Right Jeff

Where's the Inflation?

2010-11-27T11:27:00.000-08:00

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/26/playing-chicken-china/#content

Re: Hi,

2010-11-19T06:16:00.001-08:00

Please disregard this email. Methinks there is a hacker or worm at work. I'll look into it.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Jeff Baird <jeff.a.baird@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,
How are you doing recently?
I find a website sell electronic products with very resonable price, Like Laptops, DC, Cellphones, Motorcycles etc. Their products are original quality with very low price as a wholesale business supplier .placed an order of Apple iphone on the website: geprod.com
Hope everything goes well.
Best regards!

FBI files shed light on Ezra Taft Benson, Ike and the Birch Society

2010-11-16T06:47:00.001-08:00

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50349153-78/benson-hoover-fbi-society.html.csp

By Lee Davidson

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published Nov 15, 2010 04:49PM
Updated Nov 14, 2010 08:20PM

His letter to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was packed with political dynamite, so Ezra Taft Benson marked it "personal-confidential."

Benson — the only man to serve in a presidential Cabinet and later lead a worldwide church, the Mormons — was attempting to convince Hoover that the John Birch Society was a clear-thinking anti-communist group. So he wrote how it had convinced him that a friend of theirs had been a tool of the worldwide communist conspiracy.

That friend was none other than former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, for whom Benson had served as secretary of Agriculture from beginning to end of his eight-year presidency.

"In my study of the [communist] conspiracy, which I am sure is weak compared with your own, the consequences of Mr. Eisenhower's actions in dealing with the communists have been tragic," Benson wrote.

He argued to Hoover, whom he viewed as a friend and fellow fighter of communism, that Eisenhower helped communism's spread more than he hurt it, perhaps because it had been the expedient thing to do for an ambitious politician.

"What difference does it make if your house is burned down by an ignorant man, a person who wants to get warm fast, or an arsonist?" he wrote about the former president. "There is little difference."

He said because freedom was threatened by soft stands against communism, he pondered making public such feelings "even at the risk of destroying the influence of men who are widely respected and loved" — including Eisenhower.

That and other letters in Benson's thick FBI file, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, suggest that Benson was an early tea partyer — one who would become an inspiration 50 years later for that modern movement.

Like the current tea partyers, Benson worried about threats to freedom and the Constitution. He feared that too many powerful officeholders — up to and including the U.S. president — were not standing up for the Constitution, and instead aided its enemies, out of ambition, expediency or other, more sinister motives.

The New Yorker magazine, in its Oct. 18 issue, included Benson as one of the tea party's ideological founding fathers — which it called its "confounding fathers" —noting how Benson's public writing and speeches are quoted and admired by commentator Glenn Beck, an icon of the movement.

(It also noted how Beck, who is LDS, actively promotes the works of the late Utah author/activist Cleon Skousen, who denounced communist corruption in the U.S. government while defending the John Birch Society.)

The FBI files on Benson show a behind-the-scenes battle in which he sought to persuade the bureau not to condemn the John Birch Society, formed in 1958 by Robert Welch and named for a missionary-turned-soldier killed by Chinese communists after World War II.

Interestingly, files also show that Hoover's FBI twice spied on Benson — possibly for Eisenhower — to determine whether he might resign from the Cabinet during times of widespread criticism. Files also show that Hoover lied in later years to avoid Benson, seeking to distance himself from Benson's support of the Birch Society.

—

Looking back » Benson's son, Reed, and Reed's wife, May Hinckley Benson, said in a recent Salt Lake Tribune interview in their Provo home that they are not surprised about the views contained in the FBI files.

They watched up close as Ezra Benson formed a hatred of communism because it destroyed personal and religious liberty. He sometimes expressed frustration to them that Eisenhower and America were not doing more against it.

"When he felt he was right, he was amazing" in how hard he would fight, May Benson told the newspaper.

They said his hatred of communism was rooted in his experience as a new apostle sent by the LDS Church to oversee its relief efforts in Europe after World War II. Benson later wrote that he watched half of the continent quickly fall to communism and lose the right to worship freely.

Reed Benson said that when his father was chosen as Agriculture secretary, he knew one of the first cells of communists found in the government had been in that agency. So, FBI files show, Benson took what was then an unusual step (although routine now) and asked Hoover to conduct a background check on him to ensure his loyalty.

The only problems found were a few parking and speeding tickets. Files show that Benson wanted the same scrutiny for his top aides; the FBI did background checks on them, too.

—

Early controversy » Just after taking office in 1953, the Utahn became the first member of the new Cabinet to create controversy by attacking government farm subsidies — worrying aloud that they were too socialistic, which upset many farmers and their members of Congress.

Major media at the time — including the Saturday Evening Post and The Nation — conjectured that Benson was "expendable" or might be "promoted to an ambassadorship."

The news media were not the only ones looking into whether Benson might go. Hoover's FBI was also doing a little spying into that. For example, a Nov. 20, 1953, FBI memo says that an undersecretary of state (whose name was censored from released files) informed the FBI that "the president is a little 'teed off' with Secretary of Agriculture Benson" because he "has not been successful in quieting the farmers, cattlemen, dairymen and Capitol Hill."

The FBI memo said "the matter has now been passed to the White House and … the president is unhappy about the whole thing." It added that the State Department source said, "It looks like Benson will be the 'fall guy.' "

Why would Hoover and the FBI care whether Benson departed? Others have charged through the years, and FBI files have shown, that Hoover sometimes investigated politicians of the era to use the resulting information to strengthen his own hand with presidents.

While Benson weathered calls for his resignation in 1953, another similar storm came in 1957-58 over his attacks on dairy supports. Again, the FBI did some spying into whether he would resign, talking to aides and even Benson himself in passing. Whether Benson would go voluntarily would be of interest to the White House, but censors blacked out exactly where reports of the spying were sent. Benson ended up staying during all of Eisenhower's administration.

—

Friends and allies » Amid the spying by Hoover, the FBI director managed to leave the impression with Benson that they were friends and fellow fighters against communism.

Files show they exchanged copies of books and speeches. Hoover sent messages of encouragement when Benson was sick and when his stepmother died. He wrote a note of thanks for Benson's service when he left the Cabinet. He also once invited Benson to have his son, Reed, apply to become an FBI agent.

In turn, Benson invited Hoover to speak at an LDS Church general conference (which Hoover declined), to attend a concert by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir with Benson's wife, to allow the LDS Church's Deseret Book Co. to print a compilation of Hoover's speeches (which did not happen), and even to attend a song recital by one of Benson's daughters.

"I realize that only in the next life will we fully appreciate all you have done to preserve freedom in this country," Benson wrote Hoover in 1965. "I am most grateful for your exposure of the communist conspiracy and for the wonderful organization you have established in the FBI."

—

Frustrations » But Benson was not so happy with others in the Eisenhower administration.

Reed Benson said his father tried to persuade the State Department, for example, to rethink its support of Fidel Castro in Cuba after Agriculture attachés warned Benson that supporting him could lead that country to communism.

He was also upset at Eisenhower's orders for Benson to take Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to an agricultural experiment center near Washington in 1959. Benson said in a 1967 speech, "I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor."

With such frustrations, Benson became involved with the John Birch Society once he had left office. After Reed Benson lost a run for Congress in 1962, he said the society approached him, and they found they shared beliefs.

"The John Birch Society believed in less government, more individual responsibility and a better world," Reed Benson told The Tribune.

When the society offered Reed a job as its Utah coordinator, FBI logs show that his father made a phone call wanting to know what the bureau felt about the group. It was the beginning of Benson's defense of the society.

An agent wrote, "I informed him off the record … that to my knowledge the FBI has not investigated the John Birch Society."

The agent added in summary of the conversation, "Benson has reached the conclusion the society is doing a lot of good in combating communism and feels that it is patriotic in its motives."

Benson also told the agent that he hoped to soon meet with Hoover in Washington "to confer with him about the menace of communism and the role of the Birch Society."

Because of that, officials at FBI headquarters wrote a briefing paper to prepare Hoover in case Benson called.

Calling the society "probably the most publicized right-wing extremist group in the country," they recommended keeping Benson away from Hoover — including lying, if necessary, to say that Hoover was unavailable to talk to Benson.

—

Godless communism » On May 17, 1965, Ezra Taft Benson wrote to Hoover with a plea. "Word has come to me, not yet fully confirmed, that some of our liberal 'soft-on-communist' groups are planning to put pressure on you to come out with a statement against the John Birch Society." He urged Hoover not to do so.

"It is my conviction that this organization is the most effective non-church group in America against creeping socialism and godless communism," Benson wrote.

Hoover, however, in response to a question at a news conference soon thereafter, said he had little respect for the society or its founder, Robert Welch.

After Hoover's disavowal of Welch, Benson decided to meet with Hoover to explain his support of the society and how Welch's writings had convinced him that Eisenhower aided communism.

Files show that Hoover's aides twice told Benson that he was unavailable for such a meeting — as memos had advised them to do. So Benson wrote Hoover the sensitive "personal-confidential" letter of May 28, 1965, outlining his conclusions about Eisenhower.

Benson also soon sent a book by Welch titled The Politician, noting it was what led him to his conclusions about Eisenhower.

In the book, Welch argues that Eisenhower was either ignorant, a politician blinded by opportunism or was "consciously aiding the communist conspiracy" — and said it really didn't matter because "they all come to the same end … namely tragedy."

Benson wrote Hoover that he inscribed the following words on the flyleaf of the book after he first read it:

"Have just finished this shocking volume. ... While I do not agree with all or the extent of some of the author's conclusions, one must agree that the documented record makes the thesis of the book most convincing.

"How can a man [Eisenhower] who seems to be so strong for Christian principles and base American concepts be so effectively used as a tool to serve the communist conspiracy?

"I believe the answer is found in the fact that these godless communist conspirators and their fellow travelers are masters of deceit — who deceived the very elect. How our people need to be alerted and informed."

Benson added that he hoped the $1 book would be made available widely.

"This story must be told even at the risk of destroying the influence of men who are widely respected and loved by the American people. The stakes are high. Freedom and survival are the issues," he had written in his copy of the book.

Benson also wrote of Eisenhower: "I presume I will never know in this life why he did some of the things he did which gave help to the [communist] conspiracy. It is not my divine prerogative to know the motives of men. It is easier, however, to judge the consequences of man's actions."

—

Noncommittal » Hoover sent back only a short note: "It was indeed thoughtful of you to furnish me your views regarding the John Birch Society and its head." He concluded simply, "I have taken note of your impressions."

Such impressions would lead Hoover to take the advice of aides and largely cut contact with his friend.

That included declining an offer to have the LDS Church-owned Deseret Book Co. publish a compilation of Hoover's speeches. Aides warned that because of Benson's letters, "If we were to go along with this project, it could in some way be used to the advantage of the John Birch Society."

Still, Benson kept up cordial correspondence with Hoover over the following years — and sent him John Birch Society materials on several occasions. In 1971, he again requested a meeting with Hoover while Benson was in Washington for a few days for a church conference.

FBI headquarters staff also frowned upon that request.

"It is not believed that the director should take time from his busy schedule to meet with Mr. Benson, as it is very possible that he would bring his son Reed Benson with him for that meeting," who, the memo said, was then the national director of public relations for the John Birch Society.

When Reed Benson called to check on the availability of Hoover to meet with him and his father, FBI memos say, "The director indicated at the time he was booked solidly" — as memos from staff had suggested he should say.

Hoover died only a few months after that last requested meeting. Benson would live another 22 years — enough time to ascend to the presidency of his church and to see the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. He spoke little of that fall, however, focusing on more spiritual matters of his church, including urging LDS members to constantly read the Book of Mormon. Benson died at age 94 in 1994.

ldavidson@sltrib.com

Home Defense in Kearns

2010-11-11T07:18:00.001-08:00

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=13192165

Comment Board »

0
Comments

Video embed:

Audio

Randall Jeppesen reporting

Cleon Wall reporting on self-defense

Photo Gallery » (10 pics)

more photos »

Police arrest accomplice in botched Kearns burglary

November 8th, 2010 @ 11:59pm

By ksl.com

KEARNS -- Prosecutors must decide whether a Kearns homeowner acted in self-defense when he shot and killed an apparent burglar in the middle of the night. Less than 24 hours later, police arrested an accomplice in the burglary who told them the same chain of events.

Friends, family shocked by Poulton's death

People who knew the accused burglar who was shot to death early Monday morning say they are stunned. Nineteen-year-old Kyle Poulton's father says he has no idea what his son was doing at that home or what went wrong.

