. Thanks, Lord Keynes.

Dishonorable Mentions
Want some more really bad books? There are 10 titles that garnered a substantial number of votes, but fell short of the top 10. In order they are: The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, What Is To Be Done by V.I. Lenin, Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno, On Liberty by John Stuart Mill [I don't know why this got included], Beyond Freedom and Dignity by B.F. Skinner, Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel, The Promise of American Life by Herbert Croly, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault and Soviet Communism: A New Civilization by Sidney and Beatrice Webb.

So there you have it — 20 books that have caused unimaginable suffering, horror and devastation in the world. While some of them have (deservedly) disappeared into the trash cans of history, you will still find most of them praised and promoted on our college campuses today.

And allow me to add one more: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Inheritance, by Barack Obama (and William Ayers). This book is credited with helping to launch Obama’s Presidential campaign. You can see where that has gotten us."

Remember the warriors axiom - keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. That is why it is important to understand what these authors are trying to sell.

I am going to add one more book to this list, and that is Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals, which seem to be the Obama play book on getting elected, damaging society and taking away freedom to grant power to vocal minorities. Keep in mind when looking at this play book for dismantling society that Alinsky gave it the following dedication when it was published; " “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer".

I would remind Alinsky, that aside from Lucifer not being a enviable role model, that the kingdom he won deprived many of freedom, free will, choice in their lives, joy, liberty, the opportunity to come to earth as a mortal soul and prove their mettle to return to the presence of God and have a eternity of joy. I would submit that Alinsky's work leads the same place as the work of Lucifer (Satan, the Devil, or whatever else you want to call him) and is nothing but evil.

'nuff said.

PROPOSED ONMIBUS SPENDING BILL PUTS THE LIE TO THE BLAME GAME!

2010-12-16T17:08:00.000-08:00

"B-B-B-but it's His Fault ... He Started It"..... thus echo the words of the school yard bully trying to shift the blame for his behaviour.

Well said, we have screamed for years that the Republicans need to shout it from the mountain tops that it is the Congress that changed hands in 2006 that has made this mess we are in. The President does not make money bills.

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.

So once more, a short civics lesson. Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th. There is no way this will be widely publicized. Unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference. Stay Focused, Connected, Informed & Inspired...

A REAL AMERICAN MUSLIM-NOT HYPHENATED

2010-12-15T10:14:00.000-08:00

Anyone know a good restaurant that serves crow. One of my chief concerns about "Muslim-Americans" is that I have not found any that actively criticize the political Islam, and its use of jihad to pursue its egotistic view that it should control the world and eliminate all who will not enroll.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a physician, former US Navy officer, and head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy appears to be that person.

Find below his recent comments on the subject, written on this date, the date the Bill of Rights was ratified.

"As we celebrate the 219th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights today on December 15, it is imperative that we take a moment to reflect upon and embrace the forethought of our Founding Fathers and apply their wisdom to the context that we live in today. This collection of ten amendments to the United States Constitution are what guarantee the sanctity of our individual rights and freedoms and what in the end sets America apart from any nation before or since.

The Founding Fathers understood that when left to its own devices, government will eagerly trample the individual God given rights of the people and that it was their duty as enlightened leaders to protect at all cost the humanity of law and the freedom of the individual. They declared for people everywhere that a government by the people must not infringe on the basic human rights of man to speak, worship, and assemble with whom they choose, and that ultimate power and authority rests in the hands of the governed not those that would govern.

When we look at the world landscape 219 years later we can see that the Bill of Rights has allowed America to live true to its design and serve as the best laboratory for freedom and liberty the world has ever seen.

Having suffered the tyranny of Syria’s Hafez Assad, it was this promise that brought my family to America in the mid-1960’s. My grandfather and father fought from inside and outside of Syria for a greater Middle East that recognized universal human rights, freedom and democracy. But the secular fascism of today's Bashar Assad, Hosni Mubarak, and Mouamar Qaddafi, is not the only despotism from that area of the world. More and more we are seeing the rise of political Islam (Islamism) as a growing force of oppression within the Muslim consciousness.

My fight today against Islamist radicalism and its supporting Islamist organizations is born from this struggle and will only be won when American Muslims fully embrace the central principles of religious freedom, individual rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and most importantly the Establishment clause, all of which are embodied within the Bill of Rights.

Like America’s fight for freedom from Britain’s monarchy or even America’s fight against communism in the cold war, our war with Islamist radicals is an ideological battle for the individual rights of man. The unifying force behind Muslim radicals is an adherence to the ideology of political Islam and a belief in Islamic supremacy. Just as it was the duty of the Founding Fathers to protect the individual with the creation of the Bill of Rights, it is our duty today as Americans and particularly American Muslims to defeat the pervasive ideology of political Islam and embrace the freedoms and liberty that the American Constitution has guaranteed.

As American Muslims we must accept the mantle of responsibility to bring our faith into modernity and use the example set forth by the Founding Fathers of how faith can thrive when it allows its practitioners the individual freedom to worship as they choose with no faith test for governance.

We must also remember that our nation was built on the ability to openly discuss dissenting opinions on any subject including religion and not allow a victim mindset and political correctness to stifle our ability to solve our problems.

The Bill of Rights is the seminal moment in the fight for individual liberty. Today it is easy to take its importance for granted unless we understand what we lose without its protection. Americans must remember that this document lives so long as we maintain a vigil over its promise and embrace the protection that it guarantees."

Now if we can hear these sentiments from a few Imams, CAIR, and see the active cooperation through intelligence gathering by the American Muslim community to sort out the political Islamists and terrorists seeking jihad from the ones who support Dr. Jasser's views.

WHEN WILL THEY GET IT?

2010-12-14T13:15:00.000-08:00

When will Congress and the White House get smart? They still don't understand the message that the American people sent to them in the mid-term elections this year.

A clear message was sent out that government had to take whatever steps necessary to balance the budget, pay off the deficits and the national debt. The natural result of this is a reduction in the size of government, another desired effect sought by the populous.

Americans are tired of nonsense rules and regulations that defy common sense. They are tired of the generation of legislation so copious that no individual can keep track of the rules they are supposed to live by. They are tired of judges reversing the will of the people, and of a clear attitude in Washington that the Constitution is a rule to be broken whenever it is convenient or expedient to do so.

Yesterday, the federal court in Virginia has started to disassemble the Health Care Bill jammed down citizen's throats. Its forced provisions have been found un-Constitutional as any citizen who understands the document could determine from common sense reading. Government cannot force private contracts, and letting that happen in this or other contexts is a scary attack on individual freedoms. Yet they still argue that the court is wrong. . .

Today, Harry Reid and company have again presented a 1900 page budget bill, loaded with pork and earmarks and demanded that it be passed in three days. Trying again to deny a reasonable time for the review of what is contained. Another Pelosi bill - "You have to pass it to learn what's in it". They just don't learn that American's are wise to this kind of dirty politics. The lame ducks are not going to leave office with the Gold Amex Card prepaid into the future. And this is just finance.

