ARCHIVES
KAGAN NOMINATION ADVANCES OBAMA TOTALITARIAN AGENDA
May 28, 2010 - The nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is the latest salvo in President
Obama’s war on the Constitution. In this case the most threatened target is our First Amendment rights to free speech.
There has been a lot of commentary about her booting the military recruiters off the campus at Harvard and less about a
far more important problem with Kagan – her anti-constitutional view of freedom of speech. Put simply, she just doesn’t
believe in it.
While the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” Kagan
says Congress can too make a such a law provided its motives are pure. In a 1996 article in the University of Chicago
Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment
Doctrine,” Kagan said that determining the government’s motive is “the most important” consideration when deciding
whether or not a law restricting speech or press violates the First Amendment. Restricting speech would be a violation
only if it were done because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities.
Even more disturbing is her view of the free marketplace of ideas. Kagan doesn’t believe in that either. In that same
article she argues that the Supreme Court – on which she is about to sit – should not be concerned with protecting the free
marketplace of ideas because, she wrote, “it is impossible for the court to determine what constitutes an ideal
marketplace.”
Also in the article, she contradicts herself by asserting that the government is indeed capable of determining the ideal
marketplace of ideas and should manage the marketplace to achieve it. “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the
absence of direct governmental action -- which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate
-- then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote. She refers to this
government micro-management of speech and press as “redistribution of speech.”
So, according to Kagan, the government can and cannot decide what is the ideal state of public debate. And it is
permitted by our constitution to limit the expression of certain ideas if it determines those ideas are being expressed too
often, or too loudly or too effectively or too whatever the government decides.
This bizarre interpretation of the First Amendment allows the government to silence talk radio if it determines that it is
dominated by conservatives resulting in an “overabundance” of conservative ideas being expressed.
Kagan’s notion about an “overabundance” of some ideas could also be applied to the Internet, another target of the
Obama administration. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski was recently rebuffed by a
Federal appeals court which said his agency had no authority to exert the kind of control he was seeking. With Kagan on
the Supreme Court Genachowski could appeal that ruling with some expectation of a different outcome.
This is an expectation that Obama appears to share. He was highly critical of the Supreme Court when it ruled that a
corporation has a right under the First Amendment to express a political opinion. In that case, Kagan, as Solicitor
General of the United States, contended that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from publishing
pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.
Responding to her claim, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that her interpretation of the First Amendment, “would allow
censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other
medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.”
It could even, Roberts continued, “empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion
pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the
major ones are.”
Kagan on the Supreme Court would be a threat to the most fundamental liberties the Constitution was written to protect –
the right to speak our minds and express our opinions. It is hard to imagine any right more central to the notion of
representative government.
FEDS HAVE WEAK CASE AGAINST ARIZONA
July 16, 2010 -- The U.S. Justice Dept. is skating on pretty thin legal ice in bringing suit against the state of Arizona for
trying to protect its citizens from a flood of illegal immigrants.
The DOJ alleges the statute is unconstitutional and is basing its case on the claims that it violates the supremacy clause of
the constitution. The effect of this clause is that Federal law trumps any incompatible state law. The exact language of the
clause goes like this: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.”
The problem with the DOJ case is that there is nothing “to the contrary” in the Arizona law. In fact, just the opposite is
true. The Arizona statute follows Federal law. All it does is put the state in the business of helping the Feds enforce their
law.
Obviously, this is help the Feds don’t want because they have no intention of enforcing the law.
The challenged statute puts Arizona in a position comparable to that of Texas, and probably most other states, which has
a law making it a crime to rob a bank. Reliable legal counsel notes that the Federal government also has a law prohibiting
bank robbery. Apparently there is no violation when a state law covers the same subject as Federal law as long there is
no conflict.
There is some irony in the DOJ’s complaint that the Supremacy clause renders the Arizona statute unconstitutional while
doing nothing about the so-called “sanctuary cities” that actually are acting “to the contrary” to Federal law. By protecting
illegal aliens, prohibiting their police officers from inquiring into the immigration status of suspicious persons, and failing to
turn over discovered aliens to the Federal authorities, these cities are engaging practices that would land an individual in
jail for obstruction of justice.
It what appears to be an attempt to give the lawsuit some moral basis, President Obama declared that the Arizona law
“has the potential” of being enforced in a discriminatory manner. And that, of course, is true even though the plain
language of the statute prohibits racial profiling. The problem with the President’s claim is that is true of just about any law.
Suppose, for example, the U.S. Dept. of Justice were to enforce the Federal Voting Rights Act only when the accused
violator is white and the victim is black. Should that ever happen it still would not be grounds for striking down the
statute. Although it would justify firing the U.S. Attorney General. That is, if it should ever happen. But, of course, it
wouldn’t happen. Did it?
There is also the idea that a state has it own jurisdiction over immigration. In an old (1837) case the city of New York
had a statute that required the captain of a vessel entering New York harbor with aliens on board to report in writing to
the Mayor of the City, giving certain prescribed information. The Court found this did not conflict with Federal authority
over immigration. The majority opinion ruled that a state “has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all
persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is
not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the
bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people.”
Apparently, in the absence of an explicit prohibition the state is free to enact its own laws even if the Federal government
also deals with the same subject provided there is no conflict to trigger the supremacy clause
In addition to a weak legal case, the President appears also to be skating on thin political ice. A Rasmussen survey finds
that just 56 per cent of voters disagree with challenging the Arizona law and only 28 per cent agree. Another 16 per cent
are not sure. The survey found that 61 per cent of voters would like to see a similar law enacted in their state.
Even worse for the President and his party is that 86 per cent of likely voters say the immigration issue is at least
somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, and 55 per cent say it is Very Important. Among
voters who consider the immigration issue “very important” to how they will vote 72 per cent disagree with the challenge.
Several states, Texas among them, have filed amicus briefs with the court defending the Arizona law. Coupled with the
nearly 20 states challenging the health care law, it seems fair to say there is under way a long-overdue revolt by the states
against unconstitutional Federal power grabs.
POLL FINDS MOST PARENTS BELIEVE
TEXTBOOKS DUMP ACCURACY FOR PC
March 26, 2010 -- While the Texas State Board of Education was fighting off pressure groups demanding that more
Hispanic names be included in U.S. history textbooks, a Rasmussen poll was resporting that 60 percent of Americans
with children in elementary or secondary school believe most textbooks are more concerned with political correctness
than accuracy.
On the specific issue of how U.S. history is taught, nearly half (49%) of those with children currently in elementary or
secondary school do not believe most school textbooks portray U.S. history accurately. Just 28 per cent think they do.
