As we speak, four men are in custody that Fate tied together. One, a known, wanted terrorist who’s known crimes against Americans are too gruesome to even describe on the nightly news. The other three are members of one of the most esteemed, honorable, and lauded military organizations ever created. In a time of war against Muslim terrorists, common sense would dictate that justice would be on the side of those fighting on our behalf. Logic would use the history of actions committed by terrorists, both on the battlefield and in custody, to predict the behavior of one that has been captured. Patriotism and belief in the justness of the cause for which we fight would combine to give our soldiers a wide berth when dealing with our enemies.

None of these are being implemented in the case against Matthew McCabe, Julio Huertas, Jr, and Jonathan Keefe. These three courageous boys are members of SEAL Team 10, and had been among those to capture Ahmed Hashim Abed. Abed remains a captured al Qaeda terrorist, wanted for the slaying of four Blackwater security contractors (and former commandos themselves) in a most heinous fashion. These three SEALs are being charged with either abusing Abed, or covering up the abuse.

A poll of 100 random Americans, if shown the pictures of the charred bodies of four of our citizens hanging from a bridge, would find 99 of them volunteering to “abuse” Abed. I would count myself among them. Abed does not possess the sense of decency we do. He could have held the Blackwater members captive, fed, clothed, and cared for their medical needs – as we do – in a comfortable cell. He showed no such compassion. He murdered them, burned their bodies, then dragged their charred remains through the streets among cheering crowds. Since that did not satisfy his evil desires, he then hung the bodies from a bridge to be played with by locals (including children) and called several news agencies to take pictures such as this one.

In capturing Abed, who was armed at the time of his capture, no SEAL harmed him. At that time, they could have, or even shot him, but they didn’t. He was also initially turned over to Iraqi police. It was back in U.S. custody that the alleged “abuse” occurred. It is also well known that al Qaeda training manuals instruct terrorists to claim abuse while in custody, even to the point of self-inflicting wounds as “evidence”. Abed’s word should mean nothing. The government has not released photographs or video of the injuries (it is undergoing “classification review”), and balked at allowing our soldiers to directly face him at their courts-martial. The government has also delayed the case, presumably because the only credible witness to the abuse, a third class master-at-arms, can’t seem to get his story straight. At least five different statements by the unnamed sailor have been made and appear to conflict with each other.

The SEALS initially were faced with an Article 15 “Captains Mast”, which is a non-judicial proceeding by their commanding officer. All three declined as it is viewed as an admission of guilt. These soldiers wanted their day in court knowing that a guilty verdict in a courts-martial will carry a harsher sentence. Guilty people try to find a way to avoid harsh sentences, innocent people want to clear their name.

When boiled down to the nutshell version, this smells like a witch hunt. Why the master-at-arms is lying is anyone’s guess at this point, but people telling the truth don’t give conflicting statements, though they may add or delete details as time progresses. The bigger question, however, is why does anyone care about the alleged “abuse” of this piece-of-trash? Americans don’t care. At least 40 Congressmen don’t care. In the wake of Abu-Ghraib, I can understand some heightened sensitivity toward claims of abuse, but also understand that everyone in the military does not want a repeat of those actions. Our soldiers are going out of their way, and often being put in harms way, to avoid harming prisoners of war. I have also had the honor of knowing many Navy SEALS, these men do NOT lie to their commanding officers. They are among the most honorable people I have ever met. In other words, I would take the word of one SEAL over the word of 10 masters-at-arms and 1,000 terrorists. When three SEALS tell the same story, only the direct Word of God could convince me they are lying.

And Abed’s “abuse”, seriously, is merely a punch in the stomach. It is in their charge-sheets. So apparently on top of being a complete waste of carbon, Abed also lacks the intestinal fortitude to injure himself properly or thoroughly.

The SEALS still need our help. For more information on how you can help, and more details on this case, please go here. They have sacrificed so much for us, the least we can do for them is write a letter or make a phone call. For these three men to even stand trial is the greatest travesty of justice I have ever witnessed.

One Thousand Five Hundred and Two Pages. The Senate Finance Committee’s Health Care Bill has finally been unveiled. [Ed - If you care to do something almost no Senator will do, you can read it here. Of course, I don't recommend printing it out, you'll go through three full reams plus two annoying extra sheets, and the Sierra Club is notified when any citizen purchases more than two reams of paper per year.].

Upon release of this bill, Nancy Pelosi “looked shocked,” according to unnamed sources close to the Speaker adding, “of course, she kinda always looks shocked, so I’m not sure it was the bill.” Barbara Boxer was seen throwing a fit and ranting about the Finance Committee just “showing off,” and that the bill would never be accepted because it was written by “a bunch of white people.” At least, those were the words we could print.

Charles Schumer, upon hearing about the released bill, ran over two congressional pages and one little old lady from Lincoln, NE to tell CNN how please he was with their “bi-partisan achievement.” John Kerry, asked to comment as well, mumbled something unintelligible before falling back to sleep. We looked for Olympia Snowe, who was believed to be hiding in the men’s room, but we were unable to confirm that report.

Our intrepid Washington reporters will bring you additional information, as it becomes available.

Not in the distant future, we [Iran] will take revenge…

Of course, our State Department denies any involvement and condemned the attack.

Reports of alleged U.S. involvement are completely false.

Is this what Vice President Biden was talking about when he said the world would test Obama? Probably not. It will however damage the talks in Vienna due to begin tomorrow. We know this because we can use what we know of Iran’s leadership (i.e. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is flippin’ crazy) to come up with an educated guess of their intentions. While I would not doubt Ahmadinejad is capable of hiring a bomber to kill his own people in a publicity stunt, and you must admit – the timing is perfect, whether he did or not is irrelevant. He will use this to his advantage in two ways. One, it will give him a reason to delay, cancel, or otherwise disrupt the talks being held to reign in Iran’s nuclear arms program. Claiming one of the nations at the table just killed some of your crew will put a damper on negotiations. Oh, to be a fly on the wall. Two, he will also use this to foster additional hatred against the West, and America in particular. This will make it easier to drum up popular support for an all out war against us, should Obama do what is necessary to eliminate the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran.

Since Iran’s army is a bit lower class than Saddam’s army, the fight – if you could call it that – would be over quickly, even with Obama’s ridiculous changes to our rules of engagement. But Ahmadinejad doesn’t need to engage us directly. He could easily use this as a recruiting tool to find hundreds, if not thousands, of suicide bombers to send against our interests in the Middle East, or against us directly back home. I picture something like every Iranian driven cab in New York City blowing up simultaneously during rush hour…which would be almost all of them.

Any country crazy enough to lie to their population about the origins of a terrorist attack, to drive them into a frenzy against the most powerful country in the world either deserves the smackdown we would give them, or has an ace up their sleeve. I trust Ahmadinejad about as far as I can throw a pregnant camel, but at least we can be sure of one thing: Obama had nothing to do with this bombing. How do I know that? If he had a suicide bomber at his disposal, and had the balls to use him, I think his target would be something much more prescient…like the Fox News Building.

1. Canada’s health care system is “socialized medicine.”
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is “single-payer insurance.” In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is “Medicare for all.”

Ms. Robinson defines socialized medical systems, declares that Canada does not have one, then proves that they do by her own definition. You work for who ever pays you. The doctors in Canada get paid by the insurer, which “is the provincial government”. That they “run their own private practices” is irrelevant. If the government pays the doctors, then the doctors work for the government, therefore her first “myth” is true.

2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

It cannot be a “busted myth” if the answer is “True and False”. Doctors in Canada either make less or they do not. Since their overhead is included in what they make, what we need to find is the average take home pay for doctors of both countries, something Ms. Robinson fails to include.

From 2003 – 2006, the average income from 59 specialty fields in the U.S. was about $299,850. This is income after expenses, but before taxes (source). Data on Canadian doctors is tougher to find, but from what I gleaned from this source , here, and here the average appears to be around $185,500. Of course, there are differences by area in both countries, and salaries vary widely by specialty as well. But, overall, U.S. doctors receive over $100,000 more per year in compensation than the Canadians. This explains why so many Canadian doctors move to the U.S. to practice (several sources estimate the number at close to half).

Ms. Robinson’s next three paragraphs are purely subjective, and speculative, and are thus irrelevant banter, though she is correct that Canadian doctors spend far less time in administrative work and that getting paid is fairly painless by American standards. The next point she makes is about the average debt medical students have by the time they begin working. Again, she has completely made up, and left off, key figures.

Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor’s debt is roughly half that.

Relevant information can be found again from MedPageToday.com:

A medical education is a costly affair on both sides of the border.

According to the American Medical Association, doctors, on average, leave medical school owing about $140,000.

Canadian figures are similar, according to the physician survey in 2007, although varying exchange rates make comparisons difficult. The year 2007 is particularly hard because the Canadian dollar rose from 85 cents U.S. in January to $1.02 at the end of December. At this writing, the Canadian dollar is worth 93 cents in the U.S.

Of the more than 1,000 third- and fourth-year medical students who took part in the survey, 27% expected debt between $60,000 and $100,000 by the time they finished medical school and an additional 31% expected their debt to be more than $100,000.

