Opinion Commentary

2010-08-17T14:03:00.000-07:00

Which is more offensive, the WWE or our government?
Published: 9:05 AM 08/17/2010 | Updated: 9:29 AM 08/17/2010

By Gen LaGreca - The Daily Caller

Connecticut GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon is being vilified by the left for her role as the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), the company she and her husband grew from humble beginnings into a highly successful international corporation.

Her opponents claim that the empire McMahon built allowed steroid use to run rampant, peddled violence to children, exploited women, and committed other indecencies.

But is the alleged steroid use in the WWE more objectionable than the steroidal spending of a Congress pumped-up on Keynesianism? Is a WWE match more harmful to children than a $13 trillion national debt signed, sealed, and delivered to posterity by Congress? Is a WWE skit more indecent than the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, or the 2,000-page ObamaCare bill passed in the middle of the night, unread, by representatives eager to please party leaders? Is the WWE — which has no power to force anyone to buy a ticket to its events or to watch those events on television — more exploitative than a Congress that can seize our wealth, our future, and our liberty? Which is more offensive — the WWE or our government?
And which one is more in sync with America?

In the WWE, no wrestler would ever apologize for being too good, too strong, or too popular with his fans. But our president apologizes for America’s greatness.
In the WWE, every wrestler wants to win and to wave his championship belt high in the air. But our president says that “victory” is not necessarily our goal in a war we’re fighting and that he’s “always worried” about using that word.
In the WWE, no wrestler would ever give away his title belt to another wrestler who didn’t earn it. But our government unreservedly gives away our hard-earned money to its favored groups in order to buy votes and gain more power.

In the WWE, even the smallest wrestlers get to spar with the biggest bruisers, who cut them no slack — and the little guys often win. But our government thinks little guys are helpless and need cradle-to-grave assistance from their enlightened leaders. (And it views all Americans as “little guys.")

In the WWE, every wrestler thinks of himself — his matches, his victories, and his career — as the most important thing in the world. But our president questions our “strong bias toward individual action,” saying “individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

In the WWE, a wrestler has to work extremely hard to become a superstar, creating an exciting presence and skillful maneuvers to please the audience. But in government, people rise to power who have no skills, who are sometimes semi-literate, who know nothing about the Constitution they swear to defend, and who do whatever they please.
Is it any wonder that the WWE — with its walk-tall, be-the-best, and play-to-win superstars — is a success? Or that the Obama-led Congress — with its bow-down, be-humble, and accept-America’s-decline playbook — has an approval rating of only 20 percent?

Instead of disparaging Linda McMahon and the WWE, McMahon’s opponents ought to be learning from the candidate and her company.

Gen LaGreca is the author of Noble Vision, a ForeWord magazine Book-of-the-Year award-winning novel about the struggle for liberty in health care today.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/17/which-is-more-offensive-the-wwe-or-our-government/#ixzz0wtnVESMM

2010-03-08T18:59:00.000-08:00

The Latest Politics, News & Election Videos
March 08, 2010
Massa: Rahm Emanuel "Would Sell His Own Mother" For Votes

EMBATTLED DEM CONGRESSMAN: I WAS PUSHED OUT FOR HEALTHCARE!
'THEY KNEW I WOULD VOTE NO SO THEY GOT RID OF ME AND NOW IT WILL PASS'...
UPDATE: Will Resign Monday as Planned...
Lashes out in emotional radio appearance...
AUDIO...
AUDIO EDITS...

DEM REP. CHARGES: NAKED RAHM THUGS AROUND GYM SHOWERS

Roll Call: Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) told a New York radio station Sunday that an ethics investigation into his behavior focused on sexually-charged comments he made to an aide at a New Year's Eve celebration, but charged he was unaware of an ethics committee investigation into the incident until after he had announced his retirement last week. Massa said he had believed the committee was investigating an unrelated fundraising letter, and suggested that the ethics dust-up may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote.

"Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me, at all, ever, not once," Massa said. "Not a word. This is a lie. It's a blatant, false statement."

To comment on this video or click the "Comments" link below.

DEM REP. CHARGES: NAKED RAHM THUGS AROUND GYM SHOWERS

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/08/massa_rahm_emanuel_would_sell_his_own_mother_for_votes.html

"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."

Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: "I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me."

Flashback: Rahm Emanuel Scolds Massa For Being Too Angry

2010-02-21T12:10:00.000-08:00

Can the free market be saved without Rand?

By Marsha Enright and Gen LaGreca 02/16/10 at 12:00 am

It’s been a year since Stephen Moore’s article, “Atlas Shrugged: from Fiction to Fact in 52 Years,”seemed to ignite an explosion of interest in Ayn Rand. Sales of this prescient novel tripled; two Rand biographies have been selling like hotcakes; and references to her in the media have skyrocketed.

Yet, some free-market defenders continue to repudiate her and her ideas, as they have for decades. It used to be conservatives such as William F. Buckley of National Review trashing “Atlas Shrugged;” now the critics include libertarians, such as Heather Wilhelm of the Illinois Public Policy Institute, who penned “Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market?”.

But in their rush to distance themselves from Rand, they succumb to a deadly philosophic trap. It results from their anxious desire to apologize for the individualistic, self-interested motives that actually drive free markets. This anxiety prompts them to defend capitalism on the opposite premise: that capitalism is good only because it is “other-directed”—i.e., that it grants certain groups, such as the poor, opportunities to acquire wealth and power.

Over the decades, this has led such apologists to launch unpersuasive and futile crusades, such as “compassionate conservatism” and “bleeding-heart libertarianism,” which are not defenses of capitalism, but embodiments of its opposite. For example, conservatives and some libertarians plunged headlong into the moral and logical pitfalls of collectivism when, led by “compassionate conservative” Republican president George W. Bush, they created Medicare Part D, then the biggest-ever addition to welfare entitlements.

Likewise, Wilhelm summed up what too many on the right think, when she writes that free markets are best “sold” on the premise that, above all else, they help society’s neediest. She adds that “Rand’s insistence on the folly of altruism, however, tends to overshadow and even invalidate this message.”

You bet it does—and with good reason. That’s because no one can defend capitalism and free markets logically and consistently without a moral validation of enlightened self-interest as the highest good.

After all, the left didn’t rise to power because they had facts and rational arguments on their side. The empirical case for the superiority of capitalism in bringing a better life to the poor is overwhelming, whether we compare Chile to Cuba, Hong Kong to communist China, or the fully communist China of the past to itself today. So, one has to ask: Why haven’t these arguments won over all those who claim to want to help the poor?

The answer is that the left’s ascendance to power wasn’t driven by economic fact but by a moral vision thinly covered with economic claims. This vision was accepted by millions only because of the moral philosophy of self-sacrifice that dominates our culture.

That morality claims that the highest good for each individual is to live for the sake of others—for society or the collective. Ultimately, it implies that each of us is a moral slave to someone else. Whether it’s Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” or Hitler’s admonition to live for the German Volk, or Pol Pot’s belief that “since he [the individual] is of no use anymore, there is no gain if he lives and no loss if he dies,” the morality of self-sacrifice kills liberty because it subordinates the individual’s life to the group.

This is the morality that brought us the carnage of the 20th century.

The arguments of “compassionate” libertarians and “bleeding-heart” conservatives do nothing to challenge this ethic. They merely try to slip capitalism in under the tent of collectivist moral philosophy, telling everybody, in effect: “Don’t worry; even though sinful, individualistic self-interest drives capitalism, it is good because it can be harnessed to serve groups, such as the poor.”

In other words, these would-be defenders of capitalism merely “me-too” the collectivist moral claim that our primary ethical responsibility should be the welfare of other people. In this view, they march lockstep with those on the left who revile individualism and capitalism as being anti-poor, anti-caring.

Their view couldn’t be further from the truth. Free-market capitalism arises from a social vision that cares about the smallest minority of all: the individual. That vision recognizes the moral superiority of the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—the very vision identified by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and fought for by the Founding Fathers.

What is this right, if not the right of each person to pursue his or her own highest self-interest? Remember, the slogan of the American Revolution was “Don’t tread on me.”

Yet, that “selfish” American Revolution established a social system that created the most productive nation the world has ever seen, with the highest level and broadest distribution of wealth. It was a system based on individual rights, limited government, and equal justice under the law, in which everyone could keep and enjoy the fruits of his or her own efforts.

This system was fair because it gave each person the equal opportunity—and the pride-enhancing challenge—to make the most of his or her life, poor and rich alike. In fact, only a capitalist society can truly serve the interests of the poor and the disadvantaged, as well as the rich and the capable, because it is at root based on justice for the individual. And justice for the individual is justice for all.

This is what makes capitalism morally superior to collectivism.

Ironically, given the prevailing presumptions about self-interest, capitalist societies such as the U.S. are also the most charitable. Our individualistic system created a nation of magnanimity due to our unimpeded productivity, overflowing abundance, and benevolent sympathy for other individuals struggling for their own lives, liberty, and happiness.

It’s amazing that in all their talk of Rand’s “harsh message” and “confrontational language,” many free-market defenders haven’t asked themselves why her writings have inspired millions to become advocates of capitalism. They don’t understand that she completes the 18th century vision of the American Revolution by presenting a morality that fully justifies capitalism and individual freedom.

Rand’s morality of rational, enlightened self-interest defends the individual’s right to his own life, the power of his own liberty, and the glory of his pursuit of his own happiness. She said: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive work as his noblest achievement, and reason as his only absolute.” Her message—that “man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads”—is a message of the glory of the individual, unshackled and free.

We urgently need Rand’s vision of the moral nobility and greatness of a social system based on enlightened self-interest if we, the 21st century advocates of freedom, are to finally free the world from the death grip of collectivism. And that is a vision we must defend with “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Marsha Familaro Enright is president of the Reason, Individualism, Freedom Institute at the Foundation for the College of the United States. Gen LaGreca is the author of Noble Vision, an award-winning novel about the struggle for liberty in health care today.

2010-02-01T22:00:00.000-08:00

Chipping Away at Bias

By Sara Pentz

As John Adams said more than two centuries ago:

"Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes,

our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions,

they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Faint in the background I hear the chip-chip-chip of a tiny pickaxe as it begins to expose the bias in the media. It is a fragile sound, but nevertheless it is there in response to the increasingly open criticism of the media from all sides of the spectrum. Taken collectively there is evidence to indicate that the end result may open a crevice into which those who do not report with objectivity and integrity will fall—unless they find it absolutely necessary to listen to the whittlers in the forest.

There are reasons to hope for a more fair and responsible media. For one, the expansion of Internet sites devoted to demonstrating biases has taken the lead. Sites like Townhall.com and Spinsanity.org (“Countering Rhetoric with Reason”) cut to the chase analyzing biases. For another, some book publishers looking at the bottom line have finally discovered that books critical of media bias actually sell.