When asked who should have the final say on what textbooks are used in the classroom, 34 per cent of
Americans say teachers, but 24 per cent say parents should have the final say. Only 15 per cent prefer giving the final say
on textbooks to local government and a scan nine per cent each said the federal or state governments should decide.
Parents who disapprove of the textbooks used by a school should be allowed to transfer their child to another
school that uses different textbooks according to 61 percent of the respondents. Only 27 percent disagreed.
TRADING FREEDOM FOR OIL
By Mary Christina Love
July 13, 2009 - America is in a highly compromising position of servitude after decades of concessions to the Saudis to
obtain oil and preserve invested business interests.
Submissiveness to Saudi/Islamic rules has placed America in a state of dhimmitude, which is essentially enforced
compliance by non-Muslims to Islamic Law. And it extends to energy, security, policy, education, finance, and religion.
Saudi-Islamic interests became synonymous with "American national interest" when Saudi King Faisal warned the
president of ARAMCO in the 1970s that US oil companies must prove their loyalty to his Islamic kingdom or suffer
higher oil prices and maybe lose all their investments in the region. With bribery an incentive and extortion a consequence
of non-compliance, officials engaged in public relations efforts to improve the Arab image in America. It involved intense
lobbying, public relations events, and a massive media campaign to influence Congress and to change America's opinion
regarding Israeli concern including its right to exist.
A 1972 agreement allowed oil-producing countries to receive 25 per cent of each American oil company's profits,
allowing for gradual transfer of ownership that would reach 51 per cent by 1983. U.S. oil companies did not realize that
loopholes in the agreement would eventually allow the Saudis to demand more money per barrel of oil in the future.
These oil revenues were recycled back into the U.S. market in stocks, bonds, financial securities, and bank deposits. By
the end of 1983 Middle East oil exporters held $39.9 billion in U.S. government securities, with Saudi Arabia the largest
shareholder. Saudi Arabia also became a major investor in American corporations and, by 1978, was the largest
shareholder of Fannie Mae. Bank of America, Chase Manhattan, Chemical Bank, Citibank, Morgan Guaranty were
banks that benefited from the growing Arab oil revenue surplus.
The Kuwaiti portfolio, managed by Citibank, included large shares of McDonald's, Ralston Purina, Atlantic Richfield,
Johnson & Johnson, General Motors, General Mills, Dow Chemical, Eastman Kodak, J.C. Penney, and Procter &
Gamble. In 2008, Citigroup's largest shareholder was Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Unknown to many
Americans, Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) acquired General Electric's Plastics division for $11.6 billion in
cash on May 21, 2007.
The U.S. is aware that Shari'ah financial products fund terrorism. Yet on November 6, 2008, just two days after the
presidential election and in the midst of the financial crisis, the Treasury Dept. and the Islamic Finance Project of the
Harvard Law School co-hosted a forum entitled "Islamic Finance 101." Its purpose was to educate Congress, the
Treasury staff, banking regulatory agencies, and other parts of the Executive Branch on Shari'ah finance. According to a
press release, the forum was "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an
increasingly important part of the global financial industry."
Saudis also use petrodollars to influence American education from elementary schools to universities. Sarah Stern, who
heads the Washington, D.C. based Endowment for Middle East Truth think-tank, said the Saudis are exploiting provisions
of U.S. law to indoctrinate teachers from K-12th grade in anti-American and anti-Israeli positions. U.S. law and Pres.
Bill Clinton's 1995 Educational Guidelines allow academia to bring in off-campus activists and pay them lecture fees to
propagandize teachers and the general public at taxpayer expense.
Over the last 30 years, the Saudi royal family has contributed over $70 billion to promote Arab studies that center on
Islam and spread anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda. Some of the universities that receive endowments include
Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia, USC, Duke, and even Texas A&M, to name only a few. Politicians welcomed programs
and students from the Middle East when Arab leaders began lavishing generous donations to American educational
institutions. In return, they demanded special privileges and the right to influence policy in a way favorable to Islam.
Wahhabi-connected clergy were allowed access to Federal and state prisons when the National Islamic Prison
Foundation (NIPF) was founded in 1993. Saudi-trained Islamic clerics began to minister to convicted Muslims and
convert other inmates to Islam. Practitioners of Saudi Arabia's extreme, fundamentalist form of Islam were certified and
trained as prison chaplains by either the Islamic Society of North America or the Graduate School of Islamic and Social
Sciences. NIPF receives thousands of books and pamphlets from Arab nations to distribute to inmates and the Saudi
government provides Korans to U.S. jails.
Al Qaeda training manuals found by U.S. troops in Afghanistan revealed that America's black prisoners are a prime
recruitment target for radical Islam. NIPF clerics claim an average of 135,000 prison conversions each year, most of
them African-Americans who, upon their release, could become Jihad soldiers.
Americans must wake up from the dream that we are safe from terror. Allowing Islamic teaching in prisons intensifies
racism and hatred and makes the converts more radically anti-American and dangerous. Preaching Islam in the military is
equally contradictory, as Muslims’ loyalty is clearly not with the American government nor are they concerned with the
safety of American citizens.
With a downsizing of the American military dispersed to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is reasonable to conclude that these
Islamic converts, hostile to whites, will join forces with known terrorist groups already in the U.S. such as Sheik Gilani's
35 camps of The Soldiers of Allah. One day they are likely to be used against non-Muslim Americans in an act of terror.
It is most disturbing to realize that this may happen if we continue refusing to produce our own oil and to confront the
multifaceted Islamist invasion occurring in our midst and at our expense.
GOP SENATE HOPEFUL DEFENDS CONSERVATISM
June 25, 2009 - Republican Railroad Commissioner and U.S. Senate hopeful Michael Williams denied claims that the
conservative message is “stale” and should be abandoned by the party.
Addressing the Johnson County Republican Women's Club, Williams said, "I don't think a message of pro-faith and
family and low taxes got old. But I think the party became unpredictable and that, for many
office holders, their record didn't meet their rhetoric."
The Republican Party, he said, needs elected officials who will adhere to the conservative message and not be swayed by
the liberal media "because we've got to say "No" to the transition to European-style
socialism.”
Williams, who has been a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the oil and natural gas industry,
since 1990, also had recommendations regarding energy policy. He expressed opposition
to President Barack Obama's proposed cap and trade legislation.
Republicans, he said, want to clean up the environment but there are better ways than regulation, taxation and litigation.
“Jobs, capital and talent move to the low-tax areas," he said.
Williams is encouraging the conversion of school buses from using gasoline and diesel fuel to using natural gas or propane.