While exchange rates have been up and down over the past few years, those figures probably represent a slight advantage for Canadian doctors.

On the other hand, in a separate 2007 survey, the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents found that residents owed an average of $158,728.

So, the debt difference is negligible. Next, Robinson mentions another irrelevant fact to her overall point. Malpractice insurance is lower in Canada, but since our pay is based after expenses, the conclusion is unchanged. Same debt, lower pay, higher taxes, Canadian doctors are definitely worse off. On this point I would like to add that Tort Reform, while necessary, is not even close to the “silver bullet” many opposed to universal health care would like it to be. CBO numbers state that a savings from some sort of national reform might save about 3-4% overall – not even close to what could be saved from simply recovering money wasted through medical insurance fraud, especially in the government programs.

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again — it depends on which province you live in, and what’s wrong with you. Canada’s health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don’t plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that’s just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

Robinson really doesn’t seem to be selling herself too well. She also provides no data to support her claim. In 2004-5 the Canadian government thought that wait times were bad enough to dump $4.5 billion into a new program designed to reduce them. The First Minister’s words in 2004:

Foremost on this agenda is the need to make timely access to quality care a reality for all Canadians. First Ministers remain committed to the dual objectives of better management of wait times and the measurable reduction of wait times where they are longer than medically acceptable.

So there is a problem, the Canadians know about it. While I don’t live in a rural area, I also do not live in a very large city either. I have been treated for a variety of ailments and seen multiple specialists from internal medicine to cardiologists and neurologists. Never have I had to wait more than a week for an appointment to see any doctor or have any test done. If I did, most likely it was a self-imposed scheduling conflict. I also have never waited more than 30 minutes for any appointment. In fact, my only long waits have been at a Doc-in-a-box which is walk-ins only. Limited resources, plus high demand will either drive up prices, limit access (longer waits) or both. There is no other possible outcome. In Canada there are fewer doctors per capita than in the U.S. (2005 numbers show 2.4 per 1000 in the U.S., 2.2 per 1000 in Canada). There are fewer high-tech machines such as MRI’s. Since pricing is controlled by the government, wait times in Canada must increase. There is no other possible outcome.

Robinson’s points 4 and 5 are not really problems often debated, not by anyone serious anyway. Moving on to number 6 she states is true, so she misnamed the title of her piece. The interesting thing is that with all of the talk of Canada’s wonderful socialized medical system, and their high taxes, people still must come out of pocket for their care. The employer contribution is still out of pocket, you just never see it, so let’s not let that cloud the debate. Granted, the fee for top-notch coverage is small, about $100/month per person, but it is there. My own insurance is just over twice that, my taxes are significantly lower, and I don’t have to wait. Hmmm…

If anyone ever says that Canadian drugs are not the same as American drugs, they are obviously making stuff up. The average person should know that without being told, so her 7th point is also irrelevant. Her 8th point about rationed care may not be true in Canada – but no one is claiming that. The people designing the health care bills here are on record as stating that the elderly must give way to pay for health care for those with more years ahead of them. So, Robinson is confusing a critique of what our version of UHC would look like.

Her 9th point is also more a critique of Americans than the Canadian system. Americans are no where near as good at taking care of something they did not pay for themselves. Most would eat all of the greasy burgers and fatty foods we could get our hands on if we know that the Lipitor and angioplasty will always be free. We invented the hot dog, pizza, and still have yet to find something we can’t throw bacon on to. Yet, having said that, I have seen a surge in people at least trying to be healthier. This is good news for everyone, but especially their families.

On the other hand, Canadians do get a couple more prescriptions filled each year than we do in America (12 to 10.6), and yet there is no national drug coverage. About 2/3 of Canadians purchase prescription drug coverage, and one study found that as many as 20% of Canada’s sicker citizens did not fill prescriptions due to the cost (source). Yes, the prices are lower there, from 1/3 – 1/2 the price of the same drug here. A large part of that is Mediare/Medicaid being legally prevented from negotiating prices with drug companies, though I’m sure there are other reasons as well, probably due to supply chain costs.

Robinson closes with a “myth” about Canadian taxes, and the financial strength of their system. The taxes are higher (this blog post has a good explanation), sure, but ours would actually skyrocket if Medicare and Medicaid’s unfunded liabilities (around $50 Trillion) were included in the budget and dealt with properly. Canada as a country spends about half as much as we do on medical expenses, both as a percentage of GDP and on a per-capita basis. But this is not a critique of our system. Spending more is not necessarily a bad thing. We spend more for houses, cars, TV sets, and popcorn than any other country in the world as well. Sure, we would all like health care to be cheaper, but we want EVERYTHING to cost less. If we didn’t, Wal-Mart would never have grown to the superpower it is.

On another note, Americans have a long history of individualism coupled with a strong sense of “helping our neighbor”. What we do not have is a sense that our private actions may impact our fellow Americans financially. If I fall off a ladder cleaning my gutters and break my arm, I, and my insurance company, are responsible for the costs. I may impact my own insurance rate with risky behavior, but I do not make the costs go up to fellow citizens. Those who do not pay into the system, such as illegal aliens, they help make my insurance rates go up by taking advantage of our system. There is no philosophical difference between that and Wal-Mart raising prices of good slightly to make up for items stolen from their shelves each year. Theft is theft. Now, granted, there are people who need care and cannot afford it. We should never be callous enough to deny care to the destitute. But there also must be reasonable limits to that generosity and one limit must be citizenship unless the patient’s life is in immediate jeopardy.

“10 Myths” has just been busted.

But there is a much more important date we should all have on our minds, November 2nd, 2010 – Election Day. That day will mark what should be the ultimate Tea Party. That day must be the Conservatives “Line in the sand”. Election Day is the culmination of the Tea Party Movement, and will be the deciding battle in the struggle between Conservatives and Progressives which has been waged in this country since the Pragmatic Era of the 1920′s and 30′s.

Some may even place the ideological birthing of this struggle back in the founding of our country as evidenced in the fight between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. However, I think we all can agree that both Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton would be dismayed and saddened by our government today. Actually, the Anti-Federalists would probably be shaking a finger saying, “I told you so!”

With the death of the Federalist Party in 1824, those longing for a stronger government had to wait just about 80 years for the Progressive Movement to cross the pond and be planted in the fertile soil of our intellectual elite. While the exact date is almost impossible to pin down the entire movement seems to have begun with Otto von Bismark and Richard Ely. Ely was the originator of the Wisconsin Model of socialism, a professor of Woodrow Wilson, and mentor to Teddy Roosevelt. Herbert Croly, author of The Promise of American Life in 1909, founding editor of the New Republic and the man behind the curtain of Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism”, was arguably the most influential Progressive of the era.

Croly himself was not only influenced by Bismark, but also, through his father, by Auguste Comte, a mystical French philosopher with a then strange idea about the progress of mankind. To Comte, humanity progressed through three stages, the final stage, saw mankind throwing away Christianity and replacing it with a new “religion of humanity” which fused religious passion to science and reason. He called this new religion Positivism. Croly was also a follower of Mussolini and a fascist.

Ask any modern liberal today to tell you about Herbert Croly, and they will probably just give you the same look my dog does when I ask him to get me a cup of coffee. Very, very few know the history behind the progressive/fascist movement in the U.S. They have merely been taught to parrot “Bush Lied”, “Bank Executives are crooks”, and the like.

In a recent, and highly unscientific poll mind you, I conducted recently, I asked a few dozen liberals to name the author of this quote:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other…It is between two kinds of deficits – a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy – or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness – the second reflects and investment in the future.

Most placed it in the mouth of Ronald Reagan, a couple in GW Bush, fewer still in his father’s. Not one got it right – John F. Kennedy. When I revealed this fact, almost all though I was lying, because JFK has been hailed as a great Progressive. His history has been whitewashed to the point where I hear many liberals claim he was shot by a “right wing nutjob.” Truth be told, if JFK were alive today, with his beliefs intact, he would be a member of the Republican Party. Possibly a moderate, but still a Republican.

So while the progressives are largely ignorant of history, they are nonetheless followers of this same movement, and carriers of Bismark and Croly’s torch.

Since Croly, all Progressives have longed for, in Croly’s words, a “national reformer in the guise of St. Michael, armed with a flaming sword and winged for flight,” to redeem a decadent America from “devil-take-the-hindmost” individualism. “An individual,” wrote Croly, “has no meaning apart from the society in which his individuality has been formed.”

While most Progressive or Liberal presidents have been placed on a pedestal, none have been heralded as Croly’s “imitator of Christ” more than our current president, Barak Obama.

Carol Hoening, a writer for the Huffington Post, claimed that when Obama said we are not a Christian Nation, that he was “actually more Christ-like than I’ve seen from many fundamentalists.”

An artist, Michael D’Antuono, painted a portrait of Obama in celebration of his 100th day in office. It showed Obama with outstretched arms and a crown of thorns on his head.

Micah Tillman of The Free Liberal wrote, “So maybe Obama’s picks don’t show him to be incompetent, but to be—like Christ—in the business of redemption.”