Former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg’s books “Bias” and his newest one “Arrogance” have exposed bias on a first person basis making Goldberg a highly reliable source. When Goldberg revealed that, “…his network—and all the others—were liberal,” it came as a shock to his colleagues. He wrote, “…the liberal press had been talking to themselves for so long, they all believed that every other sane person shared their views, and that Republicans, the NRA and pro-lifers were all wackos.” The response from Liberals was to flail him over a hot stake. His books have sold very well.

There are other small fissures exposing media bias which, when taken as an overview, seem to reflect the general appearance of an anti-bias uprising. At NBC, Today Anchor Katy Couric is said to be losing popularity with viewers and The Today Show is losing ratings. For example, sounding like a good Liberal, she claimed that the capture of Saddam Hussein was only symbolic. Not that Couric is the only one who colors her reports and interviews. Maybe that’s why the public is voting with a remote control.

Meanwhile, across the pond, the BBC is in trouble. Recently, an independent inquiry looked at the BBC’s report about supposedly “sexed up” information regarding weapons of mass destruction in order to sway the British public against the Iraq war. The inquiry found all allegations entirely unfounded, vindicating the government—but not before the tragic suicide of the reporter’s source. The report precipitated the resignation of the BBC chairman, the director-general and the reporter responsible for the debacle. Later it was reported that the British government was considering a plan to break up the BBC and remove its independent status.

Early this year ABC News made an amazing confession of sorts about its own bias. On its own website the Network published “A Note” written by the political unit:

* Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

* They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’

* They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. ...

* It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him – and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.

The fact that ABC posted this information on its own website for all to read deepens the chipping by a considerable margin. But then along comes The New York Times with a brilliant new idea. The solution to a Liberal bias, they determined in a formal announcement, was to examine “…conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media...” by giving a new Conservative beat to a former media correspondent. Here now would be reports from one man about all the conservative views on Earth while the rest of the staff would continue to write from their own Liberal viewpoint. It was typical Times politics to pretend that this was the answer to bias, but—still—it was an admissions of sorts.

The top people at The Times, and others, surely have not changed their politics or philosophy—or even acknowledged their bias. But The Times, even in this convoluted manner—by implication—has admitted that it is publishing slanted material. That act alone might convince us that the faint chipping away we hear might one day lead to the non-objective stalwarts in the forest falling one-by-one upon their swords—ending the monopoly of media bias. Just maybe!

Sara Pentz is a professional journalist living in Corona del Mar, California. She has been a TV reporter/anchor and has written for local, regional and national magazines and newspapers.

This article was published in April 2004.

2009-08-19T13:27:00.000-07:00

Don Hewitt's Biased Spector Haunts Us

By Lowell Ponte

Don Hewitt, who created the popular CBS news show “60 Minutes” and controlled it for 36 years, died Wednesday at age 86.

It is customary in our culture to speak no ill of the dead, but as William Shakespeare wrote: “The evil that men do lives after them.”

The specter of Don Hewitt continues to haunt both the network news he shaped and American politics.

Whatever part of Hewitt's soul was an honest journalist would want us to report his shortcomings and his liberal legacy truthfully.

Hewitt boasted that he elected two presidents.

The reporters and executives he put in charge of “60 Minutes” prior to his retirement in 2004 went on to help elect a third, President Barack Obama.

After serving as director for ultra-liberal CBS newslord Edward R. Murrow, Hewitt became producer-director of America's first televised presidential debate, which happened in 1960 between Republican Vice President Richard Nixon and Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kennedy.

Nixon won the debate handily, according to those listening on radio. Kennedy won among those who watched the slanted images Hewitt contrived to put on national television.

In his book "Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV," Northeastern University Journalism Professor Alan Schroeder described how Kennedy and Nixon together had refused makeup, but before the debate began, “unknown to Nixon, Kennedy got a touch-up [i.e., makeup] from his own people.”

Nixon, years later, recounted how he and his staff were misled about the debate stage lighting, the color of its background (lightened by repainting on debate day), and hence the color of suit, shirt, and necktie he should wear. On that set, wrote media historian Erik Barnouw, Nixon appeared “haggard; the lines on his face seemed like gashes and gave a fearful look.”

Kennedy's makeup and clothing somehow were perfectly coordinated to make him look like a star on Hewitt's suddenly-changed stage set.

Hewitt’s camera shots during the debate outraged a Nixon aide in the control room. Whenever Kennedy spoke, the camera tended to stay on him. When Nixon spoke, the cameras often cut away to show Kennedy’s reaction, distracting viewers from what the Republican was saying.

Hewitt gave Kennedy 39 percent more time in such reaction shots than he gave to Nixon’s reactions while Kennedy spoke, and this made Kennedy appear to dominate the debate.

In 1992, Hewitt helped another Democratic presidential candidate win. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was sinking when Hewitt offered him and his wife Hillary an interview to air moments after that year’s Super Bowl on CBS, the primest of prime airtime worth more than a million dollars per minute.

Then-Clinton hatchet man George Stephanopoulos, who now anchors ABC’s Sunday show “This Week,” recounted in his memoir "All Too Human: A Political Education” what he witnessed at this “60 Minutes” videotaping:

“Don Hewitt. . . told the Clintons how he’d made John Kennedy president by producing the debates in 1960 and said he could do the same for them.”

In this interview, America heard suburban Chicago-raised Hillary in a fake Southern accent speak loyally at her husband’s side. This Oscar-worthy performance enabled Clinton to eke out a second-place finish days later in New Hampshire, proclaim himself "the comeback kid," and go on to win the White House.

What Americans were not told was that the Clintons knew in advance the questions they would be asked.

Hewitt had also promised the Clintons that if they disliked the way a "take" was going, they, like prima donna Hollywood stars, could halt the videotaping and do a new take — or three, four, whatever the Clintons needed to sound and appear the way they wanted to.

Don Hewitt gave the Clintons their own free $20 million TV commercial. CBS dishonestly broadcast this Clinton infomercial to the nation disguised as an honest news interview.

And in the 2008 elections the “60 Minutes” that Hewitt shaped and staffed was up to its old dirty tricks, pretending to be even-handed while smearing Republican moderate candidate John McCain and promoting the Chicago’s Democratic machine’s far-left candidate Barack Obama.

In CBS’s softball Obama interview by Steve Kroft — the same lapdog reporter Hewitt had used in the 1992 Clinton infomercial — Obama was repeatedly pictured before adoring, cheering crowds.

CBS even showed him embracing an African-American woman who “wanted to tell Obama that she had just lost her husband of 70 years, and that he tried to live long enough to vote for him.”

Whenever Obama spoke, Kroft let him orate almost uninterrupted. After merely mentioning that Obama had “never run anything,” Kroft left unchallenged Obama’s dishonest retort that “if the question is executive experience, then Senator McCain and I are on equal footing.”

In fact, McCain commanded the largest fighter squadron in the U.S. Navy, but viewers would never know this from CBS.

By contrast, the McCain interview was conducted by attack dog Scott Pelley, notorious for his one-sided alarmist global warming reporting. When asked why he unethically refused to interview anyone with contrary views, Pelley snidely dismissed warming skeptics as “Holocaust deniers.”

More than 22,000 scientists, including MIT’s chief atmospheric scientist, have signed a petition expressing skepticism about Al Gore-like, Pelley-like climate alarmism.

CBS showed McCain not with friendly crowds like Obama, but alone facing a bright Hanoi Hilton-like interrogation light that made him appear white and pasty, and made him blink or look away.

Pelley repeatedly interrupted McCain’s answers with accusatory statements. “Can you see [your running mate Sarah Palin] as president of the United States?” he demanded repeatedly in a haughty, incredulous tone.

Palin was governor of America’s largest state and commander in chief of Alaska’s National Guard, with 80 percent popularity among voters who know her. Why didn’t Kroft similarly press his question about Obama’s utter lack of executive experience?

The specter of Don Hewitt will haunt America for a long, long time.

Lowell Ponte is co-host of the radio show “Night-Watch,” heard live nationwide Monday through Friday, 10 p.m. to midnight Eastern time, on gcnlive.com.

2009-07-16T02:32:00.001-07:00

Sara Palin: The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End

By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Washington Post

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.
The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

2009-07-16T02:24:00.001-07:00

Barry Farber

Honduran Coup Exposes Liberal Hypocrisy

Monday, July 13, 2009 4:34 PM

By: Barry Farber

Article Font Size

Let me try to make this riddle sufficiently agonizing.

It's a straight riddle. No tricks. Liberals have long nourished a dream with an intensity not even social equality and the end of racism and poverty could equal. More "What ifs." More "Why nots." More breasts were bared and beaten and more prayers frisbee'd upward toward Heaven on behalf of this dream than any other. Suddenly, in mid-2009, dramatically and unexpectedly, that dream came true.

And, not only did the liberals not like it. They hated it. Question: What was that dream?

This is a blazing example of failure to recognize what you've always dreamed about and prayed for. An old joke illustrates. A rabbi in the Pennsylvania flood-lands is dispatching his congregation to safety during the rising of the flood waters. As the last of them are carried to safety he goes to the roof of his synagogue to escape the rampaging waters.

A motorboat with rescuers comes along and the crew says, "Jump in, Rabbi. It's getting bad." "No, thanks," replies the rabbi. "God will save me." The waters rise to the rabbi's knees even up there on the roof and another motorboat comes along and a yell issues forth, "Come on, Rabbi. It's still rising." "I choose to remain here," said the rabbi. "God will save me." As the water rose beyond the rabbi's hip yet another motorboat appeared and the rescuers beg the rabbi to hop aboard to safety. "Thank you," he gently replies. "But I'll stay here. God will save me."

By the time the water had risen to the rabbi's neck a helicopter took up position directly over his head and a voice through a loudspeaker said, "Rabbi, we're going to lower a rope ladder. Just put your foot in the stirrup and grab hold and we'll lift you up and you'll be okay." "Thank you very much," said the rabbi. "I'm remaining here. God will save me."

The waters rose higher still and engulfed the rabbi and he drowned. When he arrived in heaven and faced God he said, "Lord, God of the universe. Forgive my impertinence, but I'm confused. I spent my entire time on earth believing in you and spreading your word among my flock. And at the end I had faith you would save me. Why, dear Lord, did you not save me?"

"What do you mean, why didn't I save you?" thundered an irritated God. "I sent three motorboats and a helicopter for you!"

Didn't the Bible tell us the big flood started with a cloud "no bigger than a man's hand?" The great liberal dream started materializing in the Central American nation of Honduras, geopolitically no bigger than a "man's hand." The Liberal Dream was always as follows: "Why didn't and why don't the great capable powers move in and stop a leader somewhere between his initial grab of dictatorial powers and his first aggression against neighbors and his first political murders, genocide, or holocaust? Why, oh why, for instance, didn't the civilized nations jump in and stop Adolf Hitler at some point between his burning of the books, torching the Reichstag, officially persecuting Jews and sending German troops into the Rhineland in 1936; a biggie, that one, because that was a blatant violation of the Versailles Treaty that ended World War 1? Better yet, if the outside world isn't going to do anything more than sit there and watch and wait and complain and offer limp protest resolutions, why don't forces inside the country threatened with dictatorship save themselves? I mean, after all, any dictator is just one guy!