Police say Poulton was killed as he and 18-year-old Derek Sego tried to break into the home near 5600 South and 5100 West. Lt. Don Hutson of the Unified Police Department says the homeowner was unaware of another burglar, but investigators were able to track Sego down after talking with acquaintances of the young men.

Pam Marrs, who manages the Sconecutter restaurant in Kearns where Poulton worked, says he was well-liked.

18-year-old Derek Sego

19-year-old Kyle Poulton

"It's unbelievable to me to even think he would break into a home," she said.

Marrs says Poulton was supposed to be at work Monday night.

"He worked a lot with me," she said. "He was a really good worker, did everything I told him. So, I don't know, it's just sad."

Poulton's father says his son was the youngest of four children, had a job and was considering joining the military. He says the family can't understand what he was doing.

Several people gathered for a small candlelight vigil late Monday night. Some of them had known Poulton since grade school and said they never believed he would do anything like this.

"That's not the Kyle that I know," said Elese Tschaggeni. "That's not who I grew up with."

Police: Attempted break-in led to shooting

Around 3 a.m., police say the Kearns homeowner heard noise and saw a person trying to break in the rear glass door. Earlier, a mysterious ring of the doorbell had awakened the family. The homeowner told police at that time, he went outside to look around; so when he later heard the noise out back, fearing an intruder, he armed himself with a handgun.

"He fired one round through the glass," Hutson said. "The person ran away, and he immediately called 911."

Police found Poulton dead in the street.

After further investigation, police arrested Sego on burglary charges and obstruction of justice. Police say Sego admitted he was trying to break into a window when Poulton was shot, and he ran.

Neighbors defended the homeowner.

"What do you do when someone is trying to break into your house?" asked Jason Dickinson.

Natalia Neaniffe said the homeowner had two young children in the home.

"Sometimes you do whatever it takes to cover their safety," she said.

So far, Unified police say evidence and the story from the other accused burglar match the homeowner's version of events.

"This homeowner had two small children in the home," Hutson said. "Clearly, someone was attempting to break into the home, and this is something that is going to have be looked at by the district attorney's office."

Lawyer: State law will likely protect homeowner

A local attorney and author believes the homeowner will not be charged with a crime. Mitch Vilos says Utah's self-defense statute allows someone "to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; and burglary is a forcible felony."

The author of the book "The Self-Defense Law of all 50 States" says an intruder doesn't have to be in the home to open fire. Vilos says the burglar just has to be trying to get into the home.

But Vilos says a gun-toting homeowner shouldn't go too far. He said, "Once that force against you has ceased, you have a responsibility to stop using force."

Vilos encourages all gun owners to brush up on the law. He says Utah has one of the strongest home-defense laws in the nation

Meanwhile, Poulton's family says they are hoping to have his organs donated.

------

Story written with contributions from Jed Boal, Sam Penrod and Cleon Wall.

Don't forget to vote!

2010-11-02T06:48:00.001-07:00

Don't forget to vote!

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jeff Baird <jeff.a.baird@gmail.com> wrote:

You're probably getting sick of political signs, phone calls, ads etc. But for those who may be interested, here are my recommendations for the upcoming election. If you feel I'm wrong on an issue or candidate, please let me know what I'm missing, and we can chat about it. I've tried hard to look at principles, not parties in making my decisions. In this election, it's very important that people show up and vote, and as always, the more educated we are on the issues and candidates, the better.

Utah's 1st Congressional District - Rob Bishop
2nd Congressional District (If you're in my neighborhood, this is our district) - Morgan Philpot
3rd Congressional District - Jason Chaffetz

US Senate - Mike Lee

Depending on what Utah House district you're in (http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/districtinfo/newmaps/state.htm):

Ken Sumsion
Carl Wimmer

State Senate (District 11) - Howard Stephenson

Amendments to the Constitution

A: I'm voting Yes -- Clarifying the law to ensure secret ballots

B: Yes - Eligibility for Legislative Office, clarifies to ensure person lives in district
C: Yes - Tax Exemption for non profit groups with water rights
D: No - Legislative Ethics Commission. I worry about a non elected body, having power over the state government. If there are ethics problems, let's solve them through the established channels, not through an unelected group. Additionally I don't think we need additional commissions (bureaucracies).

Re: (For what it's worth) My Recommendations for November 2nd

2010-10-28T13:26:00.001-07:00

Forgot one. Paula Hill for Alpine School District

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jeff Baird <jeff.a.baird@gmail.com> wrote:

You're probably getting sick of political signs, phone calls, ads etc. But for those who may be interested, here are my recommendations for the upcoming election. If you feel I'm wrong on an issue or candidate, please let me know what I'm missing, and we can chat about it. I've tried hard to look at principles, not parties in making my decisions. In this election, it's very important that people show up and vote, and as always, the more educated we are on the issues and candidates, the better.

Utah's 1st Congressional District - Rob Bishop
2nd Congressional District (If you're in my neighborhood, this is our district) - Morgan Philpot
3rd Congressional District - Jason Chaffetz

US Senate - Mike Lee

Depending on what Utah House district you're in (http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/districtinfo/newmaps/state.htm):

Ken Sumsion
Carl Wimmer

State Senate (District 11) - Howard Stephenson

Amendments to the Constitution

A: I'm voting Yes -- Clarifying the law to ensure secret ballots

B: Yes - Eligibility for Legislative Office, clarifies to ensure person lives in district
C: Yes - Tax Exemption for non profit groups with water rights
D: No - Legislative Ethics Commission. I worry about a non elected body, having power over the state government. If there are ethics problems, let's solve them through the established channels, not through an unelected group. Additionally I don't think we need additional commissions (bureaucracies).

(For what it's worth) My Recommendations for November 2nd

2010-10-28T13:17:00.001-07:00

You're probably getting sick of political signs, phone calls, ads etc. But for those who may be interested, here are my recommendations for the upcoming election. If you feel I'm wrong on an issue or candidate, please let me know what I'm missing, and we can chat about it. I've tried hard to look at principles, not parties in making my decisions. In this election, it's very important that people show up and vote, and as always, the more educated we are on the issues and candidates, the better.

Utah's 1st Congressional District - Rob Bishop

2nd Congressional District (If you're in my neighborhood, this is our district) - Morgan Philpot

3rd Congressional District - Jason Chaffetz

US Senate - Mike Lee

Depending on what Utah House district you're in (http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/districtinfo/newmaps/state.htm):

Ken Sumsion

Carl Wimmer

State Senate (District 11) - Howard Stephenson

Amendments to the Constitution

A: I'm voting Yes -- Clarifying the law to ensure secret ballots

B: Yes - Eligibility for Legislative Office, clarifies to ensure person lives in district

C: Yes - Tax Exemption for non profit groups with water rights

D: No - Legislative Ethics Commission. I worry about a non elected body, having power over the state government. If there are ethics problems, let's solve them through the established channels, not through an unelected group. Additionally I don't think we need additional commissions (bureaucracies).

Come Out to Vote!!

2010-10-18T18:29:00.001-07:00

Lehi 07th Precinct caucus attendees,

Please help us get Morgan Philpot elected.

He needs our help. Talk to your Friends and neighbors and remind them

to vote. Put up yard signs. Volunteer at a phone bank.

Republican Morgan Philpot
will win the Congressional seat
if
Republicans and Independents
get out to vote on November 2.


In three weeks, control of the U.S. Congress may come down to one or two seats.

UTAH'S GRASSROOTS REPUBLICAN AND INDEPENDENT VOTERS
MAY DECIDE WHO SITS IN THAT SEAT

PLEASE HELP US FIRE NANCY PELOSI AND JIM MATHESON

Right now we are contacting everyone in the Second Congressional District to simply tell the the truth.   Matheson is a Democrat and he votes with Nancy Pelosi's Democrat Congress 93% of the time.

and

Republican Morgan Philpot is ready to step in and start dismantling the federal machine that is burying our grandchildren in debt.

It's up to citizens like us to drive this process and it has to start right now.

Please take a shift in one of our call centers

Located throughout Utah

We have phones and computers set up for you. You only need to bring yourself, and a friend! (And maybe a snack to share, just to make it even more fun!)

Here are the call center hours and contact information for Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Wasatch, and Washington Counties:

Salt Lake County Call Center & Campaign Office

1218 East, 7800 South, Sandy

Contact Damion Nielsen, 202.378.3605, damion.nielsen@gmail.com

Mon 9 am - 6 pm

Tues–Fri 9 am - 9 pm

Sat 9 am - 4 pm

Utah County Call Center

915 South 500 East, Suite 100, American Fork

(If traveling on I-15, take exit 276, go west on 500 East, then take the first left into the parking lot.)

Contact Becky Pirente, 801.362.7392, pirente@gmail.com

Mon 9 am - 6 pm

Tues - Fri 9 am - 9 pm

Sat 9 am - 4 pm

Davis County Call Center

4102 S 1900 W, Bldg 7, Roy

Contact Bob Stott, 801.544.5271, bobstott71@comcast.net

Weekdays

1st shift will work-Monday through Friday- 10 AM to 2 PM2nd shift will work- Tuesday through Thursday-5 PM to 9 PM

Saturdays

1st shift will work - 9 AM to 1 PM2nd shift will work -1 PM to 5 PM3rd shift will work - 5 PM to 9 PM

Wasatch County Call Center

Contact Aaron Gabrielson, 801.319.6876, aaron@redmondinc.com

Washington County Call Center

Contact Damion Nielsen, 202.378.3605, damion.nielsen@gmail.com

Come and win with us!

Regards,

Becky Pirente

Call Coordinator

801.362.7392

Free Copy of the Utah Constitution

2010-10-05T09:07:00.001-07:00

https://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/event.asp

President Packer, Red Herrings, and the Pro-LGBT Propagandists

2010-10-04T19:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/president-packer-red-herrings-and-the-pro-lgbt-propagandists

In his revealing book Propaganda, Edward Bernays, widely considered to be the father of the trade, discussed how leaders do and should guide the opinions of the masses through carefully-controlled messages. Propaganda, he argued, was a necessary element in business, government, and society as a whole. Remarking on its historical use previous to that time, and specifically in relation to government, Bernays wrote:

…the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental clichés and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror, and the tyranny of the enemy.

Propagandists since that time have learned from and emulated many of the tactics Bernays discussed and advocated. Indeed, many organizations who remain a minority, yet who have successfully led public opinion to reverse their previous opinions regarding them, have employed such methods, including deceptive advertising, infiltration of key communication positions, and the dissemination of tightly controlled information, crafted to yield a desired response. It is, as Bernays also wrote, "enlightened expert propaganda through the creation of circumstances, through the high-spotting of significant events, and the dramatization of important issue."

Today has produced a case study worth highlighting.

This past weekend, Latter-day Saints worldwide tuned in for their semi-annualGeneral Conference, an event attracting millions of faithful Mormons eager to listen to and learn from their leaders. One of many addresses has unsurprisingly yielded swift reaction from those opposed to its declarations. Beginning his remarks on Sunday morning, President Boyd K. Packer first noted that there exists so much confusion (propaganda?) in the world, that our youth hardly know which way they can walk.

Continuing, Packer began to elaborate on The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the plague of pornography, the divine nature of marriage, and the issue of homosexuality as it relates both to individual life and actions, and marital union. He emphasized that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth has never been rescinded. He noted that love is truly only realized when the sacred, procreative powers are employed within the bounds of a legal and lawful marriage—one between man and woman.

Satan is "impotent", President Packer explained, not being able to create life. Seeking to make all miserable like unto himself, Packer explained that Satan "seeks to degrade the righteous use of the life-giving power by tempting you into immoral relationships." As can be inferred from the balance of his remarks, he was referring not only to extra-marital heterosexual relations, but homosexual relations as well—both the relationships themselves, as well as those "counterfeits for marriage" many are seeking today.

"We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong," President Packer said.

The retaliatory response to his remarks is coming primarily from the comments that directly followed the above. He said:

Some suppose that they were "preset" and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.
…
You can, if you will, break the habits, and conquer the addiction, and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church.

He continued:

If we're not alert, there are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God's laws and nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do? There are both moral and physical laws irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundation of the world that cannot be changed. History demonstrates over and over again that moral standards cannot be changed by battle and cannot be changed by ballot.