Just in one lifetime, mine, I have seen the severe restriction of liberty. In what name? Often this comes from government desire to expend its reach by justifying needed growth based upon statistical analysis of enforcement of regulation. The real question was were those restrictive regulations necessary for an orderly society?

When I was a kid we often walked from home to a nearby meadow with .22 rifles and pistols to hunt rabbits, ground squirrels and other such game. No one thought anything about that, and the sheriff would wave as he drove by, knowing from his common sense approach, that we posed no threat to anyone. Now days, such brash acts (carrying weapons) would bring out the SWAT Team and the Anti-Terrorist Squad, and next thing you knew, the innocent kids out shooting would be on the NO-FLY lists for the rest of their lives, their guns would be confiscated, their home (their parents home) would be searched for contraband, criminal proceedings would result and while all this was going on, the real terrorist would walk by and laugh.

Home ownership is another ruse. Most in our society look at buying a house as the mark of success as a productive citizen. Analyze what happens when you buy a house. In most cases, (lets suppose a $100,000. house for argument) you make a small down payment and buy a house. You create a lien in favor of a lender, who owns your house until you pay it off over a 25-30 year period, usually paying 3-4 times the purchase price with interest. Then besides paying your lender a big chunk of change, you are also in reality only renting your house. The city or county who assess property tax really own it. They tax you each year, for the privilege of living in your property you are paying the lender for, and if you don't pay or can't pay (sometimes thousands of dollars a year on simple single family homes) they take your home. Then in addition, your lender requires you to buy insurance, flood insurance and pay other fees and costs on top of all this. Own your house? Not really.

Most American's work until some time in April or May each year just to pay all of the tax burdens imposed by many layers of government. So we work only about seven months of each year for ourselves. That is beyond common sense.

Now, I am not advocating anarchy here. We need a federal and local governments. But we need them under some new rules. Just to name a few:

1. Government should not be run by professional politicians. Strict term limits should prevent that, and the intent of the founders that successful individuals come forward for periods of public service. Politics cannot be a career and still have a successful government.

2. All laws enacted by government must apply to everyone-government workers, members of the legislature, everyone. No special systems can exist for any individual group.

3. All laws should have a sunset date and be reviewed for effectiveness before re-enactment or renewal. New laws should pass Constitutional scrutiny before passage, not after. All legislation should be subject to enactment only after a 90 day period with publication, public review and comment.

4. Federal government must be reduced back to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, interpreted narrowly, not broadly by the courts. All other rights are reserved to the States and local governments.

5. Government shall contract with private enterprise for all services which can be so provided. For any function which must be provided by government, employment shall be at will, non-union, and subject to salary setting based on similar work in private enterprise.

There is much more, but these are a good start. Tell your legislators.

GET IT STRAIGHT ABOUT ASSANGE AND WIKILEAKS

2010-12-14T12:33:00.000-08:00

Lets get all the flimflam aside. Julian Assange is a criminal. He attempts to claim immunity under our first amendment as a journalist or publisher, but what he really is is a criminal who at the very least is guilty as a co-conspirator with the gay Army private who in order to vent his frustration with DADT stole hundreds of thousands of confidential and secret government documents which were lawfully entitled to that protection. Assange received the stolen goods, knowing that they were stolen, and then with disregard to the effect the use of those stolen documents might have on others released them under his "whistle-blower banner" claiming some non-existent moral high ground for doing so.

A first year law student could make the case for receiving stolen goods (several hundred thousand counts of that charge), and likely for being an accessory to the theft (again a huge number of counts and lengthy penalties if imposed consecutively). I suspect the private had some prompting. But the legal analysis goes further than this.

What of the effect on third parties caused by this release. Were friendly Afghans and Pakistanis named in the documents murdered when their identities were revealed? What about their families? (Remember the friendly Afghans who rescued Navy Seal Marcus Lutrell?-they took a principled stance and chose their risk) Leak victims don't have that choice. Were military operations compromised by these releases? Will the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan be prolonged by these disclosures which allow the enemy to understand our tactics and strategy? There are endless questions about the effects.

Legally this could lead to charges of treason, murder, attempted murder, reckless endangerment and many other charges. For a soldier like our leaker, it is a potentially capital offense. That may be a risk for Assange as well.

The really disgusting thing about all this is the publicity that Assange is getting, when he is really one of those bottom-feeders like any other tabloid publisher, only he tries to cloak his bad acts in some high morality which really does not exist. He is really political paparazzi looking for his 15 minutes of fame.

We have a system to discover what our government is up to. It is called the Freedom of Information Act. If you believe the government is not acting correctly, or should have its actions disclosed, there are means to do so, and a court system to ensure governmental compliance. Maybe not the perfect system, but workable.

Transparency of government policy and actions is important. But it is also essential that government not be required to take every action in public. Secrecy is a needed tool, particularly in military operations, and there is good reason to have such harsh penalties for violating those rules of secrecy, especially when lives are at risk.

THANKFUL - AND NOT SO. . .

2010-11-23T12:56:00.000-08:00

We are all familiar with the robust bird to the left here, as he graces our Thanksgiving tables, and as he was nominated by Ben Franklin as our national bird.

In modern society "turkey" has become a not so complementary appellation, denoting a person in need of some attitude adjustment, or simply not in tune with the rational majority views.

So as we stop to think about the things to give thanks for approaching this holiday of like name, I wanted to comment on some of the things that I am thankful for, and some I am not so appreciative of.

There are many things to be thankful for in our lives. We have friends, family, loved ones of all descriptions which add joy, happiness, color, diversity and challenge to our lives. You note I added challenge to that list. Well, challenge is a good thing if we respond to it correctly. It strengthens us, helps us build a steely reserve of resolution to prevail, and provides an inspiration to pass those virtues on to others.

I have never met a truly successful business person who did not adhere to the policy that if you raise up the people around you, you will rise with them, and all will prosper - the proverbial "win-win" situation. These people are truly happy, relaxed, confident, and optimistic about their futures, even when times may not be the best.

The people in the business and personal world who view life in "win-lose" are never truly happy. They may accumulate wealth, but they never trust, and they never relax for fear that their bubble will burst. They have not learned that the values in life are not just financial means. Don't get me wrong, being financially successful is a worthy goal, and can provide options you cannot have without it, but it is not the only element of life.

Balance is everything. Learning to have a balance in how your spend your time (for that is a finite resource) is key. You need to balance the time for work, family, fun, service, contemplation and study. If you can do that, the needed success in each element will come.