Ah, big problem. So many dictators are "democratically elected," including Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Liberal DNA paralyzes any move to overthrow a democratically-elected dictator. Or, it did until Honduras! Honduras got it right. The minute a democratically-elected leader shuts down the opposition, dismisses his parliament or, as in the case of Honduras, contravenes a direct order of his supreme court, that leader is no longer kissed by the radiance of democratic election. He becomes a fully-qualified candidate for removal.

Please don't waste your life-force trying to convince your liberal friends anything this virtuous is what happened in Honduras. The liberal imagination can no more imagine anything but a strongman-military takeover in Latin America than they can imagine Icelandic wine, Norwegian suntan lotion, or a book entitled "Irish Gourmet Recipes," or "Ten Thousand Years of German Humor."

The rest of us can rejoice that when democratically-elected Honduran President Jose Manuel "Mel" Zelaya decided to stage a referendum on whether he could remove the Honduran constitution's limit of a single term for president, his supreme court said no. When the ballots, printed in Venezuela, continued to arrive and Zelaya ordered the army to distribute them, the head of the army refused to obey this illegal order. When Zelaya ordered the military chief arrested, soldiers arrested him instead and, in a refreshing break from Latin American tradition, did not shoot the president dead on the spot, but rather ushered him in his pajamas to a plane and exile in Costa Rica. No shot was fired during this dictatorship-prevention procedure.

The man who sits in the president's chair for the time being, Roberto Michelleti, is not a colonel or even a corporal, much less a caudillo. And he belongs to the same party as the ousted Zelaya. Some classic Latin American coup!

Meanwhile, certain American news channels are showing footage of the "crowds" of Hondurans who want Zelaya back, ignoring the fact that the anti-Zelaya crowds total many times (some say 10) as large as the pro-Zelaya crowds. Any newsroom chief who knowingly does that should be banned from newsroom-type employment for life.

And America — beginning with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — ought to be ashamed of bringing Zelaya to the United States to "show support."

Instead, they should make a donation to the new Honduran president's military — a package consisting, maybe, of three motorboats and a helicopter.

2009-07-16T02:22:00.000-07:00

Email To Friend | Print

President Is Getting Poor Grades On Economy As Optimism Erodes

By RAGHAVAN MAYUR | Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Persistent job losses seem to be taking a toll on how Americans view President Obama's performance in handling of the economy and federal budget.

In a July IBD/TIPP Poll, a majority of respondents asked to grade the president's handling of the economy gave him a grade of C or below.

In the same poll, the IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index tumbled 4.5 points, or 8.9%, in July, down to 46.3 vs. 50.8 in June. Index readings above 50 indicate optimism, below 50 indicate pessimism.

The study indicates that 21% of respondents gave Obama a C for his handling of the economy, 16% gave him a D and 19% gave him an F. The president received an A grade from 13% of respondents; 30% gave him a B.

The public's perception of the president's management of the budget is even harsher, with just 33% giving him an A or B and 62% grading him average or below.

Most troubling to the president is the perception of self-identified independents, 62% of whom gave him a C or below for his handling of the economy, with 68% giving him average or poor grades for managing the budget.

View larger image

This month's Economic Optimism Index is exactly at its 12-month average of 46.3, just 1.9 points above its reading of 44.4 in December 2007, when the economy was entering a recession. The index is 4.9 points below its all-time average of 51.3.

All three components of the IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index fell in July:

• The Six-Month Economic Outlook, a measure of how Americans feel about the economy's prospects in the next six months, declined 6.5 points, or 12.6%, to 45.2, still 13.1 points above the December 2007 figure.

• The Personal Financial Outlook, a measure of how Americans feel about their own finances in the next six months, fell 2.1 points, or 3.9%, to 52.1.

• Confidence in Federal Economic Policies, a proprietary IBD/TIPP measure of views on how government economic policies are working, fell 4.9 points, or 10.6%, to 41.5.

The June employment report estimated monthly job losses at 467,000, putting total losses since the beginning of the recession at more than 7 million.

In an effort to allay deepening concerns, the president wrote an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post defending his $787 billion stimulus plan and asking Americans to be patient.

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not expected to restore the economy to full health on its own, but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall," Obama wrote. "So far, it has done that. It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps up over this summer and fall."

The president expects the stimulus plan to create or save 4 million jobs. Some Republicans have noted that the stimulus plan has failed to contain job losses.

"We must let it work the way it's supposed to, with the understanding that, in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity," Obama wrote.

While debate on the efficacy of the first stimulus continues, talks of a possible second stimulus emerged last week (see editorial on the previous page for poll data and analysis).

Despite deteriorating confidence levels, positive signs appeared in the economy. The June purchasing agent surveys echoed those that previously appeared on the eve of past economic recoveries, and the Conference Board's CEO Confidence Index showed optimism.

Some experts view the slump in confidence this month as an idiosyncracy. These observers think confidence will likely bounce back in coming months and we are on track for a recovery in the second of half of this year.

Mayur is president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which directs the IBD/TIPP Poll that was the most accurate in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

2009-06-20T11:56:00.000-07:00

Why I Love America

By Gen LaGreca

I love America for being the place where an upstart group of colonists, against all odds, battled the most powerful empire in the world---and won---all in the cause of liberty.

I love America for establishing a revolutionary new country in which a person’s life is his and his alone to live for his own sake, and government’s sole purpose is to protect that sacred right.

I love America for recognizing that not only is it illegal for a criminal to steal your property, force you to do things against your will, or hijack your life, but the government cannot do these things, either. I love America for declaring for the first time in history that government cannot act like a common criminal but must be accountable to moral law.

I love America for igniting a firestorm of liberty that in a brief page on the calendar of history led to the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women, and the spread of freedom around the globe.

I love America for triggering an explosion of scientific and industrial advancement and a standard of living unmatched---and unimaginable---in history.

I love America for fostering the climate of freedom in which genius can flourish, making possible the Henry Fords, the Thomas Edisons, the Wright Brothers, and the many other innovators who formed entire new industries that moved mankind forward.

I love America for being the place where wealth was created and earned, rather than looted and plundered.

I love America for spawning the American Dream, the worldwide symbol of the boundless opportunity and achievement that freedom brings.

I love America for making possible a truly civilized society, one of self-sufficient, resourceful, confident, hard-working, wealth-creating, and life-loving people, who lived in a spirit of peace and good will toward their fellow man because no one staked a claim to anyone else’s wallet.

I love America for offering freedom and opportunity to so many of our ancestors who arrived as immigrants, who knew that in America nothing was owed to them and everything had to be earned, and who rose to the challenge, creating a spectacular new life for themselves and for us, their descendants.

I love America for being the country where people could work hard, rise, and be proud of their success, because production, profit, wealth, and achievement were the stuff that American heroes were made of.

No matter how much our country has swayed from its ideals today, I will never forget that I am an American. I will never forget that our ancestors forged a continent not with public aid and bailouts but with the shining vision of a better life and the self-reliance to attain it. Our forebears created wealth, progress, and achievement on an unprecedented scale. No government fed our pioneers, inspected their wagons for safety, certified their chickens, meddled in their businesses, looted their wealth, or subjected their lives to endless controls, permissions, and regulations. No government built the breathtaking skylines of our majestic cities, the proud monuments to free minds and free commerce. The government’s fingerprints can be found only on the shattered shells of public housing that wound our cities, a grim reminder of the failed welfare state.

The time has come to reclaim our legacy from the meddlers, moochers, expropriators, and budding tyrants who are hammering away at Lady Liberty, knocking her down bit by bit, and ready to topple her completely.

We the people must pick up the pieces, make our Lady whole again, and return her to her golden pedestal as the country we love and honor, the country of liberty.

Let us ponder these thoughts on Independence Day.

Gen LaGreca is the author of Noble Vision, a ForeWord Magazine Book-of-the-Year award-winning novel about liberty. © 2009 by Genevieve LaGreca. Author gives permission to post, publish, or pass on, with the above attribution.

Economists Against Stimulus - Cato Institute

2009-03-04T11:23:00.000-08:00

Economists Against Stimulus
by CATO Institute
Issue 127 - March 4, 2009

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government,
a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9, 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
James Bennett, George Mason University
Bruce Benson, Florida State University
Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
Alberto Bisin, New York University
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
George Brower, Moravian College
James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Henry Butler, Northwestern University
William Butos, Trinity College
Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Art Carden, Rhodes College
James Cardon, Brigham Young University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
John Coleman, Duke University
Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
John Dawson, Appalachian State University
Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
James Dorn, Towson University
Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Francis Egan, Trinity College
John Egger, Towson University
Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
Peter Frank, Wingate University
Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
William Gerdes, Clarke College
Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Richard Gordon, Penn State University
Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
Ernie Goss, Creighton University
Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville
Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
Gailen Hite, Columbia University
Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
Daniel Klein, George Mason University
Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
Marek Kolar, Delta College
Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Deepak Lal, UCLA
George Langelett, South Dakota State University
James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
Robert Lawson, Auburn University
John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Dean Lillard, Cornell University
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
John Lunn, Hope College
Glenn MacDonald, Washington
University in St. Louis
Michael Marlow, California
Polytechnic State University
Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
James Miller III, George Mason University
Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Munger, Duke University
Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
Richard Muth, Emory University
Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
Seth Norton, Wheaton College
Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Evan Osborne, Wright State University
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Donald Parsons, George Washington University
Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
Adriano Rampini, Duke University
Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
Mario Rizzo, New York University
Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
James Smith, Western Carolina University
Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
Shirley Svorny, California State
University, Northridge
John Tatom, Indiana State University
Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Alex Tokarev, The King's College
Edward Tower, Duke University
Leo Troy, Rutgers University
David Tuerck, Suffolk University
Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
Charles Upton, Kent State University
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
Richard Wagner, George Mason University
Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
Walter Williams, George Mason University
Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University

Additional economists who have signed the statement

Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
Joe Bell, Missouri State University, Springfield
John Bethune, Barton College
Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
William Dewald, Ohio State University
Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
Jack Estill, San Jose State University
Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
Joseph Giacalone, St. John's University
Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
Richard Hart, Miami University
James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
John Hoehn, Michigan State University
Daniel Houser, George Mason University
Thomas Howard, University of Denver
Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
Scott Kelly, Albany State University
Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
James Kurre, Penn State Erie
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
Henry Manne, George Mason University
Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
James Barney Marsh, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
John McConnell, Purdue University
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
Tim Muris, George Mason University
John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
Robert Prati, East Carolina University
Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
John Seater, North Carolina University
Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Simmons, Greenfield Community College
W. James Smith, University of Colorado Denver
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
Scott Sumner, Bentley University
Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
William Trumbull, West Virginia University
A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University
Randall Valentine, Georgia Southwestern State University
Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
Gene Wunder, Washburn University
John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville

2009-02-19T23:30:00.000-08:00

I am finally about to return to writing my commentaries after eight months off. I've moved to New York City and will have plenty to say about the new administration in the weeks to come.