The propagandaists spared no time in responding. Within 24 hours, the Human Rights Campaign issued a press release saying that this servant of the Lord "should know better" than to make such comments:

Words have consequences, particularly when they come from a faith leader. This is exactly the kind of statement that can lead some kids to bully and others to commit suicide. When a faith leader tells gay people that they are a mistake because God would never have made them that way and they don't deserve love, it sends a very powerful message that violence and/or discrimination against LGBT people is acceptable. It also emotionally devastates those who are LGBT or may be struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identify. His words were not only inaccurate, they were also dangerous.

Affirmation, the group for gay and lesbian Mormons who has tried in the past few years to establish a dialogue with the Church on these issues, spoke out thusly:

Elder Packer's remarks in General Conference were not only ill-advised and contrary to fact, but were mean-spirited and will be perceived by many as bullying. We see no potential for good coming from his words and much possible damage, to the church, to individuals, and to families. The LDS Church should be a source of love, compassion, and conciliation, and not of fear and unfeeling petty hatred.

To be sure, there may very well be valid responses to President Packer's remarks, and concern about the practical application of the standards he discussed. Why, then, do I refer to these remarks as propaganda? At no time did Packer tell homosexuals that "they are a mistake", or that "they don't deserve love". His words are not dangerous, contrary to fact, mean-spirited, or based on "fear and unfeeling petty hatred".

That these groups would even dare to so hastily issue such a conglomeration of poorly-constructed thoughts and emotionally-based opinions shows that they either did not view President Packer's talk, or if they did, their perspective is so heavily jaded that they inferred from his remarks things he never said.

In short, these groups have placed horrible words in President Packer's mouth, ascribing to him things he stated, nor which accurately characterize his discourse in the slightest. Unable or unwilling to respond directly to his arguments, they set up red herrings which they can comfortably attack.

If such advocacy groups are concerned about the harm Packer's remarks will have in the LDS/LGBT relations, they need only look inward, for it is they who have blatantly and unapologetically lied. They have egregiously claimed that Packer will be responsible for the suicides of struggling individuals, and explicitly stated that his teachings were based on fear and hatred, and that he claims, essentially, that "God hates fags".

This is propaganda at work. Surely, the LGBT masses will make no effort to read or view President Packer's talk, and thus their interpretation of what was said will rely upon those whom they trust—the "enlightened experts" to which Bernays earlier referred.

Interestingly, Bernays recognized that propaganda was merely a tool used by all sorts of people. Often, it was and is deliberately misused and achieve and devious result. Yet, he noted that it "becomes vicious and reprehensive only when its authors consciously and deliberately disseminate what they know to be lies."

Thus can be labeled the organizations which have pounced on President Packer's discourse thus far: vicious and reprehensive propagandists consciously and deliberately disseminating lies.

***************

New Food Rules: A Guide to your Government Regulated Diet

2010-09-27T15:42:00.003-07:00

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-food-regulations-a-guide-to-your-government-diet/

Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:09pm by Meredith Jessup
Print »
Email »

As Glenn mentioned on his Fox show this evening, new government regulatory crackdowns on certain foods and beverages across the country are forcibly shaping new dietary habits for many Americans. To make things easier, we thought we'd consolidate and break down a number of the bureaucratic overreaches for you.

How is government working to limit your scrumptious individual liberties? Let us count some of the ways…

As we've reported, officials in Boston, Mass., are contemplating a ban on "sugary" beverages from the vending machines of all city municipal buildings in an attempt to whittle down public employees' waistlines.

Likewise, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom used his executive order power to ban sodas and other sugary beverages from public building vending machines, replacing them with diet drinks and soy milk products.

In a separate executive order, the San Francisco Mayor also single-handedly banned the use of city funds to purchase bottled water. "[Bottled water manufacturers] are making huge amounts of money selling God's natural resources. Sorry, we're not going to be part of it," he said.

In New York, a Brooklyn Democrat introduced a bill in the state legislature earlier this year to ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking.

The New York Times dubbed the state of California a "national trendsetter in all matters edible" when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill in July to ban trans fats from the state's 88,000 restaurants. "Under the new law, trans fats, long linked to health problems, must be excised from restaurant products beginning in 2010, and from all retail baked goods by 2011." Other places that have banned trans fats include New York City, Philadelphia, Stamford, Conn., and Montgomery County, Md. — a suburb of Washington, D.C.

In perhaps one of the most outrageous cases of regulations restricting small business, health officials in Oregon shut down 7-year-old Julie Murphy's roadside lemonade stand in August for failing to secure a $120 "temporary restaurant" license.

Kids may also be also be getting the shaft in San Francisco where officials are launching a campaign to ban "Happy Meals" or any other meals that come with a toy. The so-called "Healthy Meals Incentive" would ban toys if the food contains too much fat, sugar or salt. It wouldn't be the first time meal-time toys would be nixed in California; earlier this year, Santa Clara County approved an ordinance "to break the link between unhealthy food and prizes."

New York City has banned school bake sale as part of a new wellness policy that also limits options in vending machines and student-run stores. Proceeds from the ventures generally used to help help finance school-related activities like pep rallies and proms.

Under state laws in Texas, a single piece of candy landed a 10-year-old Brazos Elementary School student in detention for a week in May.

USA Today: 1 OUT OF 6 TAKE GOV'T AID...

2010-09-27T15:42:00.001-07:00

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm

Record number in government anti-poverty programs

Updated 4m ago | Comments 434 | Recommend 8

E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |


Enlarge	By Paul Sakuma, AP

Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program.

COSTS RISE WITH CASELOADS

Subscribe
myYahoo
iGoogle

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand.

More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.

POLITICS: Welfare agencies boost voter rolls

"Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record," says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.

The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. "Private physicians are already indicating that they're at their limit," says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.

More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.

Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits.

"This program has proven to be incredibly responsive and effective," says Ellin Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center.

Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — "the highest numbers on record," says Christine Riordan of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers.

More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession. The program has grown slower than others, causing Brookings Institution expert Ron Haskins to question its effectiveness in the recession.

As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.

INFOMOTION GRAPHIC: A historical look at the national debt

INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC: Getting a grip on government debt

The steady climb in safety-net program caseloads and costs has come as a result of two factors: The recession has boosted the number who qualify under existing rules. And the White House, Congress and states have expanded eligibility and benefits.

Conservatives fear expanded safety-net programs won't contract after the economy recovers. "They're much harder to unwind in the long term," says Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Other anti-poverty experts say the record caseloads are a necessary response to economic hardship. "We should be there to support people when the economy can't," says LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.

New book reveals truth about Obamacare, and it isn't pretty

2010-08-29T17:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700060205/New-book-reveals-truth-about-Obamacare-and-it-isnt-pretty.html

New book reveals truth about Obamacare, and it isn't pretty

By Thomas Sowell

There is so much political spin and so many numbers games being played when it comes to medical care that we have to go back to square one and the simplest common sense in order to get some rational idea of what government-run medical care means. In particular, we need to examine the claim that the government can "bring down the cost of medical care."

The most basic fact is that it is cheaper to remain sick than to get medical treatment. What is cheapest of all is to die instead of getting life-saving medications and treatment, which can be very expensive.

Despite these facts, most of us tend to take a somewhat more parochial view of the situation when it is we ourselves who are sick or who face a potentially fatal illness. But what if that decision is taken out of your hands under Obamacare and is being made for you by a bureaucrat in Washington?

We won't know what that leads to until the time comes. As Nancy Pelosi said, we will find out what is in the bill after it has passed. But even now, after Obamacare has been passed, not many people want to read its 2,400 pages. Even if you did, you would still not know what it would be like in practice, after more than 150 boards and commissions issue their specific regulations.

Fortunately — in fact, very fortunately — you don't have to slog through 2,400 pages of legalistic jargon or turn to a fortune teller to divine the future. A new book, "The Truth About Obamacare" by Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, lays out the facts in the plainest English. While she can't tell you the future, she can tell you enough about government-run medical systems in other countries that it will not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is in store for us if Obamacare doesn't get repealed before it takes full effect in 2014. It is not a pretty picture.

We hear a lot about how wonderful it is that the Canadians or the British or the Swedes get free medical treatment because the government runs the system. But we don't hear much about the quality of that medical care.

We don't hear about more than 4,000 expectant mothers who gave birth inside a hospital, but not in the maternity ward, in just one year in Britain. They had their babies in hallways, bathrooms and even elevators.

British newspapers have for years carried stories about the neglect of patients under the National Health Service, of which this is just one. When nurses don't get around to taking a pregnant woman to the maternity ward in time, the baby doesn't wait.

But the American media don't tell you about such things when they are gushing over the wonders of "universal health care" that will "bring down the cost of medical care."

Instead, the media spin is that various countries with government-run medical systems have life expectancies that are as long as ours, or longer. That is very clever as media spin, if you don't bother to stop and think about it.

Author Pipes did bother to stop and think about it. She points out that medical care is just one of the factors in life expectancy.

She cites a study by professors Ohsfeldt and Schneider at the University of Iowa, which shows that, if you leave out people who are victims of homicide or who die in automobile accidents, Americans live longer than people in any other Western country.

Doctors do not prevent homicides or car crashes. In the things that doctors can affect, such as the survival rates of cancer patients, the United States leads the world.

Americans get the latest pharmaceutical drugs, sometimes years before those drugs are available to people in Britain or in other countries where the government runs the medical system. Why? Because the latest drugs cost more, and it is cheaper to let people die.

The media have often said that we have higher infant mortality rates than other countries with government medical care systems. But we count every baby that dies, and other countries do not. If the media don't tell you that, so much the better for Obamacare.

But is life and death something to play spin games about?

Two-in-Five Canadians Would Scrap Long Gun Registry

2010-08-27T06:30:00.001-07:00

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35902/two_in_five_canadians_would_scrap_long_gun_registry

Two-in-Five Canadians Would Scrap Long Gun Registry

August 25, 2010

Half of respondents believe a complete ban on handguns would be justified, while two-in-five disagree with this notion.

As a decision on the future of the Canadian Firearms Registry draws near, Canadians hold differing views on whether the so-called long gun registry should be scrapped, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

The online survey of a representative sample of 1,005 Canadian adults also finds that respondents are almost evenly divided on whether it should be illegal for ordinary citizens to own firearms.

Gun Violence

Seven-in-ten Canadians (70%) believe gun violence in Canada is a "very serious" or "moderately serious" problem.

About half of respondents (49%) think implementing a complete ban on handguns would be justified, since current regulations are not working and guns stolen from legal owners are being used in crimes. Conversely, two-in-five Canadians (39%) believe a complete ban would be unjustified, as it would affect law-abiding Canadians such as collectors and target shooters.

Ontarians, Quebecers and British Columbians tend to side with the pro-ban argument, while Albertans, Atlantic Canadians and those in the Prairie Provinces are more likely to reject this notion.

The Registry

The Canadian Firearms Registry, also known as the long gun registry, requires the registration of all non-restricted firearms in Canada. Two-in-five Canadians (43%) believe the registry has been unsuccessful in preventing crime in Canada, while three-in-ten (29%) think it has had no effect on crime. Only 13 per cent of respondents believe the Canadian Firearms Registry has been successful.

A plurality of Canadians (44%) calls for scrapping the long gun registry—including large majorities in the Prairies (65%) and Alberta (59%). More than a third of respondents (35%) are opposed to this course of action, including 51 per cent of Quebecers.

Since a survey conducted in November 2009, the proportion of Canadians who oppose the long gun registry has dropped by seven points, while the proportion of supporters has increased by one point.

Canadian are split on another question, with 40 per cent of respondents saying it should be legal for ordinary citizens to own firearms, and 45 per cent wanting to make this illegal. There are some major geographic differences on this question, with majorities in Quebec (54%) and Ontario (53%) wanting to keep firearms away from ordinary citizens, and more than half of Albertans (51%) expressing support for the legality of this practice.

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

Apostle Talks Religious Freedom to Boston Youth

2010-08-20T10:16:00.001-07:00

http://newsroom.lds.org/blog/2010/06/apostle-talks-religious-freedom-to-boston-youth.html

Published June 17, 2010

Apostle Talks Religious Freedom to Boston Youth

Posted By Doug Andersen

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles addressed a group of young adults from Boston, Massachusetts, 10 June 2010. His comments touched on a wide range of topics but prominently featured religious freedom and the need to protect the family.