And who could forget Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher’s creepy video in which they pledge “to be a servant to our President…”

I could go on, literally for days. The point, however, is that the Progressive Movement has found their St. Michael, and they are moving forward with their agenda at warp speed. Knowing their agenda is one part of our battle, and one cannot know their agenda without knowing the history of the Progressives. In a nutshell:

Individualism – OUT
Capitalism – OUT
Private Property – OUT
Inalienable Rights – OUT
Freedom of Thought – OUT
Constitutional Limits on Government – That has been gone.

Today’s Progressive movement has been joined by another movement, that is related, but is more of a new sprout in the same pot. The Communitarian Movement. The Communitarians are after nothing less than a One World Order, and through a program called Agenda 21, which has spread to 177 countries, is making that happen.

Because the Progressives and the Communitarians sprouted from the same tree, both share the same overall Marxist economic theories and egalitarian dreams. The difference is, while our progressives are nationalistic, the Communitarians want to outlaw nationalism world wide as they are on the brink of doing in the European Union.

Those of you who have been paying attention to the massive amount of paper spewing from Congress in the way of new legislation, you know, actually reading the bills that our own representatives can’t or won’t read, if familiar with Community Law, will see the threads of this vile legal system throughout the language.

It goes back even further to CAFTA (one of the Free Trade Agreements), approved by Congress in 2005 and signed into law by GW Bush. CAFTA contains language requiring our legal system to be overwritten with Community Law. The recent Kelo vs. City of New London eminent domain case was one such rewrite.

The number of groups behind both the Progressive movement and Agenda 21 is truly staggering, as is the amount of money being thrown at the problem of converting the United States into a Socialist or Fascist nation who is subservient to the United Nations – and eventually the Communitarians.

Most of us have not been paying attention to this march. A few have, but were brushed off as kooks by the Republicans and completely ignored by the compliant media. Because we have been losing the battles for over 100 years, many by just not showing up, the wall of opposition we face is legendary. Heck, just look at the opposition Rush Limbaugh faced, and all he wanted to do was be a partial owner of an NFL team. Fortunately, Conservatives outnumber the Progressives – by a wide margin. We have the force of true history, economics, and facts about the dismal performance of their programs on our side. What we forget is who the enemy is. I debate dozens of Progressives on almost a daily basis, either through my blog, email, or twitter. A couple things I have discovered are 1) they are ignorant of history, economic reality, and facts. 2) they hate us with a passion.

A recent picture sent to me by a liberal, in the midst of a discussion on the Washington Tea Party, was of another “conservative group” marching in Washington in 1934. It was the KKK. Little did he know that some of the first targets of the KKK were merely Republicans – largely because we supported civil rights for all minorities. But it shows the mindset of these people.

Any one here been called a fascist? GW Bush was a fascist, Reagan was a fascist, so on and so on. Why, when FDR was the closest thing to a truly fascist president we had? – before Obama that is. In 1946 George Orwell wrote an essay called Politics and the English Language. In it he said “The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’” The word could be literally translated “Heretic” of the Church of Liberalism.

Language has been changed by our opponents to the point where Classical Liberal is no longer understood to mean Conservative by the general public. I have also seen a resurgence in the word “reactionary” flung with venom at us. All of these are merely projection by an opponent that will literally lie, cheat, and steal to see his vision of heaven be created on Earth.

I wanted each of you to have no illusions about who, and what we face. I hope to inspire all of you to increase your efforts for the all important 2010 elections. If you are not running for office, volunteer for someone who is. If you can’t volunteer, donate money to truly Conservative candidates. If you can’t donate money, put a sign in your yard – talk to your neighbors, and the grocery store clerk, and the guy helping you find the right shoes, and so on, and so on.

We have no choice but to win this election. If true conservatives do not win control of Congress, we will be completely unable to stop and reverse these destructive bills such as Health Care or Cap-and-Trade soon to be before Obama. We will be completely unable to stop ACORN who will undoubtedly do anything to see Obama re-elected in 2012.

Why do I say true conservatives? Because at this point in the game, the differences between Republicans, Libertarians, and others is literally moot. Let’s wait until after we win to have those debates. What is important is that we band together with those running for office – all offices, both local, state, and federal, who vow to do everything in their power to not just slow the ship down, but to spin the wheel and turn it around. They must vow to do so in the face of what will be murderous slander by the press. They must vow to do so in deference to any re-election campaign. They must vow to do so for America and her citizens.

Lt. Gen. Holland M. "Howlin' Mad" Smith, U.S.M.C. (painting by Commander Albert K. Murray, U.S.N.R.)

June 14, 1775: The American Continental Army is formed in Boston: thus June 14 becomes the official birthday of the U.S. Army. George Washington will be appointed commander in chief of the new army the following day. June 14, 1777: Two years to the day after the birth of the American Army, Betsy Ross’s “Stars and Stripes” (adopted by the Continental Congress) replaces the Grand Union flag as the official national standard. In time, the anniversary of this day will become known as “Flag Day.” June 15, 1944: U.S. Marines under the command of Lt. Gen. Holland M. “Howlin’ Mad” Smith (a recipient of France’s Croix de Guerre for his actions during the battle of Belleau Wood in World War I), begin hitting the beaches on Saipan, a Japanese territorial island in the Marianas chain. In a battle that will continue into August — far longer if counting the tiny pockets of post-battle Japanese resistance — Smith’s Marines and soldiers will destroy enemy forces under Lt. Gen. Yoshitsugu Saito. A German naval attache in Tokyo, will purportedly write: “Saipan was really understood to be a matter of life and death. About that time they began telling the people the truth about the war. They began preparing them for whatever must happen. Before that they had been doing nothing but fooling the people.” Within days of the landings, the Japanese fleet will be decisively defeated in the great carrier battle of the Philippine Sea, also known as the “Marianas Turkey Shoot.” June 17, 1775: The battle of Bunker Hill (often referred to as the battle of Breed’s Hill) opens when British Army forces and Royal Marines under the command of Gen. William Howe attack American forces under Gen. Israel Putnam and Col. William Prescott who have taken up position on the hills above Boston. The British will ultimately take Bunker and Breed’s Hills, but British losses make it a pyrrhic victory. According to the Library of Congress: “American troops displayed their mettle in the Battle of Bunker Hill during the siege of Boston, inflicting casualties on nearly half of the British troops dispatched to secure Breed’s Hill (where most of the fighting occurred).” June 20, 1941: The U.S. Army Air Corps is reorganized as the U.S. Army Air Forces (the predecessor to the U.S. Air Force). AUTHOR’S NOTE: “This Week in American Military History,” appears every week as a feature of HUMAN EVENTS. Let’s increase awareness of American military tradition and honor America’s greatest heroes by supporting the Medal of Honor Society’s 2010 Convention to be held in Charleston, S.C., Sept. 29 – Oct. 3, 2010 (for more information, click here).

Hunting, fishing, battle, sin, and politics all have one thing in common, they all use traps. Traps in all shapes, sizes, and forms have the same basic design criteria. In order for them to work, they must appear to be something other than what they are. A hook alone will never catch a fish, it must be baited with something tantalizing. Zhuge Liang of the Three Kingdoms period in Ancient China developed the 36 Strategies of battle, several of which describe traps designed to lure an opponent into a weak or untenable position. The sin of adultery almost always begins with what appears to be an innocent friendship.

The political systems of Statism, which include Communism, Fascism, and Socialism, has its own traps as well. A free population never willingly subjects itself to such a system directly. Humanity longs for freedom. Not merely freedom from something, be it oppression or religious persecution, but freedom of each to chart his own course. For good or ill, gain or loss, happiness or misery, the freedom to choose our own destiny lies deep within every person’s core.

The tyranny of Statism must eliminate that freedom if it is to survive. Survival is the eventual goal of every organization, government included. If Statism must remove freedom to survive, and humanity’s core desire is freedom, then Statism can only be imposed by direct force, or through a trap. While there have been many who would have liked to have forcefully induced the United States into a tyrannical regime, our previous freedoms made that a practical impossibility. To see the goal through, a trap needed to be set. That trap, is Liberalism.

Thousands of pages have been written on this topic, among the best of them are Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, and Jonah Goldberg’s expansive tome Liberal Fascism. However, neither focused on the “baits” used by the Statist to lure us willingly into bondage. As the hook must be concealed with a juicy worm, so must tyranny’s hooks be concealed.

Once such lure is The Crisis. The structure of this lure is quite simple: Begin with usually an imaginary, insignificant, or easily manageable problem X; through propaganda, inflate the severity of X until the population clamors for a solution…any solution; offer exactly one solution, which is merely government control, but with the caveat that higher revenue is required; finally, use straw man arguments to destroy any challenging solutions. Once you understand this lure, you’ll realize just how many times it has been employed.

Equality, or it’s mirror Fairness, is another bait. As children, we clamor for fairness. Equality is seen as a right, whether deserved or not. If our parents did a good job, we were taught that life is seldom fair. This is a truism etched deep into humanity’s most ancient history. According to Scripture, Cain slew Abel because his sacrifice was not seen as the equivalent of his brother’s and it was not fair. The Statist plays upon our childish desire to see fairness and equality imposed upon the world – whether deserved or not.

