Congress Attempts to Silence Us
Proposed Law Affects Everyone and is Very Dangerous

By Sara Pentz

It is chilling to think that only by the smallest number of votes we the people almost lost our freedom of speech on Thursday, January 18, 2007, by an edict nearly passed on the floor of that so-called august Chamber called the United Stated Senate in Washington D.C.

On that day the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, S. 1, a lobbying reform bill went before the Senate for a vote. Included in S. 1, was provision Section 220* that sought to establish, for the first time, federal regulation that would require grassroots causes and activity to register and report quarterly to Congress––or “be fined $300,000 or jailed.”

The major sponsor of the bill was Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The bill was co-sponsored by five Republicans and 12 Democrats.

Section 220 defined a “grassroots cause” as anything or entity that attempts to influence the general public by contacting legislators or asking members of the public to contact their legislators.

S. 1 was allegedly written in order to change the rules for lobbyists and members of Congress. The purpose was to stop graft and corruption by those who were in the business of influence peddling, so the bill’s authors and advocates said. The S. 1 bill bans all gifts from lobbyists, imposes restrictions on trips and accommodation offered to elected officials, and requires all "earmarks" to be identified in spending bills

If the 220 section of S. 1 had become law, which it did not (by the hair on your chinny chin chin), disclosure and reporting requirements for lobbyists would have been extended to groups who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters. In effect, bloggers, et al., would have been considered lobbyists––lumped into the same category as Washington D.C. K Street lobbyists.

So what? Who cares, you say? Well, you had better care because if S.1, 220, had passed, you would not have been allowed to advocate any cause––in any form whatsoever in a magazine, newspaper, blog, email, letter, conference call or any other form of mass communication if more than 500 people were to read it––without reporting to Congress on your activities.

“Section 220 would (have) amend(ed) the existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself,” according to GrassrootsFreedom.com chairman Richard Viguerie. If 220 had passed, explains Viguerie, "We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy."

Viguerie does not exaggerate. But he also does not make it clear exactly what it is about 220 that would have destroyed our freedom of speech. Buried in 220 is section (17), which clearly states that no person can communicate their views to federal officials or the general public if they are advocating any particular thought.

This slick little paragraph is the kicker that could have silenced any and all individuals, because it clearly defines this kind of communications as grassroots lobbying. Your thoughts and ideas would have been censored at the whim of any bureaucrat or any citizen who chose to oppose you.

Look carefully so that you don’t miss the meaning of (17):

`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.

This paragraph, in effect, can be used by anyone against anyone else to claim that by their words they have broken the law defined in this section (17). Hear me clearly. This section could have prohibited your freedom of speech. Its purpose is to stop you from communicating ideas that your government finds offensive to them or to any other person in the general population––on the basis that those words would be defined as lobbying.

220 (17) was a blatant attempt by its authors and many members of congress to silence criticism of government. With its passage I would not have been allowed to publish this article (as a blog) except for my own pleasure because I would be labeled a grassroots lobbyist. I could not have had my article printed in any form that would reach more than 500 people because I would have been considered an advocate of a certain position wishing to influence people to take action.

You say: ‘You go too far, Sara.’ No, I don’t. Because Section 220 would have required me to detail my expenditures, discuss the issues I advocate, and enumerate the members of Congress and other federal officials who are targeted by my article. It would have tied me up in bureaucratic red tape so intricate that I would never have been able to extricate myself. And, I certainly would never have had time to devote to writing my so-called ‘offensive’ ideas that anyone chose to dispute––or decided to call lobbying. In effect, the red tape bureaucracy of 220 would have ‘blocked’ my freedom of speech.

A separate report would have been required for each policy issue that I wrote about or advocated. If I failed to complete each of the required actions of 220, I would have suffered severe civil and potentially criminal penalties. That is, if I failed to register, report or omitted some required information in my reports, I might be jailed.

The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, S. 1, 220, section (17) would have been a silent threat that would hang over my head like the sword of Damocles.

The purpose of 220 (17) was not to make sure that I did not pay any government official some amount of money to sway his thinking or vote. It was, instead, clearly written to stop anyone––from any end of the political spectrum––from swaying (meaning disagreeing) a government official or anyone who had the power to write or shape the laws of the land.

Now it’s time to remind you, dear reader, who sponsored this bill.

Co-sponsors of S. 1, Section 220, included Senator Robert F. Bennett (R-UT), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Senator Susan M. Collins (R-ME), Sensatory Richard Durbin (R-IL]), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, (D-NJ), Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), Senator Mitch McConnell [R-KY], Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Senator Jim Webb (D-VA).

In fact, 220 was finally ‘defeated’ at the last minute when an amendment to S. 1 removed the controversial section from the bill. The vote in favor of the removal amendment was 55 to 43. Had eight Senators decided not to vote against this terrible amendment, 220 would have passed. The consequences would have been disastrous.

S.1 was passed without the inclusion of Section 220––only at the last minute on the day of the vote––when literally hundreds of organizations from all sides of the political spectrum saw the enormous implications and repercussions of such a bill. They understood that such a federal governmental regulation would have slapped a muzzle on freedom of speech.

With the explosion of Internet communications government officials have found themselves critiqued in ways they have not had to deal with from the mainstream press. Bloggers have held senators and bureaucrats up to transparent light, analyzing, exposing, contradicting and challenging misrepresentations left unprocessed by mainstream media stars.

Beware of anyone who wants to strike a blow at the Internet whether it’s through taxes or regulations like 220. Watch out particularly for those who will surely come along in the next years to attack the concept of ‘net neutrality’–––which stands for equal access to the Internet.

Look deeply for their motives. They won’t stand out on the surface of any legislation. And they won’t be benevolent. They will be buried in the cavernous rhetoric of garbled bureaucratic legalize which may sound on the surface like a benign proposition. It will not be so, in the same way that S., 220, section (17) was potentially an evil weapon against the freedom of speech and expression.

* SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by adding at the end of the following:

`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.

`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;

`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;

`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;

`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or

`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--

`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.

(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--

(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.

(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by--

(A) inserting after `total amount of all income' the following: `(including a separate good faith estimate of the total amount of income relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(B) inserting `or a grassroots lobbying firm' after `lobbying firm';

(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount of expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying activities.'.

(d) Good Faith Estimates and De Minimis Rules for Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5(c) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses- For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:

`(1) Estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows:

`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,0000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.

`(2) Estimates of income or expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying shall be made as follows:

`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $25,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $25,000 for the reporting period.'.