The border, he said, should be controlled but not closed. "We want people who want to come to America and Texas
and become citizens," Williams said. "But we want them to do it in the right way. And we want them to come here not
simply for jobs but because they want to become Americans. And part of that involves learning English.”
GALLUP FINDS MOST AMERICANS PRO-LIFE
May 22, 2009 -- For the first time since 1995, a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life rather than pro-
choice according to new Gallup poll
The poll, conducted May 7-10, found Americans are pro-life by 51 percent to 42 percent. The poll also found that the
percentage of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (23 percent) is about equal to those
who believe it should be allowed in all circumstance (22 percent.) This contrasts with the last four years when public
opinion was strongly in support of unrestricted abortion.
Other polls confirm these findings. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that the percentage of Americans
believing abortion should always be legal dropped from 54 percent to 46 percent since last August. In that same period,
those believing it should always be illegal rose from 41 percent to 44 percent.
Increased support for pro-life was found across the Christian spectrum – a 7-percentage point gain among
Catholics and an 8-point gain among Protestants. Similarly, there has been a shift among men and women.
Gallup reports that a year ago the pro-choice position prevailed among women by 50 percent to 43 percent.
Men were pro-choice by 49 percent to 46 percent. Today, Gallup reports, both groups are more likely to be pro-life.
Joe Pojman, executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, welcomed the news and attributed the shift to the Obama
administration’s “aggressive promotion of abortion both domestically and overseas.” Administration policies, he said,
have made it apparent that the meaning of the term “pro-choice” is not as benign as many thought. Obama’s initiatives, he
said, have made it clear that “pro-choice” means tax-funded abortion and abortions for minors without parental consent.
STIMULUS BILL MANDATES HEALTH CARE RATIONING
Feb. 10, 2009 - Betsy McCaughey, an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has exposed what may the best kept
secret in Washington – Obama’s “stimulus” bill allows a Federal bureaucrat to overrule the treatment decisions of the
doctor who examined you.
The bill creates a new bureaucracy -- the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Its purpose is to make
sure your doctor is treating you the way the Federal government thinks is appropriate and cost effective. While your
doctor is chiefly concerned with keeping you alive and healthy, the government is intent on saving money.
A similar proposal, she reports, was made by former Sen. Tom Daschle in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do
About the Health-Care Crisis. In the book Daschle says doctors have to give up their autonomy and “learn to operate
less like solo practitioners.”
Daschle also had advice for older persons. “Seniors,” he said, “should be more accepting of the conditions that come
with age instead of treating them.” Americans, he urged, should follow the example of Europeans and accept “hopeless
diagnoses” instead of trying experimental treatments that could save their lives.
McCaughey notes that Medicare currently pays for treatments considered safe and effective. The stimulus bill changes that
and applies instead a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness
Research. It resembles a British government agency described in Daschle’s book. It approves or rejects a treatment
depending on the number of years it decides the patient is likely to benefit from it Treatments for older patients are
approved less often because the agency believes they won’t live long enough to justify the cost.
This, of course, is a self-fulfilling projection since denying the treatment could result in early death. A succinct term for this
policy is involuntary euthanasia or, even more succinctly, murder.
According to McCaughey, the bill doesn’t spell out what may happen to doctors who refuse to surrender their
autonomy and persist in operating as “solo practitioners.” But it does make clear that hospitals and doctors that are not
“meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. What “meaningful user” means is left to the Health and Human
Services secretary who can impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.” The fact that Daschle was
Obama's first choice for this post reveals the President's plans for our medical care and, ultimately, for our longevity.
Doctors who hope to avoid the “more stringent measures” will fall in line and limit the treatments they prescribe to those
approved by the federal government even if it means the death of their patient.
EDUCATION VICTORY FOR TEXAS STUDENTS
By Ken Mercer, Texas State Board of Education Member
April 5, 2009 - Common sense, combined with the pressure of at least 14,000 constituent communications in favor of
allowing students to discuss all sides of a science theory, finally prevailed.
On Thursday I made the motion to restore the 20-year standard of "Strengths and Weaknesses" to the new science
TEKS (standards) for the next 10 years of textbooks. This motion failed by a 7-7 vote.
The radical liberals, Darwinists, atheists and secular humanists attending from around the country quickly claimed victory
to the army of national print and television media present. By Friday afternoon their language "evolved" to words and
remarks that cannot be put in print.
Friday morning, my fellow conservative board member Cynthia Dunbar (R-Richmond) proposed a final amendment to the
new “analyze and evaluate” language. After two slight language amendments to Dunbar’s motion from Bob Craig (R-
Lubbock) and Barbara Cargill (R-Woodlands), the SBOE passed the final TEKS language regarding science curriculum
by a vote of 13-2. This historic decision for the new science TEKS for grades 3-12, includes all areas of science such as
biology, chemistry, physics, environmental science, astronomy and aquatic biology.
The language passed with the following statement: “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific
explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining
all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.”
Clearly, the important legislative intent is to protect the academic freedom of Texas students. Our students should no
longer feel chilled from discussion by those in authority who might claim there is no disagreement or weakness in a
scientific theory.
Every conservative group present, including Texas Eagle Forum and the Free Market Foundation, applauded this new
language as a huge victory for Texas students.
Texas School Law Attorney, Kelly Coghlan, while disappointed that the important word "weaknesses"
was deleted, stated: "Textbooks and teachers will be required to teach “all sides” (scientific evidence
both for and against and supportive and not supportive) of a scientific theory. I believe the new language
implicitly requires that weaknesses be taught and is just as strong as the old language."
The Texas statewide print media apparently once again got it wrong. It was perfectly clear to anyone on the floor of the
SBOE that our liberal opposition was not happy. Perhaps the website headline for the
conservative Texans for Better Science Education described it best: "Darwinist monopoly on public schools decisively
broken in Texas...Darwinists confused...Militant Secular Humanists are outraged."
The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday: "The Texas Board of Education approved a science
curriculum that opens the door for teachers and textbooks to raise doubts about evolution."
In conclusion, my favorite memory was a remark from one of the California atheists who sat behind my
desk on the floor of the SBOE. After we passed one historic amendment after another, this atheist cried
out: "Oh my God!"
ALTRUISM AT THE POINT OF A GUN
By Rick Moran
March 20, 2009 - The House has passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the
GIVE Act (where do they come up with these Orwellian acronyms?). The bill fulfills an Obama campaign promise to
create a "civilian national security force."
This legislation will not mandate or force our young people into national service - not yet
anyway. But there is little doubt that we are being set up for just such an eventuality.