“It is not fair that AIG executives receive fat bonuses while you barely scratch out a living,” was one recent cry of the Statist. Details will always be sketchy at best whenever this tactic is employed. What is actually not right is for any person, group, or government to set the maximum income of another person. I have every right to earn as much income as I desire. My income is a product of my physical or intellectual labor and therefore my property. To set a maximum level for that labor denies me access to my property and therefore steals what is rightfully mine. As long as I do not earn income through illicit means, or do so through denying another’s rights, the government has no business interfering with my personal gain.

Protecting The Victim is yet another lure, and a personal favorite of Ann Coulter. This bait places the needs, and often the desires, of a small, hapless sub section, above the rights of the whole population. It is not to be confused with protecting a real victim, which is our duty as human beings. Protecting a real victim usually only requires assistance in monetary form or perhaps time. Both of these can be, and are, freely donated. At most, the needs of the helpless can be placed above the desires of the collective, which is still often good and just.

Forcing one’s need or desire above another’s right, however, is no longer just. The news has been replete with examples of this bait’s utilization. One example would be holding up or negating foreclosure proceedings. While it seems good on the surface to allow a person or family to stay in their home, it cannot be stated clearly enough that it is not their house. The house is the property of the bank until such time as all the contractual obligations of the borrower are fulfilled. The bank and the borrower had the right to enter in to that agreement. Both parties are obligated to deliver their end of the bargain. Denying one party the right to act when the other fails to honor the agreement places a desire above a right. Justice is no longer blind, or just.

These are just three lures in the large tackle box employed in the trap of Liberalism used by the Statist, but these are the most commonly used. In recognizing the bait, the existence of the trap becomes clear. By denying the Statist the power of the trap, he will be unable to once again bring tyranny, and its chains to a population. Freedom must be the overriding metric used in determining the worth of a particular course of action. Freedoms, once lost, are rarely recovered, and therefore should be a most prized possession. And those who do not care about their freedoms, are most likely already in the trap.

Red Dot in a Red State

According to the CBO, at our current rate of borrowing and spending, by 2019 the U.S. debt will be 82% of the overall economy. And this is without adding any more disasters, wars, or new spending programs such as Nationalized Health Care. Think about that for a moment. That’s three quarters, a nickel, and two pennies out of every dollar just to pay for our debt.

If you get paid $1,000 per week, you will actually only have $180 left over of real money. If you sell an item for $200, you’d get to keep only $36 to feed yourself, your family, and your employees. The debt can be stretched out, but the interest is what is killing us, that and too many promises we cannot keep.

Scripture takes a dim view of debt. It was to be avoided at all costs. Passage after passage warns against taking on debt, both personally, and as a nation. It is so bad a situation, that Deuteronomy mentions debt one of the curses of disobedience.

If you diligently obey the Lord your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. All these blessings will come upon you…You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.
Deuteronomy 28:1,2,12

Debt is not just a curse, it is a form of slavery. The indebted has no freedom to work his own will. He is constantly at the mercy of the lender.

Just as the rich rule the poor, so the borrower is servant to the lender
Proverbs 22:7

Our nation’s debt does many things. It increases our stress level as we – the people – fret over our future, and that of our children and grandchildren. It encourages laziness as those who take no ownership of the debt (ie – those who do not pay into the system) feel no obligation towards it. It denies our country the ability to loan to other nations, and therefore collect interest ourselves – which just compounds the money that is lost in this trap. And it denies our nation the ability to give freely to nations which may need our help.

For example, a recently released U.N. report states that hunger in South Asia is at a 40 year high. 100 million more people are going hungry compared to just two years ago. 100 million is just under a third of our population. 1.2 Billion people live on just $2 per day or less. For $3.6 billion dollars, we could quadruple their income. Just not being hungry would have a dramatic effect on the population, increasing their productivity and allowing them to work their way out of poverty.

But the U.S. is actually out of money. It’s gone. Even Obama has admitted it. We are unable to help anyone else because we are in a serious hole with no possible way to dig ourselves out. What is our government doing about this debt? Spending more money, and planning to spend yet more money. We cannot stay on this path. We are spending so much money that people have actually become numb to the word ‘trillion’. It doesn’t mean anything to the average person on the street. We just cannot fathom that much money. So let me try to put it into perspective. In less than 10 years, a 99 cent cheeseburger will cost at least $5.50 – and that is without adjusting for normal inflation. Taco bell is going to have a hard time selling $10 burritos.

I can’t imagine what going to the movies is going to cost.

Red Dot in a Red State

Originally published at Human Events

This week in American military history:

May. 24, 1818: Gen. (future U.S. pres.) Andrew Jackson and his expeditionary army march into Spanish-controlled Florida, easily capturing the Gulf-coastal town of Pensacola.

Col. José Masot, the Spanish governor, retreats to nearby Fort San Carlos de Barrancas (originally built by the British as “the Royal Navy Redoubt”) where he briefly puts up a token resistance — to save face — before hoisting the white flag there, too.

May. 26, 1917: U.S. Army Gen. John Joseph “Black Jack” Pershing is named commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), which is destined for European combat the following year.

May. 27, 1967: USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) — the last conventionally powered American aircraft carrier — is launched.

May 28, 1918: Almost one year to the day after Pershing is named commander-in-chief of the AEF, elements of the soon-to-be-famous 1st Infantry Division, (“the Big Red One”) under the command of Lt. Gen. Robert Lee Bullard launch the first major attack by U.S. forces in World War I near the French town of Cantigny. In doing so, the Americans strike and the defeat a far-more experienced German army under the command of General Oskar von Hutier.

The attack opens in the wee hours with a two-hour artillery bombardment. Then at 6:45 a.m., whistles are blown along the American trench lines, and soldiers from the division’s 28th Infantry Regiment — destined to become known as the “Lions of Cantigny” — clamber over the top and into the open. Supported by French aircraft, tanks, and mortar and flame-thrower teams — the Americans advance over a distance of 1,600 yards in three waves at marked intervals behind a creeping artillery barrage. By 7:20 a.m., the German lines are reached.

Fighting is grim; one American sergeant will write: “About twenty Dutchmen [Germans] came out of the holes, threw down their rifles and stood with their hands up. The doughboys didn’t pay any attention to this but started in to butcher and shoot them. One of the doughboys on the run stabbed a Dutchman and his bayonet went clear through him.” In the town, the Germans are flushed from hiding places in shops and houses. French soldiers with flamethrowers are called up to assist in clearing the cellars of buildings.

Lt. Clarence Huebner (destined to command the 1st Infantry Division in the next great war, and rise to the rank of Lt. Gen.) watches in horror as one of his badly burned enemies rushes from a flamed-out cellar. It was “just as I had seen rabbits in Kansas come out of burning straw stacks,” he will recall.

The Germans — who, like so many others throughout history, had dismissed the Americans as not having the stomach for real fighting — develop a quick respect for their new foe.

Bullard’s headquarters will issue a statement, a portion of which reads: “The moral effects to flow from this proof of reliability in battle of the American soldiers, far outweighs the direct military importance of the actions themselves.”

May. 28, 1980: The first female midshipmen graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.

May 29, 1945: Elements of the famous 1st Battalion, 5th Marines capture Shuri Castle — the palace of the Ryukyu kings for centuries — during the Battle of Okinawa.

(Coincidentally, this author served as a rifle-squad leader with 1/5. But the Battle of Okinawa took place about 14 years before he was born.)

May. 30, 1868: “Decoration Day” — the predecessor to Memorial Day — is first observed by order of U.S. Army Gen. John A. Logan, who had decreed on May 5: “The 30th day of May 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.”

Maj. Gen. (future U.S. pres.) James A. Garfield presides over ceremonies at Arlington Cemetery (the former estate of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee), and approximately 5,000 participants decorate the graves of both Union and Confederate dead — about 20,000 of them — buried on the grounds.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: “This Week in American Military History,” appears every week as a feature of HUMAN EVENTS.

Let’s increase awareness of American military tradition and honor America’s greatest heroes by supporting the Medal of Honor Society’s 2010 Convention to be held in Charleston, S.C., Sept. 29 – Oct. 3, 2010 (for more information, click here).

Climate change has a new Knight in Shining Armor – Henry Waxman (D-CA). His 900+ page Climate Bill, also known as Cap-and-Trade or more affectionately as Cap-and-Tax, is supposed to somehow stop, and possibly reverse, Global Warming. Waxman, and other supporters are obviously not true believers in the climate change cause, or CO₂‘s role as a root cause.

It should be plainly obvious that an energy tax will have absolutely no effect on either global atmospheric concentrations of CO₂, nor average temperatures. Not one additional inch of arctic ice will be gained. Snow will not magically form on Mount Kilimanjaro. Ocean levels are not about to drop. The money collected will have an impact on our energy consumption, but only until people discover the loopholes. In winter, they may use their fireplaces more often. Plans for homemade methanol and ethanol stills will receive far more hits on Google. Sales of candles and kerosene lamps will increase. Demand for meat will shift to cheaper cuts and more chicken will be purchased. Overall, poverty will increase. Not one of these things will “save the world.” Economies shift when under pressure. Like a bean-bag chair, pressure on one end causes a rise on the other.