(2) TAX REPORTING- Section 15 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'; and

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'.

** Co-sponsors of S. 1, Section 220, included Senator Robert F. Bennett (R-UT), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Senator Maria Cantwell, Maria (D-WA), Senator Susan M. Collins (R-ME), Sensator Richard Durbin (R-IL]), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, (D-NJ), Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), Senator Mitch McConnell [R-KY], Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Senator Jim Webb (D-VA).

No Representation for Taxation
By George Reisman

http://www.capitalism.net/

A bill has passed the House of Representatives giving a seat in Congress to the nation’s capital, the District of Columbia.

According to The New York Times,

For supporters, the House vote was a victory for democracy, potentially righting a historical wrong and ending a situation of “taxation without representation” for 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia.

“This vote fulfills a promise of our democracy,” Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, said in her floor speech. “It reflects what we stand for at home and preach around the world.”

Opposition to the bill appears to be based merely on the fact that the US Constitution says that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.” (Italics added.) Thus, it is argued, since Washington, D. C. is not a state, it should have no representative. Fears are also expressed that enactment of the bill into law would open the way for the various federal territories, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, to seek representation.

According to The Times, opponents of the bill say that a better solution “would be a constitutional amendment or for Washington to be ceded back to Maryland, so residents could vote for representatives and senators.”

It’s a sad commentary on the state of our Republic that no one seems to be pointing out that what is involved here is the nature of the proper relationship between the citizens of a country and its government. The United States was founded on the principle that individuals possess unalienable rights that governments are instituted to protect, and that among these rights is the right to keep the property one has earned.

The principle of “no taxation without representation” applies to the context in which those who have earned property strive to keep it by means of securing the subsidiary right to elect, and thus control, the members of the legislature that can impose taxes on them.

The overwhelming majority of the citizens of Washington, D. C. are employees of the federal government. As such, they are not taxpayers, but rather the recipients of taxes paid by other people. Whatever taxes they nominally pay are merely a deduction from the tax proceeds they have received. All of the income they obtain and keep is from the proceeds of taxation.

Denial of the right to vote to citizens of Washington, D. C., serves in some measure to protect the taxpaying citizens of the United States from the depredations of those who live off their taxes and who would like to tax them still more.

Of course, the historical reason that Washington, D. C. does not have representation in Congress was not in order to deprive government employees of the right to vote. Such protection was not deemed necessary in an environment in which the only sources of federal revenue were tariffs and the sale of land. The historical reason was that the federal government was viewed in important respects as subsidiary to the states and not as their equal.

Nevertheless, it is certainly a good thing for the rest of the country that the citizens of Washington, D. C. do not have the vote. It implicitly serves to support the fundamental principle that the disposition of an individual’s property should be decided by him, not jointly by him and thieves who want to rob him.

The possession of the right to vote by government employees and by anyone else who receives a substantial portion of his wealth or income from the government is in fact giving legal power to those who receive the wealth of others to proceed to take that wealth. It is literally giving the vote to thieves.

That may be Nancy Pelosi’s conception of democracy and of what the United States stands for. But it is the kind of democracy that is present in a lynch mob. And what the United States actually stands for, and should stand for, is the rights of the individual against the mob—against the entire rest of the world if need be.

Hopefully, the Senate will prevent the House’s bill from becoming law. Representation in the House of Representatives for Washington, D. C. and its mass of tax recipients would not end a situation of “taxation without representation.” This is because, as we've seen, the citizens of Washington, D.C., do not pay taxes; they receive them. All that giving them representation would do would be to provide additional representation for advocates of additional taxation and thus further weaken the power of taxpayers to defend their right to keep their own property. As such, it would be directly contrary to the principle of no taxation without representation—that is, of course, representation for those who have earned the wealth being taxed, not those who want to tax it.



This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site http://www.capitalism.net/ is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.

Happy Birthday, Thomas Jefferson By Gen LaGreca

On April 13th every American should raise a Champagne glass high to toast the farmer, architect, scholar, revolutionary, and American president born that spring day in 1743: Thomas Jefferson. One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Jefferson lovingly carved much of the government and character of his precious gem, America.

He penned numerous documents extolling the revolutionary ideas of his time, including the stirring words on the parchment that is the soul of America, "The Declaration of Independence." Yet how many of our current citizens---and elected officials---truly understand its meaning?

The Declaration launched the first country in history based on the principle that every individual possesses certain "unalienable" rights. According to Jefferson, "free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate." No tyrant can violate the rights of man, nor can any majority vote in Congress. "The majority, oppressing an individual," says Jefferson, "is guilty of a crime . . . and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

Our rights belong to us as individuals, with each of us possessing the same rights. There are no "rights" of groups to any special favors or privileges. It is inappropriate, for example, for pizza eaters to lobby Congress for a "right" to a free pizza every Thursday. If Congress grants their wish, out of concern for their nourishment or their votes, it acts outside of its proper function. According to Jefferson, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated [in the Constitution]."

Our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are rights to take action; they are not entitlements to the goods and services of others without their consent. Jefferson defined liberty as "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." This means we may act in our own behalf, such as by earning money and buying a house, but we may not expect the government to tax others to provide us with a house for free. Life requires productive effort to sustain it, a fact that Jefferson considered to be our glory. When his Monticello farm fell on hard times, he began producing nails, and did so proudly because "every honest employment is deemed honorable [in America]. . . . My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility . . . [is] in Europe." He scorned the "idleness" of the European aristocracy, calling their courts "the weakest and worst part of mankind." What would he think of our current government's grants and handouts to countless special interest groups, a practice that rewards people for non-effort?

Our right to property means we are entitled to keep the things we acquire. Does a rich person have less of a right to property than a poor person? According to Jefferson: "To take from one because it is thought his own industry . . . has acquired too much, in order to spare others who have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." What would he think of the persistent cries of today's politicians to "tax the rich," thereby depriving them of their property and the pursuit of their happiness?

Jefferson ardently championed the spiritual and intellectual independence of the individual. He was so proud of authoring the "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia that he had this fact etched on his tombstone. The bill ended the practice of paying the clergy with public funds because "to compel a man to furnish . . . money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Jefferson believed that religion was a completely private matter and fought for a "wall of separation between church and state." He was "against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another"; and he swore "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." What would he think of today's faith-based initiatives, which allocate public funds to religious organizations, and the attempts by religious lobbyists and elected officials to dictate public policy based on their faith?