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a
commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all
able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would
strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse
economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that
“service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools
served by the local educational agency.”
“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under
AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create
additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education
Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to
focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.
Clearly, the goal of this program is to involve every single young person in America in a mandatory service program. The
"Commission" is a smokescreen. Of course they are going to recommend that there be mandatory service and they will lay
out procedures on how to do it.
During the campaign, Obama envisioned a program that would require youngsters to spend several hours a week in
community service. Many high schools already require a certain number of hours devoted to "community service" in order
to be eligible to graduate. How this all fits into "national security" will be very interesting to see.
What we have here is nothing less than altruism at the point of a gun. Fine thing we're teaching our kids - that government
can compel you to do "good."
BREAKING FREE FROM THE CONSTITUTION
By Bob Ward - Editor,Texas Daily
Nov. 14, 2008 - There are any number of things to be concerned about in a Barack Obama, administration but among
the most serious is his attitude toward the judicial branch.
In a 2001 interview on National Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme Court’s role in the civil rights movement.
While the court affirmed the basic civil rights of blacks, he recalled, it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
wealth.” The reason the court failed to redistribute wealth, according to Obama was that, “It didn't break free from the
essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
While most Americans would consider it appropriate for a court to adhere to the Constitution, Obama sees it otherwise.
The Constitution, he said, “reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.”
And that blind spot, he continued constitutes “the fundamental flaw of this country.”
We are forced to conclude that during the Obama administration, our judges – at all levels from District Court to the U.S.
Supreme Court – will be appointed by someone who believes it is their duty to “break free” from a
flawed constitution.
Obama plainly believes courts should disregard the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth, it is unclear in
what other areas he thinks the Constitution should be overruled. There is strong sentiment among Democratic
leaders in the Congress to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting.
After the old fairness doctrine imposed in 1949 was abolished under Ronald
Reagan in 1987 we saw the rise of talk radio. It is dominated by conservatives
and has been a raspberry seed in the molar of liberals. There have been many
attempts by liberals to emulate the success of conservative talk radio and they
have all been dismal failures.
Under the fairness doctrine a radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh would be compelled to devote three hours to liberal
talk that nobody would listen to. Stations would respond by changing their formats to less controversial programming.
The legal basis for this intrusion by government is the fiction that the “airwaves” belong to the public and the
statutory requirement that stations licensed by the Federal Communication Commission operate “in the public
interest.” These condition do not apply to non-broadcast media which are protected from government interference by
the first Amendment to the Constitution.
However, Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and courts should “break free” from it. It is not
unreasonable to expect the Federal government, under Obama, to attempt to control other media. Most
vulnerable is the Internet with its bloggers who operate without the editorial “gatekeepers” that keep the
mainstream media in line and usually without the discipline of the marketplace as well.
And if the mainstream mediaalso become victims of Obama’s judicial philosophy, they have only themselves to
blame. They gave this guy a pass overall, and specifically, this interview with National Public Radio should have had
widespread coverage early in the campaign instead of turning up on a few conservatives venues just days before the
election.
Churches are another area where the Constitution is on shaky ground. There are already constitutionally suspect limits on
what pastors can say or do if they speak for their congregations on public issues while enjoying a tax exemption. Liberal
pressure groups are constantly filing complaints with the IRS in an attempt to silence conservative clergy. Under an
Obama administration, such groups could succeed beyond their wildest dreams and without the complication of involving
the IRS. A pastor who spoke out against homosexuality, for example, could be charged with a hate crime, as happens in
Canada, and the U.S. Justice Dept. would deal with him.
Creative U.S. attorneys could find new ways to enforce the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to silence critics
during the critical weeks just before an election. And Federal judges who subscribe to the Obama view of the
Constitution will uphold these prosecutions.
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom are not the only rights that can be
violated once our courts are populated by judges who consider it their duty to “break free” from a flawed
constitution. Life, liberty and certainly property are at risk once Barak Obama begins to appoint judges and the
Democratic controlled Senate starts confirming them.
KINDERGARTNERS GET GAY 'PLEDGE CARDS'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow
Nov. 9, 2008 - A pro-family advocate is outraged that a California public school teacher would pass out homosexual
pledge cards to her kindergarten students.
The pledge cards were produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, and featured oaths
that students would not use "anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender language or slurs," that students would intervene
on behalf of homosexual students when possible, and that they would actively
support safer schools efforts.
Tara Miller is a kindergarten teacher at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, California.
She passed out the pledge cards to her students, which she then asked them to sign.
Peter LaBarbera, the president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, is outraged at Miller's actions.
"Why is homosexuality as an issue being raised at all in kindergarten? These are students who don't even know what sex is
yet, and this teacher is talking to them about homosexuality," he contends. "This is an abuse of these students' minds, and
it's just wrong."
According to a report on FoxNews.com, one parent was angry when she found her child's signature on the
pledge card. LaBarbera believes this instance highlights the real agenda of the homosexual movement.
"This is just bizarre, and it shows how the teachers with their radical sexual agenda want to start early to
reprogram these kids' minds. They want to undermine the faith teachings that the kids have at home; this is part of a plan,"
he suggests. "To me, this is like Hitler with Nazi Germany and the Soviets wanting to get to the youth and change the kids
by getting to them at a very young age."
In the same report on FoxNews.com, a spokesperson for the school agreed the pledge was inappropriate for the
kindergarten students and said that the pledges were meant for middle school and high school students.
WHO IS SARAH PALIN?
By Butch King -- Alaskan Bush Pilot and Guide
Sept. 9, 2008 - Sarah “Barracuda” Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen,
how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn’t do a poll before jumping in
with both feet like too many of the Washington types.
She has little legislative experience because she has always held the executive position; in private life, as mayor of
Anchorage’s largest bedroom community and more recently as governor. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska
girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done.
One of our state’s major problems is that its capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from
the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the state government is in
Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since statehood in 1959.
When Sarah moved to Juneau, so did accountability and responsibility. When the oil revenue started flowing and a barrel
of North Slope Crude hit $23, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was
happening when oil hit $100 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command. My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with
this fiasco, as her father and her ex-husband were Alaska legislators.
About the time Sarah took the helm as governor of Alaska, about half of the state legislature was in the pocket of big oil
companies or contractors doing big projects for native corporations around Alaska, all funded by state oil revenue.
Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down
from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled into the Public
Safety who are supposed to “preserve and protect”.
When Sarah walked into the Governor’s Mansion, she promptly dismissed the state trooper detachment assigned to
governor and had her and her husband’s gun case brought in from Wasilla. Then, she got rid of the former governor’s
state jet and told legislators there were no more free rides, they would have to fly Alaska Airlines just like her and her
family if they wanted
to travel.