So, what am I thankful for. . .well, I am not thrilled about some financial challenges of late (mostly tied to the mismanagement of our nation by self-serving politicians who set the stage for this Shakespearean tragedy of an economy) but it does me no good to whine, or complain about things that I cannot effect or undo. Instead, I take this as a challenge I was intended by my maker to face, and I will try and do that with aplomb and come out the other side. Perhaps a bit more worn, but strengthened by the experience.

I am thankful for my family, sometimes prickly, sometimes tired, but always knowing when the supports are needed, and always loving one another at the base.

I am thankful for my faith. It gives me a second family of people who share that vision of eternity and who I can honestly say are a "real" second set of people concerned about me, and I about them. They are a whole whose cumulative strength can always support the one. They remind me of eternal truths that transcend our years on the planet, and offer the comforts needed and the likewise the counsel needed, sought after or unsolicited.

I am thankful for a version of good health. We all pay the price for our sins in the miles we put on our physical bodies, but hopefully we can live out a reasonable time in this life, setting the stage for the next by our vision, knowledge, and dedication to correct principles.

I am especially thankful for my country. Even though I think it has slipped of the tracks set by its founding fathers, I am thankful for what remains, and know that with proper effort it can be returned to the values of self reliance, self sustenance and American exceptionalism that it has demonstrated since its founding. It will overcome the social engineers who want to manage the free will of men, and will take away the power of the self serving.

I have some things that I am not terribly thankful for as well and should get the "modern" definition of turkey applied to them.

Society would be a better place without the costs we incur to supervise a small minority of people, cities and countries who can't seem to live by a set of societal rules which benefit everyone, and provide freedoms and rights for all. Some just have to intrude into the rights of others, and we spend a disproportionate amount of assets as a society policing those few.

I am not happy with the obvious replacement of the will of the people for the interests of individuals which permeates our government. Self interest has replaced what is in the best interest of the whole as the measure of action.

I am not happy with those who will manage my every move (law and regulations beyond the comprehension of any common man, i.e. the IRS Code, Code of Federal Regulations, dictates as to the education of my children, etc., etc, ad infinitum.) , assume my bad intentions (treating everyone like terrorists like the TSA), and using bad judgment in not minimizing these intrusions into my life.

I am not happy with a society which requires locked doors, security systems and insurance to protect against threats which reasonable men would not pose to me and mine. Nor for the government attitude of entitlement to my hard earned dollars and their reversed vision of who works for who.

Systems of values in our society which aggrandize the obscene, immoral, immodest and exalt the purveyors of those values harm us all. Celebration of diversity, which is really perversity, celebrating inclusiveness which is really an excuse to abandon long held moral absolutes, are but a few of the concerns.

In conclusion, I have faith, that there is a majority of Americans who still hold those core ideals of American independence, exceptionalism and individuality. We just have to wake them from a government induced coma to see what is happening, than change will come.

Remember the real reason for Thanksgiving. It isn't just a turkey, a big meal, or a day off from work. It is a celebration of what we have been blessed with, and a reminder of the values we should cherish and support.

STATE EMPLOYEE UNIONS - LOOTERS IN UNION SUITS

2010-11-15T11:54:00.000-08:00

Recently the Medford Mail Tribune published a guest editorial from Ken Allen, who is the director of AFSCME (the public employees union for Oregon). I really questioned his editorial, and wrote an extensive response in the Mail Tribune comments section.

I have to admit I was really put off by the obviously self serving article by Allen, and the Mail Tribune's willingness to publish such an obvious apology piece for the Unions. I was a little strident in my criticism of Allen, and used the bloggers tool of asterisk substitution for a number of letters in a couple of words in the response to express my incredulity with what Allen was selling.

The upshot of this is that when I went back to the Tribune a few days later, my comments were gone. “Surprise Surprise” as Andy Griffith used to say on his TV show, an opposing view disappearing from the Tribune, how could that happen. This is the second time this has happened with them. The last time I got a polite e-mail response saying basically “oops, we made a mistake”.

So, I am going to recreate the article here. Here is the editorial by Allen:

Unions understand we're all in this together

November 14, 2010 – Medford Mail Tribune

By Ken Allen

The election is (finally) behind us, a new governor will take office in January and soon thereafter two important events will occur: the 2011 Oregon Legislature will convene and the state of Oregon will sit down with our union and others to open bargaining on new contracts for state employees.

The Legislature being in session is an important backdrop in this round of negotiations, as it's well known the state faces serious budget challenges in the upcoming biennium. And, as is often the case, many are calling for the budget to be balanced on the backs of the state's workers, whom they see as overpaid.

There are two problems here. One, the state's budget gap of $3.2 billion is exponentially larger than the kind of numbers we'll be bargaining over. Two, quite simply, state employees are not overpaid.

Indeed, there have been several independent confirmations that Oregon's state workers are in fact underpaid when properly compared to their counterparts in the private sector — including academic studies, a state report and exhaustive articles by both the Oregonian and the Salem Statesman Journal.

When I say "properly compared," the key component is examining jobs that require comparable education, experience and duties. It's this type of "apples to apples" comparison that's frequently lacking in debates of public vs. private sector compensation. Conservative talk show hosts, in particular, love to rail on about "average wages" of the public sector vs. the private sector, knowing full well that the private sector includes millions of entry-level and/or otherwise minimum-wage jobs not found in the public sector.

We understand these negotiations will be scrutinized closely. As you read and hear about them in the months to come, I ask you to keep these thoughts in mind:

In Oregon, state employees are under-compensated an average of 4 percent — again, relative to comparable people in the private sector. You can like that or not, but it's the statistical truth.
The key concept for making the comparison is total compensation — the combination of wages and benefits received. Historically, for a number of reasons, public employees have traditionally chosen to receive a higher percentage of their compensation in the form of benefits (which, of course, means their average salaries are even lower relative to the private sector). But total compensation is the true comparable tool.
Given the above, it is disingenuous to simply take a snapshot in time, look at one aspect of total compensation (read: benefits) and denounce that aspect as being "too high." Any such discussion must take place within a historical context.

A perfect example is the current debate over the 6 percent PERS pickup, which began in the 1979-'81 state contract. Opponents of the pickup argue this benefit has grown to be "too much" — frequently they bemoan the fact that it has "compounded over all these years." But state employees gave up 6 percent in wages in exchange for the pickup, so if the pickup had never occurred, state wage schedules would have included that 6 percent compounded over the same number of years. In other words, it's a moot point from a financial impact standpoint.

Our state faces real budget issues, and our members understand this. We are working hard to help identify areas where the state can make savings, and we call on incoming Gov. Kitzhaber to listen to these ideas from front-line state employees. As we enter this crucial round of contract talks, we need to understand we're all in this together.

Ken Allen is executive director of Oregon AFSCME, and the union's chief negotiator in contract bargaining with the state.

Now, I will address the article specifically, and then I will show you why the union's contracts with state government are so damaging.