Because we possess rights, governments are instituted. Wise government, explains Jefferson, "shall refrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Government acts only to protect us from acts of force or fraud, apprehending perpetrators who pick our pockets or break our legs; otherwise, it does not regulate or control our lives in any way. Jefferson was "for a government rigorously frugal and simple . . . and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans . . . " What would he think of the 150,000-page Code of Federal Regulations and the swarms of agencies, commissions, and departments that today swallow 40 percent of our national income?

Jefferson believed citizens to be capable of self-sufficiency because they possess reason. "Fix reason firmly to her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." He expected people to use their minds to overcome obstacles and control their own lives. He gently chastised his 15 year-old daughter when she had difficulty reading an ancient text on Roman history without the aid of her teacher. "If you always rely on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him. It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate---to surmount every difficulty . . . " Americans, he continued, "are obliged to invent and to execute; to find the means within themselves, and not to lean on others." To do otherwise, his daughter would be "thought a very helpless animal, and less esteemed." What would he think of today's entitlement programs, which destroy a person's capacity to think and act for himself, and transform him into a helpless dependent?

Within a mere page in the calendar of history, the powerful doctrine of individual rights led to the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women, and the spread of freedom to many countries around the globe. It all began with the founding of America.

Jefferson fought for a country in which the government had no power to encroach on the mind, the life, the liberty, or the property of the individual. He fought for a country in which the individual was unshackled for the first time in history and could live for the pursuit of his own happiness, instead of being a pawn in the hands of the state. On his
birthday, the way to pay tribute to Jefferson---and to ourselves---is to protest the hammering of our rights by officials who can't tell a diamond from a rhinestone, to hold dear the jewel that is America, to polish the ideals for which Jefferson in the Declaration pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor.

Genevieve (Gen) LaGreca holds a master's degree in philosophy from Columbia University and is the author of "Noble Vision," a ForeWord magazine Book-of-the-Year award-winning novel about liberty. To learn more about her and her writings, visit www.wingedvictorypress.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Genevieve LaGreca.

[Sources of Jefferson's quotations available on request]

The folloowing information is circulating on the Internet

POWs' LAWSUIT COULD FORCE KERRY TO COME
CLEAN ON VIETNAM 'WAR CRIMES' CHARGES


When John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam he branded them as "war criminals." Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry's anti-war persona for the first time. It isn't dubious medals or Kerry's disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then Lt. (j.g.) Kerry's acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry's public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

For the anti-war, anti-American protesters, the American soldiers are the "terrorists," and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry's true "Band of Brothers" are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.

The background to this lawsuit is long and complex, but even a condensed version is rich in irony and poetic justice.

It had it roots in 2004 with the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. Many may recall the film, although it is probably best known for not being seen, suppressed after Sinclair Broadcasting Company courageously announced it was going to air the documentary in its entirety. Thanks to Kerry and his liberal colleagues in the Senate and their enablers in the mainstream media, Sinclair was browbeaten into withdrawing the film, its broadcast license threatened by a Kerry campaign manager in 2004. The film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award-winning investigative reporter, interviewed former POWs for the documentary.

I was among those whom Sherwood, a decorated Marine combat veteran himself, asked to participate in Stolen Honor. I was a POW for nearly six years, held in North Vietnam prison camps, including the notorious Hanoi Hilton, a place of unimaginable horrors -- torture, beatings, starvation and mind-numbing isolation. When Kerry branded us "war criminals," he handed our captors all the justification they needed to carry out their threats to execute us. Thanks to Kerry, Jane Fonda and their comrades in the anti-war movement, our captivity was prolonged by years. The communists in Hanoi and Moscow couldn't have had a better press agent to spread their anti-American propaganda.

To guarantee Stolen Honor would never be seen by anyone -- not even theatre-goers -- the producer was slapped with a libel and defamation lawsuit.

The POWs and the wives of POWs who participated in Stolen Honor refused to abandon the facts conveyed in the film. For some of us, it was the first time since our release by the Communists in 1973 that we were able to have our voices publicly heard, to tell our stories about the consequences of Kerry's treachery. In 2005, we formed a nonprofit organization, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), to gather records, documents and other materials to form a fact-based, educational repository for students and scholars of Vietnam history and to tell the true story of the American soldiers in Vietnam. The VVLF's mission is "to set the record straight, factually, about Vietnam and those who fought there."

For our efforts, we were promptly sued by Campbell and another long-time anti-war Kerry follower and VVAW member, Dr. Jon Bjornson. It was clear that Kerry not only wanted to punish us for Stolen Honor; he intended to use surrogates to sue us into permanent silence and financial ruin.

Forced to spend huge sums to defend ourselves from these frivolous lawsuits, we have filed a countersuit against these Kerry surrogates and intend to reveal the truth about the lawsuits and their sponsors. We believe that we can prove that the purpose of nearly two years of litigation was to cover up for Kerry's treachery, to drain us financially and spiritually, and to prevent us from setting the record straight.

At stake is ultimately nothing less than the integrity of the American military in Vietnam, the honor of the men who served their country, the nobility of those who gave their lives, and the truth of America's history in Vietnam. Until or unless we do correct the existing record, the American military may never be free of the myths and smears of Vietnam, its honor and integrity cleansed as it fights to defend freedom at home and around the world.

Our mission is hardly over. We hope you will join us in fighting this battle . . . for our soldiers, then and now. For more information about Vietnam, the foregoing litigation, or to make a donation, please access the VVLF website now.

Col. George E. "Bud" Day
Director and President,
Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation

Col. George E. "Bud" Day, USAF (Ret.,) was a POW in North Vietnam for five years, seven months and 13 days. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and earned the Medal of Honor. He is the Air Force's most decorated living veteran. He is the Director and President of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, Inc., an organization created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the men and women who sacrificed to serve their country. Please go here to read Col. Day's statement in its entirety.

This request for support is not addressed or available to legal residents of Mississippi, Minnesota, Washington (state), and Utah.

Politics as Usual
By Sara Pentz

Today Democrat presidental nominee John Edwards told the world that politics was more important than his wife's health. He announced that his wife is battling incurable cancer. But that will not stop him from continuing his political campaigning. The press conference at which Edwards appeared with his wife ,was hastily called and there was much speculation that Edwards would end his campaigning.

With a kind of public crassness that dominates politics today, Edwards who is a doctor, announced his priorities to the public and the nation in this elaborate public display. At the same time, he said: "Any time, any place I need to be with Elizabeth I will be there - period."