Excerpts from his remarks:

"Opposing forces are competing for our allegiance: right versus wrong, good versus evil. They are not always easily discerned."
"These forces are, in fact, conflicting religious systems of belief. They are theistic (godly) forces and atheistic (ungodly or satanic) forces. These were cited recently by Elder Clayton Christensen in an editorial calling for theistic balance on the U.S. supreme court."
"Theistic forces, be they Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon, are based on the fact that there is an absolute right and wrong. Theistic forces inculcate an ethic to revere the righteous judgments of a loving God, and to obey civil and divine law voluntarily. Theistic forces instill a conscience to do what is right, and obey laws that otherwise might be unenforceable."
"Unfortunately, good culture alone is not strong enough to cause good culture to endure in perpetuity. Additional strength is needed from the power of theistic conviction. For this reason, a policy to separate completely church and state could become completely counterproductive. Theistic forces would be erased and atheistic forces would be allowed to flourish unopposed in the public square. The theistic and noble concept of "freedom of religion," could be twisted and turned to become an atheistic "freedom from religion." Such an unbalanced policy could sweep out theistic forces for societal success and leave the field wide open to atheistic ideology, secularism, suffering huge losses for all."
"A society undergirded by this (atheistic) culture is clearly recognizable. In the 19th century, the French observer Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: 'America is great because she is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
"Without the acknowledgment of God and God's law in one's life, momentary pleasures will be continually contaminated by gnawing guilt."
"Even the definition of marriage is now a topic of heated debate. That is only the tip of a larger iceberg. Below this tip is the weightier matter of free exercise of religion. Contention is raging over two main issues: (1) Can marriage survive as the bedrock of our cultural heritage? and (2) Can our precious freedom of religion be preserved?"
"If civil law were altered to recognize so-called "same-gender" marriage, you as believers in God, and keepers of His commandments, would then be regarded as exceptions to the rule. Your conscientious convictions would then be regarded as discriminatory. If you were a Christian school teacher, you could be charged with bigotry for upholding the Lord's law of chastity. In truth dear brothers and sisters, if you lose marriage, you also lose freedom of religion. Atheistic moral bedlam and religious repression go hand in hand. At stake is our ability to transmit to the next generation the life-giving and inseparable culture of marriage and the free exercise of religion."

Elder Nelson was an accomplished heart surgeon and medical researcher prior to his call to the apostleship. He is a widely published speaker and writer and listed in Who's Who in the World and Who's Who in Religion.

Tags:

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Religious Freedom

Article Categories

Church Leaders and Speeches13

Washington Times: Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan

2010-08-01T07:07:00.001-07:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/memo-outlines-backdoor-amnesty-plan-for-obama/

Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan

Immigration staffers cite tools available without reform

Associated Press PROTEST PARADE: Immigrant rights advocates march across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York to demand full repeal of Arizona's new illegals law. The Obama administration is considering a backdoor approach to stop many deportations.

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

8:39 p.m., Thursday, July 29, 2010

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

QUESTION OF THE DAY

In light of the 13 charges against him and his forthcoming ethics trial, will Rep. Charlie Rangel eventually resign?

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants - what a draft government memo said could be "a non-legislative version of amnesty."

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesDirector Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to "reduce the threat of removal" for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

"In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear," the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Chris Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said drafting the memo doesn't mean the agency has embraced the policy and "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."

OTHER TWT STORIES:
• Defense review calls for buildup of Navy
• Error estimate for Arlington graves soars
• Rangel hit with 13 ethics charges

"As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system," he said in an e-mail statement. "We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation's immigration challenges."

He said the Homeland Security Department "will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."

The memo does talk about targeting specific groups of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Grassley said it confirms his fears that the administration is trying an end-run around Congress.

Story Continues →

Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College

2010-07-28T16:41:00.001-07:00

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/mass_legislatur.html?p1=News_links

By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

POLL: Do you think the Electoral College system should stay?

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was "tried and true" since the founding of the country.

"We've had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support," said Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.

The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick's desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are campaigning, state by state, to get such bills enacted. Once states accounting for a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of Electoral College votes. That would hold true no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website. The new system would only go into effect once a sufficient number of states have passed laws that would make it work.

The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation's 56 elections.

Presidential candidates now "ignore wide swaths of the country" they consider strong blue or red states and focus their campaigning on contested states, Eldridge said. If the president were picked by national popular vote, he argued, candidates would spread their attention out more evenly.

"That's really what we're talking about is making sure that every voter, no matter where they live, that they're being reached out to," he said.

Opponents say the current system works. They are concerned about a possible scenario where Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

Tisei also criticized the proponents for not following the normal procedures to seek a constitutional amendment.

"The thing about this that bothers me the most is it's so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky," he said. "This is sort of an end run around the Constitution."

The measure passed both branches of the Legislature in 2008 but did not make it all the way through the process.

Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

2010-07-18T19:30:00.001-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1&ref=politics

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: July 16, 2010

REPRINTS
SHARE

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government's "power to lay and collect taxes."

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain "minimum essential coverage" starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is "a valid exercise" of Congress's power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power "even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions" of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program "This Week."

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, "I absolutely reject that notion."

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation's economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the "general welfare." It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are "conducive to the general welfare," the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.

"The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law," Mr. Pfeiffer said. "To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don't believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause."

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a "penalty" rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying "the statutory label" does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on "its practical operation," not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns "as an addition to income tax liability."

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, "The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding" the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama "has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill," Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. "This bill is a tax. Because it's a tax, it's completely constitutional."

Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.

Opponents contend that the "minimum coverage provision" is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress's power to regulate commerce.

"This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: "Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power."

In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.

In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn "may be trivial by itself," the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 18, 2010, on page A14 of the New York edition.

U.S. pockets $20.6 bln in sin taxes in FY'09

2010-07-15T12:05:00.001-07:00

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-50132620100714

U.S. pockets $20.6 bln in sin taxes in FY'09

Digg This
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Facebook

Christie looks to privatize motor vehicle inspections, other services

2010-07-10T07:58:00.004-07:00

http://www.northjersey.com/news/politics/070910_Christie_looks_to_privatize_motor_vehicle_inspections.html

Friday, July 9, 2010
Last updated: Thursday July 8, 2010, 10:20 PM

BY CLAIRE HEININGER

State House Bureau

STATE HOUSE BUREAU

New Jersey would close its centralized car inspection lanes and motorists would pay for their own emissions tests under a sweeping set of recommendations set to be released by the Christie administration today.

State parks, psychiatric hospitals and even turnpike toll booths could also be run by private operators, according to the 57-page report on privatization obtained by The Star-Ledger. Preschool classrooms would no longer be built at public expense, state employees would pay for parking and private vendors would dish out food, deliver health care and run education programs behind prison walls.

All told, the report says, New Jersey could save at least $210 million a year by delivering an array of services through private hands.

"The question has to be, 'Why do you continue to operate in a manner that's more costly and less effective?' rather than, 'Why change?' " said Richard Zimmer, the former Republican congressman who chaired the task force.

It is unclear how many of the recommendations will be adopted by Governor Christie, who commissioned the report in March. Christie's spokesman declined comment Thursday.

But the car inspection proposal is sure to stir up controversy in a state with a tortured history of privatizing emissions testing.

The report says that beginning next July, "New Jersey should withdraw entirely from direct participation in the vehicle inspection process." Before then, the state would develop a plan to certify service stations and other shops "to make the transition seamless for motorists and assure that private inspection fees will be transparent and reasonable."

The state would then sell the land where its facilities now operate.

The proposal would require breaking the state's contract with Parsons Corp., which is two years into a five-year, $276 million deal to do emissions and mechanical inspections. The mechanical inspections were already phased out under the budget that went into effect July 1.

The state conducts more than 1.94 million initial inspections a year and pays for all of them. Drivers pay only if they fail the inspections and have to make repairs.

Zimmer pointed out that motorists are already paying for the system through their tax dollars.

Critics said Christie is returning to dangerous territory after Parsons' early years of managing the inspection program were steeped in controversy. When the inspection network was opened in December 1999, it was plagued by computer malfunctions and frozen equipment that left drivers fuming in lines four hours long.

Hetty Rosenstein, New Jersey director of the Communications Workers of America state workers union, said the plans outlined in the report would create "bad service" and "less safety" while failing to save the state money.

But Zimmer stressed "stringent" controls will be put in place.

Despite past predictions that up to 2,000 public employees could lose their jobs to privatization, the report does not specify the number of layoffs to come. But its impact could be felt from parks — where private recreation firms would run concessions, operate facilities and perhaps collect a fee — to preschools.

The report says the state should end public funding to construct preschools and change rules to make it easier for private providers to run them.

David Sciarra, an attorney and advocate for children in the poorest districts where the state Supreme Court has mandated the preschool program, said the report is "misleading and erroneous" in claiming the private sector is being crowded out.

"If anything, the collaboration between districts and providers ... has grown stronger, and the private sector is an integral part of the program," he said. "They should go back to the drawing board on this one."

E-mail: cheininger@starledger.com

FILE PHOTO

Buy this photo

Governor Christie

State parks, psychiatric hospitals and even turnpike toll booths could also be run by private operators, according to the 57-page report on privatization obtained by The Star-Ledger. Preschool classrooms would no longer be built at public expense, state employees would pay for parking and private vendors would dish out food, deliver health care and run education programs behind prison walls.

All told, the report says, New Jersey could save at least $210 million a year by delivering an array of services through private hands.

"The question has to be, 'Why do you continue to operate in a manner that's more costly and less effective?' rather than, 'Why change?' " said Richard Zimmer, the former Republican congressman who chaired the task force.

It is unclear how many of the recommendations will be adopted by Governor Christie, who commissioned the report in March. Christie's spokesman declined comment Thursday.

But the car inspection proposal is sure to stir up controversy in a state with a tortured history of privatizing emissions testing.

The report says that beginning next July, "New Jersey should withdraw entirely from direct participation in the vehicle inspection process." Before then, the state would develop a plan to certify service stations and other shops "to make the transition seamless for motorists and assure that private inspection fees will be transparent and reasonable."

The state would then sell the land where its facilities now operate.

The proposal would require breaking the state's contract with Parsons Corp., which is two years into a five-year, $276 million deal to do emissions and mechanical inspections. The mechanical inspections were already phased out under the budget that went into effect July 1.

The state conducts more than 1.94 million initial inspections a year and pays for all of them. Drivers pay only if they fail the inspections and have to make repairs.

Zimmer pointed out that motorists are already paying for the system through their tax dollars.

Critics said Christie is returning to dangerous territory after Parsons' early years of managing the inspection program were steeped in controversy. When the inspection network was opened in December 1999, it was plagued by computer malfunctions and frozen equipment that left drivers fuming in lines four hours long.

Hetty Rosenstein, New Jersey director of the Communications Workers of America state workers union, said the plans outlined in the report would create "bad service" and "less safety" while failing to save the state money.

But Zimmer stressed "stringent" controls will be put in place.

Despite past predictions that up to 2,000 public employees could lose their jobs to privatization, the report does not specify the number of layoffs to come. But its impact could be felt from parks — where private recreation firms would run concessions, operate facilities and perhaps collect a fee — to preschools.

The report says the state should end public funding to construct preschools and change rules to make it easier for private providers to run them.

David Sciarra, an attorney and advocate for children in the poorest districts where the state Supreme Court has mandated the preschool program, said the report is "misleading and erroneous" in claiming the private sector is being crowded out.

"If anything, the collaboration between districts and providers ... has grown stronger, and the private sector is an integral part of the program," he said. "They should go back to the drawing board on this one."

E-mail: cheininger@starledger.com

Flashback: Donald Berwick “We Must Redistribute Wealth”

2010-07-10T07:58:00.003-07:00

http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2010/07/flashback-donald-berwick-we-must-redistribute-wealth/

Today, President Obama officially made Donald Berwick his recess appointment to be the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In 2008 while speaking on the British health care system in the UK, Berwick said wealthy individuals must redistribute their wealth to those less fortunate for health care funding. Also during this speech, he told those in attendance that he opposes free markets.

"Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional."

Posted by Joe Schoffstall

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 at 11:42 am and is filed under Capitol Hill, Liberals Behaving Badly, Media, Online Video, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Tags: Donald Berwick, free markets, health care, Obama, Recess Appointment, redistribution of wealth

« Flashback: Donald Berwick Opposes Free Markets In Health Care

Obama bypasses Senate for new Medicare chief

2010-07-10T07:58:00.001-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_care_appointment

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jul 7, 7:04 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama bypassed the Senate Wednesday and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick, a Harvard professor and patient care specialist, to run Medicare and Medicaid.