Mr Allen wants to give us the impression that the unions have recognized the difficulties of the economy and has tempered its requests (demands might be a better word) and is helping Oregon. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Allen then cites several studies/articles for the premise that poor union workers are actually under paid in comparison to private sector workers. The “authorities” he cites are questionable at best, highly suspect, and laughable at worst. Who does Allen rely on? First, news articles by the Oregonian and the Salem Statesman. Not likely they did any real research, nor did anything but regurgitate other sources, mostly provided by the Unions, and since both papers have a strong liberal bias, hardly the type of sources to provide a strong factual support for his thesis.

Next he cites “academic studies”, no name, places, times, or sources. I suspect those come from State institutions, and do you really think they would be recommending cutting their own salaries, and finding themselves to be overpaid. Finally, he cites “a state report”. Again, no name, place, times, research parameters, etc. Again, do we really think state employees compiling such a report are going to recommend they have pay cuts, benefit cuts, or admit they have benefits which far exceed those of the private sector.

So, as you can see his “research and sources” are essentially meaningless.

Next, Allen cites the PERS pick up payment negotiated with the state as being something people oppose without really understanding that union workers gave up other things to get that benefit. Now what that does is require state government to pay a 6% of employee pay to be matched as a contribution to their PERS accounts. That is a huge cost for state government.

I would suggest to Mr. Allen that the entire wage and benefit package to state government is excessive and unconscionable in the realities of this market.

Harry and David Corp, is the the largest employer in Southern Oregon. They employ thousands, and add nearly 6000 more during the holiday season. In the last two years, they have frozen wages, cut 401K matching funds, canceled their pension plan, cut employee hours, laid off workers (sometimes with up to 40 years on the job), and even canceled the annual Christmas Turkey gift. They are the best of times in Southern Oregon, the worst of times is a unemployment figure somewhere between 15-20 percent, so many failed small businesses that the town is starting to look like a ghost town for commercial spaces, and no sign of change in the immediate future.

Lets compare that to Mr. Allen's poor underpaid state employees. Did they get raises without interruption ever since the recession began-Yes. Have their ranks increased despite the state's inability to sustain the employee costs it continues to undertake-Yes. Do state employees have full benefit packages with Cadillac health plans, vacation, sick leave, long and short term disability coverages-Yes. Do they have PERS, a so liberal retirement program that employees can retire with up to 107% of their gross highest pay rate per month-Yes.

So, lets put the real test up to Mr. Allen. How many of his under paid union workers are willing to give up those poorly paid jobs for the private sector? Don't rush to get out of the way, I doubt there is any stampede coming, and that is the real answer. State and other government employees have not felt the pain of the recession. As it worsens, and the state's coffers empty, they simply tax the producing citizens some more to protect themselves as a sort of “super-class” citizen that government will spare the pain of reality.

So, now, lets look at a real union contract. AFSCME puts its contracts up on its website, almost as a boast of the largess it has extorted from a willing victim-taxpayer funds in state hands. This contract is one with the employees of the Oregon Construction Contractors Board. They are an administrative agency which licenses builders, and enforces licensing and insurance requirements on builders. They really perform a redundant service, as the market place and insurance coverages make them mostly unnecessary, and the court system would already provide dispute remedies, but in any event they exist, and we pay for them. Here is what the union negotiated (extorted) for them:

The union can designate “Union Representatives” who can visit the workplaces during work hours and meet with union employees. The union is allowed to use the facilities of the agency (CCB) for its meetings.
A bulletin board should be provided by CCB in every work place to post union business, events, etc.
The union shall be allowed to payroll deduct dues from all employees.
The union may designate a employee to be released from his duties at CCB for up to 1 year from their job to work for the union.
A complex procedure is established to discipline or terminate (almost impossible) any union employee.
A extensive grievance procedure is established allowing union members to complain to the union who then administers their complaint against the employer for any issue. The only limitation is that the issue not be “frivilous”. Thus the union can tie up the employer constantly with “squeaky chair cases” “my co-worker wears strong perfume” cases and other petty complaints which cost time and money to adjudicate.
The union contact specifies how jobs shall be filled, conditions for promotion and transfer, and again creates record keeping requirements that make agency operation more expensive.
Trickle down lay off procedures, which allow union employees to bump other of lessor seniority and lessor pay, if laid off from their present position. This practice insures that no new blood can enter the agency, and that the “Peter Principle” of rising to the level of incompetence is insured for the future.
The contract requires that pay advances be allowed, and be paid back at the employee's option over up to a year with no interest charge for use of the employers money.
Training-the agency must pay for tuition, registration, travel, perdiem pay and salary for training for employees.
When traveling the contract requires that time spent en-route is paid work time. Thus someone being paid to go to a training and flying cross country will be paid for the flight time, travel to and from the airport, travel to lodging and any ancillary expenses.
When employees are sent home due to inclement conditions they shall be paid for the day, regardless of how long they worked.
Employees who work on a holiday are paid overtime rates.
Vacation times of up to a month per year, which can accrue indefinably.
Sick leave – an employee who works 32 hours per month (8 hours a week) gets 8 hours per month of accruing sick leave. Sick leave can be taken when any family member or household resident is sick, even if the employee is well. A doctors note is needed only after 5 days consecutive use of sick leave.
Each employee gets three days per year unspecified leave along with all other benefits.
Each employee get a 3 ½ day “pre-retirement counseling” leave.
Employees are to be paid while making blood donations.
The employer shall pay for the health plan designated for every employee with health, dental, life insurance as long as they work 10 hours a week.
The state shall pay the employee contribution to PERS for the employees retirement plan. If this provision is prohibited by law, then the employer must increase base pay by a like amount.
The contract limits replacing employees with cheaper contract services without extensive feasibility studies, which likely make such changes prohibitively expensive, and thus discourage thrift in agency administration.
Pay rates – the lowest gross pay in the agency is $1915. per month. The highest is $7368. per month. Sound like what available in private enterprise?

This list is not exhaustive, it is just a sampling of the major provisions of the contract.

If you believe that this is what is available in private enterprise, particularly in Southern Oregon, then welcome to fantasy land. Most jobs are service jobs, most pay near minimum wage, raises are non-existent, benefits are few and far between. But this union boss want us to believe in the poor under paid union worker. You decide.

FURTHER ADVENTURES OF A ROOKIE C.A.S.A.

2010-11-12T13:54:00.000-08:00

A few months have passed now since I completed my CASA training, and entered the field as a fully qualified, though rookie case worker.

If you recall the earlier posts, CASA's are court appointed advocates for the children who through no fault of their own have come under the purview of the State in either dependency actions against their parents or by being placed in foster care by State order.

These are not delinquent kids, under State control due to their bad acts, though many have some problems of their own due to the nature of their upbringing.