Well, wouldn't that be all the time?

The New Individualist, Atlas Society in Pittsburgh Paper

The March 16th issue of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review featured a column based on the latest efforts of The Atlas Society. The piece was also posted on the RealClearPolit ics website.

In the piece entitled "Saving a divided GOP soul," writer Dimitri Vassilaros highlights the insights made by New Individualist editor Robert Bidinotto and Atlas Society executive director Edward Hudgins in the March issue of the magazine and in a new collection of articles entitled Straight Talk About the Soul of the Republican Party. This book includes pieces by Ed and Robert from earlier issues of the magazine plus pieces by other Atlas writers. Bidinotto, who comes from Pennsylvania, was interviewed for the Pittsburgh paper piece.

Copies of the Straight Talk book have been sent to all New Individualist subscribers, Atlas Society members and others who have attended Atlas events. (Extra copies can be purchased at the Objectivism Store.) The book was prepared for this year's Conservative Political Action Conference. Five thousand copies of the book, along with copies of the magazine and the new TAS brochure, were passed out to conference attendees to challenge the GOP and confused conservatives who vacillate between supporting individual liberty and demanding government micro- management of individual morality. You can read about the Atlas efforts at CPAC on the TAS website.

------------

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Saving a divided GOP soul

By Dimitri Vassilaros
Friday, March 16, 2007

Robert Bidinotto cannot say the Republican Party lost so badly on Election Day because it had lost its soul. Mr. Bidinotto, a New Castle native and editor-in-chief of The New Individualist, is unsure if this party had a soul. But he is sure it doesn't have a core philosophy. He believes the GOP can recover -- if it's the advocate of the individual.

"Conservatives never dared to fully embrace individualism," says Bidinotto, who studied economics at Grove City College in Mercer. "Conservatism has no central defining principle. Conservatives cannot make up their minds if they are champions of the individual and his rights, or of society and its traditions." Such as, how many conservatives believe an adult has the right to read, view or hear anything society labels as obscene?

The New Individualist is published by The Atlas Society, a Washington think tank. The magazine champions reason, individualism and freedom inspired by author and philosopher Ayn Rand. It co- sponsored the Conservative Political Action Conference in March, offering libertarian principle to the intellectually bankrupt.

If the GOP has a soul, it is a blackened and divided one, he says. "It's a soul divided against itself with too many competing ideas and values to have any notion of identity."

Exhibit A is President George W. Bush's oxymoronic "compassionate conservatism" -- "We are using an active government to promote self- government." Active government (in the former Soviet Union, Cuba or FDR's) doesn't seem to lead to much self-government.

It's a perfect example of throwing out constitutional limitations on government intervention to service a values agenda, Bidinotto says.

Cultural (social) conservatives believe we should accept ideas and values merely because our ancestors did, he says. "They confuse tradition with truth. By saying freedom only can be grounded in faith and tradition, conservatives are saying there is no rational case for human liberty. That's very important because when arguing with secular liberals, conservatives only can point backward to their ancestors."

In "Straight Talk About the Soul of the Republican Party," a book published by The Atlas Society, many so-called conservatives who talk like liberals are quoted. Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said, "This whole idea of personal autonomy -- I don't think that most conservatives hold that point of view." Santorum also rejected the idea that government should stay out of the economy and bedroom when he criticized the "libertarianish right."

The Leave Us Alone Coalition created by conservative/libertarian Grover Norquist tries to unite libertarian and social conservative Republicans by a common desire to limit government intervention.

The government you may run one day can turn around and support values and ideas you loathe the next when the other side wins, Bidinotto says. "(Social conservatives) would do well to seek private ways to promote their values rather than grant to government the power over values."

The GOP could rise again, he says. But it would have to believe in this JFK-esque motto:

"Ask not what government is doing for you; ask what it's doing to you."

Make that Ronald Reagan-esque.

-------

(Dimitri Vassilaros can be reached at dvassilaros@tribweb.comThe Atlas Society and The Objectivist Center
email: toc@objectivistcenter.org
phone: 202 296-7263
web: http://www.objectivistcenter.org
Thank you for Dimitri Vassilaros for allowing us to post his article on this blog.

The Roots of Censorship

By Sara Pentz

It begins small; often on the local level. Then it mushrooms. And, next the bandwagon begins. That’s why it is critical to stop bad ideas at their roots.

One of the latest bad ideas to take root has done so in North Carolina where state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, has called for “…the government to review (movie) scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.” While Sen. Berger, nor anyone writing about this proposal, has mentioned the big “C” word, censorship is what underlies Berger’s call to action, even though he says that his ‘system’ would only apply to those films seeking the state’s filmmaker incentive program that allows as much as 15 percent of what is spent on filming in North Carolina to be refunded to the production company.

The ‘system’ of Sen. Berger’s is a potential mushroom clouding the meaning and intent of his lawmaking activities. Beware the bandwagon.

North Carolina was the locale last summer for the filming of the controversial film, Hounddog, starring12-year old Dakota Fanning. The Fanning film, which was introduced at the often controversial Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah (2007), has been a flashpoint of controversy since it was filmed on locations in North Carolina’s New Hanover and Brunswick counties last summer (2006).

Fanning's role as Lewellen is an incest and rape victim in the 1950s Southern Bayou country. In the film, Fanning’s character gyrates in her underwear, wakes up as her naked father climbs into her bed, demands that a pre-pubescent boy expose himself to her in exchange for a kiss, and finally, is raped by a teenager with the promise of Elvis Presley tickets.

According to published reports only Fanning’s face and shoulders are seen throughout the rape scene. North Carolina Catholic activist Bill Donahue has, however, called for a federal investigation into the film for its theme which he described as child abuse, and went so far as to call for a boycott of the film. Leave it to a Catholic to tell us what we can and cannot watch. Do you see the mushroom growing?

North Carolina state law denies this particular tax incentive to films that are obscene––defined as anything depicting sexual conduct presented in an offensive way. Offensive is defined as something that appeals to our prurient interest, lacks any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and “is not free speech as protected by the state or federal constitutions.”

This state law includes a reference to free speech in a most peculiar manner. It presupposes that films produced in North Carolina are not free speech; thus allowing the lawmakers to circumvent any accusations that they are infringing on the free speech guarantee.