Next came the the Barracuda part. The heads that rolled were too numerous to name, but when Sarah finished cleaning
house, a number of our legislators ended up in jail on corruption charges, or tendered their resignations along with
numerous department heads and those who had been riding the gravy train for way too long. And then she had lunch.
By the end of the day, Sarah Palin had saved the people of Alaska millions and has not yet slowed down.
She has truly brought CHANGE to Juneau. I personally know several persons in the private sector in Alaska, that hold
her in high esteem. She surrounds herself with smart people, many from my hometown of Anchorage. She listens to them
but makes her own decisions. Sarah Palin is a no B.S. politician. It is refreshing that there is such a thing anymore. You
want to talk about change? You should see a before and after picture of the state government in Alaska.
That’s change!
Sarah will bring a number of things to the election. I am sure she will appeal to many voters who otherwise could have
gone the other direction on election day. We need what Sarah will bring, first to the election and second, what she will
bring to Washington D.C. John McCain has been advised well, Let’s just hope the American people can get the straight
scoop on her in the weeks
ahead.
This is just the opinion of one Alaska Bush Pilot and Guide, who pays attention to national politics, watches the news and
is deathly afraid of the direction our nation is headed. I guarantee that if Sarah gets a chance to dig her spurs into the
flanks of the liberal Washington types, they will know that she is in the saddle.
CHARTER SCHOOLS SURGING ACROSS U.S.
By Robert Holland
July 5, 2008 - There has been a bumper crop of charter school stories this graduation season. What's more, the articles
have been largely positive, a sign that these independently managed public schools are gaining popularity.
In Greenfield, Mass., the first graduating class at Four Rivers Public Charter School -- 26 strong -- celebrated the fact
that six years ago they had gathered as seventh graders, along with their parents, on
an overgrown field. Their school hadn't even been built yet. They took a leap of faith and fashioned a new school together.
A start-up success story on a larger scale comes from New Orleans, where charter schools have brought an
entrepreneurial spirit to education restoration in a city devastated by Hurricane Katrina three years ago. Charters now
handle 53 per cent of the city's post-hurricane enrollment; pre-Katrina, they had just two per cent.
Charters are booming in the state with the longest track record. Although overall public school enrollment in Minnesota is
declining, charter schools last year experienced their largest increase since 1991-92, the year the nation's first charter
school opened in Minnesota.
Charter schools are free of most of the rules that hamstring other public schools, including regulations pushed by teacher
unions to benefit their members instead of students. This freedom allows charter schools to tailor programs to children's
real needs.
The University of Minnesota's Joe Nathan, one of the authors of the Center for School Change's report on "Enrollment
and Demographic Trends for MN Charter and District Public Schools," offered these reasons for the rise in charter
enrollments:
"First, small size of the schools. Secondly, safer schools. Third, distinctive programs, whether
they're language immersion, ... the arts, things like that. Fourth, there's a feeling of great respect
from teachers to parents and from teachers to students" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, June 19).
It also doesn't hurt that charters are public schools that parents can actually choose.
In Rochester, members of the Democrat and Chronicle newspaper's editorial board visited True North Rochester
Preparatory School to learn how it's racking up some of the highest math scores in New York State. The answer is
shorter than the school's name: discipline.
On Principal Stacey Shells' watch, students do not talk in the hallways and must walk a straight line to and from the
lunchroom. There are carrots, too, in the form of rewards for good conduct and high achievement.
"After all, it's impossible to teach amid disorder," the board noted in a June 19 editorial. "Too many City School District
teachers know that all too well. Many tell disturbing stories of constant disruptions by students uninterested in learning.
They create chaotic environments that make it almost impossible for other students to pursue knowledge."
There is abundant statistical evidence of the impact of the charter movement. EdSource, an
independent research organization, recently found charter middle and high schools performed
much better than regular public schools on California's 2007 achievement tests. Oakland's charter
middle schools scored an eye-popping 210 points higher than the city's noncharters on an
800-point scale (Oakland Tribune, June 19).
In Denver a group of angry parents came to a school board meeting last month demanding to know why the same choice
was not available to them. "We want this for our kids and our families," said Luci Saenz, mother of a child at Valdez
Elementary. "We are ready to fight. We believe in our children, and we believe they deserve it" (Denver Post, May 7).
The successes of charter schools are grabbing attention within the education establishment, but for a different reason.
Vested interests want less competition from excellent schools, not more. Thus the Delaware State Education Association
(DSEA), the state's teachers union, expropriated its members' dues to commission a Washington, DC public relations firm
to craft a slick strategy for halting further charter start-ups in the state.
If the likes of the DSEA get their way, students and parents won't be the only parties with diminished choice. Teachers
will join them--unless, that is, success stories just keep coming in and eventually overwhelm the selfish resistance.
Robert Holland is a senior fellow for education policy at The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Ill.
STATE OFFERS DEATH, NOT REMEDY
June 27, 2008 - Anyone who finds the liberal depictions of universal medical care provided by the government appealing
should consider the plight of Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old lung cancer patient living in a low-income apartment in
Springfield, Oregon.
World Net Daily reports that the Oregon Health Plan will not pay for the drug her doctor has prescribed for her, but it will
pay for assisted suicide.
Wagner was notified of this decision in a letter from LIPA, the private company contracted to administer the state
program. Wagner, according to a local paper, was “devastated” when she learned of the state’s refusal to pay for her life-
saving medicine. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live,
it's cruel," Wagner told the newspaper.
Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA, told the paper, "We had no intent to upset her,” but the company
had to inform her of “her options” under the Oregon Health Plan. Her sole option, of course, was to die but at least the
state would pay someone to “assist” her.
Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, explains the state’s
position, "We can't cover everything for everyone.”
Despite the state’s macabre proposal, Wagner will receive the drug she needs to save her life. She reported
receiving a notice from the pharmaceutical company that it will provide the drug, which costs $4,000 a month, for at least
a year. At the end of the year, the local paper noted, she can apply for further treatment from the company.
Part of the irony in this situation is that pharmaceutical companies rank just below oil companies in the liberal
rogue’s gallery, while government care is touted as the answer to everything. the incident also reveals what we can
expect when "assisted suicide" is legal.
TAKE ACTION AGAINST CPS
By Christopher Robinson
August 26, 2008 - On May 29, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the 3rd Court of Appeals ruling which found the
State had no right to seize the FLDS children from the ranch in Eldorado because it failed to prove either abuse or
neglect. The Supreme Court held "removal of the children was not warranted."