Well, last spring I received my first case as a CASA advocate. It involved two children who were in a situation where they were placed with their mother, but were under State order due to both parents having present or prior issues with controlled substances which had impaired their ability to parent these kids. This, as CASA cases go was a pretty mild one. Both parents were willing to be compliant with the court, both entered treatment/parenting classes, and both were obstensibly working toward a better future. The case has continued until this month when it was dismissed on the request of the State which I will discuss more later.

So, what was it like to be a CASA for these kids? Well, I met with them on an irregular basis, I spoke with both parents on an ongoing basis, and I attended some school activities of both kids with the goal in mind to let them know that they had someone in their corner.

In the course of the case, I wrote recommendations to the Court, some of which were followed and some which were not. I wrote a recommendation on the State seeking to dismiss the case opposing that action and making recommendations for a bit more supervision by the Court before cutting these folks loose from the system.

My recommendation was not followed by the Judge. I don't have a lot of argument with that as I understand that this is a triage situation where limited resources have to be used where they can be used to best advantage (both court, State system, caseworkers, etc). So now the kids are on their own. I wish them well, as I do the parents, and hope they can stay clean and keep the priorities right as they go forward.

Was this a smooth situation to handle, and did the system run flawlessly-no. The system seemed to meet the needs of the family as to the major issues that had caused the involvement to start with, but it missed the opportunity to make this more effective yet, by addressing other issues that existed in the family dynamics.

I can't get into too many specifics as that would breach confidentiality as to who the parties to this case were. What I can say is that the parties cooperated with me, after getting over a little initial caution about who I was and what my role was, better than the caseworker from the State did.

When you are assigned a case, the first step is to go read the State's file, then meet with the caseworker. I arranged that and after reading the file (about a foot thick-due to a long history with the system by both parents) met with the caseworker and my case supervisor from CASA. From that first contact, I was confronted with hostility by the case worker. I am not sure why, a few theories have been expressed by those I work with and other experienced CASAs but I can't definitively say.

I will tell you the impression that I got though. Now remember I am a retired attorney with 20 years in the trenches doing both domestic and juvenile/dependency cases, so I am not a rookie in that sense. In my first meeting with the case worker it was apparent that my opinion was neither desired or given any credence. My suggestions for the best interest of the children were dismissed as inconsequential. My questions about the situation were met with resistance by the case worker who acted as if she was unwilling to share information with me as it might support my contentions. I walked away from that meeting shaking my head and saying to myself "Wow, that is not what I expected". In training, and in my prior law life, cooperation was always the key, especially when dealing with children, and I had just had a total lack of that demonstrated by the caseworker.

I inquired of my supervisor at CASA if she felt I had done something to offend and cause that response, and was basically told no, that the caseworker had sensitivities which I may have offended, but they were not case related. Again, I can't go into more detail, lest individuals be identified.

I went on handling the case, and all went reasonably well. The case progressed, my contact with the kids and the family were fine, and while there were hic-ups when some backsliding happened, it was addressed and progress seemed to be being made. I had no real need to communicate with the case worked except to point out in a couple of e-mails that the court in its first hearing had ordered that certain actions be taken by the State and some were not being following in a way that I thought met the spirit of the order.

Each time I would communicate with the caseworker I would receive a defensive response, which I disregarded. I never received a communication that was in the spirit of cooperation. Finally, after the caseworker suggested the idea to dismiss the case, I made a recommendation that while I generally supported that, that I suggested that a dismissal be held until after the first of the year. The holidays is often a period of temptation for substance abusers and I felt that if the parents made it through without a slip, it would be appropriate to go ahead and dismiss the case.

Rather than consider that proposal, the caseworker immediately set about the legal mechanisms to bring the case to dismissal immediately. I filed a report with the court giving my recommendations, and in response the case worker filed a multi-page response to my short letter seemingly more attempting to defend their position, than to address the best interests of either the parents or children. The case was dismissed.

Maybe this was just an anomaly or some bad chemistry, but I didn't see the state's representative, the caseworker on the case as being as concerned with protecting the children as with protecting a very delicate ego. I hope this will not prove to be a norm.

After the first of the year I will take my next case, and will report back to you later on how my experiences as a CASA develop. My CASA kids were great, and I believe the program is of great value to both the system and the kids to protect which may become overlooked interests in these stressful situations for families. I just hope the state does better next time.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER TO LAUGH OR CRY

2010-11-09T10:48:00.000-08:00

Recognize the face in the mug shot. Yes, that is Bernadette Dorn, wife of Bill Ayers. The two were members of the Weather Underground in the 1960's, and are both unrepentant perpetrators of bombings and murders in the name of radical left wing politics.

Where are they now? Ayers you know about from his close connections to our president. Dorn, get this, is a law professor at Northwestern University.

This criminal turned liberal advocate has the following to say on November 5th this year.

On November 4, 2010, Dohrn was interviewed by NewsClick India. About the "Right" in the U.S., she said, "It’s racist; it’s armed; it’s hostile; it’s unspeakable." Referring to the Restoring Honor rally which was promoted by Glenn Beck and held on August 28, 2010, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., "You have white people armed, demanding the end to the [Obama] presidency." She also stated, "The real terrorist is the American government, state terrorism unleashed against the world."

Does anyone give any credibility to this Saul Alinsky radical, who still advocates violence and doesn't regret crimes which harmed many back in the '60s when she tells us the Tea Party or the Glenn Beck rally is "armed white people"?

The temptation is to say, "what a joke". The danger is that students at Northwestern are being taught by this type of person, a admitted criminal who skated on serious charges due to faulty evidence.

Who next Major Hassan teaching military science?

WHY THE DEMOCRATS MUST GO

2010-11-01T14:18:00.000-07:00

     On this last day before the mid-term elections, I was sitting and pondering what some of the issues that unresolved voters must consider as they enter the voting booth tomorrow. One of the best graphics that I could think of to persuade that the Democrats have to go is the chart above. This is the flow chart of the government heath care plan. Envision yourself entering this plan with a diagnosis of cancer, and consider what your chances are to come out the other side with adequate treatment and a cure (assuming one is available and you can get it approved through this maze of boards, panels, committees, and bureaucracies.

     Is this really how you want your health care administered? Is how you want any segment of your life administered? This is what the Obama administration and the Democratic party want to bring to you. They want to enact a government structure which will affect every breath you take, dollar you spend, what you can buy and own, where you can live and work, how much money you make, and if you should dare to make more, they will re-distribute that to others they have defined as "more needy".

   I am not sure the Republicans can resist the lure of power that Washington seems to infuse into all that come there from the voting box, but I know the Democrats can't, and that is enough for me to vote against them and in favor of the most conservative candidates that I can find.

     I hope that a sea change, which appears present, from the Tea Party levels of support, will resolve these issues. But if it doesn't, then I fear that there will be outright rebellion. There are still too many individuals (in the best sense of the word) who have had enough, and don't plan to take it anymore.