2008-06-04T11:45:00.000-07:00

From Media Research Center

Liberal Media Cover-Up Speaker Pelosi’s Slander of American Troops,
Crediting Iran for Iraq Success

Last Thursday, a collection of reporters and members of the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle sat down for a nearly 80-minute interview with Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.

At the 62-minute mark, Pelosi slandered and demeaned the hard-won successes of our armed forces in Iraq, saying “Whatever the military success and progress that may have been made, the surge didn't accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians -- they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians.”

No one at the Chronicle reported the Speaker’s vicious slander. Nor did NBC, ABC or CBS, CNN or MSNBC deem it fit for broadcast, either Thursday evening or at any point on Friday. The vaunted New York Times likewise did not deem this fit to print.

L. Brent Bozell:

“The liberal media continue to shred its tattered integrity with this willful exclusion of Nancy Pelosi’s atrocious remarks.

“The Speaker of the House of Representatives slanders our troops in Iraq, whose blood, toil and tremendous sacrifice have led to the great and growing success we have seen there, and the liberal media are silent.

“The Speaker’s slur is clearly newsworthy. Why then do the liberal media steadfastly refuse to report Pelosi’s comments?

“Perhaps because they know why it is newsworthy: because it so thoroughly damages the credibility and integrity of the person third in line to the Presidency.

“The media’s cover-up of Nancy Pelosi’s anti-U.S. troop comments is simply shameful.”

2008-06-04T11:11:00.000-07:00

QUOTABLE QUOTES FROM HISTORY AND CURRENT THINKERS

** Former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, "No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies."

2008-01-20T10:32:00.000-08:00

Headline at Free Market News:Americans Slam News Media

On Sunday, January 13, 2008, FreeMarketNews.com posted an article about a poll conducted by Sacred Heart University. See article: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=53677

The Poll revealed that: "significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they believe all or most of media news reporting. " Most of the people polled agreed that there is a liberal slant to the major news organizations.,

James Castonguay, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of SHU's Department of Media Studies & Digital Culture, said about the poll results, "The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical consumer of information in the U.S." He added that the availability Internet news sources contributes to the skepticism.

In fact, the poll demonstrated that a growing number of Americans see the news media as an attempt to shape public opinion. And that the media has, in effect, abandoned their role as objective reporters.

Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute said about the poll that "American know bias and imbalance when they see it." And "they don't like it," he added.

His best comment, in my opinion, was: "Americans know that it's just not that hard to present both sides and keep personal bias at home."

The most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, - according to the poll - in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%)

=====

For additional Sacred Heart University news, please visit
www.sacredheart.edu/pressroom.cfm.

SOURCE Sacred Heart University Polling Institute

2008-01-18T12:48:00.000-08:00

IS THERE A PROBLEM? BLAME GLOBAL WARMING
By George Reisman

http://www.capitalism.net/

The Op-Ed page of Sunday’s (December 23, 2007) New York Times is devoted to moaning and groaning about the evils of global warming. One piece complains about the loss of a glacier. A second bemoans an abnormal weather pattern in which unseasonably warm weather was followed by cold snaps, with devastating effects on the writer’s olive trees in Provence. A third complains of China’s growing prosperity enabling people to consume more and more imported food, thereby contributing to greenhouse gas emissions because of the need to transport the food over long distances.

But it is the fourth piece that wins the prize for absurdity (and dishonesty). After casually substituting the words “climate change” for “global warming,” it dares to complain about “uncharacteristic frosts” ruining 40 percent of an avocado grower’s crop. In fact, in the apparent belief that its readers are unconcerned with contradictions, The Times actually titled this piece “Chile’s Rising Waters and Frozen Avocados.” The rising waters will supposedly come about because of the melting of Antarctic ice caused by global warming. And yet that same global warming is portrayed as the cause of uncharacteristic frosts and frozen avocados. The writer and The Times apparently believe, and expect their readers to believe, that freezing, no less than warming, is a product of global warming.

The news pages of the same edition of The Times contain yet another propaganda piece about the evils of global warming, this time without any excuse of being merely an expression of opinion. Disguised as a news story, the piece appears on page 16 of the paper’s main section, with the title “As Earth Warms, Virus From Tropics Moves to Italy.”

The virus in question is “chikungunya,” which is described as “a relative of dengue fever normally found in the Indian Ocean region.” A careful reading of the article, together with some investigation of actual climate conditions, shows no connection whatever between the arrival of this virus in Italy and global warming. In reality, its arrival in Italy is nothing more than an unfortunate by-product of globalization and its attendant increase in international trade and travel.

The facts reported in the article are that “[t]iger mosquitoes [a potential carrier of the virus] first came to southern Italy with shipments of tires from Albania about a decade ago” and then proceeded to enlarge their habitat. The mosquitoes by themselves caused no problems beyond that of being a nuisance. What was responsible for their becoming an actual carrier of the chikungunya virus was the arrival in an Italian city of a resident’s relative who had contracted the virus on a trip to India. He was bitten and the mosquitoes then spread the virus from him to others, in widening circles.

The only connection the article offers to global warming is the assertion that the tiger mosquito’s habitat “has expanded steadily northward as temperatures have risen,” as though there had been some significant rise in temperatures over the last ten years and that this rise was a prerequisite to the enlargement of the mosquito’s habitat, at least in a northerly direction. Yet the facts are that global mean temperature has risen a scant .7◦C (1.26◦F) over the entire period since 1900 and, according to data supplied by The University of East Anglia and The Hadley Centre, global mean temperatures have actually been modestly declining since 1998! (For verification of this last point, see the website http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/uoea-awy121207.php). Moreover, since temperature lows in the region of Italy where the outbreak occurred are lower than those in most of France and England by 1 or 2 degrees Celsius, temperature conditions in those areas, which are considerably further north, have been ripe for the tiger mosquito at least for a century or more. (For comparative temperature lows, see the website of Euroweather at http://www.eurometeo.com/english/climate/home_min).

Thus, however unfortunate the outbreak of the virus may have been, there is no actual basis for blaming it on global warming. The accusation is nothing more than part of the attempt to create panic over global warming and thus to stampede frightened and ignorant people into sacrificing their freedom and prosperity for the sake of what looks more and more like a coming global dictatorship.

This article is only one of many that make The Times read like something produced at a ministry of propaganda rather a newspaper produced in a free country. Its author, one Elizabeth Rosenthal, has previously demonstrated that she is an enthusiastic and utterly naive advocate of environmentalism. (See her “Cleaner consumption and the low-carbon life” in the February 23 issue of the International Herald Tribune, a newspaper owned by The Times.) The Times definitely does not read like a newspaper in which reporters apply critical thinking, exercise independent judgment and common sense, verify the facts they report by means of doing the necessary research, and strive for logical consistency. It is in fact something of a joke as a newspaper, or at least would be a joke if it were not as successful as it has been in helping to poison our culture and destroy our country.

Copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics. His web site is www.capitalism.net.

George Reisman's blog is a commentary on contemporary business, politics, economics, society, and culture, based on the values of Reason, Rational Self-Interest, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Its intellectual foundations are Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and the theory of the Austrian and British Classical schools of economics as expressed in the writings of Mises, Böhm-Bawerk, Menger, Ricardo, Smith, James and John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, and Hazlitt, and in my own writings.

This article is reprinted with the permission of the author.

2007-12-16T11:31:00.000-08:00

George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture

Friday, November 30, 2007

IF ABORTION REALLY WERE MURDER

In last Wednesday night’s debate among the eight Republican candidates contending for their party’s Presidential nomination, a young woman, via a YouTube video, asked the candidates an important and telling question on the subject of abortion. If abortion were made illegal, she asked, what punishment would the candidates propose for a woman who broke the law and had an abortion?

To a man, the candidates who were opposed to abortion (apparently all of them, with the exception of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani) declared that there would be no punishment whatever for the woman. Only the abortionist, i.e., the physician or whoever else performed the abortion, would be punished.

Now I am not an attorney. Still less have I had any experience working in a prosecutor’s office. However, I have watched innumerable episodes of the television program “Law and Order” and similar shows. “Law and Order,” of course, is the show in which one of the Republican candidates, former United States Senator Fred Thompson, has played the role of district attorney for the last several years.

What I have learned from such shows and from casual reading on the subject is that the law punishes premeditated murder more severely than murder that is not premeditated, and also that it generally punishes the instigator and planner of a murder more severely than the person who is employed to carry out the murder. Accordingly, let us imagine that instead of a woman who has had an abortion and has paid a physician to perform it, we have a woman who has arranged the murder of her husband by means of hiring someone to do it.

I can imagine Senator Thompson, in his role as DA, telling one of his assistants to offer the suspected “hit man” a “deal,” in the form of pleading guilty to a lesser crime than Murder in the First Degree, say “Murder Two” or even “Man One,” in the vernacular of the show. The purpose of the deal, of course, would be to get the hit man to “roll” on the worse offender, in this case, the person—the woman—who employed him.

I now ask, what is different in the case of abortion, if abortion really is murder? Abortions do not occur spontaneously, in an isolated moment of disordered thinking and uncontrollable emotion. They must be planned. A woman who wants an abortion, must generally make an appointment at a medical facility to have it done. Before the abortion takes place, she will probably have to undergo an examination and tests of various kinds to be sure that the procedure does not pose an undue risk to her life or health. Thus, some period of time must elapse before the abortion actually occurs.

Especially in an environment of secrecy and stealth, of kitchen tables and coat hangers, in which abortions would once again have to be performed if they were once again made illegal, there must generally be a more or less considerable lapse of time between a woman’s forming the intent to have an abortion and being able to have it actually performed. This is because in such conditions, an abortionist cannot be found simply by looking in the yellow pages or on the internet. One can be found only through a series of discreet and time-consuming inquiries.

The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from all this is that a woman who has an abortion must not only form an intent to have it but must also maintain that intent for a more or less considerable period of time. What is the name for this if not premeditation?

Accordingly if abortion really is murder, then it is premeditated murder. And by the usual standards of justice, the guilt of the woman, as the instigator and planner of the murder, is greater, not less, than that of the physician or other party employed to carry it out.

But there is more, and it is downright scary. Most or all of the Republican candidates who oppose abortion are in favor of the death penalty for crimes such as premeditated murder. Thus, the logic of their view of abortion implies that they should not only urge the severe punishment of a woman who has an abortion, but capital punishment. Their alleged love of the life of the unborn fetus that is taken in an abortion should, in logic, lead them to urge the death of the woman who orders the taking of that life.

I must say that I am confident that the common sense and personal good will of the anti-abortion candidates would continue to prevent them from advocating any actual punishment of women who would have illegal abortions, let alone capital punishment, despite the fact that that is where the logic of their beliefs would take them. However, the same is by no means necessarily true of all of their followers and of the anti-abortion movement as a whole. In today’s world there seems to be no idea that is too bizarre to find followers once it is identified as a logical implication of a deeply rooted belief.