The taxes raised may partially be used to fund “green” energy facilities, or find its way into researching better batteries, but it will only be a fraction. Like taxes collected for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Cigarette, Alcohol, Gasoline, et. al., none of the money will be set aside for its intended purpose. All of the money be placed straight into the general fund, where it will be spent to further yet more government encroachment upon our liberties. Furthermore, requests for this money for its rightful purpose will be looked upon as an annoyance. Lawmakers will treat grant requests as they would a housefly. Attempts to audit the fund, should anyone be so bold, will be stonewalled and blocked by the same people who promise “transparency.” We are witnessing the birth of yet another Sorelian Myth.

Social Security is protected by such a myth. As such any attempt to repair the situation and perform the necessary economic triage is seen as heresy and fought tooth-and-nail. What is worse, like the taxes collected before based upon the promise to fix whatever dire emergency the Democrats created (usually out of thin air), since nothing will be done about the actual problem, it will remain. This will later be used to increase the tax amount. You will hear cries of “more must be done” echo through the halls of Congress, Academia, and on every MSM news program.

If Waxman and Obama were true believers, if they were honestly disciples of the “evil CO₂” myth, then they would demand that the sources of this harmless molecule be cut off. A partial list of things that would be illegal would include: all fuels, barbecue grills, candles, leaf burning, carbonated beverages, alcoholic beverages, rubbing alcohol, leavened breads, Pop-Rocks, baking soda, food animals, household pets, styrofoam and packing peanuts, paper, plastics, glass production, metal production, house fires, forest fires, volcanoes, flatulence and exhaling.

Since cars and planes would no longer be possible, large sections of roadways, parking lots, and airports would be converted back into fertile soil and planted. Of course, without machinery, it would take some time to chip all the concrete and asphalt away…especially without exhaling. But look on the bright side, at least we would never get to read another 900 page bill again.

Typical of Democrats in trouble, she labeled the questions regarding her accusations as a “distractive mood”. By Monday, this will be considered old news. We might even hear “We need to move past all this divisiveness,” first by the talking heads of the MSM, then by her highness herself. The Democrats are amazing at turning bad news about fellow Democrats into uninteresting old stories, then turning those into myths.

Pelosi, and her fellow Liberals, honestly believe that these kind of statements do not mean anything. Lies are just as valid as the truth, and myths are the equivalent of history. This allows them to insert either lies or truths whenever it suits them politically. Like a child playing with Lego blocks, the mismatching pieces will not deter them from their overall goal – more power.

To say that this is frustrating would be an understatement. How do you argue with someone for which a legend can be supplanted for the authoritative on a whim? Reasonable people would throw their hands up in defeat within minutes. This tactic has allowed the Democrats to win most arguments by default, and it is repeated consistently to their joy. It must not be allowed.

While I do not know the legal details, it would seem to me that there must be some repercussions available to both the CIA and the House Republicans. Bold faced lies, especially those which are so detrimental, cannot be tolerated. Surely this series of events is actionable. Thursday, Representative Steve King (R-IA), read a privileged resolution into the House record. The resolution calls for the Speaker to lose her security clearance. This should be the minimum action taken, and I would add that censure be called for as well.

“If the Speaker is unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support her allegation, that she and Congress have been lied to by the CIA, the American people will be left with no choice but to conclude that she made this allegation for political purposes,” King concluded. “Until her allegations are proven, she should not receive sensitive or classified information pertaining to the national security interests of the United States.”

We can only hope that California’s voters, when next given the choice, remember that their representative in Nancy Pelosi is a known liar, and therefore cannot be trusted. This prevarication cannot be allowed to morph into a myth. Words must mean things and untruths and slanderous statements must have consequences.

A snipet from Pelosi\'s Thursday News Conference

Actor, Comedian, and farmer Paul Rodriguez, once a strong proponent of Democrats, has switched sides. Not over health care, or immigration reform, or even Iraq. He switched sides because of a fish, specifically Hypomesus transpacificus – the Delta Smelt. This tiny fish will cause the ruination of Southern California’s Central Valley area, some of the most fertile land on Earth. It will render thousands of farmers and farm hands unemployed. This fish is in a fight with the farmers, all over water.

The pumps which supply the valley with water from Northern California have been switched off after a judge ruled in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and their report claiming that the pumps are hazardous to this minnow sized fish. Last week, Lester Snow and other California water regulators urged the federal government to reconsider it’s protections for the endangered Smelt. In previous years, the water pumped in has been restricted, this year it has been cut off completely. And without water, there is no farming. What is especially damaging is that farmers have already planted, so without their crops they will be ruined.

Rodriguez helped create the California Latino Water Coalition, has led marches of several thousand people, and spoke to many of the Democrats he helped get elected – so far nothing has worked. On the Mark Levin Show on May 13th, Rodriguez said,

When I called [them] I was told to ‘stick to the jokes’…So now I realize that it was really the Republicans who had my best interests at heart all along.

Unemployment, already high in California, is skyrocketing in the valley. For example, Mendota, a small town in Fresno County, has seen its unemployment rate jump to 35%, high even for a community with a large population of seasonal farm workers. Greater Fresno is above 13.2%. And the impact to California’s $20 Billion agriculture industry is incalculable. Todd Diedrich, and almond grower, has been forced to let two thirds of his 1,500 acre farm go fallow.

What is clear is that environmentalists, along with California lawmakers and the FWS, have teamed up to kill off farming in the 400 mile long valley. When asked about the policy and it’s effects on the farmers and workers Lloyd Carter (a Gerry Brown appointee and environmental activist) said,

They’re not even American citizens for starters, right? Do you think that we should employ illegal aliens? What parent raises their child to become a farm worker? These kids they are the least educated people in America, or in the southwest corner of this valley, they turn to lives of crime, they go on to go on welfare, they get into drug trafficking and they join gangs.

To environmentalists, the farmers are irrelevant. The food supply is irrelevant, the health of California’s agriculture industry is irrelevant. Saving a tiny fish from harm is all that matters, and no compromise will be allowed. It is possible that another solution can be worked out, but in the meantime trees, plants, and animals go thirsty while the workers go hungry.

It is absolutely insane.

Red Dot in a Red State

We know this is impossible to sustain. It is actually impossible to even attempt. Any part of the health care system in this country would do irreparable harm to all those involved, most importantly the patients who depend upon the finest system in the world. It therefore cannot be allowed.

The “problem” the government is attempting to solve, is the claimed 47 million Americans without health insurance. It is not that they are getting poor care, or no care, but that they have to spend their own money on insurance. As someone who has been in that position before, I don’t really see a problem. I have had to go to a “Doc-in-a-box” and shell out $75 for the visit and another $50 for my prescription. I’m a reasonably healthy guy, so no big deal. Now, when I was hospitalized for what seemed like a heart attack, that is where health insurance came in handy.

A “best of both worlds” solution is the type of health insurance I have now. For just about $225 per month (and I’m a smoker with a pre-existing condition), I have $5 million in coverage from a very well known company. Preventative care, like checkups, is completely free, however there is a $5,000 deductible. The deductible is taken care of through the $75 per month added into my Health Savings Account (HSA). The HSA is administered through a debit card that I can use on any health related expense, even aspirin bought at my local grocery store. I can use it for glasses, or to have my teeth cleaned. I have excellent coverage, for right at $300 per month. I can use any doctor, and, the best part is, my rates are guaranteed not to go up for three years.

So, if we gave the assumed 47 million Americans the same health care insurance plan I have, which costs $3,600 per year, the total hit for the taxpayers to cover is $169.2 Billion dollars. That’s it. While expensive, it is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the trillions Obama would need to spend for national health care. And since I’m sure the number is inflated, the cost will only go down. And if the government pays my health insurance company directly each month for the rates, I’m sure a “group discount” would also apply.

We do not need to spend trillions of dollars. We do not need to have our entire health care system ruined in an attempt to provide coverage to 47 million people. All we need is $169 billion or less. Would my plan work? Absolutely. Would Obama accept this plan? Never. The reason is simple, they want power and control over the entire system. They are not looking to solve a problem.

So the next time you overhear some random, Obama bumper sticker wielding Liberal talk about how we need to nationalize the health system, hit him with this number $169 billion.

Red Dot in a Red State

It widely known that California has moths in it’s pockets. The state is virtually bankrupt, even after receiving almost $7 billion in stimulus money from the American taxpayer. Last year, everyone knew the state was in trouble, but it took until February for Governor Schwarzenegger and the State Legislators to agree on a new budget which closed a $42 billion spending gap.

Part of the new budget involved $13 billion in new or higher taxes, and $15 billion in total spending cuts, including $8.6 billion in cuts to public education. $1.4 billion was also cut from state payroll costs. Part of that budget was to go into effect immediately, while other sections had to wait until July 1st. Just as an aside, last time I checked, $13 billion plus $15 billion did not equal $42 billion – I’m just saying.