     Reduce the size of government (by half would be a good start). Reduce the debt (encumber business with reduction of red tape and regulation). Return to the fundamentals of the Constitution and require all legislation to pass Constitutional scrutiny before legislative vote. Establish term limits for all federal elective positions and eliminate percs, health programs for elected officials, and especially eliminate retirement benefits for service in elected positions. Make all legislative enactments applicable to everyone including congress.

     American exceptionalism has flourished when government interference was minimized. We have to return to that unification of America.We must oust politicians who characterize their opposition as "enemies", and rather elect those who use their differences to stimulate discussion which can lead to consensus on what is in the best interest of the nation (within Constitutional limits).

     Vote-Vote right-Vote after self educating yourself for the best interest of the nation, even if it means putting your individual interests in second place.

POLITICAL INSANITY RUNS RAMPANT

2010-10-31T12:55:00.000-07:00

Like the cartoon, depicting the fraud of the Iranian presidential elections, I am fearful that it reflects much of what is wrong in American elections, and not getting any better.

Consider what we have seen this election season.

1. Numerous and frequent personal attack ads. From the insanity of attacking personal religious beliefs, to equating politicians and their supporters to Nazis, baby killers, and of course the greatest sin of all, questioning the "Anointed One".

2. We have seen main stream media engage in partisan politics, and the simple definition of the term "reporter" has been redefined as "commentator or editorial writer". It seems that simple "reporting" of facts, and allowing the public to decide what their importance is is all but gone in America. The mainstream media has become a supporting wing of the liberal/progressive view of political.

3. In the meantime, we see citizens apparently looking to comedians (Colbert & Stewart) for political guidance. These comedic pundits are host to politicians on their shows, right up to the chief executive of our Country. The "Dude" as Jon Stewart referred to him on air (what happened to respect of the office) comes to the media in his constant campaigning for his next run at the ballot box.

4. Election mechanics has become a questionable venture in America. Ballots are falsified, ghost voters are registered and someone votes for them. Voting machines are behaving strangely after maintenance by SEIU union members, who have a distinct bias. Youthful voters are taken to the polls by teachers after only being shown ballots with one parties candidates listed, then given ice cream for having voted appropriately. Black Panthers are allowed to intimidate voters, and the Justice Department turns a blind eye. The internal workings of the elections enforcement division of the Justice Department reveals racial prejudice and a conscious decision to not protect Caucasian voters or protect them from fraud or intimidation at the polling place. Liberal courts proclaim that it is not necessary to identify yourself as a citizen to register or vote. And the insanity goes on and on.

5. In the last election cycle, SEIU thugs intimidated authorized participants in caucus votes to keep them from even being able to get into the room to cast their ballots unless they would affirm their intent to vote as directed, i.e. for Obama.

6. Lies! How many out-right lies have been published about candidates personal history, who they associated with, what they believe and what smudges may be on their past history all the way back to high school. Do we really care if a now candidate engaged in pranks as a college student?

The interesting analysis of this is that the real unfairness issues in this election cycle come from the liberal progressive side. The conservative side of the elections have simply said that what the Obama administration is doing is contrary to the Constitution, is aimed at a socialistic world government in the model of Europe (which is failing there as we speak), and takes the nanny state attitude that government knows better than the citizens how they should live their lives, spend their money, and we need a huge governmental mechanism to protect the individual. What it really amounts to is a redistribution of wealth, and actually take away individual power of self determination and bestow it on those elites who have cornered enough money and power to lure the unsophisticated voter to favor them with promises of government largess.

Every American needs to reflect on a view that is larger than self interest. Where do we want our lives to go, and the lives of our children and grandchildren to go in the next century. Do we really want failed models to be reapplied in the classic definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result) or do we want a return to a smaller, less intrusive national government, restoring most decisions concerning the body of citizens to come at the state and local levels, and following the model of the Founding Fathers which led to coining the term American exceptionalism. Or do we want to have everyone's initiative be repressed by a government that gets in the way of growth, development, success, and every other aspect of life which it thinks will give power to the few at the top?

Those of you over 40-do you think your children have the same freedoms you had as a child? Do you think your children have the sense of limitless possibility that you had? I don't see that in my children and many others that I have talked to. They are anxious about their futures, feel that they have been let down by inferior public educations, and have a sense of hoplessness that is truly disturbing.

The legacy has to change to return America to its place in exceptional spirit, growth and success.

AMERICAN WORKERS FORCED TO FUND LIBERAL CAUSES

2010-10-22T13:37:00.000-07:00

As the picture at the left represents, unions representing public employees (the largest are SEIU, AFSCME and PCS) which represent millions of government employees across the nation have become a political force in elections across the nation.

As of today, just 10 days from election day, the major public employee unions have spent $180,000,000.00 in their attempts to effect election outcomes.

Universally, these unions support Democratic liberal/progressive candidates. The "Why" is simple. They are supporting those candidates who support big government, the expansion of government, and bigger government spending.

An interesting statistic is that 45% of union members vote Republican/conservative. That means that nearly half of all union employees are forced to pay into union general funds which support politicians and political positions they don't believe in. In the Obama administration particularily the influence is apparent. The former president of the SEIU Andy Stern is the most frequent visitor to the White House, period. No one person in or out of government (who doesn't work there) spends as much time at the highest level of our government than the former president of the largest union representing government employees. Is there something wrong with this picture? Is there something especially wrong with this when SEIU was the single largest donor to the Obama campaign? Is there something especially wrong with this when we hear of the purple shirted SEIU thugs breaking up presentation of opposing views at political caucuses?

Like the military, should not public employees and their unions be barred from political speech due to their obvious conflict of interest between the workers/unions and the people for whose service government exists?

Look at the poster above from the PCS. It, aside from it obvious insinuation of racism against anyone who would be in favor of cutting government spending (using a sad looking poor Latina worman when in fact this is not the typical government employee), is that this is somehow fundamentally unfair to government employees. It reflects this sense of entitlement that we are now seeing in France as their government struggles with balancing budgets and reducing unsustainable public benefits. The French are rioting in the streets, burning cars and shutting down working businesses in protest of what-extending the date for going on France's version of Social Security from age 60 to 62. The PCS would have you think the same thing. They would say it is fundamentally unfair to cut government spending and benefits of employees. Never mind that in most cases their pay and benefits far exceed the private sector for the same levels of skill and education.

What the government employees unions don't recognize is that they don't produce anything. At least when the steam fitters, plumbers, or carpenters unions support politicians and legislation, they are doing it with a history of their labors being productive, not consumptive. Government does not produce anything, or generate revenue except what it coerces from citizens as taxes and various user fees for government services.

The even larger credibility gap in union thinking comes from the idea that they can continue indefinately expanding government jobs, benefits, and revenue from taxpayers. Don't these people understand that this is socialism, and "other people's money" is going to run out?