Hopefully, there will be a larger number of more reasonable people, who will be led to question the premise that abortion is murder. To do that, they will need to question the premise that a fetus, especially, in the early stages of pregnancy, is an actual human being. In reality, when, for example, a fetus must still be measured in mere tenths of an inch, it is simply not a human being. At that point, it is nothing more than a growth in a woman’s womb that has the potential to become a human being. Removing it is not killing a human being but simply stopping—aborting—a process that if left unchecked would result in a human being weeks or months later. Weeks or months later, there would be a human being. But not at the time of the abortion.

Unfortunately, persuading people of this elementary fact of perception can be very difficult. There are far too many people for whom seeing is not believing, but rather, if anything, believing is seeing—that is, people whose mistaken ideas are held so strongly that they override the evidence of the senses. Epistemologically, the notion that a speck in a woman’s womb is a human being is not all that different than the notion, popular elsewhere in the world, that animals carry the souls of one’s ancestors. Both notions represent seeing what just isn’t there, based on a projection from inside one’s mind.

Seeing a human being where there is none and consequently murder where there is none, serves to destroy the lives of women, and of families, who cannot afford the burden of an unwanted extra child, which they are nonetheless forced to accept because the possibility of abortion is denied them. Because of this distorted conception of things, a woman has only to become pregnant, and ownership of her body is immediately claimed by the State. Whatever plans she may have had for her future, such as gaining an education, pursuing a career, or simply enjoying her youth, are forcibly thrown aside, as she is made to live with no more choice in her own destiny than a pregnant animal. She is compelled to defer whatever hopes, dreams, and ambitions she may have had until she has completed what is tantamount to serving a twenty-year sentence in going through an unwanted pregnancy and then raising an unwanted child.

And why? By what right is such devastation inflicted on her life? The answer is that here in the United States, just as in the Middle East, there are large numbers of people who believe that the cloak of religion and their claim to be inspired by the will of God entitles them to practice lunacy, in total disregard of the suffering and harm they cause to others. Their pretended “love” and “goodness” is a sham.

This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics. This article is reprinted with permission of the author.

Dr. Reisman's blog is a commentary on contemporary business, politics, economics, society, and culture, based on the values of Reason, Rational Self-Interest, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Its intellectual foundations are Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and the theory of the Austrian and British Classical schools of economics as expressed in the writings of Mises, Böhm-Bawerk, Menger, Ricardo, Smith, James and John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, and Hazlitt, and in my own writings.

2007-12-15T14:13:00.000-08:00

Barbarians in the Oval Office
by Paul R. Hollrah

Most conservatives were disappointed when former Speaker Newt Gingrich teased us for more than a year… all but convincing us that he would enter the Republican presidential primaries… before offering the lame excuse that he is the only native-born American, over the age of thirty-five, who is ineligible to seek the presidency. Hogwash!

Gingrich’s announcement left conservatives without a trustworthy voice in the Republican primaries. John McCain was once a conservative, but then he joined hands with the most liberal Democrat in the U.S. Senate to co-sponsor the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill… an outright attack on First Amendment rights.

We’re told that Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee are conservatives… but how can we be sure? Until now, some of the strongest words on Iraq have come from the mouth of a liberal Democrat from Connecticut, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Perhaps Pat Buchanan’s new book, Day Of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart, will give Republicans a bit of new-found motivation. Buchanan warns, “America is coming apart, decomposing, and… the likelihood of her survival as one nation… is improbable – and impossible if America continues on her current course… on a path to national suicide.” (Hmm! Why not a new secessionist nation comprised of the oil and gas producing states of the south and southwest?)

What he says is true. In support of his thesis, Buchanan points out that the U.S. Army is “breaking” and is “too small to meet America’s global commitments;” that the dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments; that free trade is shipping jobs and technology to China, plunging America into permanent economic dependency and unpayable foreign debt; that the greatest invasion in history, from the Third World, is swamping the ethno-cultural core of the country; that the American culture is collapsing and the nation is being deconstructed along class and racial lines; and that unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare promise a fiscal crisis of unprecedented magnitude.

But such warnings are not new. The famed British parliamentarian T.B. Macaulay, predicted our ultimate demise in a May 23, 1857 letter to an American colleague. He said, “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both…

“You may think that your country enjoys an exemption from these evils. I will frankly own to you that I am of a very different opinion. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions.”

He concluded by saying, “I seriously apprehend that you will… do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people who should in a year of scarcity devour all the seed-corn (deplete the National Petroleum Reserve?), and thus make the next a year not of scarcity, but of absolute famine… There is nothing to stop you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor.”

All sail and no anchor, indeed. From the day our Constitution was ratified it has been under constant attack by “Huns and Vandals,” the “progressives” of the political left who think they know better than the Founding Fathers. Engendered within our own institutions, they have never fully bought into the underlying principles embodied in our Constitution. Always on the lookout for some perceived unfairness in our system, they work tirelessly to subvert the genius of what the Founders produced.

To give credit where credit is due, it is liberal judges, the mainstream media, leftist college professors, liberal public interest law centers and think tanks, teachers unions, trade unions, trial lawyers, and radical environmentalists, all major elements of the Democrat Party, who have spearheaded our national deconstruction. If Macaulay and Buchanan are correct in predicting that our children will live to see the demise of the great American experiment… and I believe they will… then these are the “Huns and Vandals” who are to blame.

It matters little which of the 2008 Democrat presidential hopefuls the people might favor… Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. They are all equally dangerous and they all represent the “Huns and Vandals” of whom Macaulay wrote. But our fate is not sealed, entirely. There are things we can do to control our own destiny. For starters, the one thing we cannot do is to stay away from the polls in November 2008 and allow the “barbarians” of the left to elect one of their own to the Oval Office. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

Permission to republished granted by Paul Hollrah.
Mr. Hollrah is a native of St. Charles, Missouri. He holds a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri and is a member of the Civil Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni. From 1962-70 he served as a Senior Project Engineer for Cities Service Oil Company (Citgo) and the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) in New York and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

He is a founder and former director of the State Governmental Affairs Council, a former member of the General Committee on State Relations of the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Hollrah took early retirement from the Sun Company in 1984. Since retiring, he has worked as an independent consultant both in the U.S. and in Russia, seeking to bring Russia’s unique technological developments to the U.S. and working on humanitarian aid projects in Moscow and Siberia.

From June 1999 to January 2002 he served as U.S. Coordinator for the US-Russian Mayor-To-Mayor Program, and in November 2000 he was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Congress of Small Cities of Russia. In 1998 he founded a publishing company, Patria Publishing, and has published a frontier history (1765-1885) of St. Charles County, Missouri, the jumping-off point for the Lewis & Clark Expedition. He currently writes a weekly political column for an eastern Oklahoma newspaper and for the Lincoln Heritage Institute, an Internet site for conservative political expression.

2007-11-30T17:38:00.000-08:00

Is Media Bias An Established Fact Now That Even Harvard Sees It?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Friday, November 09, 2007 4:30 PM PT

A new study finding the media give far more favorable coverage to Democrats than Republicans could have settled once and for all the debate over whether the news we get has a liberal bias.

After all, it was done by the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy.

But given the study's reception in the mainstream media, it's doubtful the issue has been put to rest. Like similar studies in the past, Harvard's went largely uncovered. A Nexis search found 20 news mentions of the report, with only a handful highlighting the revelation of extreme bias.

This, of course, backs the presumption of many news consumers that bias plays a key role in what media put out and hold back. In this case, a bias in favor of their own industry resulted in the burying of a study that places the industry in a bad light.
But one of the study's main findings — that political coverage is colored with a distinctly liberal bias — has been documented for years, if not decades. As such, the Harvard findings aren't nearly as surprising as the source.

Perhaps it's time, then, to stop debating whether the press is biased and move on to greater questions of how the bias is manifested and what effect it might be having on public discourse and opinion. In this series, IBD will examine these issues.
The Harvard study — conducted with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press — examined 1,742 presidential campaign stories appearing from January through May in 48 print, online, network TV, cable and radio news outlets.

Among many findings, it determined that Democrats got more coverage than Republicans (49% of the stories vs. 31%). It also found the "tone" of the coverage was more positive for Democrats (35% to 26% for Republicans).

"In other words," the authors say, "not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking."
Those "genres" include the most mainstream of media — newspapers and TV. Fully 59% of front-page stories about Democrats in 11 newspapers had a "clear, positive message vs. 11% that carried a negative tone."

For "top-tier" candidates, the difference was even more apparent: Barack Obama's coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Hillary Clinton's was 61% positive and 13% negative.

By contrast, 40% of the stories on Republican candidates were negative and 26% positive.

On TV, evening network newscasts gave 49% of their campaign coverage to the Democrats and 28% to Republicans. As for tone, 39.5% of the Democratic coverage was positive vs. 17.1%, while 18.6% of the Republican coverage was positive and 37.2% negative.

These findings are in line with a number of other studies that date back to the early 1970s:
• In 1972, "The News Twisters" by Edith Efron analyzed every prime-time network news show before the 1968 election and found coverage tilted 8 to 1 against Nixon on ABC, 10 to 1 on NBC and 16 to 1 on CBS.

• In 1984, Public Opinion magazine found that Reagan got 7,230 seconds of negative coverage and just 730 seconds of positive; Mondale's positive press totaled 1,330 seconds, vs. 1,050 negative.

• In 1986, "The Media Elite" surveyed 240 journalists at virtually every major media outlet and found that in presidential elections from 1964 to 1976, 86% of top journalists voted Democratic. A 2001 update found 76% voted for Dukakis in 1988 and 91% went for Clinton in 1992.

• A 1992 Freedom Forum poll showed 89% of Washington reporters and bureau chiefs voting for Clinton in '92 and only 7% for George H.W. Bush.

• A 2003 Pew survey found 34% of national journalists called themselves liberal and 7% conservative. By 7 to 1, they also felt they weren't critical enough of President Bush.

• In 2005, a study of bias by professors at UCLA, Stanford and the University of Chicago determined that only one media outlet — Fox News Special Report — could be tagged "right of center."

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=279503526320834

2007-11-29T13:38:00.000-08:00

A Philosophical Look at the issue of Torture

Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Arlington, where he teaches courses in logic, ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of law, and social and political philosophy. He blogs at http://keithburgess-jackson.com/.

In his article "The Logic of Torture" he analyzes the issues of torture from a philosophy point of view. The article appears in the November 29, 2007, issue of TCS Daily - and can be found at
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=112707C

The article is a copyright of Tech Central Station.

2007-11-28T11:17:00.000-08:00

The Clintons – One Lie Too Many?
by Paul R. Hollrah

At the very end of the Democrat presidential debate in South Carolina in May 2007, Hillary Clinton was asked about Wal-Mart… was it a good thing or a bad thing for America?