The decision to use a so-called recess appointment to install Berwick as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services drew immediate fire from the GOP. Republicans have raised concerns about Berwick's views on rationing of care and other matters and said it was wrong for Obama to go around the normal Senate confirmation process. That view was echoed by a key Democratic committee chairman, although the recess appointment is a tool used by presidents of both parties.

Berwick has wide support in the medical community but some Democrats feared the GOP would use his confirmation hearings as an opportunity to reopen last year's divisive health care debate. Obama defended the decision to appoint Berwick and two other officials, one to a pension board and the other to a White House science post.

"It's unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes," Obama said in a statement Wednesday. "These recess appointments will allow three extremely qualified candidates to get to work on behalf of the American people right away."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Obama of trying to "arrogantly circumvent the American people" with Congress out of town for its annual July Fourth break. Berwick could serve through next year without Senate confirmation.

"Democrats haven't scheduled so much as a committee hearing for Donald Berwick but the mere possibility of allowing the American people the opportunity to hear what he intends to do with their health care is evidently reason enough for this administration to sneak him through without public scrutiny," said McConnell, R-Ky.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose committee would have held Berwick's confirmation hearing, also said he was troubled by the recess appointment. "Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power," said Baucus. Berwick was nominated in April, and Finance Committee staff was still at work on the vetting process it undertakes prior to scheduling a confirmation hearing.

Berwick, 63, is a pediatrician, Harvard University professor and leader of a health care think tank, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, that works to develop and implement concepts for improving patient care. The programs he will oversee — Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly, poor and disabled, along with the Children's Health Insurance Program — provide care to about 100 million people, or around 1 in 3 Americans.

The American Hospital Association and AARP were among the groups that weighed in to support Berwick Wednesday.

"Don has dedicated his career to engaging hospitals, doctors, nurses and other health care providers to improve patient care," said Rich Umbendstock, head of the hospital association. "A physician and innovator in health care quality, his knowledge of the health care system makes him the right choice."

Republicans have seized on comments like one Berwick made to an interviewer last year: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

Republicans say that shows Berwick would deny needed care based on cost. Supporters contend rationing already is done by insurance companies and Berwick simply wants transparency and accountability in medical decisions.

It's just those echoes of the health care debate that Democrats would prefer not to replay on the Senate floor.

Medicare has been without an administrator since 2006, and the White House says the need to fill the post is critical because of its role in implementing the new health care law. Medicare is to be a key testing ground for numerous aspects of the new law, from developing new medical techniques to trying out new payment systems, and the White House says a permanent leader is key with deadlines approaching.

Obama last made a batch of recess appointments in March. Also appointed Wednesday were:

_Philip E. Coyle III as associate director for national security and international affairs at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

_Joshua Gotbaum as director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

2010-07-09T06:31:00.001-07:00

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government's long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.

"But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states," Tauro wrote. "That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government's long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government."

Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

"Today the court simply affirmed that our country won't tolerate second-class marriages," said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. "This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts."

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state's authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Coakley's office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress's authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.

"Today's landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution," Coakley said in a statement. "It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA's restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages."

Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it "another blatant example of a judge playing legislator."

"Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time," Mineau said in a statement. "This is why their strategy is to force same-sex 'marriage' through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states."

He said he was "confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government's right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families."

The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA's repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro's ruling, saying in a statement, "We're reviewing the decision."

Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com

Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History

2010-07-03T12:01:00.001-07:00

http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171

From Ryan Ellis on Thursday, July 1, 2010 4:15 PM

BREAKING: Wounded Warriors Face New Tax This Independence Day

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.  The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The "Medicine Cabinet Tax"  Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The "Special Needs Kids Tax"  This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.  According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.  There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.  The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.  Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.

PDF Version

FTC floats Drudge tax

2010-06-22T06:14:00.009-07:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/ftc-floats-drudge-tax/

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

6:30 p.m., Friday, June 4, 2010

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to "reinvent" journalism, and that's a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC's policy staff fears this new reality.

"There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism," the report states. With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue.

The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, "Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses."

In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place.

The report also discusses the possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations. The money for those benefits would come from a suite of new taxes. A 5 percent tax on consumer electronic devices such as iPads, Kindles and laptops that let consumers read the news could be used to encourage people to keep reading the dead-tree version of the news. Other taxes might be levied on the radio and television spectrum, advertising and cell phones.

The conflict of interest in having the government pay or contribute to a newsman's salary could not be more obvious. Reporters and columnists would have little incentive to offer critical analyses of tax increases that might mean a boost in the pocketbook. Once Congress has the power to fund the news, it can at any time attach "strings" designed to promote certain viewpoints - in the name of fairness, of course. Each year at budget time, the Fourth Estate would scramble to be worthy in the eyes of Capitol Hill for increased support. It is hardly a surprise that the heavily subsidized National Public Radio frequently presents issues in a way favorable to Washington's tax-and-spend agenda.

Self-respecting journalists must reject this tempting government bribe as the FTC brings its proposals to a round-table discussion scheduled for June 15. When it comes to the media, consumers lose most when government suppresses innovation in the name of "saving" old business models.

About 2,300 running for Congress, most in decades

2010-06-22T06:14:00.008-07:00

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100602/D9G35AKG0.html

Jun 2, 8:57 AM (ET)

By BEN EVANS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Discontent with incumbents and anti-Washington anger are adding up to a potentially record-breaking crowd of congressional challengers this election year.

More than 2,300 people are running for 471 House and Senate seats in the midterms. It's the highest number of candidates in at least 35 years, according to data provided to The Associated Press by the Federal Election Commission, which began tracking candidates in 1975.

Frustration, particularly on the right, with President Barack Obama and his Democratic agenda appears to have contributed to the surge. The field is heavily Republican, with almost twice as many GOP candidates as Democrats, and several hundred independent and third-party challengers.

A strong anti-incumbent sentiment and disenchantment with the way the federal government operates and spends money are prevailing forces this election year. The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll showed near-record lows in favorable ratings for the parties - 36 percent for Republicans in May, 43 percent for Democrats.

The mood has created a rush on elective office.

Some candidates are seasoned politicians looking to make the jump from local or state government to Congress; others are little-known, underfunded novices driven by the tea party movement. With several veteran lawmakers already tossed out in primaries - three-term Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and five-term Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., among them - incumbents are keeping an eye on all the challengers.

"I had to sell my four-wheeler to pay (the filing fee), and I did. It's worth it," said Bruce Ray Riggs, a tea party sympathizer and first-time candidate who spent $6,960 to get on the ballot in Florida's Senate race, which is crowded with two dozen names.

Riggs, 43, whose campaign slogan is "No suit, no tie, no political lies," said he wanted to abolish most federal functions and give more power to the states.

"They've railroaded the American people," the independent says of Congress, arguing that Washington is operating an unconstitutional government.

Riggs is among the 2,341 people who have filed statements of candidacy with the FEC for the 2010 House and Senate elections, compared with 1,717 in 2008 and 1,588 in 2006.

The tally is still climbing, with more than a dozen states still allowing candidates to file, and the true number of candidates is probably higher, since some ignore requirements to file with the FEC. Close to 40 states still haven't held their primaries, including nine with primaries in September. The general election is Nov. 2.

The field is significantly larger than in 1976, two years after the Watergate scandal took down President Richard Nixon, and 1994, the year the GOP took control of Congress for the first time in four decades.

The next-largest field - of 2,159 candidates - was in 1992, when Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot battled for the White House.

"I guess it's a mild form of civil unrest," said Tom Parrott, a 59-year-old accountant who is making his first run for office as one of nine candidates in central Georgia's 7th Congressional District race.

"Do I think I'm going to win? Maybe not. But do I get a pulpit? Yes," he said. "I'm willing to spend 30 or 40 grand of my own money to get the chance to speak to people and maybe get my point across that we're really, really in trouble."

Parrott, who is running as a Republican and identifies with the tea party, said he has a strong libertarian bent. Obama's health care law was the "straw that broke the camel's back" in his decision to run, he said.

"I'm not a wacko," he said. "I just think the government would be better if they just butt out and do the things they're supposed to do like running an army and maintaining waterways and keeping our borders safe."

Democrat Scott Withers, another rookie candidate, sees things differently.

Running in Michigan's 5th Congressional District around Flint, with staggering unemployment from the decline of the automotive industry, Withers said government can be part of the answer. He's trying to unseat a 34-year incumbent from his own party, Rep. Dale Kildee.

"When we just keep rubber-stamping the same person, we're not getting any new ideas or new perspectives for our problems," said Withers, 37, who has worked in journalism and public relations but is unemployed after being laid off from a website startup.

"I don't believe the government should be interfering in our lives. There are areas, though, where the government can play a positive role," he said. "We can't keep increasing our deficit, but we need to look at moving our money around to areas that can have a bigger impact."

Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

2010-06-22T06:14:00.007-07:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_9

By DANIEL B. KLEIN

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

View Full Image

Associated Press

"Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" TV show

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

More on Politics

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.

Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.

Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.

Mr. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This op-ed is based on an article published in the May 2010 issue of the journal he edits, Econ Journal Watch, a project sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research. The article is at: http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans

School Children taught: "I Am An Obama Scholar"

2010-06-22T06:14:00.005-07:00

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/06/school-children-taught-i-am-obama.html

Welcome! Please e-mail me with any questions at johnrlott@aol.com.

6/16/2010

School Children taught: "I Am An Obama Scholar"

If this is a private school, I personally don't care what they are chanting regarding this. But if this is a public school, I think that this is quite improper.

UPDATE: Apparently this was being done in a public school, Lincoln Bassett Middle School in New Haven, Connecticut.

Sowell: Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

2010-06-22T06:14:00.003-07:00

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537967/201006211813/Is-US-Now-On-Slippery-Slope-To-Tyranny-.aspx

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET

View Enlarged Image

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

Survey: Individual Health Insurance Premiums Jump

2010-06-22T06:14:00.001-07:00

Survey: Individual Health Insurance Premiums Jump

Kaiser foundation survey finds steep jump in individual health insurance premiums

The Associated Press
32 comments

By TOM MURPHY AP Business Writer

INDIANAPOLIS June 21, 2010 (AP)

Print RSS

Font Size:

Email Twitter Facebook

Fark Technorati Google Live My Space Newsvine Reddit Delicious Mixx

Yahoo

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10971283

New survey finds premium hikes for people who buy their own insurance.

People who buy their own health insurance have been hit lately with premium hikes that far exceed increases in premiums for employer-sponsored coverage, according to a new survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonprofit foundation, which is separate from health insurer Kaiser Permanente, said recent premium hikes requested by insurers for individual coverage averaged 20 percent. Some customers were able to switch plans and pay less, so people paying on their own actually wound up paying 13 percent more on average.

That tops last year's average 5 percent annual increase for employer-sponsored family coverage and almost unchanged premiums for employer-sponsored single coverage, though foundation Vice President Gary Claxton said the comparisons come with qualifications.

The individual insurance survey asked respondents for their most recent premium increases, and those can happen more or less frequently than the annual increases mostly seen in the group market, he noted.

In the online poll, Kaiser queried 1,038 randomly selected people who pay for their own coverage.

Individual health insurance premiums generally rise faster than group coverage rates. They can be affected by variables like a person's age. They also can be affected by rising medical and drug costs and are more vulnerable when a bad economy makes healthy people drop coverage.

That can leave an insurer with a higher concentration of sick people who keep coverage because they need it more and thus generate more claims.

The market also appears to be cyclical, with a big increase following a couple years of smaller ones, said Robert Laszewski, a health care consultant and former insurance executive who wasn't involved with the Kaiser study.

But even with a sizable average increase, individual premiums still span a wide range from no increases to huge hikes.

"There is no real consistency," Laszewski said.

Chavez Spearheads Food Raids

2010-06-22T06:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37786852

Hugo Chavez Spearheads Raids as Food Prices Skyrocket

Published: Friday, 18 Jun 2010 | 5:18 PM ET

Text Size

By: Reuters

Mountains of rotting food found at a government warehouse, soaring prices and soldiers raiding wholesalers accused of hoarding: Food supply is the latest battle in President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution.

Howard Yanes / AP

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says government-led raids of food markets will reverse exploitation of the poor, whom he needs for political support.

Venezuelan army soldiers swept through the working class, pro-Chavez neighborhood of Catia in Caracas last week, seizing 120 tons of rice along with coffee and powdered milk that officials said was to be sold above regulated prices.