We need to take the public employees unions out of the political equation. Until we do there is no hope for government acting in the best interest of the tax payers. Government jobs cannot be protected, but have to be subject to elimination or reduction on their sheer merit. The unions, which have been government granted legal consent to tax their members and use those monies for political purpose are not acting in the best interest of America and that has to be the governing standard.

2010-10-12T10:06:00.000-07:00

As we approach the mid-term elections and the issues are drawn in the minds of Americans, the gloves have come off the Democrats as they continue to run either against their own president's policies, or alternatively by slamming opponents in attack ads which are continually being unmasked as outright lies.

The president in the mean time, ideologue that he is, still believes that he can sell his failed programs on the arguments "well, but for what we did, it would have been worse".

So, what do Democrats have to sell? Not much. It is hard to find a Dem who has an original ideal. They cannot abandon their liberal base and do the right thing by supporting smaller government, eliminating unnecessary agencies which don't produce results for the general population, and get rid of earmarks for obscene art (NEA), ridiculous studies for hundreds of thousands of dollars, perks like unlimited government jets for politicians (Queen Pelosi costing us millions a year to go home for the weekends-with entourage).

Certainly, Republicans have not always been faithful to their conservative base, and have added to the overall problem, but with them, there is at least the potential for moves in the right direction. Tea Party candidates are causing some "come to Jesus" moments for fence sitting or RINO (Republican In Name Only) conservatives, and this will likely continue.

To quote the movie "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

The citizens who pay the bills should be out there to a man/woman voting for conservative candidates in this election.

Oregonians have a special interest in this, as a Democratic governor who recieved an F rating nationally has driven the state near bankruptcy with voting support of a Democratically controlled legislature. Oregon has driven business away from Oregon with taxes and red tape bureaucracy, and with a PERS system that is assured to crash the state's economy unless revised, by the same people who benefit from its present largess.

Its time for a change if we want to regain the freedoms and recoup some portion of the financial losses that these governments, both state and federal are continuing to cause to citizens and taxpayers.

SLEAZY LAWYER+SIMPLE DEFENDANT+POLITICAL MOTIVE=ALLRED IN ACTION

2010-09-30T12:17:00.000-07:00

Gloria Allred, "Celebrity Lawyer" is in the news again, as she loves being. Calling her a "Celebrity Lawyer" is a bit of a misnomer, as what she is usually up to is suing celebrities on behalf of "little people", ex-significant lawyers, and others who can put heat on a deep pocket defendant and get some settlement money, and some PR for Gloria in the process.

Well, Gloria, a well know Democrat sympathizer, and supporter of Jerry Brown in his run for the gubernatorial seat in California. In fact she has donated to the Brown campaign.

So guess what, now on the closing days of the campaign, as Brown is losing ground to opponent Meg Whitman, Gloria has found a plaintiff an illegal alien, who in the midst of a flow of crocodile tears claims Whitman knowingly employed her and did her wrong.

So, here are the facts. Whitman had employed the woman for 9 years. She was hired through an employment agency who verified her credentials to work. She falsely filled out documents claiming to be a citizen, presented a false social security card and drivers license to support those claims. Whitman did her due diligence by using the agency to verify these facts.

The woman (who was paid $23. per hour for housework and such) now claims to have been abused, by being terminated when Whitman learned she was an illegal, not having been paid overtime for hours worked, and not being reimbursed for mileage driven with her illegal drivers license.

Allred orchestrated a major outlets press conference to present the weeping woman, who was obviously coached to tell her tawdry tale. She didn't in a lawyerly manner send a demand letter to Whitman for compensation for alleged wrongs, she instead played the political card as that is how she builds her reputation, and in the process benefits her buddy Jerry Brown by smearing the Whitman campaign with a situation chocked full of gray areas.

Nicky Diaz had been discharged some time ago. She had never made a claim to Meg Whitman of any compenstion problems, and had represented herself as a legal worker. She claimed a letter was received by Whitman from the government indicating that the social security number she gave did not match her identification. However, Whitman has no record of such a letter and the Social Security Administration cannot confirm that such a letter went out to Whitman, and indicated that it may have gone only to the employee.

So what do we have here? We have a sleazy lawyer using her celebrity to manipulate a simple working worman to benefit her buddy running for Governor of California. Can anyone not assume that Ms Diaz was not pushed into the arms of Allred who smelled blood in the political water if she could accuse Whitman of misconduct and sway the important Hispanic vote in California.

Dirty politics, dirty lawyering, should someone ask the California Bar to take a look at this one?

CAUTION - ELECTIONS MUST BE WATCHED CLOSELY

2010-09-28T09:59:00.000-07:00

With the mid-term elections coming there is another front which conservatives need to be manning. That is the protection against voter fraud.

Our last election proved that the liberal progressive Democratic party considered any means appropriate to the end of election success.

Remember Acorn? Acorn registration teams registered Mickey Mouse to vote over 26 times, registered felons (who lack the right to vote), and often registered the same people multiple times in the same and different precincts. The entire Dallas Cowboys football roster was registered to vote in Las Vegas and it goes on and on.

Now a group of concerned citizens have opened this wound in America's political body by examining voting records in Houston Texas. What they found is probably symptomatic of other urban and mid-size cities across the nation and needs to be examined.

After the 2008 election a group of friends were talking about irregularities which they saw at election time. The decided to look further and formed the group True the Vote and enlisted others help to investigate. They obtained all of the available public records from the Harris County (Houston) area, which is the largest county in Texas, and can swing many elections.

Their first look was at homes with more than six voters registered there. Statistically, they found that Democratic leaning precincts had more than 25% more high voter/residence ratios. Then they started checking those multiple registrations, as many as 40 to a single address and found vacant lots, halfway houses with 8 beds where there were more than 4 registrants to each bed, same name registrations many times and other questionable situations. Single voter registration workers were found to have registered so many people in one day that it would have been physically impossible to do so legitimately. They observed election judges (typically from both parties in every precinct) when asked to help a voter who had a question, actually voting for the elector.

The Houston investigation focused in on a particular registration project, run by a former SEIU employee (who'd have guessed). When confronted he tried to put the blame off on his staff, stating that he had fired people, but he claimed to stand by the integrity of his work. After the matter was referred to the District Attorney in Houston he was mysteriously unavailable for comment.

If this happened in Houston, you can bet it happened in every other city of any size. These voter fraud experts hide in the myriad numbers of large bodies of registrants, and skew vote outcomes with these phantom electors. Regardless of your party preference, every true American should have a vested interest in seeing that elections are carried out honestly and with integrity. If you value your parties winning over honesty and integrity in the election process, just remember if that become the norm, it could be used against you as well as for your benefit.