In her long rambling response, in which she tried to wrap herself around all sides of the issue, she took aim at the Bush Administration, saying, “they don’t see middle class Americans…” She went on to say that, to George Bush and other Republicans, middle class Americans are “invisible.”

It was a desperate lie, of course, and she knew it. But that’s just one of the things that separate people like Bill and Hillary Clinton from decent people… those who always try to be truthful and who never put into words those things which they cannot support.

As I heard her speak those words I couldn’t help but think back to something that Hollywood mogul David Geffen said in an interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. He said, “Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

The Clintons exhibit all of the characteristics of pathological liars. If they are caught in a lie and backed into a corner, they become defensive (“I never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky!”), but they may eventually respond with, “So what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!” (“Yes, I lied, but it was only about sex.”) They can also be expected to attempt to refocus the conversation to your perceived wrongdoing instead of theirs. (“Why are you doing this to us? This is all part of a vast right wing conspiracy.”)

But now comes what one reporter has dubbed the “mother of all lies.” Speaking at a Democrat rally in Muscatine, Iowa on Tuesday evening, November 27, and attempting to make the point that the wealthy should be asked to pay a larger share of the tax burden during time of war, Bill Clinton said, "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning (emphasis added), I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."

Could this be the same Bill Clinton who said in his January 1998 State of the Union address, “On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security… We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information. And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

“… Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And, mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
Could this possibly be the same Bill Clinton who said in an Oval Office address to the nation on December 16, 1998, “Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons… Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq… Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

“The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute, just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way. Along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy, or warning.

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.”

Yes, the senator from New York sent her husband to Iowa to improve her chances of winning the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination, but this lie, this “mother of all lies,” may spell the beginning of the end of her quest. From now and through the rest of the primary season it will be like a diseased cell eating away at the heart of her support. It cannot be undone and it will not be forgotten. It may be just one lie too many… even for the Democrat faithful.

Permission to republished granted by Paul Hollrah.

Mr. Hollrah is a native of St. Charles, Missouri. He holds a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri and is a member of the Civil Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni. From 1962-70 he served as a Senior Project Engineer for Cities Service Oil Company (Citgo) and the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) in New York and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

He is a founder and former director of the State Governmental Affairs Council, a former member of the General Committee on State Relations of the American Petroleum Institute.

Mr. Hollrah took early retirement from the Sun Company in 1984. Since retiring, he has worked as an independent consultant both in the U.S. and in Russia, seeking to bring Russia’s unique technological developments to the U.S. and working on humanitarian aid projects in Moscow and Siberia. From June 1999 to January 2002 he served as U.S. Coordinator for the US-Russian Mayor-To-Mayor Program, and in November 2000 he was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Congress of Small Cities of Russia.

In 1998 he founded a publishing company, Patria Publishing, and has published a frontier history (1765-1885) of St. Charles County, Missouri, the jumping-off point for the Lewis & Clark Expedition. He currently writes a weekly political column for an eastern Oklahoma newspaper and for the Lincoln Heritage Institute, an Internet site for conservative political expression.

2007-11-27T11:05:00.000-08:00

ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL
THE RESPECTED POLLING ORGANIZATION
RECEIVES UNWARRANTED ATTACK OVER HILLARY CLINTON POLL NUMBERS DROPPING

Permission to republish has been granted by Zogby International
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1394

Comment by Sara Pentz: It is typical of a politician to throw stones at anyone who shows them in a bad light as this commentary by Zogby Internation demonstrates. See the full article below.

Mark Penn: Buckling Under the Pressure of an Unfavorable Poll

All is fair in love and war, the centuries–old proverb states. Politics is not included, but given the way the game is played in modern–day America, maybe it should be. That’s the sense I had again this morning watching Mark Penn, the chief political strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton, denigrate our latest Zogby Interactive survey simply because it showed his client in a bad light (Link to Latest Poll Number). Penn made the contention on the MSNBC morning news program hosted by Joe Scarborough (Link to Video)

Zogby on "Morning Joe"; Interactive Poll on the Money - VIDEO

Penn mischaracterized this latest online Zogby poll as our first interactive survey ever – a bizarre contention, since we have been developing and perfecting our Internet polling methodology for nearly a decade (Zogby Intreractive Methodology), and since Penn’s company has been quietly requesting the results of such polls from Zogby for years. We always comply as part of our pledge to give public Zogby polling results to any and every candidate and campaign that asks for them. What is interesting is that no other campaign has made as many requests for Zogby polling data over the years as Penn has made on behalf of Clinton.

Because Mark Penn is a quality pollster himself, we chalk up his contention that our poll is “meaningless” as a knee–jerk reaction by a campaign under pressure coming down the stretch. Several other polls – Zogby surveys and others – have shown her national lead and her leads in early–voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach.

Fritz Wenzel
Director of Communications
Zogby International

(11/27/2007)

2007-11-26T13:51:00.000-08:00

Thursday, November 08, 2007

WOULD HILLARY’S ELECTION
VIOLATE THE TWO-TERM LIMIT?

Hillary Clinton may win the Democratic Party’s nomination and go on from there to be elected President of the United States. If that happens, her husband, William Jefferson Clinton, who was President of the United States from 1993 to 2001 for two full terms, would once again be a principal occupant of the White House.

As Hillary’s spouse, not only exercising the normal substantial influence of one spouse over the other but also being in possession of eight years of actual experience in the Presidency, it would appear that Bill Clinton would thus once again effectively exercise Presidential Powers. Yet this would be in substantive violation of the Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice . . . .”

True enough, Bill would not have been elected more than twice, and thus his presence and activities in the White House would not technically be in violation of the Constitution. But the obvious purpose of the Twenty-Second Amendment was to limit the occupation of the Office of President, and the exercise of the powers of that Office, to two terms. Its authors did not contemplate marriage as a route to the powers of the Presidency alternative to election to that Office.

If and to the extent that Mrs. Clinton’s chances of election increase, the couple needs to find a way to guarantee that Mr. Clinton would not in fact be a three or four-term President.

This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.

George Reisman's blog is a commentary on contemporary business, politics, economics, society, and culture, based on the values of Reason, Rational Self-Interest, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Its intellectual foundations are Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and the theory of the Austrian and British Classical schools of economics as expressed in the writings of Mises, Böhm-Bawerk, Menger, Ricardo, Smith, James and John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, and Hazlitt, and in my own writings.

This article is reprinted with the permission of the author.

2007-11-13T14:28:00.000-08:00

A Stroll Down Memory Lane
by Paul R. Hollrah
Posted here Courtesy Paul R. Hollrah

I remember a Yale Law School student from suburban Chicago, a young woman named Hillary Rodham, who led campus demonstrations in support of twelve Black Panthers charged in 1970 with the kidnapping, torture, and murder of a suspected police informant. The victim was tied to a chair and had boiling water poured over his body before he was mercifully shot to death and dumped into a river.

In addition to leading campus protests that caused a near shutdown of the university, the future first lady, New York senator, and Democrat presidential candidate volunteered to monitor trial proceedings, looking for potential civil rights violations that could later be used by ACLU lawyers to have guilty verdicts overturned.

I remember the young wife of an Arkansas Attorney General, a future governor, who opened a commodity futures trading account with an investment of $1,000. According to a February 20, 1995 report in National Review, Mrs. Clinton was assisted in her trading decisions by James Blair, the general counsel for Tyson Foods, Inc., one of her state’s largest corporations. Her very first trade, on October 11, 1978, was a short sale of ten live cattle contracts at 57.55 cents per pound.

By committing herself to deliver 400,000 pounds of beef cattle two months later, cattle that she and her husband did not own, she pocketed the sum of $230,000. However, on Blair’s advice, she bought back the ten contracts the very next day at 56.10 cents per pound, giving her a tidy one-day profit of $5,300.

Trading on a margin account that was rarely large enough to cover her trades, she consistently sold cattle futures short, in a bull market, turning her $1,000 margin account into a tidy $100,000 profit in just ten months.

I remember a lawsuit filed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in February 1993, demanding that meetings of Mrs. Clinton’s 630-member health care task force be opened to public participation. On March 3, 1993, Mrs. Clinton’s health care policy aide, Ira Magaziner, responded to the court by certifying that all 630 members of the working group were government employees and that, as such, they were legally permitted to meet in secret.

However, internal documents later released by the White House showed that several special interest groups, all of which would have profited if the Clinton plan had been adopted, served as members of the task force.

I remember the mid-1995 White House interrogation in which Mrs. Clinton told federal investigators that she had done “limited legal work” for the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, owned by James and Susan McDougal, and that she had done little or no work on a project called Castle Grande. Mrs. Clinton told the same story, under oath, before a grand jury in January 1996, and in sworn testimony before two government agencies, the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

However, Rose law firm billing records, which mysteriously materialized in the White House living quarters in January 1996, showed that Mrs. Clinton had billed Madison for sixty hours of legal work, that she had discussed the Castle Grande project with Madison officials on fourteen separate occasions, that she had discussed legal matters with the McDougals on sixteen separate occasions, that she had participated in twenty-eight meetings on Madison Guaranty, and that she had discussed Madison with Arkansas state regulators on at least two occasions.

I remember Web Hubbell, a Hillary Clinton law partner at the Rose law firm in Little Rock. While Hubbell was serving a prison term for tax evasion and fraud, it was rumored that he was contemplating a lawsuit against his former employer, a lawsuit that would have exposed the over-billing practices of his former law partners… including Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hubbell insisted that it was common practice for lawyers to over-bill clients, warning, “That would be one area that Hillary would be vulnerable.” What he was saying is that, as a lawyer in private practice, Hillary Rodham Clinton billed her clients for legal work she did not perform and the Rose law firm billing records contained proof of that wrongdoing.

In a recorded March 25, 1996 jailhouse telephone conversation, Hubbell learned that his wife, Suzanna, was being pressured by White House patronage chief, Marsha Scott. Mrs. Hubbell said, “(Marsha) says you are not going to get any public support… if you open Hillary up to this… “

Hubbell replied, “I will not raise those allegations that might open it up to Hillary.” Later, in discussing allegations that Hillary had billed his (Hubbell’s) time as her own, Hubbell told his wife, “So, I need to roll over one more time.”

So what’s the point of this little stroll down memory lane? It’s just a reminder that, anyone who might contemplate voting to return a Democrat to the White House in November 2008, should first understand that: a) the lady in question now wants to be President of the United States, and b) every one of her Democrat opponents was aware of these transgressions and did everything in their power to protect her from having to answer for them.

2007-11-08T13:11:00.000-08:00

By Invester's Business Daily

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=279503526320834
(c) 2007 Investor's Business Daily. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

In this exclusive 7-part series, IBD explores the reasons behind the great paradox of a boom now in its sixth year – that despite spectacular gains, most Americans think the economy’s in bad shape and headed for recession.