With the state’s coffers in such need of filling, the $7 billion in stimulus spending dangled by Il Duce was happily received – strings, hooks, and all. The money replaced a proposed $0.12 per gallon tax hike, which I’m sure most Californian’s were happy to see left out of the budget. But then the other shoe dropped.

In a show of what can only be described as Brass Balls, yesterday President Obama jerked on the stimulus money, setting the hook, which will now allow him to control the state’s budget. Specifically, $74 million dollar budget cuts to the pay of unionized home healthcare workers. As reported in the L.A. Times,

Schwarzenegger’s office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

In other words, Obama is doing the same thing to California that he is doing to the auto and banking industries. Do what we want, because we gave you money. You took money, therefore we own you. The citizens of California are unimportant. The projects that would be paid for with the $7 billion, also not important. The taxpayers, many yet to be born, that are paying for the stimulus cash, definitely not important. The home health care union workers, who I’m sure would rather take a pay cut than lose their jobs, they’re important.

However, they are important only to a certain extent. The workers belong to SEIU, which is a branch of ACORN. As reported in the L.A. Times, but probably never in the MSM,

The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers…

This is an ACORN payoff, plain and simple. ACORN is in large part responsible for the election of Barack Obama, and he owes them big. The state might very well be out of cash by June, so for Obama to put a political ally ahead of they needs of millions of citizens (which, ironically, voted for him in large numbers) is narrow minded, supercilious, and narcissistic.

Sorry California, you just got punk’d by a nut.

In my opinion, each one of his points must be accepted by any candidate for office if he or she would like a shot at higher office. Fellow Republicans, Whigs, and Libertarians are demanding it. We must also “accept no substitute.” A moderate Republican needs to know that they have absolutely NO chance of winning without accepting these points. We are not looking for Rulers. We are looking for Representatives.

Tom correctly points out that we used to elect statesmen. We now elect politicians. The difference can be found in this quote from Thomas Jefferson.

A politician looks forward only to the next election. A statesman looks forward to the next generation.

That is our fault. We did not demand that our Representatives do their jobs. We half-heartedly put them in office and then promptly forgot them like so much attic junk. Then, when we needed them to do their jobs – and they failed – we did not demand their resignations. We probably reelected them.

Now it is time to clean house. The Conservative movement is in full swing, and we are paying attention. But more is needed, we also need a template for them to follow, and A Bold Step Back is a great starting point. Insightfully, Tom has recognized that the Republican Party is damaged goods. Many, many people are calling for a new party, but that has consequences, as anyone who remembers Bill Clinton’s 1992 election will attest.

Tom’s solution begins by re-branding the party. Even so far as to give it a different name. The platform must remain decidedly Conservative, however a totally new look, feel, and even leadership is required to throw off the stigma of the GOP.

Next, is simple and academic, but still needs to be done.

We need to first identify the seats coming up for election and decide who needs to be replaced ON BOTH sides of the aisle, and then we need to identify replacements for these seats.

In identifying replacements,

We find people that understand that they are going in to make a very real difference, some very difficult choices, and DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

They will also know that there is a very good possibility that they will not get reelected.

But while there, they will fight hard for our agenda, and NOT COMPROMISE at all. They will continually submit and fight for legislation to roll back the size of government…

Term limits are a definite need, curbing Congressional pay and benefits, and cutting out elaborate “retirement” packages. Tom also recommends campaign reform, but if I may interject my own thoughts, reform needs to return power to the people, not the Media. Companies have a right to be represented as well, and their money should be accepted. It is the special favors which need to be eliminated – and revamping the tax code to the Fair Tax will go a long way towards that goal.

Tom touches upon one of my soap boxes with this statement,

We will remove thousands of laws from the books; we have so many laws that it is virtually impossible to not break them. Congress was NOT given the power to be a nanny state and make me wear a helmet.

Not only should thousands of laws be removed, thousands of regulations and dozens of Federal departments need to be eliminated as well. Consider it a Federal colon cleansing. Any department, office, cabinet position, what have you, that is not directly supported by the Constitution must go. That will take courage, conviction, and the ability to slough off the “slings and arrows” of the Left. Some of these departments can be reconstituted at a state level, but that is up to each state. The important thing is that our Federal Government be massively and irrevocably cut down.

The objective is to reduce the platform to a very small but vital one. Freedom, Security, Lower taxes, Personal Responsibility and Capitalism. Leave abortion, gay marriage and so many of the smaller issues off the platform. Let candidates from WITHIN the party present their views, but most of these issues should be determined within the states themselves

There are dozens of other ideas in the essay – all good. This government belongs to the people. It is time WE defined it. It is time that we accept and elect people into office who accept that they are there to serve us.

Red Dot in a Red State

Our story begins as a nice, suburban couple, the Petersons, enter a UAW Motors Dealership to purchase a new mini-van for their growing family. Let’s listen in.

(Ding)

Salesman
–under his breath– Oh crap, here comes another couple…probably got some rugrats to haul around.
Uh, yeah, hi, welcome to UAW Motors, ummm, let me guess, needing a new car? The name’s Jake by the way.

Mr. Peterson
Yes sir, I’m Mr. Peterson and this is my wife Susan. We’re in the market for a minivan. Our sedan has reached it’s limit with our two children, and as you can see, we have anoth-

Jake
Well, that’s just great, not enough screamin’ kids in the world, huh? Oh well. Let me show you what we got.

Mr. Peterson
We have already decided on the Town and Country Touring model, and we’d li-

Jake
Ain’t got them.

Mr. Peterson
No? Why not?

Jake
Been off the market since Tuesday.

Mrs. Peterson
Ok, then what about the LX?

Jake
Ain’t got it neither. That’s been gone since last Wedneday. Had to cut back on models.

Mr. Peterson
Well, then what do you have?

Jake
Thought you’d never ask. [walks them to a van that looks like a mad scientist spliced a minivan and a PT Cruiser together...like a Ponitac Aztec, but smaller and uglier]
This here is the new Obama, Centennial Edition. Ain’t she a beaut?

Mrs. Peterson
Ummm…it’s a bit small, how am I going to fi-

Jake
Oh, don’t worry, it’s got lots of room inside. [leading the couple back inside] Now, I’d show it to you, but we have some paperwork to fill out first. I’m going to get Sam here [points at the obviously miffed Sam], to fill out your E-90 forms so we can let you see the inside. I’ll see ya in 15 – got to take a coffee break now.

Mr. Peterson
Uh, oh…ok…[turning to Sam] Hi, were the Peter-

Sam
Here, fill this out. [slaps down a form written in very tiny print] Press hard.

Mrs. Peterson
All this just to look inside?

Sam
Rules are rules lady.

Mr. Peterson
Um, I need a pen.

Sam
A pen! Can’t let you have a pen. You might poke yourself in the eye and then sue us! Pen! Whoever heard of such nonsense?

Mrs. Peterson
Here honey, I’ve got one. [Mr. Peterson scribbles furiously] When can we take it for a test drive?

Sam
Insurance regs won’t allow a test drive…it’s not like we’re a BMW dealer…damn Germans. Besides, we’re not allowed to leave the lot during workin’ hours. [To Mr. Peterson] You missed this here. [points at form]

Mr. Peterson
Well then how are we supposed to know if it drives well? Is comfortable…that sort of thing?

Sam
What are you talkin’ about? Of course it drives well! It’s built right here in the U.S. isn’t it? It’s all about supporting American Jobs and the American Worker. Here, [pointing to the paperwork] sign here and here, initial here, here, here, and [turning papers over], sign here.

Mr. Peterson
Well, I guess your right. [standing up] Ok, let’s go look at the car. Ready Sweetie?

Sam
[still sitting]You can’t look at it yet. Jake’s gotta show you.

Mr. Peterson
What? Why not?

Sam
Ain’t my job.

Mrs. Peterson
Well, is there anyone else who can show us the car?

Sam
Nope, Union rules. Only one sales person per shift. Ya’ gotta wait. Over there [waving his hand] behind the yellow line.

Mrs. Peterson
Come on honey, Jake won’t be long.

15 minutes later, Jake emerges.

Mr. Peterson
Finally! Can we see the car now?

Jake
Oh, we could…but…I don’t see Tammy anywhere…where did that girl…[to Sam] Where did she go?

Sam
I think she went to lunch.

Mr. Peterson
To lunch!? It’s only 10:30 in the morning! And why do we need Tammy?

Jake
[huffy] Union rules, everyone gets an hour lunch after two hours. And, for your information, she holds the code to the keybox.

Mrs. Peterson
Look, it’s simple, I’m sure there is a manager who can op-

Jake
Nope, Union rules is Union rules.

Mr. Peterson
[getting up] Well can’t you just call her?

Sam
Look people, there’s nothin’ we can do. It’s the law. And stay behind the yellow line!

Mr. Peterson
Come on sweetie, we’re leaving.

Jake
Can’t leave yet. You signed [looking at Sam] the E-90 form. You’re legally bound to look at the car and at least allow us to run you through the financing department.