Unfortunately, the Obama machine set the standard of this manipulation of the vote in its handling of caucuses where SEIU thugs, and Obama electors systematically excluded Clinton electors in those states which used this system for selecting party nominees. They set a standard we should not want to follow. Chicago politics (vote early and often) is not a model to emulate. Be conscious of what is going on in your precinct this coming election or your may not win - even if you win.

A NEW DECLARATION IN THE FACE OF A NEW TYRANNY

2010-09-27T12:24:00.000-07:00

Pictured at the left are the founding fathers as they formulated the plan for the establishment of these United States of America.

From time to time I review their words, and over the weekend re-read the Declaration of Independence (I have copies of the founding documents on my smartphone).

Refreshing the thoughts expressed by the founders in my mind it struck me that much of what they were expressing their unwillingness to accept at the hands of the British monarchy has a ring of application to the situation today under the tyranny of the Obama administration, their system of Czars appointed without consent of Congress and the complete lack of consideration of the will of the people who empowered the government to have certain limited powers over them.

The complaints seemed so similar to those of the original declarants of independance from Britian.

In light of this, a light came on, perhaps I could thoughtfully draft a revision of the original Declaration of Independence intended for application today. I do this with great humility, and not presupposing to have the skills or the intellect of the founders. Those prescient men, who saw the wisdom in creating the government of the Constitution, limited as it was intended, granting the majority of rights to the States would be shocked at what liberal progressive adminstrations starting back with Theodore Roosevelt have wrought upon their creation. I believe they would agree with my restatement of their document for application to the present situation, and would probably consider whether rebellion at the ballot box was sufficient to slay the monster in Washington which mocks their creation. Therefore, I propose the following to every American citizen who values the independence, individual integrity, self sufficiency and freedoms granted by God and quantified by our founding fathers:

New Declaration of Independence

Edits are provided by the author-with the intention of

demonstrating the current application of this document

to the nation in 2010.

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Citizens of the Fifty United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to reform the political bands which have connected them with whose who lead them, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the declaration.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present adminsitration of government by Barack Obama and the Democratically controlled congress is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
They have refused to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. (laws concerning the moral good as suggested by the framers).
They has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance (i.e. the Arizona immigrantion enforcement law), unless suspended in their operation till assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.
They have refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people (the failure to enact legislation for the good of the people rather than in support of ideological goals of the administration) , unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
They have called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. (the unconfirmed by congress appointments of “czars” granted powers to make national government policy).
They have dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. (failing to have the justice department enforce elelction laws without regard to the race of the victim of criminal offense).
They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. (By refusal by the government to take firm defensive positions against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, North Korea threatening use of nuclear weapons, and administered war policy in Afghanistan based upon political considerations rather than in the interests of the citizens).
They have endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. (Refusal to enforce existing immigration laws in an orderly fashion, close the borders from illegal entry, filing suit against the states who seek to enforce those laws, the creation of unjustified National Monuments for the ulterior motive of support of an environmental agenda, taking control of such laws away from the states.)
They have obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. (By the appointment of ideologues without judicial qualification to the courts of the land to sway judicial decisions for political cause.)
They have made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. (19000 new IRS agents to enforce the unconstitutional Health Care Legislation)
They have kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. (An implied threat of imposition of martial law, or criminal action against those who oppose the opinions of the administration.)
They have affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. (They have in fact sought to disenfranchise the votes of those serving in the military, weaken the military, and defund it from its proper purpose of providing a defense of the nation.)
They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation (support of the United Nations):
For imposing taxes on us without our consent (i.e. the health care legislation which unconstitutionally required purchase of a private product under penalty of law):
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments (through the attempts to change our representative democracy to a socialistic/Marxist tyranny):
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever (the arrogant attitude of the administration and congress that it knows what is best for the citizens when they have expressed their clear opposition to certain types of governance and by usurping the powers of the States bestowed by the Constitution).
They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection and waging war against us. (to wit imposing legislation against the will of the electorate).
They have plundered our seas (mismanagement of the Gulf Oil Spill), ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people (caused loss of retirement funds and financial wealth of the people in the attempt to subjugate the people).
They have excited domestic insurrections amongst us (by accusing those who dissent of being a potential threat to the nation as domestic terrorists), and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. An administration, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Washington brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, in local groups and individually, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these states, solemnly publish and declare, that these united states are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the Obama administration and all members of congress who ignore the will of the people, and that all political connection between them and the present administration, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as sovereign citizens, they have full power to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Signed: The Citizens of the United States of America, specifically the fifty sovereign States.

Emphasis supplied. Copyright ©Raymond R. Smith 2010

WHY INCUMBENTS FROM BOTH PARTIES MUST GO. . .FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS.

2010-09-26T10:36:00.000-07:00

In the coming mid-term elections it has been a given that Democrats need to be defeated to re-balance power in Congress and end the arrogance of the Obama administration in thinking it can do whatever it wants, voters be damned. This week, it was Republicans who evidenced why we need to change out the incumbents in Congress and take a different approach to choosing our leaders. Ideas like term limits, and limitation of special privileges for government service in elected office are making more sense.

What happened was this. As you are aware Sen. Lisa Murkowski was defeated in the Republican primary in Alaska for "her" senate seat by Joe Miller, a true conservative to her RINO posture.

Having lost the primary fair and square, rather than gracefully bowing out, and supporting her parties candidate, Murkowski has now vowed to run a write-in campaign to defeat Miller. Her self serving move will likely hurt the Republican chances to hold that seat in the senate.

Senate Republicans this week held a meeting in Washington, to determine whether to strip her of her committee assignments, as a punishment for her failure to support Miller in the mid-term election. After a secret ballot, it was announced that she would be allowed to retain her seats on committees, despite the fact that she will no doubt flaunt those assignments in her campaigning against the official Republican candidate Miller.

So, this conservative is today taking aim on the Senate Republicans who voted for Murkowski as being part of the problem in Washington.

The entire mentality of an entitlement to remain in office once elected has to be brought to an end. It is this very self serving attitude that has led to a body of career politicians who are totally out of touch with average Americans, and who are concerned first and foremost with "self". Now if this isn't an oxymoron for someone in "government service" who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution and been elected as a servant of the people, I don't know what is.

The acts this week by the Senate Republicans have demonstrated that they need to be looked at just as closely as Democrats in the coming elections. Party is not a defense. Granted, while Democrats will likely do more harm to our nation in the short term, RINO Republicans are just as damaging and disingenuous in the long run. And, curiously, this vote makes every Republican who voted for Murkowski fair game, as they don't understand that they work at the pleasure of the people, as do their colleagues. No one owns a seat in Congress. There is no Kennedy chair, or Murkowski chair. Term limits and perks limits would address this issue permanently.

Republican leaders should be called upon to disclose who voted for and against Murkowski so that those Senators constituents can factor that conduct into their voting decisions.