Media bias has been detected in other studies, but this series raises an additional possibility – media incompetence in analyzing and explaining how the economy and financial markets work.

Installments will cover how the media report on subjects like tax cuts, deficits, trade and stocks, creating myths – and unwarranted fear -- as they go along.

Part Seven

How Liberal Dems, Major Media Perpetuate A Cycle Of Negativity

Journalism: Last fall, when the jobless rate hit a five-year low of 4.4%, Vice President Cheney was asked by ABC's George Stephanopolous why the administration didn't get more credit for it. "Well," said Cheney, "you guys don't help."

Part Six

Outsourcing Myths

Journalism: America's companies are shutting down factories and offices, and shipping jobs wholesale overseas. That's how the media have portrayed it. In reality, outsourcing has created more, better-paying jobs here.

Part Five

Free-Trade Fraud

Journalism: If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, goes an old joke, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. But there's one thing almost all economists agree on: Free trade is good. Yet the media don't get it.

Part Four

Deficit Deceptions

Journalism: President Bush has been criticized unmercifully by politicians of all stripes and media of all types for failing to rein in federal spending and letting deficits "soar." But is the criticism fair?

Part Three

Blind To Reality

Journalism: The Dow had just pierced 13,000, but TV news anchors couldn't fathom why. All the data, they noted, showed the economy doing worse, not better. But therein lies a problem with media market analysis.

Part Two

The Tax Story Media Invariably Bury

Journalism: One of the assertions that the media make most often about the U.S. economy is that President Bush's tax cuts didn't do what he promised. But the data clearly show nothing could be farther from the truth.

Part One

A Boom That Falls On Deaf Ears

Journalism: The war in Iraq is a hard slog, and President Bush's domestic agenda has hit another pothole. But if nothing else is going well, he can always take comfort in the spectacular economy his policies have brought about. Or can he?

More editorials on Media & Culture

2007-11-07T13:15:00.000-08:00

By Investor's Business Daily

From U.S. successes in Iraq to systemic bias inside its own newsrooms, we take a look at what the media misses, misrepresents and ignores completely.

Part One

Is Media Bias An Established Fact Now That Even Harvard Sees It?

Media Bias: A new study finding the media give far more favorable coverage to Democrats than Republicans could have settled once and for all the debate over whether the news we get has a liberal bias.

Part Two

Dramatic Turn For Better In Iraq (Cue Sound Of Crickets Chirping)

Media Bias: When looking at media bias, it's important to realize it doesn't crop up in one area. A review of coverage in just the last few weeks shows how it infests a wide array of issues — from war and foreign affairs to economics and science.

Part Three

As Bad News Dries Up In Iraq, Media Search For It Elsewhere

Media Bias: In an era of thinly veiled media bias, it's probably fitting that as positive reports pour out of Iraq on an almost daily basis, the situation there has virtually disappeared from the radar screens of mainstream news outlets.

More editorials on Media & Culture and Politics

2007-10-25T12:01:00.000-07:00

AN OPEN LETTER FROM IRAQ

From: Dill LtCol Jeffrey J (1/7 Bn Co)

Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:45 PM
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Family, friends, and Fellow Marines,

As promised, here is my first "update" from this tour in Iraq . I will try and get one of these out about every month. I hope this finds you all doing well. It has been a very fast moving month and a half as we moved the 1,000+ Marines from 1/7 and literally tons of equipment and material half way around the world through Kuwait and eventually into Iraq . We have inventoried and signed for well over a hundred pieces of rolling stock, thousands of pieces of electronic equipment and computers, joined a few hundred more reinforcements to 1/7 (making us now "Task Force 1/7") and then we put everyone in their new positions, spreading us out over 500 square kilometers. Needless to say, the Marines of the First Team have been busy!

Here is the million dollar question I have been asked repeatedly since I have arrived, "How is it compared to the last time you were in Iraq ?" Well, I was in Hit, the main city within our AO, last October and daytime operations were limited to tanks and BFVs driving around the outskirts of the city because to venture inside meant a certain attack by an IED, RPG, small arms, or all of the above. Recently, I went on a 3 hour dismounted patrol through town in the middle of the afternoon and my biggest worry was having enough candy for all the children that came up to me to say hello and shake my hand.

I stopped in stores and talked to the merchants to see how business is doing. They told me business is good and improving everyday. I even went to a few shops to look for a carpet for my office and enjoyed myself as I tried to get the price lowered from "rich" American prices to normal Iraqi prices. I wasn't successful but will keep trying!

I stopped in one of the police stations in the city so I could make plans with the Station Chief to remove a number of the cement barriers on the street in order to open traffic back up. Those barriers were a must before as there was a constant threat of a suicide vehicle ramming into the station in an attempt to kill as many of the police officers as possible. While that threat still exists, the security provided by the police and my Marines has allowed us to take risks in certain areas as we try and balance security needs and normalcy.

I spend many hours working with the numerous city counsels and Mayors in my AO to address and solve many issues, problems, and to plan for the future. A year ago, the city councils would not show up to work because if they did, they were killed as they were seen as "agents" of the Americans by AQI. Now, they look forward to my arrival so issues like schools, rubble removal, water treatment plants, sewage repairs, repairs of the electrical grids, infrastructure modernization, and an assortment of other issues can be worked out, prioritized, and assets allocated for them to begin work.

I also spend a great deal of time with the major Sheiks in my AO. They are some of the most gracious hosts you have ever met. My Marines and I are treated liked royalty every time we arrive. Delicious lamb, goat, sheep, kabobs, fresh fruits and vegetables are served in amounts we could never finish and we always eat first and get the seats of honor closest to the Sheik. We then adjourn for Chi tea and discuss issues that require my attention such as security, economic stimulation, tribal reconciliation, local government issues, and of course stories of past battles and fights...all embellished but they make great stories anyway.

Three brothers in the town of Baghdadi , one of whom who happens to be the Police Chief and is known as the "Lion of Al Anbar", are particularly gracious hosts. They were some of the first to stand up against AQI and to stand with the Marines. They have suffered greatly for choosing to fight AQI and for freedom. The Police Chief, Colonel Shab'an has had no less then 7 direct assassination attempts against him. I was here last year and saw him after one attack against him was nearly successful. One of his brothers was killed, a brother-in-law was tortured and beheaded, and one of his younger brothers lost his legs in a mortar attack. Yet, he remains committed to a free and independent Iraq . His talks to me about freedom, democracy, and his loyalty to Iraq and justice are inspiring.

Colonel Shab'an has become a sort of folk hero to his community and his willingness to stand up for their freedom and safety has inspired thousands of Iraqis. His two brothers, one a Sheik and the other a local businessman are also servants to their community. The Sheik is the City Council Chairman and has almost single handedly reorganized the local government from a board of obstructionists to a functioning and effective governing body who work almost non-stop to improve the lives of the people within their area. The other brother is a very successful businessman who has donated tens of thousands of dollars to fix water treatment plants, to pay of the salaries of the police before the national government could or would, and his source network has led to the successful capture of many terrorists and criminals.

The nights in their neighborhood are particularly enjoyable as we sit outside to eat and the children in the neighborhood run around, laughing, and sneaking up to listen to me talk or to try and get some more candy from me. They are so proud of the security they have established for their families, their tribe, and the people in their community. I am proud just to be considered their friend.

Overall, the folks I have met are good people who want to raise their families, farm their land, and just have the ability to choose their own future for one of the few times in their country's history. Their admiration and appreciation to us and to the American people for the opportunity we have offered them is genuine and heartfelt.

While there has been a great deal of progress, there is still much to do. While most of the terrorists have been forced from the population centers, there are still secret cells. We have found and been attacked by a number of IEDs already. We have found a good number of buried caches along the river banks that were planted there for future use against us. Iraq is far from a peaceful land; there are many political issues above my level that must be worked out. The rifts between the religious sects are as tough a problem to figure out as anything else ever has been...think Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland .

The bottom line is this...we are winning the counter-insurgency fight here in Al Anbar. We are winning as a result of the past 5 years of work by thousands of Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers who worked tirelessly to get us where we are today This didn't happen overnight and we lost many good men and women to achieve it. We have put the enemy on the run and we are not letting the pressure off. We continue to hunt him down and provide him no rest. My Marines, actually your Marines, are patrolling in the cities, in the desert, and on the river to find the enemy and destroy him. And the Marines do not patrol alone. Almost every operation we do has Iraqi Police, Army, or both with the Marines. They are brave, committed to winning, and they try as hard as they can to emulate the Marines they are serving with. At the same time we continue to build our relationships with the local leaders, Sheiks, and most importantly the Iraq people.

I am optimistic that if given the time and support of the American people, we can help create a country whose vast natural resources and potential will make it one of the strongest and most powerful nations in the region. Iraq will be our Ally and they will not forget the sacrifices the American people have made on their behalf. I realize and understand that many back home are tired of this conflict and want it to end. I will not provide any argument there but I will offer that "wishing" away this problem is not reality. The Islamic extremists that wish to destroy us are not going away, they cannot be 'talked' to, and they will not negotiate.
***Ironman0311 added highlights ***

I have been here three years in a row now and I can see the progress. I can see the improvement in the capabilities and potential in the Iraqi Security Forces, I can see the willingness and desire of civic and local leaders to build a better future for their people, and I can see that most of the civilian population has turned its back on AQI because of their empty promises. I can see hope, a hope that many Iraqis have never known before, and a hope they do not want to loose.

Your Marines are doing exceptionally well. They are focused, they are disciplined, and they continue to attack each day with vigor and enthusiasm. I am continually inspired by their courage, dedication, and willingness to sacrifice for others. I am truly blessed for the privilege to lead them.

I would like to thank all of you for your continued prayers and support. It means the world to us to know you are all still behind us and that you want us to successfully complete this mission. Please remember all the 1/7 families and all the families of those serving here in Iraq that have been left behind in your prayers as well.

Semper Fidelis and God Bless,
JJ
LtCol JJ Dill
Commanding Officer
Task Force 1/7
Hit , Iraq

2007-10-24T15:38:00.000-07:00

Daniel Boone vs. the Nanny State:
The Nanny State is the antithesis of America

By GEN LaGRECA
Genevieve (Gen) LaGreca is the author of "Nobel Vision," A novel about liberty

Today, Oct. 22, marks the 273rd anniversary of the birth of an American icon: Daniel Boone. This death-defying adventurer axed his way through the Appalachian Mountains to settle Kentucky and open the Western frontier. Stamped across his rock-hard life is the trademark of America: the pioneer spirit to cross new frontiers and control one's destiny.

Back then, America was formed to set people free to run their own lives. Today, our vastly expanded Nanny State looks after us. Is this a good thing? Imagine you're a pioneer of yesteryear. How would you fare with today's nanny on your back?

As you prepare your covered wagon for journeying West, inspectors report that your wheels fail to meet safety standards, the canvas on your wagon is not fire retardant, and the yoke on your oxen could be harmful – not to you, but to the beasts. Although you've traveled safely in the wagon before, you're slapped with fines and forced to correct the problems. You leave for your journey with a lighter wallet – and a heavier spirit.