Mrs. Peterson
What? I have to pick up my son in an hour! I can’t wait tha-

Jake
You can go, but your husband has to stay here. It’s his signature anyway. Tell you what, while you wait, let me bring over the financing form so you can save some time that way. Deal?

Mr. Peterson
Alright, I guess we have no choice. It will help pass the time anyway. [Jake walks over to a filing cabinet]

Mrs. Peterson
[to Sam] Where is your restroom?

Sam
Over there, down the hall and to your left…[Mrs. Peterson begins walking] but it won’t do you no good.

Mrs. Peterson
Why not? Is it out of order?

Sam
Nope, it works, but…see, Tammy is our only female working here, so Union rules state she has to keep the key with her…you know…to prevent sexual harassment.

Mrs. Peterson
Oh that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!

Jake
Hey, we don’t write the rules, ma’am…[handing a very thick set of papers to Mr. Peterson] Here are the forms. Be sure to press hard.

Mr. Peterson
Honey, just go home [handing her the keys] it’s obvious I’m going to be here a while.

Mrs. Peterson
Alright, are you going to be ok?

Mr. Peterson
I’ll be fine. [Mrs. Peterson leaves]

Tammy finally comes back from lunch and unlocks the key box. Jake, after taking another coffee break, shows the car to Mr. Peterson…who really can’t stand it and thinks its too small. Complaining Jake answers…

Jake
This is the way all American cars have to be…Smaller size gives it more economy…you know to save the environment. And it gets 30 miles to a gallon!

Mr. Peterson
[wincing] How much horsepower does it have?

Jake
45 horses of genuine American muscle! Plus it’s a hybrid, so it’s got batteries too, which will help on those steep hills.

Mr. Peterson
45…umm, yeah…hey why are the cup holders so small?

Jake
Well, one, to save space for the GPS tracking unit…that monitors your driving distance, two, law now states that all drinks must be 12 ounces or less to fight obesity [slapping his belly] sooo…there is no reason for them to be bigger.

Mr. Peterson
Alright, sheesh…any other colors? This green is sorta…ugly.

Jake
Well, no, a team of scientist and psychologists picked this color as it helps eliminate road rage. All new cars built by U.S. makers must be this color by next year. So you’ll be ahead of the curve!

Mr. Peterson
And, where is the stereo by the way…I can’t find it anywh-

Jake
[laughing] Can’t have a stereo, distracts the driver! Haven’t you been paying attention to the news? Plus, they needed the space to fit the 24 airbags. Safety first!

Mr. Peterson
[sighing] Fine. Let’s get this over with. Where is the financing department.

Jake
Right this way [leading him inside and into an office upstairs]. This is Bruce and he’ll take it from here [looking at his watch] Gotta go, I’m overdue for my next coffee break.

Bruce
Mr. Peterson, alright, let me…find…your…paperwork. Ahhh, yes, here it is. You show on the form that you’d like to trade in your Camry?

Mr. Peterson
That’s right.

Bruce
I’m afraid that is a foreign car, we won’t be able to take that on trade…so to finance this car, we’ll need 20% down, that makes your down payment [types on a calculator] $12,380.

Mr. Peterson
[yelling] Twelve Thousand dollars! I don’t have that! What about the new down-payment assistance program I saw on your commercials?

Bruce
No need to get upset, sir, calm down. I’ve already tried that and you don’t qualify. Seems you and your wife make too much money.

Mr. Peterson
But we only bring home $42,000 a year! Assistance is supposed to be available for anyone making under $50,000.

Bruce
$50,000 before taxes. Your household income is over $100,000 per year, and I see you have a retirement savings account. So, your disqualified. Now, if you were to lose your job, then we could help…[looking at the paperwork] whoops, nope, then you couldn’t afford the payments…hmmm. There is a website you can go to that explains all of this quite clearly.

Mr. Peterson
Well, I don’t have 12K in cash to spend on that piece of crap. I’m going somewhere else.

Bruce
No need to get testy sir…Now, if you’ll just pay your Union dues, since you are now a member, you’ll be able to leave.

Mr. Peterson
I didn’t join a Union! Where the heck is that?

Bruce
Remember the E-90 form you filled out? Oh, and you’re also now a registered Democrat…

Red Dot in a Red State

July 20, 1933 – General Hugh S. “Iron Pants” Johnson, the head of the National Recovery Administration, declares the Blue Eagle to be the symbol of compliance with the National Industrial Recovery Act. The NRA was an agency created by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal, modeled on the War Industries Board of WWI, and was a part of the continuation of the war time economy, shifted to combat the Great Depression.

The Act instituted codes of “fair competition” for a multitude of industries, set minimum wages, maximum hours, and a pricing floor for almost all goods. This intrusion into the workings of the free market, even though the different elements were “voluntary,” were partly responsible for prolonging the depression, as well as highly unconstitutional. Housewives were urged, pressured, and embarrassed into purchasing products only from companies displaying the Blue Eagle symbol. Slogans of “doing your part” and “Buy now under the Blue Eagle” were rampant.

In a fireside chat, even Roosevelt spread the propaganda

In war, in the gloom of night attack, soldiers wear a bright badge on their shoulders to be sure their comrades do not fire on comrades, on that principle those who cooperate in this program must know each other at a glance.

Fortunately, the codes of conduct were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935, before they could be fully implemented, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Unfortunately, the decision did not strike down the Act as unconstitutional, but as an improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch. That opened the door for many of the policies to be continued when enacted by Congress in 1936, 1938, and 1945.

This video by Jimmy Durante gives a small idea of the fascistic nature of the NRA, and the New Deal as a whole.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2qA7x157LY]

The New Deal changed our country’s direction hard left for all future generations. Obama and the Left have the potential to finish the job and completely convert our free republic to one form of statism or another. We find ourselves in a similar situation as the country did in 1933. While our recession is not as bad as the Great Depression, Obama and Congress are not done ensuring further economic collapse. The market control, and demonizing of capitalism is all to familiar to students of history. This quote from Rex Tugwell, one of FDR’s “Brain Trust” could have been stated today by, say, Barney Frank,

Unrestricted individual competition is the death, not the life of trade.

Fighting the current recession is not enough, however, to ensure mindless compliance with new, as yet unwritten policies. A war needs to be fought. Liberals have had a problem with actual war since WWI, so what has been necessary to forward their goals is a moral analog. Currently, there is no actual emergency to rally together Americans under a unified banner. One must be invented, and no better emergency could ever have been created than the “global catastrophe” of human-caused climate change. This time, however, the emergency is global.

A current search of Amazon’s children’s books for ‘climate change’ yields 1,302 results. It is fair to say that every child over 10 since 2006 has seen Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. We have multiple generations of citizen compliance officers and quasi-official government informants ready to turn in their neighbors and parents for using the wrong dishwasher detergent. Just Wednesday, the EPA kicked off yet another propaganda campaign targeting our children. From their press release:

With Earth Day only a few days away, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is kicking off the 2009 “Change the World, Start with Energy Star” campaign to educate kids and their families about how to save money and fight climate change through energy efficiency.

“People of every age have a part to play in confronting climate change,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Using Energy Star to cut electricity usage and costs, and educating young people and their families to make a difference — big or small — is how we make real progress.”

This year, EPA is partnering with Boys & Girls Clubs of America and Parent-Teacher Organizations Today to work with America’s youth in the fight against climate change. Boys & Girls Clubs of America will engage its young members in service projects to educate youth and their communities about the benefits of energy efficiency.

“As an organization with more than 4,300 community-based Clubs, we are genuinely concerned about the environment and our responsibility to preserve and protect it,” said Boys & Girls Club of America President/CEO Roxanne Spillett. “We look forward to working with EPA to educate and encourage the young people we serve to be more energy efficient and environmentally conscious, identifying ways they can make a difference in their respective communities.”

Propaganda has been everywhere for years heralding the green triangle as a mark that a company “cares about the environment.” The details are not really important, only compliance with the currently loose definitions of “environmentally safe” and “Earth friendly.” Entire grocery store chains have sprouted up to serve this cause, and are doing quite well as housewives are again shamed for not using “green” products from companies displaying the symbol.

Just as with the Blue Eagle, companies not displaying the green triangle of compliance are getting no sympathy from the press, Democrats, a good chunk of Republicans, consumers, and especially the government. Those alive during the Depression may remember the case of Jacob Maged, a dry cleaner jailed for three months over his five cent price cut to clean a suit. Similar legal problems are just around the corner for ordinary citizens.

There are currently hundreds of cases worldwide for companies, and people defying seemingly silly environmental ordinances. Our own states sue U.S. auto makers and power companies. Businesses in the U.K. were fined £3.5 million, and owners or managers spent over 11 years combined in prison – in 2006 alone – for breaking toughened British environmental laws. With the EPA poised to clamp down emissions, it will be just a matter of time before someone is arrested for using an incandescent light bulb. In a BBC piece released today, even your diet may become illegal as obesity rates are tied to Global Warming

We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness, and recognise it as a key factor in the battle to reduce emissions and slow climate change.

And as before, ordinary citizens are taking matters into their own hands. Just last week, over a hundred people were arrested in the U.K. for attempting harm to the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, one of Britain’s largest plants.