Meanwhile Sen. Berger is preparing legislation drafts which will not allow films to receive the North Carolina incentive if the content of the script are found “objectionable.” While most of us would certainly consider the childish antics in the Hounddog film more than “objectionable,” there are always choices involved in movie going. They include the choice to watch the film, not to watch the film, to exit the movie theatre that is playing an “objectionable” film, to write a review of the film to the local newspaper, and to spread the word about your opinion of the film.

In fact, the film has received very bad reviews, not because of the rape scene, but because reviewers seem to agree that the film’s content is meandering, the film production is of poor quality and that the acting is considered bad.

The Sundance Film Festival has often taken on controversial independent films which, when promoted, give this Festival and its founder Robert Redford some degree of dubious publicity. While Redford is surely at the opposite end of the spectrum from both the aforementioned Berger and Donahue, the so-called artistic standards used to qualify films for the Festival have often been questionable in terms of taste and artistic value.

Since it’s founding in l981, those standards have fallen even further with the film entry this year (2007) of something called Zoo. This entry is about zoophiles who are apparently humans who like to have sex with animals. The documentary explores the activities of a group of men in the Pacific Northwest who engaged in bestiality. To be precise, they engaged in sex with Arabian stallions––or they did until one man died from a perforated colon in 2005, according to one published review.

Despite Redford’s debatable taste in films, he still has the right to include any kind of film in his festival that he chooses.

In the meantime, state Sen. Berger and Catholic activist Donahue have jumped on the bandwagon to promote censorship of film scripts before they go to production. This is seriously incompatible with our rules of law. We do not allow governments to abridge our freedom of speech. Sen. Berger and Mr. Donahue are engaging in a very bad idea. It needs to be exposed for what it is––the roots of censorship.

Written Sunday, January 28, 2007

November 2006 - Journalism is Not About The Facts Anymore

Journalism is Not About The Facts Anymore

By Sara Pentz

Journalism is not about the facts anymore. There is little respect for the sanctity of truth. The media has one agenda: to instill the liberal philosophy of the Left and the religious philosophy of the Right into our lives. The practices used to do so are intentional. Without understanding the mechanics of how biased journalists work, they will lead us down the slippery slope to totalitarianism because they represent the classic clash against reason, individualism and freedom.

This blog will demonstrate how propaganda in the news media–––primarily from the elitist Left, but also including all spectrums of political discourse–––is infecting the communication of information as seen across all media. Slanted journalism is the ‘big lie’ and it must be understood and stopped.

The blog will analyze how headlines often do not reflect the information contained in the news report in the hope that the reader will skip the story and absorb the headline. This column will look at loaded words and distorted ideas to demonstrate how they are used to deny or avoid information that conflicts with the liberal point of view. It will explain the way, for example, that polls are taken (mostly by liberals of liberals), and how and why the results are used to influence the pubic. All of these techniques are used to send a message other than the truth or the facts of the news story.

Biased journalists give distorted accounts of the facts through various methods. They are selective in what they report about a story. They rely on anecdotal material that supports their own conclusions. They create quotes and attribute them to anonymous sources. They seek out the disgruntled to illustrate issues that affirm their premises. They use mike-in-the-face snippets from everyday people who are coached to say what the story demands. It’s all in the way the questions are asked.

Those who deny their bias are corrupt and deceitful. Some admit it openly. In 2002, 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney said on CNN's Larry King Live: "There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions.”

ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin admits the problem in an interview on the Hugh Hewett radio show recently, “…well over 70 percent of the people working on his network's political coverage are liberal, and would vote Democratic. Further he said, “…that the preponderance of liberal thought in media organizations is an endemic problem and for 40 years conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake.”

Some journalists merely equivocate. ABC’s Charles Gibson said on ABC’s The View recently: "...there is no such thing as objectivity, there is just lesser degrees of subjectivity...And you have to, all the time, say to yourself, are we being fair? Are we being down the middle, as we can? And I simply can tell you that is something which, which I try to implant on everybody at World News."

Other journalists demonstrate the arrogance of their powerful position. ABC News Reporter Bill Blakemore speaking at a journalist conference in Vermont recently: “I don’t like the word ‘balance’ much at all. After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate on global warming.” Blakemore continued to boast, “Excuse me, this is going to be my assessment of where the scientific assessment is.” “I am a professional journalist; don’t tell me how to do my job.”

Ted Kavanau, founding Senior Producer of CNN and founding President, CNN Headline News, explains, “The big Democratic cities have always had a stranglehold on what is the most significant news story of the day. The concentration of liberal thinking at the heart of those cities has had an effect on hiring within the major media community, as well as the creation of an attitude toward what was acceptable thinking within that media group. That attitude constituted a disdain for objectivity and a need for acceptance by the liberal media establishment, by those who shared the liberal point of view. If anyone breached the liberal agenda, they faced an expulsion that could and did have serious economic effects.”

We need to point the finger at those in the media who have personal and professional agendas other than objectivity. While it is inappropriate to call for censorship of dishonest journalism, it is critical to identify it as editorial propaganda. It is not news reporting. Journalists who dispense propaganda instead of the facts of a news event should be fired in much the same way as those who literally fabricate the truth–––and there have been plenty of those on the staff at the New York Times.

LIST OF DESCRIPTIVE WORDS CULLED FROM A SERIES OF ARTICLES ABOUT THE CLINTONs

All these words have been used in legitimate articles about the 2008 elections; specifically to describe the character, personality, morality of Bill and Hillary. These are not my words. They were used by journalists, commentators and politicos.

Self-important
Smarmy
Duplicitous
A slippery pair
Low-life street fighters
Liars
Pathological
Egocentric
Low-road hitters
Pustules on the American body politic
race-baiting
snarling
finger-waving
press-bashing partisan
attack dog
his thirst for big bucks
bold recklessness
his arrogance
questionable financial deals
partners with inappropriate businesses
ignores blatant conflicts of interest
extremely unbecoming for an ex-president
To rewrite his legacy, he’ll do anything
enflamed racial tensions
trashing your character
merciless masters of misinformation
grotesque red-faced tirades assaulting you and distorting your record
Jerry Springer tactics
carnivorous female
seething, red-faced former president
eruptions of a furious, unexpected, and uncontrollable rage, often accompanied by loud cursing and occasionally, even physical violence
suddenness and intensity of his fury
shrieking screeching blind rages tantrums
volcanic outburst
the real Bill boiling with rage
blowing his top red-faced
finger-pointing performance
flip-flops

(To be continued...)

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

No person shall be elected to the office of the President who is the spouse of a person who is ineligible for the Presidency under the Twenty-Second Amendment to this Constitution.