This case is not about whether you agree with the FLDS or not; it is about whether you value your liberty. I do not agree
with the FLDS lifestyle and belief system, but I do value family and liberty and oppose any attempt by the government to
abuse its authority with respect to either Protective Services (formerly CPS) has done just that - overstepped its authority.
And did you catch this headline: "Senate panel suggests taking FLDS sect's assets to cover costs." A legislative panel
suggested that the state explore garnisheeing the religious organization's assets to recoup the costs of caring for the
children they seized! Said Sen. Bob Deuell, "Why should we be footing the bill when they've got assets?" So, they can
wrongly take our children from our homes and then consider charging us for their care!
Who will be next? What if CPS comes knocking on your door? Do you or your family hold beliefs or practice a lifestyle
that may be considered "counter-cultural" or against "mainstream" society? Do you or a loved one home school? Are
you a born-again Christian? Are you leery of the environmental extremist agenda? Do you hold certain beliefs or practice
a lifestyle that would be considered today or in the near future "harmful" or against modern society?
We live in a world where the definition of "normal" or "acceptable" is quickly changing. Family values are no longer
upheld as they once were. The definition of marriage has changed. You are "strange" if you go to church more than once
a week. Same-sex relationships are applauded, and equal rights are demanded for them. If you disagree, you could be
found guilty of "hate crimes."
We are on a slippery slope. It would be easy for this case to fade into the background because popular opinion does not
favor FLDS. "Yeah, they're strange, who cares what happened to them." But if we don't let our governor and our
legislators know that we strongly disapprove of the strong-arm tactics employed by CPS, who will be next? An
unverified phone call was all it took for the DFPS to raid the ranch in Eldorado. We must call for an overhaul of this
agency.
If you love liberty, if you value family, and you don't want to see the state trample on either - please take a moment to
contact Gov. Perry and your legislators. Don't be apathetic. Take action today. If we don't speak up, we may lose our
opportunity to do so in the future.
"When they came for us, there was no one left to protest. . . ."
Christopher Robinson is a Lubbock attorney and home school father.
WHO KNEW FREE ENERGY COULD BE SO EXPENSIVE?
By Drew Thornley
May 24, 2008 - The Electric Reliability Council of Texas recently estimated that billions of dollars will be needed to
transmit wind-generated electricity from the areas of Texas most suitable for wind generation -- West Texas and the
Panhandle -- to the areas of the state that need energy the most -- the I-35 corridor and the upper Gulf Coast.
These costs will be borne by Texas ratepayers. How did we get here?
Renewable energy mandates and subsidies have paved the way for Texas’ wind energy boom. Texas leads the nation in
installed wind power capacity, adding 1,708 megawatts (MW) in 2007, bringing its total to 4,446 MW by the end the
year. California is a distant second, with 2,439 MW by year’s end. In 2007, just 0.77 per cent of the nation’s electric
generation came from wind energy; in Texas, wind accounts for two per cent of generation.
Robust wind power expansion is expected, as Texas producers are required to generate 5,880 MW of renewable energy
by 2015 and face a 10,000-MW target for 2025. To this end, $700 million went into new wind Texas farms in January.
Wind energy proponents extol wind as free, safe, and clean, but these characterizations miss the point. Energy users
expect reliability, and challenges dot the path from wind to the electric grid to the energy consumer.
For wind turbines to produce power the wind must blow. Because the wind does not blow constantly, wind turbines
produce a fraction of their potential generating capacities.
Furthermore, wind blows the least during the summer months when power is needed the most. ERCOT relies on just 8.7
per cent of wind power’s capacity when determining available power during peak summer hours. Also,
due to wind’s intermittency, wind farms must rely on conventional power sources to back up their supply.
Besides generous federal subsidies and tax incentives, Texas entices wind developers with tax exemptions and
deductions; yet wind power remains more expensive per kilowatt-hour than conventional energy sources.
ERCOT’s estimates for transmitting West Texas wind energy, under four different scenarios, range from $3.78
billion to $6.28 billion.
ERCOT estimated costs by using straight-line lengths for transmission cables. Thus, transmission costs were estimated
using a best-case-scenario approach and, as such, should be considered minimums. Add to this ERCOT’s estimates of
$410 million to $1.03 billion for connecting wind generation to the new collection substations.
Wind energy also comes with legitimate environmental concerns. Wind farms require vast tracts of land,
disrupting farming acreage and animal habitats; and turbine blades kill thousands of birds each year, including
protected species.
ERCOT estimates Texas’ electricity demand will rise 20 per cent by 2015 and 43 per cent by 2025. Texas must
remain focused on providing its residents with affordable, reliable energy and not turn its back on fossil fuels,
which can meet our needs and are cleaner than ever before.
Wind alone cannot meet the increasing demand we face. Rather, wind is one stick in a bundle of larger sticks,
all of which can and should contribute to meeting energy demands. Wind should be part of a diversified
portfolio of energy resources, anchored by the traditional energy sources that have the capacity to meet Texas’’
burgeoning energy needs.
Drew Thornley is a natural resources policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market
research institute based in Austin.
OBAMA’S ANTI-MARRIAGE AGENDA
By Gary Bauer
March 4, 2008 - As the campaign for the Democrat nomination heats up, Barack Obama is moving aggressively to
outflank Hillary Clinton on her left. To rally the radical base, he is now pandering to the militant homosexual rights
movement, advocating policies that would effectively clear the way for the imposition of same-sex "marriage" across the
country.
In advance of the Ohio and Texas primaries the Obama campaign released an "open letter" to the homosexual community.
Here are some key excerpts:
"...throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a
fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending
protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills
that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees.
And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to
outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As your president, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex
couples with
full equality in their family and adoption laws.
"...I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a position I have held since before arriving in
the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute
altogether. ... I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting
American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our
immigration system."
"Complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act," would enable radical judicial activists to impose same-sex "marriage"
across the country at their whim. The Defense of Marriage Act did not ban homosexual "marriage." It created an
exemption from the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, giving states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex
"marriages" performed in other states.
Right now, if you are married in California and move to Florida, you do not have to get remarried, because
legally valid marriages of one state are recognized in other states due to the Constitution's full faith and credit
clause. Without the exemption created by the Defense of Marriage Act, one federal judge could declare the
same-sex "marriages" performed in Massachusetts legal in all 50 states. No state would be exempt, because
state constitutional amendments are still subject to federal review, and without DOMA, even the 27 states that have
enacted marriage protection amendments would be extraordinarily vulnerable.