It will be almost impossible to connect all the dots, so I’ll leave that up to you and your comments. What is perfectly clear, however, is that we are hurtling full-speed toward some brand of statism, possibly a new brand of fascism. And now that these dots have been connected, it will be easier to recognize the propaganda of the Green Triangle, the new Blue Eagle.

Ken Pritchett
Red Dot in a Red State

Americans have a very difficult time relating to other countries. I’m not talking about our politicians, although they are affected as well. The average citizen seems to have a brain-lock and can only imagine other nations as some version of our own country. It’s as if the entire world is just a suburb of America. The bulk of the problem is that few Americans travel broadly, and therefore have no real frame of reference. That week you spent in Italy, or the vacation to the coast of Mexico doesn’t count. American’s insulate themselves in the comfortable areas, surrounded by comfortable things, and haven’t taken the time to really get to know another country.

The other part of the problem is our complete lack of an honest teaching of World History. Past seventh grade Social Studies, or tenth grade World History, most of us don’t give a second thought to our own history – much less that of other countries.

Our Media is no better, and twists every extra-national story until it fits with the American view of the world. We might briefly take notice of suffering or conflict in other areas, but only in passing, like we’re viewing a fender-bender on some heavily traveled road. “Oh wow, that looks bad,” we might say to a fellow passenger. Perhaps a comment to a store clerk we see later on. Then, poof, it’s out of our heads as we consider what size latte to imbibe.

To say this is a dangerous view would be an understatement. It is even more dangerous when our leaders share it. For the last thirty years, at least, the distinctly rosy American view of the world has pervaded our foreign policy. We have ignored those who actually know what is going on in this country or that – because they lived through it. Our leaders have continually failed to seek information from the “boots on the ground”, and instead allow National Geographic to paint the picture for them. It should be axiomatic that not every problem can be solved by talking. Sometimes giving a gift, or aid, makes things worse. And often, military intervention will have unintended consequences.

No place is more suited to teach this lesson than Somalia. Myself, I am no expert on the country. However, I refuse to learn about it solely from CNN. About all the average American knows is that the pirates sail from there, and it can be dangerous, so they should hide their money when visiting. Those who have been to that country and survived just chuckled. Somalia has been, and will continue to be, a completely failed nation.

If you would ever like to know what anarchy would look like, then Somalia is great. Otherwise, it is no place for anyone to be, especially the pale faced American who came for the beautiful beaches, and a taste for the “out-of-the-ordinary.” It is a place to get yourself killed. There is no real government, and the frail government that exists must work from neighboring Kenya. You will not find handy signs in downtown Mogadishu showing the “Art District” or the location of the nearest Starbucks. It is literally a living hell.

Islamic forces battle nationalist forces. Clans fight each other. The U.N. impotently tries to keep peace, but can merely keep peace in their own compound and listen to the sound of gunfire. All for one thing – control of the country. Helping any “side” is taken as a threat to the other factions. In their minds, everyone wants to control Somalia – the thought of humanitarian aid for the sake of helping the people is completely foreign to them. This country has never seen peace. It has never seen prosperity. And we simply have no frame of reference for that kind of life.

Any attempt to “fix” the problem will be received as either hostile or cowardly. It is really that simple. Sending Hilary Clinton will not help, you would literally be better off sending in a sixth grader to fix a nuclear power plant. There is no one in control to negotiate with, there is no Somali FBI to go after the pirates, there is no Legislature to pass laws against piracy. As cruel as it sounds, there are only two options for Somalia: One – Let the country complete it’s collapse, allow it to turn into an Islamic State run by Sharia Law then deal with it after it becomes a stable nation…in about 40-50 years. Two – A complete military take over of the country. Not setting up a base, or sending patrols, I mean a wipe-out-anyone-with-a-gun take over and make Somalia the 51st State.

There is no third solution, but it is doubtful that the Obama Administration will heed my warnings. Personally, I do not want Somalia to become part of our Union. So, dealing with the Pirates can only be done in one way – deterrence. Defend what you have, let Somalia sort itself out.

Ken Pritchett
Red Dot in a Red State

There used to be a time when ‘inclusiveness’, and its derivations, was only used as a slur against Christians.  “Christians don’t include Gays,” or, “Christians don’t include Adulterers,” or – my personal favorite, “Christians are not inclusive of other religions.”  Of course, the first two are patently false, the last one is true or Christianity wouldn’t be a religion.  Christianity is defined by a book of rules, regulations, suggestions, and edicts.  That book is, obviously, the Bible.  Most other religions have laid down a similar set of rules which define their core beliefs, traditions, world-views, and laws.  Many are shared between differing religions, some are in direct contradiction to each other.  Some make sense, others…well not so much.  But do not want to discuss religion.

Political Parties, in many respects, share the same construct as religions.  There are a defined set of beliefs which are used to draw in others with similar views.  They are also used to reject those with views which are in direct contradiction to the Party’s.  Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Whigs, and others are all defined this way.  Chaos would ensue if it were otherwise.

The defection of Arlen Specter has touched off another firestorm of debate over the future of the Republican Party.  His own words, given as one of the reasons he left, “The Republican Party has moved to far to the Right,” are preposterous, and show either his confusion, or his dishonesty.  The Republican Party was built upon the foundation of adherence to our Constitution, individual rights, and smaller government.  Lower taxes is often used as a defining belief, however it really is an effect of having a smaller government.  In foreign policy, Republicans have a belief that capitalism, freedom, and democracy – as well as human life – are precious and delicate ideals, and must be fostered and protected throughout the world.  Our own identity and sovereignty as a nation is likewise to be protected at all costs.  In domestic policy, freedom is the ultimate litmus test, along with helping the citizen to achieve the highest state he or she is capable of.  Protection of innocent life, and assistance to the destitute so that no one in our great nation starves to death, are in the bedrock of Republican ideals.

These have not changed.

What has changed is that the party entertained, and allowed to come into power, those who did not carry our banner forward.  There has been an element inside the party, pushing it ever Left-ward for several decades.  Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, along with a host of others have been calling for the party ‘base’ – those who hold to the above Republican ideals, must be more ‘inclusive’ and ‘tolerant’ of ‘moderate’ Republicans – those who do not hold some, or all, of the Republican ideals.

‘Moderate’ Republicans try to play the field.  They enjoy the attention paid to them by the press (when it suits the press), and miss the clobbering given to ‘Hard-line’ Republicans by the same.  Peer pressure can be a dangerous thing, and it has caused moderates to believe that leaving behind certain ideals is the ‘right thing to do’.  All politics is compromise, however, there must remain a core-set of principles.  If those principles drift far enough apart, deadlock occurs, which is why elections should be important.  Either a party is capable of winning support for their particular set of ideals (hopefully through proper articulation and strength of facts…as opposed to coercion and trickery) or they lose power.

The Democrats have been unwavering in their ideology.  They refuse to compromise on any of their core beliefs, be it more government, less freedom, higher taxes, less choice, or their abandonment of the innocent.  On each of these, their ideals are in direct contradiction to ours.  There is no middle ground.  For example, what could a compromise be in interpreting the Constitution where it speaks plainly?  Either the words are on the page or they are not.  Either the Constitution has meaning or it does not.  Either “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” means exactly that or the whole thing is worthless.

Each of us is required to make that decision, and distinction.  To do otherwise would make us poor citizens.  Each of the ideals must be weighed and measured.  Anything less produces chaos.  Do you believe, for example, that a man has a right, and the freedom, to work for and obtain private property?  Do you believe that an unborn child deserves equal protection to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that other citizens enjoy?  These are yes/no questions.  There is no maybe.  No gray area is available in which one can hide.

‘Inclusiveness’ is a code word.  The suggestion is that the Republican Party can be stronger if we abandon our ideals.  Larger, perhaps, but stronger no.  “But what about Gay Rights?” the Republican line should be that that issue is not spelled out in the Constitution.  Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, the decision to allow homosexuals to marry is left to the states to decide for themselves.  If the states allow the citizens to vote and the measure passes, so be it.  If the voters reject a redefinition of marriage, change your argument and try again.  It really is very cut-and-dried.  Again, anything else introduces a measure of chaos.  Allowing the Constitution to be magically interpreted by nine Supreme Court Justices, simply provides tyranny by five of them.  Tyranny, because the rule of law becomes whatever they decide it to be.  Rights turn into “something you’re allowed to do” until a new group of Justices interferes again.

A new wave is sweeping through the Republican Party.  It began before the first Tea Party was ever organized by Keli Carender.  Millions of Americans are screaming out at the top of their lungs for a return of the Republican Party to its ideals.  For too long, they have watched as the Republicans morphed into a lighter version of the Democrats.  “One-third less taxes, and all the pork” will no longer be enough.  Meghan McCain can whine about it all she likes.  She must make the same choices those on the ‘hard-left’ or ‘hard-right’ have made.  Republicans will include anyone who make these choices and decides they want to be a Republican.  Democrats will do the same.  Those in the middle must realize that a choice must be made.

Written exclusively for The Greenroom by:

Ken Pritchett
Red Dot in a Red State