List of The Clinton Scandals

Source: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/545515579.html

Bill Clinton:
Bill Clinton will probably be remembered as the most corrupt president in American history. Aside from being the ONLY popular elected president ever impeached, Bill Clinton's legacy extends to little more than widespread rococco corruption. On this page we look at the great events (scandals) of the Clinton presidency and what they involve.

The Scandals:
Whitewater
Cattlegate
Nannygate
Helicoptergate
Travelgate
Gennifer Flowersgate
Filegate
Vince Fostergate
I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate
Paula Jonesgate
Federal Building campaign phone callgate
Lincoln bedroomgate
White House coffeegate
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate
Buddhist Templegate
Web Hubbell hush moneygate
Lippogate
Chinese commiegate - Clinton was practically endorsed by red China Update!
Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate
Zippergate/interngate - the Lewinsky affair itself
Perjury and jobs for Lewinskygate - the aftermath
Willeygate
Web Hubbell prison phone callgate
Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate
Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate
Wag-the-Dog-gate
Jaunita Broaddrick gate
PBS-gate
Email-gate
Vandalgate
Lootergate
Pardongate
Bonus: Humorgate: some mishaps and mysteries around the Clintons. This is just humor in a serious scandal page.
Haircutgate
Hillary talks with Eleanor Rooseveltgate
Burgergate
Joycelyn Elders
Is this Administration Shameless?
The Bill Clinton Tiananmen Peace Tour Vacation
The Lewinsky Speech

LA Times Editorial: Beneath Contempt
By Sara Pentz

The 'editorial' written January 21, 2007, by the LA Times writer Paul Whitefield (who supervises the editorial pages' copy desk), entitled "Apocalypse Again..." is an insult to all Americans and all mankind. His article is corrupt and vindictive. It is mean-spirited, shocking and beneath contempt.

See the article here:

Apocalypse again -- call up the Vietnam vets

Where else can Bush get 21,500 trained soldiers for his 'surge'?
By Paul Whitefield, PAUL WHITEFIELD supervises the editorial pages' copy desk.
January 21, 2007

LISTENING TO President Bush's speech on Iraq earlier this month, my first thought was: "Where the heck are we going to get 21,500 more soldiers to send to Iraq?" Our Reserves are depleted, our National Guard is worn out, our Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the limit.

Then it hit me: Re-up our Vietnam War veterans and send them.

They're trained. They're battle-hardened. Many already have post-traumatic stress disorder. Also, some have their own vehicles - Harleys mostly, which are cheap to run, make small targets and are highly mobile. I'll even bet that lots of these guys still have guns (you know, just in case).

OK, some vets are a bit long in the tooth (or don't have teeth - because of Agent Orange?). Or their eyesight isn't what it was. Or their reflexes have slowed. But with today's modern weaponry, how well do you have to see?

Too out of shape, you say? Listen, if Rocky Balboa can step back into the ring at age 60, all these Vietnam War vets need is a little boot-camp magic and they'll be good to go. I mean, who doesn't want to drop a few pounds?

Don't want geezers fighting for us? Well, let's face it, our young people have greater value right here. Most of us want to retire and collect our hard-earned Social Security, and we need those youngsters here, working and paying taxes - lots of taxes.

Finally, these Vietnam War guys are hungry for revenge. After all, they fought in the only war the U.S. ever lost. And they didn't even get a parade. So this is their chance. We can throw them that big parade when they come marching home.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-modestproposal21jan21,0,1717035.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Mr. Whitefield, who holds a very important position at the LA Times, chooses to betray the memory of soldiers who fought without choice and so bravely in Viet Nam. They died for their country. Mr. Whitefield mocks them. He insults them. He abuses them.

He writes that they must still have guns as though owning a gun was somehow vulgar and offensive. He insultingly calls them “long in the tooth (or don’t have teeth),” he says, citing Agent Orange as if it were the culprit for the mere act of aging. He calls them out of shape geezers hungry for revenge - another ugly slur.

He throws every insult he can at the American soldier under the pretense that he has found the solutions for President George Bush’s Iraqi ‘surge’ plan. It is obvious that Mr. Whitefield has some kind of bitter hatred toward this President and he has chosen to take it out on him in a very mysterious way because his vindictive is so far out of proportion to the issues involved.

Mr. Whitefield betrays his rage. His article is not funny and it is not satire. It is rude and blasphemous, and revealing of a deeply twisted psyche. Perhaps he would be well advised to seek a counselor instead of writing vengeful articles for a newspaper which is speedily descending into a mockery of journalism.

To choose to write in the LA Times about the Viet Nam veterans in this manner is beyond comprehension. It is irresponsible and sacrilegious. He has gone over the line in this article by using his position of power in the media to attack those who have the courage to fight for American values and principles. It is easy for him to vent his spleen, unlike those who go to battle for Mr. Whitefield's freedom to slander them.

His article is currently (1/23/07) making the rounds on the Internet with negative comments - as it should. The collective response is that this kind of editorial by the LA Times is the reason why so many people refuse to read the newspaper.

Shame on Mr. Whitefield. Greater shame on the LA Times for allowing this article to be published.

It is beneath contempt.

The following article was written by Gen LaGreca and can be seen as it was originally published on George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture at www.georgereisman.com/blog

The following article was written by Gen LaGreca and can be seen as it was originally published on George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture at www.georgereisman.com/blog

(Dr. Reismans' 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.)

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 2007
By Gen LaGreca

[Here is a bucket of pearls. Please overlook the fact that the author asks your help in casting them before a herd of swine. They are pearls nonetheless.—GR.]


With a new Congress convening, it’s time to recall the ideals of America as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence. The following is a new version of the Declaration, updated to reflect the current usurpations and threats we face. It is an urgent call for our newly elected representatives to fulfill the promise of America envisioned by our Founders and for We, The People, to insist that they do.

When in the course of human events, a people find it necessary to rid themselves of a government that has abandoned the sound principles upon which it was founded and that increasingly threatens their lives and liberties, reason requires them to declare the causes of their discontent.

We hold these truths to be certain and immutable, that all men by their nature possess unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness; that to protect these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just and limited powers from the consent of the governed; that individuals show respect for each other’s rights by associating with one another through voluntary consent; that an act of force against a person violates his rights; and that it is the sole, legitimate purpose of government to ban the initiation of force in society by retaliating with force against it—through the police and courts to apprehend and punish domestic criminals, the military to defend against foreign invaders, and the civil courts to settle disputes among men—thereby insuring the peace and safety of a free and civilized people.