Conservative columnist Terry Jeffrey noted that Obama justifies his position scripturally, as well. Yesterday, he told a
gathering in Ohio, "I think that it [same-sex "marriage"] is a legal right that they should have that is
recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the
Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
Just to be clear about how radical and controversial Obama's position is, in 1996 DOMA passed the House of
Representatives on a vote of 342-to-67 (83 per cent in favor), passed the Senate 85-to-14 and was signed into law by
Bill Clinton. So in order to get to Hillary's left with the most radical elements of the Democrat Party,
Obama is willing to embrace a position overwhelmingly rejected by Congress, a Democrat president and 27
states that have passed marriage protection amendments by an average vote of 69 per cent.
Gary Bauer is the founder of Campaign for Working Families
IS BARACK OBAMA ‘BIG BROTHER’?
By Gary Bauer
May 20, 2008 - If exit polls are to be believed, Barack Obama may be popular with college-educated liberals, but he is
having trouble connecting with blue-collar workers, the "Reagan Democrats" who live and work in "Main Street, U.S.A."
-- and it's not hard to understand why.
In addition to his remarks about "bitter" people clinging to faith and guns, Obama made this startling statement: "We can't
drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72
degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
If that's any indication of what we can expect from a President Obama, the American people better start asking some
tough questions before Election Day. What kind of big government policies would a President Obama propose to
implement such a statement? Would an Obama administration ban SUVs? Would it impose rationing at the grocery store,
like World War II-era restrictions? California officials are already contemplating the use of remote control devices to
control the thermostats in new homes and businesses.
Is this what "Big Brother Barack" has in mind for all of us?
Liberals insist that the government has no interest in defining the meaning of marriage and family, or preserving the sanctity
of life. Those are personal "choices" and matters of individual orientation that somehow rise to the level of cherished
constitutional rights. But Barack Obama thinks government can tell us what to drive, what to eat and where to set our
thermostats!
But wait, there’s more.
A Vision Of The Future
If you're still thinking of staying home on Election Day, let me give you a vision of the future. During a mass mass rally,
Obama told the crowd, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a
serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." Here were 80,000 people listening to "President
Obama" telling them that Iran is a "tiny" nation that poses no significant threat to us. That's the mindset that will guide his
face-to-face negotiations with our enemies.
Let me be clear about this: Iran is sitting astride of the world's energy supply. It is feverishly working to acquire nuclear
weapons and is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Its Holocaust-denying dictator has vowed to "wipe Israel
off the map," called our ally a "stinking corpse," and has also prayed for the destruction of America. And Barack Obama
sees no serious threat?
John McCain responded sharply to Obama's comments, saying, "The biggest national security challenge the United States
currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger
would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the government of Iran poses is anything
but 'tiny.'"
In recent weeks, I have gotten messages from good folks saying I've been too harsh on Barack
Obama. How is one supposed to be gentle about a presidential candidate who is signaling that he is clueless about the
dangers facing our country? Why should we handle with kid gloves a candidate who believes it is ok to allow a child who
survives an abortion to be thrown in a trash can and left to die? (Obama blocked a bill in the Illinois state legislature that
would have protected children who were born alive after botched abortion attempts.) Obama wants to repeal the Defense
of Marriage Act, the only legislation now standing in the way of the California Supreme Court's ruling being forced on
every state in the union.
I don't see how any conservative activist or "Christian conservative leader" can say with a straight face, "It really doesn't
matter whether Barack Obama or John McCain gets elected as far as our issues are concerned."
Gary Bauer is founder of Campaign for Working Families
NORTH AMERICAN INFLUENZA PLAN
VIOLATES RIGHTS OF U.S. CITIZENS
By Phyllis Schlafly
Sept. 12, 2007 - It's now leaking out that there was more going on than met the eye at the Security and Prosperity
Partnership Summit in Montebello, Canada, in August. The three amigos -- President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime
Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon -- finalized and released the "North American Plan
for Avian & Pandemic Influenza."
The "Plan" -- that's what they call it, with a capital P -- is to use the excuse of a major flu epidemic to shift powers from U.
S. legislatures to unelected, unaccountable "North American" bureaucrats.
This idea was launched on September 14, 2005, when Bush announced the "International Partnership on Avian and
Pandemic Influenza." He was speaking to the United Nations General Assembly.
We might have thought that idea had some merit because the influenza partnership called for "transparency in reporting of
influenza cases in humans and in animals" and the "sharing of epidemiological data and samples." That's very different from
the Security and Prosperity Summit, where transparency has always been conspicuously avoided like the plague.
This year's Security and Prosperity Summit in Canada morphed the Influenza Partnership into the North American Plan.
Now we discover that the Plan is not only about combating a flu epidemic but is far-reaching in seeking control over U.S.
citizens and public policy during an epidemic.
The Plan repeatedly features the favorite Bush word "comprehensive" - it calls for a "comprehensive, coordinated North
American approach." The Plan would give authority to international bureaucrats "beyond the health sector to include a
coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection," including "border and transportation issues."
The Plan is a wordy 44-page document, much of which sounds innocuous. It is helpful to exchange information about
disease and take precautions against letting foreign diseases enter the United States.
However, self-government and sovereignty are at risk when control over these matters is turned over to a newly created
North American body headed by the representative of another country. It's an additional problem when the entire Plan is
a spin-off of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, an arrangement created in secret solely by White House press
releases, without Congressional approval or even oversight.
The 2007 Plan acknowledges that it is based not only on the Influenza Partnership, but also on the guidelines, standards
and rules of the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, the World Trade Organization,
and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"Decision Makers"
The Plan sets up a "senior level coordinating body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North
America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity
Partnership." The Plan identifies this Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body as "decision-makers."
The Plan then (ungrammatically) states: "The chair of the Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body will rotate
between each national authority on a yearly basis." Thus, a foreigner will be the "decision maker" for Americans in two out
of every three years.
What powers will this foreign-headed coordinating body exercise? The Plan suggests that these include "the use of
antivirals and vaccines; ... social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community
gatherings; ... isolation and quarantine."
Will this foreign-headed coordinating body respect the First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Or
will the rules of the Plan, Security and Prosperity Partnership, World Health Organization, World Organization for Animal
Health, World Trade Organization and NAFTA take precedence?
Health Powers
In evaluating the Plan, it is instructive to recall the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, an anti-epidemic plan
launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Oct. 23, 2001. Designed to be passed by all state
legislatures, the model bill was primarily written by Lawrence O. Gostin, a former member of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton's discredited Task Force on Health Care Reform, and was promoted by the Bush administration during its first
year.