"The battle for food is a matter of national security," said a red-shirted official from the Food Ministry, resting his arm on a pallet laden with bags of coffee.

It is also the latest issue to divide the Latin American country where Chavez has nationalized a wide swathe of the economy, he says to reverse years of exploitation of the poor.

Chavez supporters are grateful for a network of cheap state-run supermarkets and they say the raids will slow massive inflation.

Critics accuse him of steering the country toward a communist dictatorship and say he is destroying the private sector.

They point to 80,000 tons of rotting food found in warehouses belonging to the government as evidence the state is a poor and corrupt administrator.

Jose Guzman, an assistant manager at a store raided in Catia, watched with resignation as government agents pored over the company's accounts and computers after the food ministry official and the television cameras left.

"The government is pushing this type of establishment toward bankruptcy," said Guzman, who linked the raid to the rotten food scandal. "Somehow they have to replace all the food that was lost, and this is the most expeditious way."

Wasted Food

Much of the wasted food, including powdered milk and meat, was found last month in the buildup to legislative elections in September. The scandal is humiliating for Chavez, who accuses wealthy elites of fueling inflation and causing shortages of products such as meat, sugar and milk by hoarding food.

"They are not going to stop us in the plan, which is to give the people what is their right," Chavez said Friday during the inauguration of a supermarket chain the government bought this year from French retailer Casino.

Food prices are up 41 percent in the last 12 months during a deep recession, government figures show, despite the government's growing network of state-run supermarkets that sell at discounts of up to 40 percent and are popular with his poor supporters.

South America's top oil exporter, Venezuela imports about 70 percent of its food and analysts say the economic hardships could give the opposition a boost at the ballot box—although most expect Chavez to retain a reduced parliamentary majority.

Fighting back, Chavez says he is in an economic war against the "parasitic bourgeoisie" that tries to convince Venezuelans that socialism does not work by twisting facts and taking advantage of honest mistakes.

"They know where we are headed, we are going to take from the Venezuela bourgeoisie the hegemony of dominance in this country," Chavez, who calls himself a Marxist, said to applause from supporters on his TV show on Sunday.

He has also revived threats to take over the country's largest private food processor, miller and brewer, Polar.

The president rushed to give public support to Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez, who as the boss of PDVSA is also responsible for food unit PDVAL, over the case of the rotting food.

Two former PDVAL managers have been jailed in the scandal, but that has not stifled opposition charges of government incompetence.

A string of expropriations and buyouts of companies during the last couple of years means the government now controls between 20 percent and 30 percent of the distribution of staple foods.

"We are bringing order to prices," Trade Minister Richard Canan told Reuters during the Catia raid. "There are traders who are taking these products to the black market ... That is a crime and our government will continue to target these stores."

Counting news stories on defensive gun uses

2010-06-02T17:12:00.001-07:00

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/06/counting-news-stories-on-defensive-gun.html

6/01/2010

Counting news stories on defensive gun uses

As I have discussed in The Bias Against Guns, relying on news stories to document defensive gun uses has its limits, but it still gives you a very minimum estimate on how frequently they occur. One example of the bias is this claim: "in 14 percent of documented cases, no shots were fired." Note that the 14 percent number obviously misrepresents the actual rate because those cases where a gun doesn't have to be fired are much less likely to be newsworthy. In any case, this is still a useful exercise.

"We've documented 2,160 stories of self-defense with guns since May 2007 – the same time frame the VPC used," said Burnett. "When it comes to concealed carry permits, we have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved."
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) recently claimed concealed weapons licensees are killers, offering stories as proof. Burnett says the VPC is distorting the truth.
"If these victims had been disarmed, they wouldn't be able to fight back…they'd be dead," said Burnett. "Since no place is immune from crime, we must allow people to be armed for their own protection. Nobody wants to kill someone, but nobody wants to die either."
Burnett also notes that in 14 percent of documented cases, no shots were fired. "You don't always have to shoot to stop a criminal. Sometimes the threat is enough." . . .

Fwd: What can we do?

2010-04-27T07:33:00.001-07:00

Dear Family and friends,

Many if not all of us have wondered what we can do to turn our country around. I recently severed as a delegate for the Republican Party Convention and learned that there is something very simple that all of us can do. I learned that in many Utah races, our candidate won the general election but lost when they counted absentee ballots. The reason is that a 90% of democrat convention attendees voted absentee while les that 10% of Republican attendees voted absentee. It would take more time that I have to explain why but we can each vote absentee and turn some of these races around. If you want to know more why give me a call. Otherwise…PLEASE go to this link right now and print a copy off for every voter in your family and fill it out and mail it in. You will receive an early ballot and can vote without going to the polls in Nov. We lost 6 Republican seats last election because we didn't do this. Here is the link:

http://www.clerk.slco.org/elections/PDFs/PVBM_App-01_10.pdf

Forward this to any of your family that lives in UT. Thanks

Neil Baird

Report says health care will cover more, cost more

2010-04-23T07:53:00.001-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

Comcast to acquire right-wing network

2010-04-19T08:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0410/Report_Comcast_to_acquire_rightwing_network.html?showall

ia Political Carnival and Crooks & Liars, we learn that Comcast has announced a new venture with RightNetwork, "an independently-owned media company" whose mission is "to entertain, engage, and enlighten Americans who are looking for content that reflects and reinforces their perspective and worldview. RIGHTNETWORK will consistently impact the political and cultural discussions of Americans" (it is set to launch this summer).

(UPDATE: Comcast tells POLITICO that, while it is considering acquiring RightNetwork, Crooks & Liars' headline -- "Comcast partners with teabaggers to bring new right-wing broadcast network online" -- is misleading. Comcast tells me that it has received RightNetwork's pitch (see the .pdf here) but is only considering at this stage whether to partner with them. RightNetwork's preview .pdf seems to suggest the the partnership is as done deal, callingComcast a "partner" and including this quote from Comcast's Ed Snider: "We're creating a welcome place for millions and millions of Americans who've been looking for an entertainment network and media channel that reflects their point-of-view. Rightnetwork will be the perfect platform to entertain, inform and Connect with the American majority about what's right in the world ")

RightNetwork's YouTube page features cameos from Kelsey Grammar and previews for such shows as "Politics & Poker":

It even has its own anthem:

...and its own reality show, "Running":

Posted by Patrick Gavin 08:25 AM

DOJ abandons warrantless attempt to read Yahoo e-mail

2010-04-19T08:52:00.001-07:00

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html

The U.S. Justice Department has abruptly abandoned what had become a high-profile court fight to read Yahoo users' e-mail messages without obtaining a search warrant first.

In a two-page brief filed Friday, the Obama administration withdrew its request for warrantless access to the complete contents of the Yahoo Mail accounts under investigation. CNET was the first to report on the Denver case in an article on Tuesday.

Yahoo's efforts to fend off federal prosecutors' broad request attracted allies--in the form of Google, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Progress and Freedom Foundation--who argued (PDF) that Americans who keep their e-mail in the cloud enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Two years ago, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama had pledged that, as president, he would "strengthen privacy protections for the digital age." This dispute had the potential to test his administration's actual commitment to privacy, which recently became the subject of a legislative push supported by Silicon Valley firms and privacy advocates. The administration has taken a position at odds with that coalition in a second case in Philadelphia involving warrantless tracking of cell phones.

Much of the information about the case in federal court in Colorado remains unclear, including the nature of the possible crime being investigated, how many e-mail accounts are at issue, and whether it was the flurry of publicity in the last few days or something else that prompted the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver to back down.

The brief filed Friday says that Yahoo had turned over more information since March 3 and that "the government has concluded that further production of records and information by Yahoo would not be helpful to the government's investigation."

On December 3, 2009, U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer ordered Yahoo to hand over to prosecutors certain records, including the contents of e-mail messages. Yahoo divulged some of the data but refused to turn over e-mail that had been previously viewed, accessed, or downloaded and was less than 181 days old.

Neither Yahoo nor Assistant U.S. Attorney Pegeen Rhyne were immediately available for comment on Friday. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver sent CNET an e-mail message saying: "Because this involves an ongoing investigation, I respectfully decline comment, other than to say the brief filed today speaks for itself."

A 17-page brief (PDF) that the Justice Department filed last month acknowledges that federal law requires search warrants for messages in "electronic storage" that are less than 181 days old. But, Rhyne had argued, the Yahoo Mail messages don't meet that definition.

"Previously opened e-mail is not in 'electronic storage,'" Rhyne had written. "This court should therefore require Yahoo to comply with the order and produce the specified communications in the targeted accounts." (The Justice Department says that what's known as a 2703(d) order--and is not as privacy-protective as the rules for search warrants--should let police read e-mail.)

A footnote to Friday's government brief says that the Justice Department "is aware that Yahoo and other various parties have now submitted briefs on various privacy issues in the context of the prior motion to compel. The government respectfully disagrees with positions taken in those briefs, but because the need for the motion to compel has been vitiated by Yahoo's further production, the government declines to litigate this matter in this moot context."

Update 12:23 p.m. PDT: Added more background.

Update 12:45 p.m. PDT: EFF Attorney Kevin Bankston just sent me a link to his post, which claims the Justice Department is "unwilling" to fight civil liberties groups in the courts. (Another explanation is that prosecutors are perfectly willing when the time is right, but didn't think this particular case offered the best chance for them to win.) Bankston writes: "While this is a great victory for that Yahoo subscriber, it's disappointing to those of us who wanted a clear ruling on the legality and constitutionality of the government's overreaching demand."

Update 2:08 p.m. PDT: Yahoo has sent a statement saying: "We are pleased with the decision and we continue to be committed to protecting the privacy of users." A spokesman has repeatedly declined to disclose what, if any, additional information the company has turned over. And EFF's Bankston adds, in e-mail, a thought that buttresses the DOJ-not-wanting-a-public-fight point: "This is an area where the government is very vulnerable, considering that two circuit courts have already disagreed with the government's reading of the statute on that point."

Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases

2010-04-14T06:56:00.001-07:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6096091.story

By Noam N. Levey

April 13, 2010

E-mail
Print
Text Size

la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13

Reporting from Washington

Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

Many state governments -- which traditionally had responsibility for regulating insurance companies -- also do not have such authority. And several that do are now being sued by insurance companies.

"It is a very big loophole in health reform," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.

At least in the short term, regulators will be able to do little more than require insurers to publicly explain why they want to raise rates. Consumer advocates think that will not be an effective deterrent against premium increases such as the 39% hike that Anthem Blue Cross sent some California customers last year.

"The irony here is that it was the Anthem rate increase that breathed new life into the healthcare bill," said Jerry Flanagan, medical policy director of Consumer Watchdog, a longtime supporter of tougher premium regulation. "But there is nothing in this bill to guarantee that it doesn't happen again."

The lack of muscle is stoking concerns that more rate jumps -- and an angry backlash from ratepayers -- could undermine support for implementing the healthcare overhaul.

Insurance industry officials say that talk of more regulation is misguided and have urged federal officials to focus instead on containing rising medical costs, which help drive up premiums.

"Politicians are much more comfortable looking at healthcare premiums," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm.

Ignagni, as well as some independent healthcare experts, said policymakers should look at ways to control what hospitals and other providers charge, although few elected officials have shown much appetite for doing so.

Obama endorsed Feinstein's insurance proposal this year, including it in the healthcare blueprint he unveiled in February as Democrats were struggling to revive their proposals. But congressional rules prevented Democratic leaders from including the rate control provision in the final healthcare package.

Many consumer advocates think this enhanced regulation -- known in the industry as "prior approval" authority -- is the only real way to protect ratepayers from insurers, particularly for-profit companies under pressure to generate returns that satisfy Wall Street investors.

Prior approval requires insurers to submit proposed rate increases to regulators, who can then comb through companies' financial and actuarial data to see if the proposals are justified.

Insurers cannot raise premiums without explicit permission from the regulator.

Some states have given prior approval authority to their insurance commissions and have used it to force down premiums.

In New York, the state insurance department reduced nearly a quarter of the proposed premium increases between 1990 and 1995, according to a recent department analysis.

More recently, state regulators in Kansas successfully pushed Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas to reduce a proposed premium increase for some of its elderly customers, according to state Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger.

California, which does not have the power to block health plan increases, has been using similar authority to control property and auto insurance premiums for more than 20 years, said Dwight M. Jaffee, a real estate and finance professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "It has been very successful," said Jaffee, who studied the state's experience.

Health insurance, however, is more complicated than property and auto coverage. And even the most active state regulators typically cannot investigate every proposed change in every segment of the insurance market.