When you reach your new town, you find that land isn't cheap anymore. The government took huge tracts off the market to preserve the wilderness. One of the townspeople sells you a plot – at 10 times what he paid for it. You learn that he was one of the councilmen who passed the law preserving the wilderness. He smiles to welcome you to town, but you have difficulty smiling back.

You plant a crop, only to learn it is forbidden. The government decided there was enough of it and any more would lower the price. You find that your neighbors on the town council who passed this law are the folks who grow that crop. You also discover that some farmers produce no crops – and get paid for their empty fields with your tax dollars.

You suppress your frustrations and search for a way to succeed. You enjoy making furniture, so you decide to open a shop. But wait. You must file permits with a dozen agencies. This means hiring lawyers and accountants, which you cannot afford, so you must give up your dream of starting your business.

You get another jolt: the tax bill. You discover that your nanny demands a big piece of you to fund the agencies running your life.

You're just starting out, but you feel drained. The promise of a new life has vanished.

In time, you learn to play the game. You join the town council to build government instead of furniture. You work in a blacksmith's shop where you do a lousy job, but you get a law passed that forces your boss to pay you more than you're worth.

Your wife cuts the townswomen's hair. She worries about losing customers to a new haircutter. But you get the council to enact a law requiring any new haircutters to complete 500 hours of instruction and pay a hefty fee for a license. This protects the public from unsafe haircuts.

Despite your maneuverings, you feel no joy. Your life is no longer in your control, but depends on the arbitrary whims of the council. You've lost the confidence and drive you had when you started out. You've become fearful and conniving. The town has destroyed you.

What happened in this hypothetical town is also happening in our country.

Once we lived by our own efforts; now we demand government "entitlements." Once we respected the rights of others; now we pass laws to tax and control everyone. Once we reined in government to unleash individual freedom; now we rein in the individual to unleash state power. Once we were pioneers sprinting toward the American Dream; now we're distressed travelers caught in a maze called the Nanny State.

The Nanny State is the antithesis of America. It violates a person's right to act freely and instead compels him to follow the state's dictates. It corrupts the citizens by giving some groups unearned benefits at the expense of others. It corrupts officials by giving them unchecked power to dispense favors, to make or break lives, to control entire industries, to confiscate property, to redistribute wealth. It anesthetizes the people to its unbridled power by telling them they will be taken care of, as if trading freedom for dependency were desirable. It uses the chilling weapon of the police state – force – to impose its edicts.

Today's nanny concocts a bitter brew of hundreds of alphabet-soup agencies to regulate our lives. How many modern pioneers are choking at this campfire?

To grab the reins of our lives, to ride free and unafraid like Daniel Boone, we must get the nanny off our backs.

Article reprinted from: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/nanny-state-town-1899452-government-new

MORE ABOUT GEN LA GRECA:

Noted Economists Praise New Novel 'Noble Vision'; Reflects the Current Controversy in Healthcare; Should the Government Control the Medical Treatment of Individuals?

Hardcover, $27.95 US SPECIAL: Buy 2 or more hardcover copies for $19.95 each ISBN 0-9744579-8-1 (Photo: Business Wire)

Gen LaGreca, Author of Noble Vision

When economists and social commentators rave about a new novel, it's time to take note. Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate economist, said about Chicago author Gen LaGreca's medical thriller "Noble Vision": "The defects of government-controlled medicine are dramatized effectively in this page-turning story of the love of a brilliant physician for a beautiful ballerina who becomes his patient." Also weighing in is magazine magnate Steve Forbes, who called the book a "salutary tale of what can happen to medical breakthroughs if Big Government claws even deeper into our healthcare system!"

"Noble Vision"'s accurate descriptions of the nightmares of state-run healthcare have earned endorsements from medical leaders, including Edward Annis, past president of the American Medical Association, and Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Recent news events have raised the question: Should the government have the power to make decisions concerning a person's medical treatment? "Noble Vision" examines this heated controversy -- not through a dry nonfiction treatise but through the enchantment of fiction.

LaGreca, a former pharmaceutical chemist and a healthcare writer, created two intriguing characters -- Nicole Hudson, the lovely Broadway dancer who rose to stardom from a disadvantaged childhood only to have her life shattered by a tragic accident, and David Lang, the impassioned neurosurgeon determined to restore her health no matter what price he must pay.

Nicole's only hope is Lang's revolutionary treatment -- a way of regenerating damaged nerve tissue to cure paralysis and other nerve injuries. The trouble is that this new procedure is rejected by "CareFree," New York's universal health system, a bureaucracy bogged down in budget overruns, red tape and political corruption.

The surgeon stands to destroy his marriage, lose his license -- and even be arrested -- if he uses his unauthorized procedure. But if he gives his patient the conventional treatment approved by the government, she will remain disabled for life. Should he follow his mind or obey the law? The patient ardently wants the experimental treatment. Should she be allowed to make medical decisions for herself, or should the government intervene? These issues wreak havoc in the lives of "Noble Vision"'s characters.

Asked what moved her to write "Noble Vision," LaGreca replied, "After years of working in the healthcare industry, I feel as if I'm witnessing the slow death of something great, something that shouldn't be allowed to die -- America's gold standard of medicine."

As innovative as its surgeon-protagonist, "Noble Vision" breaks the mold encasing much of today's fiction. In an age in which plot stories and character studies, not to mention romances and thrillers, appear in distinctly separate categories of fiction, and far-reaching themes are rare, "Noble Vision" delightfully combines a rich mix of story elements in one satisfying read. The novel was a finalist in the Houston Writers League Manuscript Contest.

"Noble Vision" was released by Winged Victory Press, a Chicago-based independent press dedicated to publishing works that celebrate the American spirit of individualism. "There's a growing demand for books reflecting our distinctly American ideals of liberty and limited government, as well as the personal initiative and achievement that result from being free," said LaGreca. Winged Victory Press will also publish the author's second novel, a semi-finalist in the Pirate's Alley William Faulkner Creative Writing Competition.

For more information on LaGreca's novel, "Noble Vision," or her views on the healthcare controversy as the thematic conflict of the book, contact Sara Pentz, 949-719-0902, sara@sarapentz.com, or contact LaGreca directly at glagreca@wingedvictorypress.com.

                 NOBLE VISION, a novel by Gen LaGreca

         Distribution in U.S. and Canada: Biblio Distribution/NBN

         6 X 9 inches, 338 pages, published March 2005

         Hardcover: ISBN 0-9744579-8-1, $27.95 US

         Paperback: ISBN 0-9744579-4-9, $14.95 US

Available from bookstores in the U.S. and Canada, Amazon.com, Laissez

Faire Books (lfb.com), capitalism.net, and others.

Free excerpt is available at www.wingedvictorypress.com.

Contacts:

Pentz Productions
Sara Pentz, 949-719-0902
sara@sarapentz.com
or
Winged Victory Press
Gen LaGreca
glagreca@wingedvictorypress.com

2007-07-16T19:01:00.000-07:00

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
Michael Moore, politicians and the media use inflated numbers of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
7/18/2007 4:01:33 PM

Fact Sheet about Michael Moore

Michael Moore was wrong about health insurance.

So were President Bush, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), presidential candidates former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Mike Huckabee and The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, People magazine and Time magazine, as well as CNN, CBS and ABC.

Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up.

Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.

Breaking It Down: Who’s Uninsured?

The number of the uninsured who aren’t citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million “Americans” without health insurance.

“It’s really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a May 31 speech.

It was typical spin and easy to find. ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal coverage plan on the April 26 “Good Morning America.”

“It’s bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years,” said Johnson.

In his propagandumentary “SiCKO” that favored the socialist health care systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, Michael Moore made the fantastic claim that almost 50 million Americans are uninsured.

“SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance,” quoted Moore’s Web site.

However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.

Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being “an American” matters to get health insurance.

“That’s the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. That’s it,” said Moore in footage aired by ABC’s “Nightline” on June 13.

That isn’t the only problem with the numbers currently being used.

Moore’s Trouble with the Facts

Recently, CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta accused Michael Moore of “fudging” some numbers in his recent film “SiCKO.” This sparked a temper tantrum by Moore who threatened to become the network’s “worst nightmare” if they didn’t apologize and recant.

CNN did “correct and apologize” for one transcription error, but stood by Gupta’s statement “CNN’s numbers and Moore’s numbers aren’t far off, but we believe ours are a fairer comparison.”

In his film and television appearances, Moore left out quite a bit of information about the uninsured.

On his Web site, Moore claimed the Census Bureau had “underreported” the number of people without health insurance.

But Cheryl Hill Lee, a co-author of the Census Bureau study Moore was citing, told the Business & Media Institute that the data showed the exact opposite of what Moore said.

The Census “underreported” the number of people covered by health insurance – meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

They Can’t Afford Insurance …

Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot “afford” insurance.

“And when you’ve got 47 million people in this country with no health insurance, they don’t go to the doctor because they can’t afford it,” Moore said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” July 10.

Katie Couric echoed those sentiment on the CBS “Evening News” May 23.

“The number of Americans with no health insurance is continuing to grow as more and more employers say they can’t afford to offer group insurance … People who try to buy insurance on their own often find the price beyond their reach,” said Couric as she introduced a two-part “investigation of the health insurance industry.”

But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.

On the July 13 “Larry King Live,” Gupta did make that point, providing more context than Moore and most journalists about the affordability of health insurance.

Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left – less than 7 percent of the population.

“Many Americans are uninsured by choice,” wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book “The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.” Gratzer cited a study of the “nonpoor uninsured” from the California Healthcare Foundation.

“Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health,” explained Gratzer.

A Lie that Promotes Big Government

Moore, Clinton and Obama have used the lie about 40-some million uninsured Americans to promote universal health insurance plans. Moore asserted in his film that providing health insurance to everyone is a moral and even religious obligation.

The mainstream media have played along, championing “ambitious” universal coverage plans and referring to the U.S. system as “deeply flawed.”

“California’s ambitious plan to make health insurance available to almost everyone in the state is getting a lot of attention all over the country, and here’s why. According to the latest figures, the number of uninsured Americans has grown to more than 46 million,” said Katie Couric on the “CBS Evening News” January 9.

Journalists’ failure to question that high figure has furthered the cause of nationalized care.

“Proponents of universal health care often use the 46-million figure -- without context or qualification. It creates the false impression that a huge percentage of the population has fallen through the cracks,” Gratzer told BMI. “Again, that’s not to suggest that there is no problem, but it's very different than the universal-care crowd describes.”

Dr. Grace-Marie Turner, a BMI adviser and president of the Galen Institute, agreed that “the number [on uninsured] is inflated and affects the debate.”

Turner also pointed out that “45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office],” because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.

So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.

Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more. It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Article Courtesy of The Balance Sheet - http://www.businessandmedia.org/balancesheet/2007/balance20070718.asp