The proposed Emergency Health Powers Act would have given each governor sole discretion to declare a public health
emergency and grant himself extraordinary powers. He would have been able to restrict or prohibit firearms, seize private
property and destroy it in many circumstances, and impose price controls and rationing.
Governors would have been given the power to order people out of their homes and into dangerous quarantines. Children
could have been taken from their parents and put into public quarantines.
Governors could even have demanded that physicians administer certain drugs despite individuals' religious or other
objections. The Emergency Health Powers Act was based on the concept that decision-making by authoritarian bosses
and unelected bureaucrats is the way to go in a time of crisis.
The proposed Emergency Health Powers Act roused a nationwide storm of protest because it was an unprecedented
assault on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, as well as on the principle of limited government, and so it never passed
anywhere in its original text. Will similar totalitarian notions now bypass legislatures and be forced upon us by Security and
Prosperity Partnership press releases?
TEACHERS RESISTING LEFTIST UNION
By Connie Sadowski
Published in School Reform News by The Heartland Institute
Oct. 7, 2007 - Rank-and-file teachers are so fed up with the far-left policies the National Association of Education
adopted at its annual convention in Philadelphia that some are planning to become delegates themselves in order to change
the union's makeup.
Sissy Jochmann, a second-grade teacher in Pittsburgh, took issue with non-educational recommendations adopted by the
NEA Board of Directors --such as incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity in teacher education standards;
enhancing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) partnerships; expanding the union's GLBT web page; and
supporting federal hate crimes legislation.
During the meeting of the Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification, Jochmann -- an NEA convention
delegate since 2001 and chair of the NEA Conservative Educators Caucus -- said all the research presented and the
discussion that followed were "one-sided from a gay-affirming viewpoint," because the committee was "not interested in
hearing research contrary to their viewpoint."
The Board of Directors subsequently adopted the GLBT policies in a closed session, literally behind closed doors.
Conservative teachers must not "sit idly back and pay dues," Jochmann said. "It's unconscionable," she continued, for
state members to do nothing while the NEA continues to "adopt non-education policies regarding social issues like
abortion and homosexuality."
NEA spokesperson Will Potter repeatedly declined comment.
Need for Accountability
According to the organization's website, approximately one-third of the NEA's three million teacher members are
conservatives.
NEA delegates should more closely represent members' views and be more accountable to members for the policies they
adopt, said Judy Bruns, an Ohio delegate and middle-school teacher. The NEA should institute policies to "ensure annual
meeting delegates invite members' input before attending the meeting and then to report back to members after the
meeting," but her recommendation was defeated, she said.
The NEA is making an effort to reach out to its conservative base, said Diane Lenning, former chair of the NEA
Republican Educators Caucus and a retired Orange County, California high school teacher. A delegate to the annual
meeting each year between 2000 and 2006, this year she was one of 80 teachers attending the NEA's first Republican
Leaders Conference in Minneapolis August 2-5.
An NEA news release said the conference was "part of NEA's commitment to bipartisanship in its political and legislative
advocacy" and its "initiative to increase its presence in [the] Republican Party."
Calls for Vouchers
Lenning said she hopes NEA leaders will work to arrive at "common-ground positions" regarding some "historically
adversarial issues such as school choice and reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, curriculum content, school safety,
improving the high school graduation rate, reducing the dropout rate, and teaching each generation about the processes of
democracy.
"When education and political leaders are adversarial and indecisive, the kids suffer," Lenning added. "We want our
students across the nation to succeed with an accessible, quality education."
Reflecting increasing public dissatisfaction with the NEA's growing disdain for mainstream American values, some social
conservative groups, which historically have been silent on the issue of school choice, are beginning to take up the banner.
One of these is the American Family Association (AFA), based in Mississippi, which asked in a July 31 e-mail alert to its
3.3 million constituents, "is it time for school vouchers?"
"The NEA has consistently passed very leftist resolutions and held very liberal political positions over the years," so AFA
decided to "promote public policies that support a parent's right to choose their child's school and to work to raise the
profile of politicians who support such policy," AFA President Tim Wildmon explained. "The vast majority of people who
take surveys on our Web site favor vouchers."
Connie Sadowski (connie@ceoaustin.org) directs the Education Options Resource Center at the Austin CEO
Foundation.
KAGAN A JUDICIAL ACTIVIST
By Tom Minnery
jUNE 23, 2010 - Elena Kagan is President Obama's latest choice for the U.S. Supreme Court. And even by the Obama
Administration's standards, this pick is breathtaking.
The president may have thought that he was choosing a stealth nominee. After all, current Solicitor General Kagan has no
judicial experience and very limited writings to examine. But the picture that emerges of Kagan is of a staunchly liberal
academic committed to imposing her agenda through the courts.
First, Kagan is strongly pro-abortion. Although she has rarely spoken out on controversial topics, she publicly and
repeatedly criticized the U.S. Supreme Court decision that prohibited recipients of federal funds from counseling on or
referring women for abortions.
She is also supported by pro-abortion organizations that would be quick to complain if they had any doubts about her
commitment to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion on demand.
Second, Kagan is an advocate for the homosexual agenda. In fact, of all the controversial positions she has taken, this
may be where she has been most strident. As the former dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan worked vigorously to
remove military recruiters from the campus because, in her words, "I abhor" the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that keeps
open homosexuality out of the military. She called it "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."
She has also revealed her contempt for traditional marriage. As solicitor general, it was her responsibility to represent the
government in defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In doing so, however, Kagan's legal team stated that
DOMA is discriminatory and that the Administration supports its repeal.
Of even greater concern for the family, she rejected the established federal position that procreation and the rearing of the
next generation are key reasons for upholding marriage. Then she went a step further, writing that the U.S. government
does not have "any legitimate ... interests in child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend
DOMA's constitutionality."
A third area of serious concern is Kagan's view on the First Amendment. She raised big questions last September when
she defended a campaign finance law and told the Supreme Court justices that the government could ban certain kinds of
political pamphlets.
Her rationale for that astounding statement can be found in her declaration to the court on another case three months
earlier. "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection," she wrote in a brief, "depends upon a
categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."5
The Supreme Court rejected her reasoning. But as one commentator said, "Had the justices accepted her assertion, it
would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the
authority to decide what speech should be permitted."
It is possible for a Supreme Court justice to hold views outside the mainstream, such as Kagan holds, but yet refuse to use
the judicial system to rewrite the law and impose those views on America. Kagan, however, has made it clear that she
believes judges should have a more activist role.
Tom Minnery is Vice President of Public Policy for Focus on the Family.