Washington Post: Obama's disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit

2010-04-14T06:54:00.001-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303067_pf.html

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, April 14, 2010; A02

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.

In the middle of it all was Obama -- occupant of an office once informally known as "leader of the free world" -- putting on a clinic for some of the world's greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama's eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: "I'm going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session."

Reporters for foreign outlets, admitted for the first time to the White House press pool, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they're cracked up to be.

Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama's opening remarks as part of that limited pool: "The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is."

Alamiri's counterparts from around the world wrote of similar experiences in their pool reports. Arabic-language MBC TV's Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama's meeting with the Jordanian king: "We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king."

The Press Trust of India, at Obama's meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, "In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave." The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was "ushered out about 30 seconds" after arriving for Obama's meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. A reporter with Turkey's TRT-Turk went to Obama's meeting with the president of Armenia, but "we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds."

Even the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was more talkative with the press than Obama. Michelle Jamrisko, with Japan's Kyodo News, noted in her pool report that Hu, at his session with Obama, spoke to the Chinese media in Chinese, while Obama limited himself mostly to "say hello to the cameras" and "thank you everybody."

Obama's official schedule for Tuesday would have pleased China's Central Committee. Excerpts: "The President will attend the Heads of Delegation working lunch. This lunch is closed press. . . . The President will meet with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey. This meeting is closed press. . . . The President will attend Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit. This session is closed press."

Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said these were the most restricted such meetings they had ever seen. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents' Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

Over the weekend, Obama broke with years of protocol and slipped off to a soccer game without the "protective" pool that is always in the vicinity of the president in case the unthinkable occurs. Obama joked about it later to Pakistan's prime minister, saying reporters "were very upset."

In "bilateral" meetings with foreign leaders, presidents usually take questions, or at least trade statements. But at most of Obama's, there were only written "readouts." Canada: "The president and the prime minister noted the enduring strength of our bilateral partnership." India: "The two leaders vowed to continue to strengthen the robust relationship between the people of their countries." Pakistan: "President Obama began by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan."

Finally, away from other leaders, Obama took reporters' questions for 20 minutes. They were tough and skeptical questions that punctured the banal readouts: pointing out that the nonproliferation agreements weren't binding, noting China's equivocation on sanctions against Iran, and pressing Obama on the failure to curb North Korea's weapons. The Post's Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons.

"I'm not going to comment on their program," Obama said.

Not surprising. But it's still important that the questions are asked.

Original Article Sent to the Daily Herald Re: ASD

2010-04-13T15:39:00.001-07:00

http://www.utahsrepublic.org/media-coverage/original-article-sent-to-the-daily-herald/

Original Article Sent to the Daily Herald

April 12th, 2010

I am working on a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal to the Daily Herald article entitled, "Parents accuse BYU, Alpine District of socialist conspiracy" of 4-11-10, but in the meantime I thought it appropriate to make public the article I originally sent Caleb Warnock from which he drew some inaccurate conclusions.

Is Truth Dead?

Does truth really matter anymore? The professors of our day say it's just democratic. It's what the majority says, right? Morality is all relative, right? Truth is just different things to different people, right? If more people say God doesn't exist than those that say he does, then he doesn't exist right? Welcome to democratic knowledge, a basic tenet of humanism.

If the BYU motto is right, and the glory of God is intelligence, or in other words light and truth, and truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be, then it must be logical to assume that knowledge is not democratic and never has been. Shades of gray only apply to human limitations, but for God, truth exists and our quest as honest seekers of the truth, is to find those absolutes.

In the recent Alpine School District debate over the terms democracy and republic and what form of government our nation has been founded upon, a number of people are asking questions of why it matters what term is used. Is truth dead?

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government. The word democracy does not appear in the Constitution at all. The simple truth is, we are a constitutional republic which elects representatives to do the business of the people. The purpose of the website I set up at www.UtahsRepublic.org was to help restore this basic truth to the K-12 state history standards, where the term "republic" didn't appear even one time.

However, beyond this, there is something far more important which has come to light inside the motives of those who are trying to change our language and remove the notion that we are a republic with natural rights bestowed upon us by God.

To begin, it's clear the word democracy has changed over time. The online Merriam-Webster's dictionary actually has 2 contradictory meanings for the word, one as in the true meaning of democracy (mob rule) and the other quite close to what the term republic means. What isn't so clear is why the meaning of the term democracy has changed and what the driving force is behind that change.

John Dewey was one of the original signatories on the first Humanist Manifesto, a document which describes itself as a religion meant to transcend and replace deity-based religions. Their work was based on the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels which they held as an effective means of transforming society into one based on moral relativism, atheism, and democratic knowledge, only accepting that which the 5 senses can detect.

For the last hundred years, we have accepted gradual doses of the secular religion of humanism in direct violation of the Constitution of the State of Utah. Our state constitution says the legislature shall provide for the establishment of an education system which "shall be free from sectarian control." This means the self-proclaimed religion of humanism cannot be taught through our school system.

John Goodlad, a follower and recipient of the John Dewey award, and keynote speaker at a John Dewey conference, came to BYU in 1983 to establish the Public School Partnership with 5 surrounding districts. Goodlad has done this numerous times with universities and school districts around the nation. BYU's education department drew heavily on his book entitled "The Moral Dimensions of Teaching." One of Goodlad's "moral dimensions" is entitled "enculturating the young into a social and political democracy," which is the text and controversy surrounding Alpine School District's large plaque inside their teacher development center.

What does Goodlad mean by this? Is this an innocent phrase meant to instill a sense of patriotism and participation in the democratic process? Or is this revealing of Goodlad's ultimate motives?

John Dewey said that education is a responsibility that society must execute using techniques "previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil." (School & Society, pg 112)

What did he have in mind? Perhaps we can see some of this evil when we examine what his follower John Goodlad has said. Here are several quotes illustrating Goodlad's belief system.

"Again, we are looking for a balance—for an institution, really—that will consider the interests of parents, state, and children. Parents do not own their children. They have no 'natural right' to control their education fully."-Goodlad

"Education is a task for both parents and state. The state, parents, and children all have interests that must be protected." -Goodlad

"Education, public schooling, is necessary to maintain citizenry capable of maintaining a democracy. The knowledge of how to run a democracy is not possessed by all parents equally." -Goodlad

"In the quest for learning, educators must resist the quest for certainty…So it is with morals and patriotism." -Goodlad

"…belief in some that there exists 'objective knowledge' and a 'correct' view of the world. This is incorrect. All knowledge is partial and subjective." -Goodlad

Which of you believe the state has a right to your children and has interests that must be protected in the education of your child? Which of you believes it is up to the schools to educate your children because parents don't understand how to run a democracy? Which of you believe morals and knowledge are subjective?

Goodlad then proceeded to get BYU to become a founding member of the National Network for the Renewal of Education (NNER). From their website we find these quotes.

"The NNER pursues the Agenda for Education in a Democracy [the Agenda] and its implementation in member settings, with other educators and partnerships…"

"Why Do We Focus on Democracy? Many different forms of government have tried to meet this challenge: fascism, socialism, communism, and democracy, to name a few. Democracy, while certainly not without its flaws, seems to offer the best hope of enabling us to live together in relative peace and prosperity. This is because democracy has a great virtue that the others generally lack: real democracy strives to ensure that everyone in a society contributes to the decision-making processes that affect their lives."

In other words, the NNER has an ultimate Agenda. Part of that Agenda is to promote democracy as our form of government and to make societal decisions democratic (ie. moral relativism).

Do you as a parent want this for your child? Do you want Goodlad's and Dewey's Agenda "enculturating [your child] into a social and political democracy"?

Ezra Taft Benson said, "I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John Dewey, John Keynes and others. There are much worse things today that can happen to a child than not getting a full education."

So is enculturating our young into a social and political democracy harmless? Hardly. When a group of people set on a deliberate course of action to subvert the moral fabric of a society in the goal to eliminate the worship of deity and replace it with the worship of man, we come to the crossroads of our culture, and must make that final decision as to who the God of this land really is.

The question we must now address is, with this knowledge coming into in the public space, will those who accepted the good parts of Dewey's and Goodlad's teachings which no doubt attracted them in the first place, now recognize and reject the poison (Agenda) that came with it. If there is not a purging of the poison from the well, the 99.9% crystal clear water, will still continue to harm and kill those that partake of what deceptively appears to be a cool and refreshing well of truth.

Oak Norton

ObamaCare and the Constitution

2010-04-13T11:54:00.000-07:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704896104575140063408610580.html

The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.

The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.

View Full Image

Associated Press

A pocket sized copy of the U.S. Constitution

***

The most important legal challenge turns on the "individual mandate"—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert. He even argued in a September interview that "I absolutely reject that notion" that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.

As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, "Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society." The only law in the same league is conscription, though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.

Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that "taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.

All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can't Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?

The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida's constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress's health-care intrusion.

As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers' attempt to restrain government under Article I.

The states also have a strong case with their claim that ObamaCare upsets the Constitution's federalist framework by converting the states into arms of the federal government. The bill requires states to spend billions of dollars to rearrange their health-care markets and vastly expands who can enroll in Medicaid, whether or not states can afford it.

Florida already spends a little over a quarter of its budget on Medicaid, and under ObamaCare that will expand by at least 50% as some 1.3 million new people enroll. Those benefits, and the burden of setting up the new exchanges, will cost Florida $149 million in 2014 and $1.05 billion annually by 2018. The state will either have to cut other priorities or raise taxes. In legal essence, ObamaCare infringes on state sovereignty and unconstitutionally conscripts state officials.

Less potent, at least to our reading, is the challenge on behalf of state laws that bar or exempt their citizens from the mandate. Virginia passed such a law earlier this year, and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing on those grounds. But while such efforts serve as healthy political protest, federal laws that are constitutional are supreme under the 10th Amendment, and states can't "nullify" a Congressional action.

***

Judicial and media liberals are trying to dismiss these challenges as a revanchist attempt to repeal the New Deal, or, worse, as a way to restore the states's rights of Jim Crow. Modern liberals genuinely believe the federal government can order the states and individuals to do anything as long as it is in pursuit of their larger social agenda. They also want to deter more state Attorneys General from joining these lawsuits.

The AGs should not be deterred, because the truth is that ObamaCare breaks new constitutional ground. Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law's constitutionality, and we are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. Judges have an obligation not to be so cavalier in dismissing claims on behalf of political liberty. Under the Constitution, American courts don't give advisory opinions. They rule on specific cases, and the states have a good one to make.

Democrats may have been able to trample the rules of the Senate to pass their unpopular bill on a narrow partisan vote, but they shouldn't be able to trample the Constitution as well.

UVU's US Senate Debate: Youtube

2010-04-13T06:30:00.001-07:00

Thank you for those of you who showed up to UVU's US Senate Debate! Every candidate, with the exception of Sam Granato (D), attended the debate. One hundred and thirty GOP state delegates were counted but we estimate that number to be at least 150. We didn't anticipate such a large and enthusiastic crowd to show up. We're sorry that the event went longer than we advertised and we're also sorry for those of you who had trouble finding parking or a place to sit. In the future we won't underestimate the involvement of GOP delegates!

If you couldn't attend for any reason click on the links below to watch the debate on youtube in its entirety. We had difficulties filming/editing/posting the videos so Mike Lee's campaign was generous enough to allow us to use their videos. Each candidate was given an opportunity to respond to the questions asked.

Introductory Comments Part 1

Introductory Comments Part 2

Introductory Comments Part 3

Question to Bob Bennett

Question to Scott Bradley

Question to Tim Bridgewater

Question to David Chiu

Question to Merrill Cook

Question to Cherilyn Eagar

Question to Leonard Fabiano

Question to Jeremy Friedbaum

Question to Mike Lee

Question to Christopher Stout

Closing Statements

We conducted an unannounced exit poll. While there were some who declined to participate these are the results of the nearly 200 who did:

Mike Lee: 49.4%

Cherilyn Eagar: 16.6%

Tim Bridgewater: 16.3%

Scott Bradley: 7.3%

Bob Bennett: 6.7%

Merrill Cook: 1.9%

Christopher Stout: 1%

Leonard Fabiano: .5%

Jeremy Friedbaum: .3%

David Chiu: 0%

Gratefully,

James Davis

On Behalf of UVU's Student Government, College Republicans, & Young Americans for Liberty

More on "Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy."