That whenever a government becomes destructive of these ends, when it becomes the very instrument of coercion it is supposed to protect against, it is the right and duty of the people to alter it and institute new government that will protect their safety and freedom. The history of the present government of the United States—with state and local governments following suit—is one of a dangerous, unchecked growth of powers leading to the ultimate perversion in which it is the government that holds the reins and the citizens that are saddled, bridled, and spurred to do its bidding. To prove this, let facts be submitted to reasonable minds.

The government has violated our right to property and seized our wealth through onerous taxation that totals over 40 percent of the national income, taxing our salaries, investments, homes, businesses, purchases, etc., so that we cannot even buy a toothbrush without paying a tribute.

It has transformed a nation of self-reliant, self-supporting individuals into a swarm of special interest groups—workers, farmers, seniors, unions, corporations, etc.—each clamoring for favors and handouts at the expense of others, so that the young are taxed to support the old, the rich to support the poor, the people in the mountains to support flood victims at the shores; and the louder the demands, the more a group receives.

It has made us dependent on its largess for our vital needs, such as our retirement income and medical care, which no longer depend on our individual choices and actions but on the promises of politicians whose costly, ill-conceived programs are fast approaching bankruptcy.

It has appointed itself as the supreme master who decides for all what foods, medicines, products are safe to use—even mandating how our televisions must be made, our cereal boxes labeled, our toilets flushed—bombarding us with countless agencies that misuse our money, harass us, fine us, and violate our freedom to control our own lives.

It has, in order to gain votes and power bases, usurped the role of private charity, giving food, housing, and other provisions to special groups, removing incentives for them to improve their own lives, and creating an uncharitable, unchosen, and unjust financial burden on others to support them.

It has vilified our industries, seized their profits, hampered free trade, prevented mergers, dictated every detail of employment and operation—controlling pay, hours, benefits, prices, hiring, firing, production, profits—even setting safety standards for swivel chairs in the workplace—thereby violating the rights of employers, employees, and customers to deal with each other on their own terms.

It has created endless ways to cripple businesses, so that if a company is deemed too large, anti-trust laws force it to divide; if it is deemed to pay wages that are too low, labor laws force it to offer more; all at the whim of public officials who create no wealth and live off money extorted from taxpayers, yet issue televised tongue-lashings and punishments to businesspeople for not running their enterprises to better suit the politicians’ favored groups.

It has, for political advantage, doled out subsidies, invoked protective tariffs, created monopolies, bestowed grants and privileges—including paying farmers not to produce any crops—giving unfair advantage to some businesses at the expense of others and creating chaos in the marketplace.

It has failed to protect the people’s rights, but instead protects snail darters, caribou, and the wilderness, in order to pander to aberrant environmentalists who use energy in every aspect of their lives—in their cars, planes, computers, lawn mowers, toasters, microphones—while instigating laws to severely hamper energy production.

It has stifled domestic exploration for oil with onerous regulation, which has made oil scarcer and more expensive and thus enriched foreign oil-producing countries such as Iran, whose revenues support the brainwashing schools, training camps, and militias of ruthless savages who plot to annihilate us.

It has imposed oppressive taxes, yet the huge sums it extracts still cannot quench its thirst for more reckless spending, plunging the country deeper into debt and, if unchecked, into bankruptcy.

It has seized so much power that kickbacks from contractors, bribes from lobbyists, favors exchanged for votes, and other scandals in its ranks are rampant.

It has corrupted the morals of the people, who see that they can vote themselves the taxpayers’ money, so they abandon personal responsibility and self-reliance to clamor for more handouts, perpetuating their own dependence and their representatives’ corruption.

It has created a welfare state not only within our borders, but throughout the world, squandering huge sums on foreign aid that bails out the failing regimes of despotic rulers, feeds the very enemies who arm to destroy us—such as North Korea and many others over the years—and creates a global entitlement mentality that demands a bite of the already ravaged carcass of the American taxpayer.

It has financed and supported the corrupt United Nations, an organization allegedly dedicated to world peace that grants the worst tyrannies equal moral standing with free countries and provides a forum for the bloodiest dictatorships to condemn us.

It has shamefully failed in its constitutional duty to protect us from deadly threats abroad, allowing repeated attacks on us to go unpunished and emboldening our enemies to wreak unprecedented death and destruction on our own soil.

It has left us vulnerable to a ruthless enemy because of its endless appeasement, its perverse desire not to offend anyone, its need for approval from hostile countries, its concern for our decorum over our victory—in short, its moral cowardice in defending America.

These and other usurpations and failings now weigh heavily on us.

By the laws of nature and our Constitution, we declare ourselves a free people with sovereignty over ourselves. We demand an end to the creeping tyranny that strangles us. We demand the dismantling of government in all areas of usurped powers never granted it by the Constitution. We demand that our elected representatives act on the ideals of liberty to reverse our self-destructive course.

We will never forget that we are Americans. We forged a continent not with public aid but with the shining vision of a better life and the self-reliance to attain it. We created wealth, progress, and achievement on an unprecedented scale. No government fed our pioneers, inspected their wagons for safety, certified their chickens, subjected their homes to endless building permits, meddled in their businesses, looted their wealth. No government built the breathtaking skylines of our majestic cities, the proud monuments to free minds and free commerce. The government’s fingerprints are 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 country from the meddlers, do-gooders, and would-be dictators seeking to nourish their craving for power with our lifeblood. We will restore America as the proud haven of liberty. To this we pledge our sacred honor.


If you agree with this declaration, send it to your representatives. Tell them that you intend to support people who offer a return to limited government and the freedoms guaranteed us by the Constitution.

Genevieve (Gen) LaGreca is the author of “Noble Vision” a novel about liberty and a ForeWord magazine Book of the Year Award winner. She may be contacted at glagreca@wingedvictorypress.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Genevieve LaGreca

Technorati Profile

THEIR DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS -- Part I
By Sara Pentz

Democrats like to tell us they are longing for ideas to support––that they are losing elections because they have lost their way. They appear to be honest, searching and idealistic. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, in his own particularly glaring style, declares this message. Other somewhat more sophisticated Democrats write about the problem with wide–eyed dismay and perpetual hope. It is the topic du jour.

Democrats like to talk about the problem because it gives them something to discuss. It makes them look like they are desperately searching for ideals. It makes them appear innocent and hopeful. It harkens them back to the good old days of the 60s and 70s when their core fought against nuclear proliferation and the Vietnam War––in the days when the media would call them idealistic, and they would march as a collective with a pretense of moral courage as they shouted banal slogans of love and peace.

It is now, as it always has been, the Big Lie…an attempt to cover up the truth. In fact, the liberal Democrats know exactly the nature of their convictions and values. But they don’t, won’t and can’t name them because the philosophy upon which they are based is repugnant––and it is their dirty little secret.

Their core ideas are based on anti–Americanism, anti–capitalism and anti–individual rights. Their basic intent, whether it is conscious or subconscious, is to tear up the U.S. Constitution and tear down this country, its patriotism, its loyalists, its entrepreneurs and its basic standing in the world. The liberal media that dominates newspapers and magazines around the world supports them. They have set an agenda that is permeating the culture of this country in a very dangerous way.

In fact, most Democrats are basically socialists––some have communist underpinnings. Others simply have no principles and are looking only for political power. Of course, they will deny these labels. They will shout like crazy about being called unpatriotic. But when they burn flags, call the president of the United States a Nazi with such vile hysterical hatred, allow fraudulent class action suits against often blameless businesses that benefit only the lawyers, and write laws confiscating private property for the sake of raising taxes––it’s hard to argue that they have a great love of this country.

The fact that people from all over the world are rushing to enter the United States––legally and illegally belies their message. Those who rush here choose to live here. They are not being forced to come here. Of course, some who come here do so because they can benefit without citizenship from the causes created by the Liberals––free medical care, free food and free education––the inevitable free ride propounded by socialists. Many of those here illegally vote for these Liberals, which is certainly an overwhelming reason why Liberals, like Hillary Clinton, want to give those people the right to vote them into power so they can get more free handouts––and the Liberals can have more power and money to change America into a socialist welfare state.

Notice that there was no great rush by those Liberals to flee this country and move to Canada after George W. Bush was elected to his second term as president––as they had promised and we had hoped. Remember how fearful and angry they were at the chance he would be re-elected. These are the hypocrites who hate America but stay here to enjoy all the privileges of the economy and the U.S. Constitution they wish to destroy.

Of course, there are many political Republicans and Independents who also don’t have strong and consistent convictions about this country. In fact, most people have mixed beliefs. They are inconsistent and conflicted, especially when it comes to politics. This is one reason Liberals get away with their arguments and intentions.

On June 1, 2005, columnist David Limbaugh wrote the following:

“If candidates of a major party truly don't have core beliefs and "don't know their underlying values," is there really any point to their participation, other than the raw acquisition of power? The reality is that Democrats do know what they believe, they just don't know if they can afford to "stand for" those things in an election for national office. They do know their underlying values, but they don't know whether they can be completely open about them without risking an electoral bloodbath. So on some issues they vacillate, saying one thing to certain people – their rabid left-wing constituency groups – and different things to others. Whether it's foreign policy, social issues or economic ones, Democrats have a tough time unmasking themselves.”

However, sometimes they are easily unmasked. For example, they are adamantly opposed to Social Security private accounts. Why? Because these accounts would allow individuals to determine the purpose and use of their own money––to the extent that the government allows. Listen to the strident protests of the Liberal leaders. They say they will “…never ever ever ever…” allow private accounts in the Social Security Reform Act––at least according to Rep. Nancy Polosi. Why do they protest so vehemently?––because they want to control the money, and they don’t think we are wise enough to save or invest our own money.

Let’s name these Democrats who are covering up their fundamental socialist philosophies. They are Sen. Ted Kennedy (D–MA), Sen. John Kerry (D–MA), Sen. Harry Reid (D–NV), Sen. Christopher Dodd (D–CT), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–CA), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–VT), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D–NY). Listen to them talk. Listen to their message. Ask what do they really mean when they make their 30–second sound bites.

In a July 16, 2005 NewsMax article, for example, witness two liberal Democrats:

“New York's two senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer - who have been complaining since the London bombing attacks that the federal government hasn't done enough to protect the U.S. from terrorists - voted against legislation to enhance border security on Thursday.”

“Clinton and Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which, according to the Washington Times, would have funded plans for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.”

According to the www.nation.com, Senator Ted Kennedy argues, “…that the reason the Democrats lost so many elections was that they had compromised too much and shed their distinct identity. "If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose--and deserve to lose. The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

According to www.enterstageright.com, “Kennedy's record reflects decades of appeasement toward Communism. He was an early and vocal supporter of admission of Red China to the UN. He was a consistent supporter of unilateral disarmament and nuclear freeze. He advocated negotiation with the Vietcong which he claimed "could lead to a confederation of North and South Vietnam under a truly neutral government." He supported the "rules of engagement" policy which protected North Vietnam from military action while American and South Vietnamese casualties were mounting. Finally, he voted to stop President Ford's aid package to South Vietnam in the year before it was crushed by the Communist North.” (New Republic 9/10/70 p14)

An article by Charles A. Morse web posted July 24, 2000, at www.enterstageright.com,
explains:

“Like so many other rich leftists, Kennedy often treats the law as something that applies to others not himself. Laws and taxes, in Kennedy's galaxy, exist as weapons against enemies or as a means of obtaining power. Increasingly concentrated power will, allegedly, be used to help the disadvantaged. The result is more power and our taxpayer money in the hands of an ever-widening number of bureaucrats. Whatever crumbs not consumed by the bloated bureaucracy will be passed on to the "disadvantaged" who will be expected to repay the favor with their votes.”

In his book, Unholy Alliance, author David Horowitz names the heart of the American Left:

“In their hearts, these leftists hate America, and they want any enemy, even if it's as horrible an enemy as Zarqawi, to triumph over us. And they will use all manner of sophistry to excuse and defend their position and say, “Oh yes, we’re critical of this and that in terms of what they do. We didn't actually like them blowing up the World Trade Center, because that gave a propaganda victory to the United States, and we don't like Zarqawi beheading people, because that makes it harder for us to sell their cause.” But these are minor points for them, that pale beside the fact that America is Nazi Germany. The clear allegiance of leftists… is with the enemy and against the United States. And this is true of hundreds of thousands of American leftists who get a pass, of course, from our media, because our media is so predisposed to support them.”

Horowitz is not talking about the hard American Leftists. He is speaking to those who incorporate their accusations into mainstream thought––the American media, grade schools and universities. This thought–control by the Left reminds us of George Orwell’s book “1984”. It will come back to haunt them––one way or another––in another future.

Isn’t it time we aired their dirty little secrets?

###