2010-04-13T06:28:00.001-07:00

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/article_7bccc151-cb34-5dd2-ae52-fab607b81b17.html

Some local parents are leveling serious charges against Alpine School District and Brigham Young University.

Parents are saying district and university officials are participating in "a deliberate course of action to subvert the moral fabric of a society with the goal to eliminate the worship of deity and replace it with the worship of man."

These parents acknowledge their argument is both complex and far-reaching. If true, the charge means the school district is either wittingly or unwittingly part of a nationwide socialist movement. Parents say it is the manifestation of a specific warning given by LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson, who had named names in the warning. More on that in a moment.

Depending on your point of view, the parents may just be making much ado of nothing. Whatever you believe, concerned parents are asking other district parents to form their own opinion about whether the district is working to remove God from the classroom -- and history.

Conspiracy?

Oak Norton, one of the most outspoken critics of Alpine School District and founder of UtahsRepublic.org, begins with the premise that truth can only be defined by God. He sees BYU and Alpine School District as part of a national conspiracy working to carefully teach the nation's children to believe that the United States government is based on the power of people, rather than the power of God.

This effort, he said, is guided by "the motives of those who are trying to change our language and remove the notion that we are a republic with natural rights bestowed upon us by God."

As proof of his accusations, Norton offers a detailed logic.

Emblazoned about 30 feet across one wall of the school district's headquarters is a plank of the district's motto: "Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy." District officials acknowledge this comes from a BYU initiative on education associated with national education writer John Goodlad. Norton said that Goodlad is a proponent of John Dewey, one of the original signatories on the first Humanist Manifesto, a document that describes itself as a religion meant to transcend and replace deity-based religions. The manifesto was based on the Communist Manifesto.

According to Norton, John Goodlad is the recipient of an award named for Dewey, and also has been a keynote speaker as a conference focusing on Dewey.

"Goodlad came to BYU in 1983 to establish the Public School Partnership with five surrounding school districts," Norton said. "Goodlad has done this numerous times with universities and school districts around the nation. BYU's education department drew heavily on his book entitled 'The Moral Dimensions of Teaching.' One of Goodlad's 'moral dimensions is entitled 'enculturating the young into a social and political democracy,' which is the text and controversy surrounding Alpine School District's large plaque inside their teacher development center."

Goodlad, according to Norton, taught that parents do not own their children and they have no natural right to fully control their education.

"Education is a task for both parents and state," Norton quotes Goodlad as teaching. "The state, parents and children all have interests that must be protected ... Education, public schooling, is necessary to maintain citizenry capable of maintaining a democracy. The knowledge of how to run a democracy is not possessed by all parents equally ... In the quest for learning, educators must resist the quest for certainty ... So it is with morals and patriotism ... [There is a] belief in some that there exists 'objective knowledge' and a 'correct' view of the world. This is incorrect.All knowledge is partial and subjective."

To some, alarm bells sound

To Norton and many other parents, all this rings alarm bells.

"Which of you believe the state has a right to your children and has interests that must be protected in the education of your child?" Norton told the Daily Herald. "Which of you believes it is up to the schools to educate your children because parents don't understand how to run a democracy? Which of you believe morals and knowledge are subjective?"

Goodlad "proceeded to get BYU to become a founding member of the National Network for the Renewal of Education," Norton said. According to that group's Web site, the NNER "pursues the Agenda for Education in a Democracy ... Democracy, while certainly not without its flaws, seems to offer the best hope of enabling us to live together in relative peace and prosperity. This is because democracy has a great virtue that the others generally lack: real democracy strives to ensure that everyone in a society contributes to the decision-making processes that affect their lives."

Norton sees all this as skewing toward moral relativism.

"Do you as a parent want Goodlad's and Dewey's agenda enculturating your child into a social and political democracy?" he said.

As proof that his alarm is more than just alarmism, Norton offers this quote from LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson: "I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John Dewey, John Keynes and others. There are much worse things today that can happen to a child than not getting a full education."

That should be enough to give local parents pause, Norton said.

"So is enculturating our young into a social and political democracy harmless?" Norton said. "Hardly. When a group of people set on a deliberate course of action to subvert the moral fabric of a society in the goal to eliminate the worship of deity and replace it with the worship of man, we come to the crossroads of our culture, and must make that final decision as to who the God of this land really is.

"The question we must now address is, with this knowledge coming into in the public space, will those who accepted the good parts of Dewey's and Goodlad's teachings which no doubt attracted them in the first place, now recognize and reject the poison agenda that came with it? If there is not a purging of the poison from the well, the 99.9-percent crystal clear water will still continue to harm and kill those that partake of what deceptively appears to be a cool and refreshing well of truth."

The rebuttal

The Daily Herald provided both BYU and Alpine School District with the accusations of Norton and other parents and asked both the university and the district to respond.

"The teacher preparation programs at Brigham Young University strive to prepare educators who act with moral integrity and possess social and academic competence," said Richard Young, dean of the BYU David O. McKay School of Education. "Our goal is to graduate future teachers who can safeguard the learning of all students by teaching and caring for each student as an individual. We expect our graduates to be educators who can prepare today's youth to think deeply, to read and write well, to analyze and solve problems, and to be responsible citizens.

"As one enters the west doors of the David O. McKay Building on our campus, the center of attention is a display featuring the educational philosophy of President David O. McKay. The quotes displayed represent the core mission of the David O. McKay School of Education. Among these quotes we read: 'The teaching of religion in public schools is prohibited, but the teaching of character and citizenship is required.' On another occasion President McKay stated, 'It is well for educators everywhere when teaching the young to have in mind the three C's as well as the three R's mentioned so proverbially. By the three 'C's' I mean character, conduct, citizenship.'

"These values have long formed the basis for BYU's teacher-education program, with the goal being to build a foundation of better-trained educators and better-educated citizens throughout the United States and the world."

Rhonda Bromley, spokeswoman for Alpine School District, said the district "will continue to move forward focusing on student achievement and progress. We will continue to include parents and respect the roles each of us play in the education of students. We will continue to have stewardship in preparing students to become contributing members of society. The school board will continue tofollow processes in making future decisions as well as reviewing things that are already in place.

"If anyone has concerns about the direction and goals of Alpine School District, we invite you into our schools to see for yourself what is going on. We invite you to speak with members of the PTA as well as school and district community council. We are excited about the wonderful things happening in our classrooms every day between teachers and students. Alpine School District is transparent and committed to our mission, vision, values and goals."

What it means

Coming along with the broader questions about moral relativism and control of a child's education is a heated discussion of the meaning of a single phrase -- the last four words of the district's mission statement: "Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy."

This phrase has sent chills through many parents.

Concerned parent Jared Carman points out that social democracy is defined by Merriam-Webster as a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means, or a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.

"As an example, Western European countries, while casually called 'democracies,' are more accurately described as 'social democracies,' wherein the people have voted for themselves a socialist welfare state," Carman said. "Such a state is characterized by a powerful central government that provides for the 'equitable distribution' of the citizens' wealth. These European forms of government are quite different than America's Republic, where the government has enumerated and limited powers, mainly the safeguarding of the rights of the American people.

"In response to public outcry, the ASD school board explained that for them, the phrase 'social and political democracy' refers to the social and political skills children need to successfully contribute in America's culture of freedom. This explanation defies reason, in light of universally accepted definitions of the words, and especially given the origin and context of the phrase 'Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.' "

Norton saidthe word democracy does not appear in the Constitution at all; rather, the Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government.

The basics

Monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are each types of republics, said F. Dennis Farnsworth Jr., professor of political science at Utah Valley University. The most important component of a republic is "the adherence tothe rule of law, which means that especially those in high places may not with impunity break the law," he said.

Democracy is governmentby the people.The people votethe officials into power or fulfill the responsibilities of public policy themselves.

Ancient Athens was an example of a government which was both a republic and a democracy. The rule of law was enshrined and law breakers were punished. Atheniansvoted officials into power in some cases, butin many cases,did the work of government themselves: fought the wars, manned the juries, served in the senate, etc.

The U.S."began as a republic -- an aristocratic republic. Washington, Adams, Jefferson,Madison, etc., were all aristocrats," Farnsworth said."During the days of Andrew Jackson the aristocratic republictransformed itself into a democratic republic, with the common peoplehaving a say in things and getting elected to politicalpositions. A democratic republic is what the U.S. remains to this day, with the people having a voice in the formation of public policy.This evolution of the political system in the United States should be viewed as natural and normal and not the result ofconspiracy.It's OK to educate the youth to the effect that the U.S. is a democracy as well as a republic because, in fact, it is."

Words matter

That the U.S. form of government is a Republic is indisputable, said concerned parent Jared Carman. The Constitution states, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government."

"By contrast, the meaning of the word 'democracy' depends entirely upon the context in which it appears," Carman said. "Unfortunately, modern sources give two very different meanings. Merriam-Webster defines a democracy as 'a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly, or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.' "

According to Carman, the first definition is the original meaning of the word "and was both warned against by America's founding fathers and promoted by America's enemies."

Both Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifest, and communist leader Vladimir Lenin taught that democracy is the road to socialism, Carman said. In contrast, John Adams, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, warned that democracy is fleeting.

"While some speak loosely of the American form of government as a democracy, doing so invites ambiguity, as one never knows which definition is intended: the first, direct democracy, as meant by Adams, Marx and Lenin, or the second, representative democracy," Carman said. "The squishy term 'democracy' appeared 13 times on the mission statement page of the Alpine School District Web site, prior to March 9. In an effort to clarify, the board recently offered their own definition of ademocracy as a 'type ofrepublic.' This unique definition only adds to the confusion."

Posted in Education on Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:40 am Updated: 7:47 pm. | Tags: Brigham Young University, Alpine School District

Right Jeff

Where's the Inflation?

Re: Hi,

FBI files shed light on Ezra Taft Benson, Ike and the Birch Society

Home Defense in Kearns

Randall Jeppesen reporting

Cleon Wall reporting on self-defense

Don't forget to vote!

Re: (For what it's worth) My Recommendations for November 2nd

(For what it's worth) My Recommendations for November 2nd

Come Out to Vote!!

Please take a shift in one of our call centers

Free Copy of the Utah Constitution

President Packer, Red Herrings, and the Pro-LGBT Propagandists

New Food Rules: A Guide to your Government Regulated Diet

USA Today: 1 OUT OF 6 TAKE GOV'T AID...

New book reveals truth about Obamacare, and it isn't pretty

Two-in-Five Canadians Would Scrap Long Gun Registry

Two-in-Five Canadians Would Scrap Long Gun Registry

Apostle Talks Religious Freedom to Boston Youth

Published June 17, 2010

Apostle Talks Religious Freedom to Boston Youth

Posted By Doug Andersen

Tags:

Article Categories

Washington Times: Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan

Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan

Immigration staffers cite tools available without reform

SOCIAL NETWORKS

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

QUESTION OF THE DAY

In light of the 13 charges against him and his forthcoming ethics trial, will Rep. Charlie Rangel eventually resign?

Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College

Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: July 16, 2010

A version of this article appeared in print on July 18, 2010, on page A14 of the New York edition.

U.S. pockets $20.6 bln in sin taxes in FY'09

U.S. pockets $20.6 bln in sin taxes in FY'09

Related Topics

Christie looks to privatize motor vehicle inspections, other services

Flashback: Donald Berwick “We Must Redistribute Wealth”

Obama bypasses Senate for new Medicare chief

Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History

FTC floats Drudge tax

About 2,300 running for Congress, most in decades

Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

By DANIEL B. KLEIN

More on Politics

School Children taught: "I Am An Obama Scholar"

6/16/2010

School Children taught: "I Am An Obama Scholar"

Sowell: Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537967/201006211813/Is-US-Now-On-Slippery-Slope-To-Tyranny-.aspx

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Survey: Individual Health Insurance Premiums Jump

Survey: Individual Health Insurance Premiums Jump

Kaiser foundation survey finds steep jump in individual health insurance premiums

Chavez Spearheads Food Raids

Hugo Chavez Spearheads Raids as Food Prices Skyrocket

Counting news stories on defensive gun uses

6/01/2010

Counting news stories on defensive gun uses

Fwd: What can we do?

Report says health care will cover more, cost more

Comcast to acquire right-wing network

DOJ abandons warrantless attempt to read Yahoo e-mail

Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases

Washington Post: Obama's disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit

Original Article Sent to the Daily Herald Re: ASD

Original Article Sent to the Daily Herald

ObamaCare and the Constitution

***

***

UVU's US Senate Debate: Youtube

More on "Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy."