NPR's Richard Knox evidently forgot to keep up with the happenings of the H1N1 flu vaccine before delivering his report Marketing Flu Vaccine: A Tough Sell For Many. Here is some impartiality for us:

The nation is in the midst of the largest mass vaccination campaign against flu in history, but about half the population is saying they are not interested.

Many have a sense that the vaccine was rushed to production, compromising safety. Some are convinced that it contains harmful chemicals.

Neither is right, federal officials say. But they are clearly worried about vaccine naysayers and skeptics.

Did you catch the "have a sense that the vaccine was rushed to production" line, as if this were simply a matter of fear mongering? Knox must not have read that the CDC approved emergency use of the vaccine in late October: FDA approves emergency use of new intravenous flu drug, peramivir. In case you don't know what "emergency use" means to the CDC, they define it on their website: Interim Questions and Answers About Emergency Use Authorization. Here is the first paragraph:

An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) may be issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow either the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product during certain types of emergencies with specified agents.

It normally takes years for the CDC to approve any drug for use in the United States. The new swine flu (H1N1) pandemic occurred just this year, 2009. So there is good reason to "have a sense that the vaccine was rushed to production" because that is precisely what happened. But acknowledging this fact apparently makes us "naysayers and skeptics," which is another unbiased portrayal of the situation, of course.

I've not heard much concern about unsafe chemicals in the H1N1 vaccine so I question this news report about that aspect of the issue. But the general concerns over the vaccine's safety are being voiced for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that the drug was indeed rushed through the CDC's approval process via the Emergency Use Authorization.

Who are these federal officials Knox references for this report? They either don't know about the recent EUA or they do know and are lying about it. Why all the deception and this manipulative news story?

Please don't misunderstand, I don't oppose the use of vaccinations, but neither to I rabidly promote it. Richard Knox is clearly supporting the use of the H1N1 vaccine with this report, which seems consistent with the general massive media effort to promote health care "reform" legislation. It should be no surprise that even this rather uninteresting issue is being propagandized to further left wing efforts to achieve government run health care.

When Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "you lie" at President Obama during his speech to both houses of Congress it sparked a remarkable response, particularly from the news media.

Once again, NPR comes to the defense of the president, as long as the president is a Democrat (I challenge you to find news stories of NPR defending a Republican president). In the predictable selective concern over accuracy NPR's Scott Horsley investigates certain aspects of Representative Wilson's outburst in Examining Health Care And Illegal Immigrants Claim. Horsley tries to assure the listener President Obama was speaking the truth when he said illegal aliens would not be covered by the government run health care plan being proposed in the current reform legislation. This claim is just as true as the emergency funds Congress appropriated to help the victims of hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Do you remember the innumerable complaints about how a lack of oversight and enforcement led to rampant fraud of that aid money? It is the same situation all over again with the health care reform legislation and illegal immigrants. There is language in the House bill preventing illegal immigrants from benefiting from this government health care plan the president supports. But there is no enforcement or oversight making sure the plan is implemented the way the president told the nation it would be. As with the Katrina aid money, no enforcement of such protections means there is no protection. It is empty language if there is no oversight. We were pounded with this point over the fraudulent use of Katrina money, but now we are supposed to ignore the same problem with the health care bill?

Apparently Horsley didn't address the possibility that legislation crafting something for the Democrat agenda could be problematic or useless. John Hawkins interviewed Joe Wilson after the incident and published it in An Interview With Congressman Joe Wilson. Rep. Wilson said this about the issue:

So, as the President was going through the speech, when he got to the part about illegal aliens and he was saying they wouldn’t receive benefits, I knew better because I had been following the amendments of the Ways and Means Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I serve on the other committee, Education and Labor, that has jurisdiction. I was looking at all of the amendments and I knew that the Democrats had defeated the enforcement amendments about illegal aliens and these would be the amendments that would provide for verification of citizenship. That’s the wording and I’ve actually read the 1,000 page bill. The references to the illegal aliens in the bill didn’t have any enforcement. It was simply fluff.

What Katrina showed us is that a lack of oversight on public money can hurt people, and just because language exists in a bill to accomplish something doesn't mean that language is worth diddly. Horsley was satisfied in mentioning only that the language forbidding illegal aliens from benefiting from the health care bill was actually there, and that the president was technically correct in what he said on the matter. The fact that such provision was pragmatically worthless simply isn't in this news report. You see, when the president is a Democrat we're supposed to admiringly take his word for it.

Horsley at least allows William Gheen to make a statement in the aired story in which the issue of a lack of enforcement is made. Gheen makes the point that we already have rules and laws supposedly preventing illegal immigrants from benefiting from government programs meant only for people who pay into the system that fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. But Horsley makes sure the listener is well informed by referencing a nameless government attempt a few years earlier to weed out illegals by requiring medicaid recipients to prove their citizenship. How are we to know "only a handful of illegal immigrants were discovered" or that "large numbers of citizens lost medicaid because they couldn't provide the necessary documents" ? It would be helpful of Mr. Horsley to provide his source, as it is rather troublesome to neglect this detail. Alas, Horsley makes no mention of the amendments that Democrats defeated which were designed to provide oversight on the issue of illegals benefiting from the government run health care program. If there is no enforcement in the legislation (as was the case with Katrina aid) what good is the language of the bill? But enough with actually thinking about the issue, as a loyal liberal Horsley makes sure to suggest the concerns about rewarding illegal immigrants with a government run health care system are just a political ploy designed to gin up opposition.

The president also says opponents of these particular convoluted health care bills before both houses of Congress want to maintain the status quo. Why did Horsley say nothing of this Obama lie? His report took the time to portray the illegal immigration issue as an empty political trick, surely there would be time enough to address another questionable claim in the president's speech. The vast majority of opponents of the so-called "reform" currently being debated actually do want substantial change in America's health care system. But that doesn't mean government control is the solution to the problem. I, for one, being opposed to the idea of government control of health care totally and completely support the idea of Health Savings Accounts. With HSAs the money follows individuals, rather than the government deciding where it goes. Jim Graham, Director of Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute, mentions some good alternatives in The Best Health Care Plan You've Never Heard Of. Graham has this to say:

Washington is in the midst of yet another scandal -- but not the kind you'd read about in a gossip rag. Congressional dilettantes are willfully ignoring health-care reform ideas that would cut costs and provide high-quality care to all.

Sound nuts? It shouldn't. By refusing to even consider consumer-driven health care (CDHC), congressional leaders are proving that they're more interested in putting the government in charge of Americans' health care than in actually improving patient outcomes. Decades of evidence show that CDHC-style reforms can achieve the stated goal of would-be health reformers:
high-quality care at low cost.

All the reform plans under consideration in Congress fail to address the biggest problem with our health-care system: third parties, like insurance companies or the government, pay for just about everything. Consequently, Americans have no idea how much the medical services they consume cost.

And why exactly was Wilson's outburst a "shock to Congressional protocol" as Horsley says? Democrats felt free to heckle and even boo President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address: Flashback: Democrats Boo Bush At 2005 State Of The Union. Is it because it was only one voice yelling above the rest, or the fact that the word "lie" was used? Or is it simply that this happened to a president who was a Democrat?

I will give NPR credit for actually questioning the president's financial numbers that the health care bill would not add "one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period." as the president claimed. In the September 10 broadcast of Marketplace Tamara Keith asked some financial analysts about those numbers in Inspecting Obama's health care claims. Their verdict? Another technically true issue, if you're willing to wait 20 or 30 years. Of course, if it takes 30 years to even out, then the president's claims are not true for the "now" aspect, are they? If government bureaucrats can't get a handle on predictions 6 months from now why should we give them credit on economic forecasts of 3 decades in the future?

A remarkable little scandal erupted last week involving President Barack Obama's planned education message, to be delivered September 8 in public schools across the country by video. Many parents expressed their disapproval, based on an early release of the text and curriculum. Their objections were sparked because of some sections of the lesson plan which they thought seemed too political in nature to be delivered to a captive audience of school children. But what is even more remarkable is the news media backlash to these protests.

On Friday, September 4, NPR insouciantly ridiculed and mocked the protests in an unabashedly partisan fashion. In Wade Goodwyn's Obama's Schools Speech Faces Backlash, Goodwyn doesn't even try to be impartial in his report, even going so far as to accuse parents who oppose letting the government politically indoctrinate their children of not wanting to help the president improve public education. You won't find that in the transcript on the NPR website, you'll have to listen to the full 3 minute MP3 file to find it. Here's the problem with Goodwyn's biased report: he makes a straw man argument. There's no reason to believe any parent opposes the improvement of their child's education. But NPR would have us believe inserting left wing propaganda is improving public education.

So what in this whole situation could be considered political? You won't find out from the main stream media. The following stories would have us believe the only thing we need to know about the president's speech to school children is that they should work hard and stay in school. One of these is another NPR story:

• Obama's Speech Protests Examined
• White House Seeks To Tamp Schools Speech Furor
• Harwood: Opponents of Obama's School Invasion 'Not Smart Enough' To Raise Their Children
• Unwillingness to Have Obama in Classroom Symptom of Why Schoolchildren 'Are So Dumb Today,' Says MSNBC Guest

What you won't find in the main stream news media are the real reasons many parents protested. Part of the reason is because these objections have little if anything to do with the speech at all. That's part of the media manipulation, focusing all this public attention on the speech, which few if any one actually had a problem with. You can read the full text of the speech here: Text of President Obama's School Speech. The problem is with the curriculum the White House and Department of Education put together to accompany the speech.

To find out what is, or was since the curriculum was edited after the protests began, in the lesson plan that outraged so many parents you'll have to go to alternative news media. The Cato Institute's Gene Healy writes about the lesson plan in Hey, Mr. President, Leave Those Kids Alone:

The lesson plans Obama Department of Education officials came up with after several meetings with the White House make it clear that federal education bureaucrats should be kept as far away from children as possible.

One of the plans envisioned teachers making kindergartners write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. After parents rightly recoiled from that recommendation, the DOE tried to throw it down the memory hole, deleting it from their Web site.

Given some of the cultish questions that survived DOE's hasty revision, however, concerned parents can be pardoned a few overheated references to Kim Il-Sung:

How will [President Obama] inspire us?"

What is President Obama inspiring you to do?

Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials?

These are question-begging questions, especially if you're one of those sensible Americans of all ages who aren't particularly inspired by President Obama, and who aren't convinced that listening raptly to elected officials is the best possible use of your time.

Worse still, the goofy pedagogical theory that informs DOE's lesson plans assumes that if we just get kids to express themselves about how a speech makes them feel, then they'll get smarter.

When they're old enough, in history class, kids ought to read and listen to presidential speeches like Ike's farewell address, LBJ's Great Society speech, Carter's malaise speech, and George W. Bush's second inaugural. And then they should be encouraged to dissect those speeches: What's the argument here? Is it convincing? We ought to ask kids to think critically about presidential rhetoric, instead of prodding them to burble appreciatively about his compassionate plans for everybody.

There is another "education" video being shown to public school students, entirely separate from the president's planned speech, titled "I pledge". I pledge features celebrities making politically partisan pledges. In Parents upset over 'leftist propaganda' video Lisa Schencker describes some aspects of the video.

Many pledges, such as supporting local food banks, smiling more, and caring for the elderly are noncontroversial. But other pledges, such as "to never give anyone the finger when I'm driving again," "to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid" and to advance stem cell research cross the line, some say.

Do you see the problem? The celebrity video was not "just" about staying in school and working hard. There is social engineering going on here. It's not all bad social engineering, what with encouraging children to support local food banks and care for the elderly. But let's at least acknowledge this goes beyond mere education. Then there is the stuff about buying a hybrid and supporting stem cell research - how can any thinking person NOT see these statements relate to highly charged political issues?

Schencker's piece continues:

Gayle Ruzicka, president of conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said the video was blatantly political. She said other offensive pledges included, "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama," "I pledge allegiance to the funk, to the united funk of funkadelica," and pledges to not use plastic grocery bags and not flush the toilet after urinating.

"It's very inappropriate to show a radical, leftist propaganda piece that political to children," Ruzicka said. "If parents want their children to learn about those things and do them in the home, wonderful, fine, but it's not the place of the school to show a one-sided propaganda piece to children without parents knowing about it."

"They shouldn't be troubling our youth with the woes of the world and making them feel like we're in slavery or they have to worry about how many times they flush the toilet or if they have a plastic water bottle," Cieslewicz said, referring to pledges in the video to "end slavery."

Let's pose a hypothetical: "I pledge to be of service to George W. Bush." Now try to argue this is not a political statement, especially were it is to be delivered in a message to young students. Try to argue such a statement would not be met with widespread outrage by the very people saying there is nothing wrong with President Obama's message to students. That is partly what bothers so many conservative parents. People who see no problem with the "I pledge" video also seem to have no problem with the White House lesson plan that accompanied president Obama's back-to-school speech.

And no where in the main stream media are we being informed about the genuinely political and/or troubling aspects of the video or of the president's education message. Instead, we get more of the same loyal protection and obfuscation by left wing journalists trying to portray dissent as uncaring or racist, and alarmed parents as nincompoops who need government's help in properly raising their children.

Of the several news stories on NPR about the protests surrounding the president's speech I have yet to read or listen to one that actually tried to keep the public well informed. In every case so far (I admit I could have missed something) NPR wasn't even interested in being impartial - each story was designed to attack any opposition to the president's plans and to support the president in any and all aspects of his agenda. When was the last time you heard or read a story from NPR that supported anything President Bush tried to do?

This small scandal really doesn't merit this kind of media attention. There is tremendous left wing indoctrination in the public schools already. But the left-leaning news media chose to make this story a big deal, even if it wasn't the real story at all. The misrepresentation of conservative opinions and policies is standard procedure at NPR, and I'm afraid it has been for quite some time.

Truth - noun: the Democrat narrative

On August 28, 2009 NPR's Julie Rovner reported on a new angle for the health care debate - In Health Care Debate, Fear Trumps Logic. In yet another "you won't notice how partisan I am" moment Rovner's piece asserts the only reason to oppose the current health care reform legislation currently before Congress is because conservative groups are scaring you with lies. Part of the problem here is the vast majority of "fears" about this latest rendition of health care reform are well founded, even if she wouldn't admit it, something Rovner would know if she would take the time to actually read the bills.

If you listen to the mp3 file you'll notice Rovner mentions nothing what ever as to the contents of the bill, but she does blindly mention objections to the legislation have been widely "debunked." And what loyal reporter to the Democratic Party wouldn't mention the name of the current favorite scapegoat? Like the typical Obama supporting journalist Rovner is sure to mention Sarah Palin's "death panels" argument, as if it were merely rhetoric. Admittedly, the term "death panels" is inflammatory, but so are accusations that anyone who opposes the currently health care "reform" initiative is racist, stupid, un-American or what have you. We don't see NPR or any other main stream media outlet condemning that rhetoric, do we?

The American Thinker reports on a real life example of precisely what Sarah Palin was warning about. In Ethel Fenig's August 11 article 'Death Panels' in Oregon Fenig begins with this:

Perhaps former Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) was referring to the tragic predicament of Barbara Wagner of Oregon when she wrote how she feared for the fate of her Down Syndrome son under "Obama's 'Death Panels.' "

Susan Donaldson James of ABC News reports on the letter Ms. Wagner received from the Oregon Health Plan in response to a $4000 a month drug her doctor prescribed after her lung cancer, long in remission, returned..

the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

Hmmmm, let's do the math. Yep, a one time prescription of $50 sure is cheaper than $4000 a month for who knows how many months to keep a 64 year old woman alive. So the Oregon "Death Panel" graciously offered suicide pills. Or doctor assisted murder.

Why shouldn't the American people interpret this situation as the reality of government death panels? And what is the anti-health care rhetoric that has been debunked? Is it that the death panels were not really in any Congressional bill? Well, no. What has been debunked in the notion that the term "death panels" appears in the language of any of the proposed bills. The provision that gave rise to the death panels label actually was part of the legislation, and the Senate made it known they eliminated such provision after Palin's label spread across the country. On August 14 the L.A. Times reported on the fact that this provision did in fact exist in the bill:

Senate committee scraps healthcare provision that gave rise to 'death panel' claims

In their L.A. Times piece, Christi Parsons and Andrew Zajac also try to persuade the reader that death panel claims are "widely discredited." But then there is this admission:

Recently, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speculated that Obama and other Democrats wanted to set up "death panels" to decide who gets medical services and who does not.

In reality, the provision was designed to allow Medicare to pay doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions. The consultations would be voluntary and would provide information about living wills, healthcare proxies, pain medication and hospice.

Did you catch that? "Doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions" will get payed to do this. President Obama recently asserted paying doctors to perform a specific task counted as incentive to do more of it when he said My plan might stop doctors from cutting off your foot. So why pay doctors to counsel patients on planning for end-of-life decisions if paying them to cut off your foot is such a bad idea? If a doctor is willing to needlessly cut off your foot why wouldn't they needlessly encourage you to consider doctor assisted suicide?

The Washington Post's Charles Lane noticed this problem as well. In his August 8th piece Undue Influence Lane says:

Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.

Opponents of this so-called reform use warnings, many time emotionally charged warnings. But why do so many in the main stream news media act as if these opponents never used reason and logic? "The opponents" of health care reform are not some monolithic organization as Rovner's story and selected sound bites suggest. As Barbara Wagner's story shows us such a thing is already happening. But her's is not the only example.

On August 18th the Wall Street Journal published The Death Book for Veterans by Jim Towey. You tell me if this sounds like death panels:

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

The idea of death panels applies both to a bureaucratic panel deciding who does and does not get the resources needed for adequate health care to continue living and it applies to government coercion into "helping" people choose to end their lives.

Getting back to Rovner's NPR story, "Fear is crowding out the truth, and the truth ought to count for something" says Jonathan Oberlander. The truth is that despite inflammatory rhetoric by many, opponents to the current health care reform initiative have good reason to worry about it. That's why Rovner and so many others in the main stream news media treat the Democrat narrative as the truth. Therefore any disagreement with the left wing narrative equals some nefarious and manufactured excuse to prevent change. Had Rovner been interested in impartial journalism she would recognize the fact that the vast majority of Americans all agree something needs to change regarding the current health care system. But government intrusion is often considered just as bad as the current health care situation. We don't want another instance of "the cure is worse than the disease."

The rationing of health care in a government run system is inevitable. Just this week we learned the government, under the administration of President Barack Obama, will cut Social Security payments.Why would they do that if there is plenty of money in the Social Security system? And what is the biggest problem in public education? It's a lack of funding, of course. Resources in both S.S. and in public education have to be rationed. Why wouldn't rationing occur in a government run health care system? But saying this out loud is just a scare tactic, right? Even NPR has uncovered another example of this rationing problem. Remember that government mandated health insurance scheme in Massachusetts?: Mass. Health Care Reform Reveals Doctor Shortage.

Democrats are pros at using scare tactics. Scaring senior citizens has only recently become distasteful, because the fear leads seniors to oppose a Democrat agenda. But when Democrats scare seniors into thinking Republicans might take away their medicare or their Social Security, as was frequently done in past national elections, well let's just say we don't see many news stories about distasteful scare tactics in those instances. And what about the biggest scare mongering charade on the political scene, global warming? How can anyone support the scare tactics used to justify the green movement but pontificate about the supposedly "cheap tactic" of legitimate warnings to Americans about government taking over health care?

The main stream news media is in the tank for Democrats. The Democrat narrative is treated as the truth. Critics of the Democrat narrative are accused of racism, being uncaring, cruel, un-American, and more - and I'm talking journalists publicly making or supporting such accusations. What we are NOT told by the news media about the health care bills in Congress can hurt us. It is clear so many in the media support this health care initiative - accompanied by the assertion there are no concerns with the legislation. There are legitimate concerns, and they won't be given a chance in a left-leaning news media.

Please write your Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote against the current health care legislation. If they vote for it, you'll know not to vote for them during the next election cycle.

Two stories worthy of note:

• AIG Bonuses Renew Call for Congress to Read Bills


• Rep. Conyers: Why Bother to Read the Health Care Bill? (Video)

Many Americans are aptly frustrated with their representative government, and for many reasons. The largest spending bill in United States history was passed in early 2009 with few members of Congress reading it. Presently we have massive health care legislation before Congress, and it appears this will be no different. It seems fairly non-partisan to ask: how can Congress do its job responsibly if its members won't read the bills?

If one knew only what was reported in main stream news stories one is likely to think anyone who opposes the health care bill is extremist and racist. But in reading for oneself the bills before Congress a different opinion may arise. Aside from the legislation itself, the game of politics is known around the world to be one of deception and corruption. While Republicans and critics of all political stripes are accused of lying and exaggerating elements of the health care legislation, it appears there is legitimate concern over the unwritten results of a government takeover of American health care:

• Barney Frank: Yes, a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care

The status quo of the day in Washington is to write massive legislation, rush it through Congress, and with selective attention to detail by Congress and journalists alike. The politics of personal destruction is used to attack those who disapprove of the government health care initiative coupled with lying and misrepresentations of the legislation, which is exactly what the critics of that legislation are accused of doing. And it turns out those critics actually do have good reason to oppose the legislation.

• It's Not An Option by Investors Business Daily


• 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform by Shawn Tully


• Shock: Inside the Healthcare Bill by Robert Wenzel


• Undue Influence by Charles Lane


• Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare by Chuck Norris


• The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says by John David Lewis

Returning to the issue of Congress' unwillingness to read its own legislation, we the people have seen too many examples of Congress willing to spend other people's money with little regard for accountability while selectively using the argument of accountability to attack their political opponents when expedient. We heard many complaints about deficit spending during George W. Bush's presidency and now a bill encompassing $1 trillion in borrowed money meets with little resistance from those same critics. Unruly and manufactured protests were common and lauded during the Bush years (with much insistence such protests were genuine) and yet today any dissent from the Obama administration is treated with contempt and accusations of being politically manufactured, not merely by leftist journalists but also by members our government. Serious problems are found in the health care legislation currently before the Congress and have been exposed, yet are largely ignored by its supporters. And now we hear dissent from the government is un-American.

In light of these grievances we the people of the United States therefore propose this amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. If Congress is going to act like spoiled children they should be treated as such.

Amendment XXVIII: amending Article 1, creating Section 11

1. All final legislation, before the final vote, must be read aloud in its entirety in the main chamber to the House of Representatives on the same day of the vote; and likewise for the Senate. The reading shall be performed in person by the Speaker of the House to the House of Representatives, and by the Senate President Pro Tempore to the Senate.

2. The place, date and time of the legislation reading shall be publicly announced no earlier than 7 days before the day of the vote and shall not be changed once announced nor shall it commence before the appointed time. Any member of Congress not physically present in the main chamber during the entirety of the reading shall not vote on said legislation.

The battle lines over states' rights are beginning to form. Citing the 10th Amendment (yes, the actually-part-of-the-constitution kind of 10th Amendment) states' rights advocates, including not just governors and state legislators, assert the federal government has pushed too far beyond its constitutional limits. This argument asserts the continued federal overgrowth over decades past has led the United States government to boundlessly trump the rights of the states and the people. It is rather easy to reach this conclusion based on the actual text of the 10th Amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What is apparently a "right wing" interpretation of this amendment is that the federal government cannot act where it is not specifically given power to act, and that power is defined in the main body of the constitution; everything else is off limits. This is the fundamental tenet of Federalism.

On the other side of the battle is a massive effort to grow the federal government even further. Federalism was set up to protect the people against tyranny. The effort to grow federal control is therefore, wittingly or not, an effort to strengthen that tyranny. And it is bolstered by journalists not at all concerned about their own pretense of integrity and impartiality.

Evidently, we've forgotten what federalism is, and what it means to be a state. On July 31, 2009 CNN aired a report on this 10th Amendment movement. In this report, with anchors John Roberts and Carol Costello, we are given an excellent example as to the problems of the anti-states' rights argument.

Most of us like to think of ourselves as normal. This includes our beliefs. CNN's staff and crew are no different from the rest of us in this regard. And so when CNN asked for viewer response to a story it seems only natural that their predominantly left wing audience responds accordingly - and that CNN anchors would consider this response as "most people".

ROBERTS: Now, you would think- because states’ rights advocates are so strong in their opinions that the opinions- we’ve been asking for comments, right? Therefore, you would think that most people would be in favor of states’ rights, but it’s running, to a large degree, the opposite way.

COSTELLO: Oh, yeah. But my favorite comment so far- you know, ‘asking for states’ rights is asking, you know, the children to be the parents.’

ROBERTS: Right.

COSTELLO: It’s comparable to that.

ROBERTS: Somebody else wrote in and said, “We’re the United States, not the divided states.’

We have here selected statements from members of CNN's predominantly left wing audience affirming their ignorance of federalism and statehood. And, of course these journalists can claim "we didn't say it" as if that were relevant, particularly with Costello's own admission that she liked a particular sentiment.

So what's the problem here? Federalism, after all, is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and central (state) governments, creating what is often called a federation. The European Union might be an example of this. Each member of the European Union is its own sovereign country, but it should be no surprise that even this national distinction is quickly eroding. I expect to see within my own lifetime the notion that France or Germany or the U.K. or any member nation in the EU should be allowed to make their own laws independent of the EU treated as an absurdity. That's the problem with Socialism, state and individual rights are usurped by a national government.

And that is precisely what has happened in the United States. Through decades of being taught too little about American history and civic duty American society has been cultivated to think the Federal government is supreme over the states in all matters, and that the states are merely provincial denominations of that national government. Now advocates of states' rights are largely portrayed as right wing kooks by both Congressional Democrats and by left wing journalists.

But what about the "Supremacy Clause" you say? It's clear that when a state law conflicts with a federal law, the latter is the "supreme law of the land" as stated in Article VI of the constitution. This is in the context of a federal law being legal in its own right. No where in the constitution do we see authority for the federal government to impose itself in areas not explicitly granted it (a limitation imposed by the 10th Amendment), such as acts of benevolence, education, retirement and certainly not health care. Today Congress acts as if there are no bounds to the areas which it can legislate. A limitless government is precisely what our founding fathers wanted to avoid.

At its inception the United States of America was a small federal government designed to handle several specific tasks, such as interstate commerce and treaties with foreign governments. The individual states were to be otherwise regarded as independent and sovereign countries, on the same level as England, Russia, or any other nation. New Yorkers would have thought of themselves as citizens of the nation of New York. Federalism, as written in the Constitution by America's founders, did not establish a parent/child relationship between the federal government and the state governments. It separated powers along distinct lines: the federal government could do some things and yet was explicitly denied authority to do other things. The federal government does not have authority to do anything or what ever it deems as the "general welfare".

But it should not be assumed historical and civic ignorance are the real problem here, though they contribute a great deal to it. As seen in the comments given to us in the CNN news story mentioned above, and in the brief commentary offered by the anchors, those opposed to states' rights often just don't care about the reality of the situation. They want a centralized national government to be in control. Federalism no longer means powers separated between the states and the national government, now it means a parent/child relationship between the two, with the national level government treated as the parent.

Indeed, The 10th Amendment was great idea, but there is An Impending Showdown between the federal government and the states.

Let us not presume our individual liberty is uninvolved in this conflict. After all, individual liberty was the whole point of the constitution. Does our freedom have a place in a Socialist society?

A battle is brewing. A majority of the states have passed symbolic resolutions reclaiming their sovereignty from the federal government. The reason they have done this is because many Americans, including many state legislators, feel the federal government has overstepped its proper, limited role.

The health care initiative currently in Congress is merely the latest example. With the debate on health care reform we see an obvious Socialist agenda at work, accompanied by numerous and incredible denials that it is Socialism. And so, with a federal agenda at work to nationalize many aspects of American life (health care on the way, but we already have nationalized banks, an automaker, education and retirement) on the one hand, and states beginning to fight for their constitutional rights to run their own affairs as they see fit (as is stated in the 10th Amendment) on the other hand, we the have makings of a fight.

Though I support the states in this battle, I fear I have chosen the losing side. You see, at issue here is the fact that the federal government is going beyond its constitutional authority. This very fact is what caused this new revolution in the first place, and yet there is a popular assumption that by simply asserting their constitutional right to govern themselves the states can take back the authority usurped by the federal government. But with the Fed already ignoring the 10th Amendment, thereby establishing a long tradition of ignoring states rights, I have to wonder why would the federal government start recognizing its constitutional boundaries now?

Even now, with the growing movement to reclaim state sovereignty, the U.S. Congress and President Obama are still pushing hard to nationalize America's health care as if there were no reason to reconsider or even to slow down what they are doing. So far, the constitutionally sound new revolution is proving ineffective. The Fed is still ignoring the fact it is ignoring the 10th Amendment.

A showdown is imminent. States are increasingly insistent the 10th Amendment should be respected. The Socialist movement dominating our federal government leads it to interpret the "general welfare" clause in as broad a way as possible; this time, rather than ignoring constitutional language, it is a phrase of the constitution taken literally, ignoring the numerous clarifications written by our founders.

* James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

* In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

* "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

What we have here is a modern tradition in the federal government of ignoring original understandings of and original language in the constitution. This is done not by accident, but for the purpose of achieving particular agendas. In this climate, with blatant disregard for the constitution, why would the federal government allow the states to reclaim their sovereignty?

The tools of semantic acrobatics and historical ignorance have played a major role in creating the current attitude among so many politicians elected to federal office. This government-dependent mindset permeates our culture as well, and so Socialist sentiments from the people fuel Socialist agendas in Washington. The fact this federal takeover has lasted and grown more bold over several generations speaks to the high degree of damage already done to our republic and to the American appreciation of federalism.

Even now we have evidence indicating what the federal reaction will be to the new revolution: branding anyone who disagrees with the Socialist agenda as extremist.

At Politico.com, in Town halls gone wild Alex Isenstadt evidently takes sides in the growing controversy. In this article, Isenstadt is sure to let us know protesters to this Socialist agenda are angry. He even interviews several Democrats to let us know how afraid they are for their safety.

Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety — welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.

On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control.

You see, letting the government go wild is perfectly okay, because it's largely done with civility (for now). But the protesters are showing their anger and appear rude, and that's just not acceptable to the elitist. The fact that federal politicians are acting unconstitutionally and depriving the states and the people of their constitutional freedoms by taking over aspects of American life it should never be involved with are immaterial. Showing anger is interpreted as being extremist, and therefore dangerous. And what is the career politician to do with this?

“I had felt they would be pointless,” Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district. “There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.”

And Rep. Bishop isn't the only one who feels this way:

Bishop isn’t the only one confronted by boiling anger and rising incivility. At a health care town hall event in Syracuse, N.Y., earlier this month, police were called in to restore order, and at least one heckler was taken away by local police. Close to 100 sign-carrying protesters greeted Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) at a late June community college small-business development forum in Panama City, Fla. Last week, Danville, Va., anti-tax tea party activists claimed they were “refused an opportunity” to ask Rep. Thomas Perriello (D-Va.) a question at a town hall event and instructed by a plainclothes police officer to leave the property after they attempted to hold up protest signs.

The elitist reaction to this genuine and sincere dissent is to ignore it, because they deem it "unruly". It apparently doesn't occur to these Democrats that they are doing something inappropriate in supporting federal overgrowth.

Democrats, acknowledging the increasing unruliness of the town-hall-style events, say the hot-button issues they are taking on have a lot to do with it.

Ah yes, it's the "hot-button issues" that cause this outrage, not the fact that government has grown beyond it's constitutional limits. At least these politicians acknowledge the problem is not that people disagree, it's that people are angry, but they have to change their attitude about it before discourse can continue.

Bishop continues in his self delusion that growing government and diminishing individual freedom are not the cause of the protests:

“I think in general what is going on is we are tackling issues that have been ignored for a long time, and I think that is disruptive to a lot of people,” said Bishop, a four-term congressman. “We are trying, one by one, to deal with a set of issues that can’t be ignored, and I think that’s unsettling to a lot of people.”

Thankfully there are some reasonable reactions in Washington to these protests. I don't know if they are any less self delusional, but at least these Democrats are willing to listen to their upset constituents. Isenstadt continues:

“Town halls are a favorite part of my job,” said Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), a third-term congressman from St. Louis who noted that a “handful” of disruptions had taken place at his meetings. “It’s what I do. It’s what I will continue to do.”

“People have gotten fired up and all that, but I think that’s what makes town halls fun,” said Perriello, a freshman who is among the most vulnerable Democrats in 2010. “I think that most of the time when we get out there, it’s a good chance for people to vent and offer their thoughts. It’s been good.”

“I enjoy it, and people have a chance to speak their mind,” he said.

I'm glad to see there is no monolithic government reaction in this case. There is more than a simple party-line divide, even on the Democrat side there are reasonable politicians and elitists. But which group rules in Congress?

I think many people believe the reasonable politicians outnumber the elitists. If they are right, most politicians will acknowledge the fact their jobs depend on the approval of their constituents. But the elites have figured out they can bribe many of their constituents with promises of government hand outs, which makes it easier for them to bully the dissenters into silence (such as by treating dissent, angry or not, as extremist).

Political precedent shows us the louder voice tends to win. In the recent past the Socialist agenda has won a great deal of political ground and still has tremendous momentum. With the political game played as it is I fear the American people will suffer much more damage and lose far more freedom before any real progress is made to push back against federal overgrowth. By then will it be too late?

I think the political game will continue to drag this country to the left as long as the political rules remain unchanged. No amount of symbolic gestures and resolutions will accomplish any real goal. And the further left we go, the fewer rights the people and the states will retain. It's time to fight for real change, something that proved its immeasurable value for more than a century: allowing the states to have representation in Congress. If you want to restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th Amendment.

Should a people blindly trust their government? I worry that as long as Democrats control the Congress and the Presidency the answer is yes. Apparently even disagreeing with Democrats is considered unpatriotic:

• Waxman: GOP ‘rooting against’ USA


• CNN’s Begala: Tea Party Goers ‘Wimpy, Whiny, Weasels Who Don’t Love Their Country’


• Obnoxious CNN Reporter Susan Roesgen: Bush Fascist-- OK... Obama Fascist-- "Offensive!" (Video)

Despite all logic, the many calls and efforts for the federal government to take over as much of the private sector as possible seem to be met with little resistance. Thankfully there is growing conservative resistance to federal takeover, a takeover which many Americans would call a Marxist or Socialist movement. This resistance includes grassroots Republicans, Democrats and others alike, all in the name of the Tenth Amendment. This "second revolution" as some call it has spread even to state legislatures and governors, evidenced by their publicly reclaiming the constitutionally recognized sovereignty of their states, also citing the 10th Amendment to the constitution.

But one problem with this common sense revolution is that all the calls for change and returning the government to its people are largely symbolic. Even the fairly recent sovereignty resolutions of 36 states had no legal power. The rules of the political game are unchanged. The Tenth Amendment is actually part of our constitution, yet has been ignored for decades. And why shouldn't it be ignored, what incentive have our elected representatives to honor it? If an entire amendment to that venerable document can be utterly disregarded and done so with the blessing of tens of millions of voters who want the government to take care of them, how are we to trust any future claims by those representatives that they will turn away from an obviously politically lucrative status quo?

In the modern American tradition we should expect calls for new legislation to compel the Congress to recognize and honor the 10th Amendment for each new law they make. That is, after all, the result of this leftist training we have endured for so long: let the government regulate the problem away - though rarely does such a thing ever actually happen. But a problem arises here - why should a law be required to force Congress to do what the constitution already says? They have ignored it for so long, and we the people (and the states) have allowed Congress to ignore that amendment for so long what possible reason is there to believe anything will change with a wave of public pressure, which is no doubt sincere but likely temporary?

Let me propose an alternate approach. Rather than find new laws to accomplish the desired goal, why not repeal some? Or better yet, start with only one.

The men who invented the United States were well aware of the slow, creeping tyranny of government. They knew that without a balance between the people, their representatives, and federal power capable of doing what ever the representatives wanted, despite any input from the people, federal power would usurp anything it could.

James Madison, widely considered the author of Federalist No. 63, describes exactly why the Senate was necessary. In this paper the writer does not discuss only the importance of a bicameral Congress, with the powers of making law divided into two separate houses. Here, Madison also describes the vital importance of tempering the passions of the people, who can be lied to and tricked into supporting legislation they themselves would later regret. Madison says:

Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?

I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other. But after allowing due weight to this consideration, it may still be maintained, that there are many points of similitude which render these examples not unworthy of our attention. Many of the defects, as we have seen, which can only be supplied by a senatorial institution, are common to a numerous assembly frequently elected by the people, and to the people themselves. There are others peculiar to the former, which require the control of such an institution. The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act.

And here, after indicating ancient governments knew well the importance of representative government rather than direct democracy, Madison warns that the failures of the ancient representative governments were linked to the fact that the very officers elected to represent the people in government transcended their representing roles, and essentially cut off connections with the people in order to form an aristocracy for themselves.

From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER.

How true: that the governed "may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people" and that allowing a governing body comprising elected representatives could easily devolve into "the total exclusion of the people". Madison was warning Americans about the dangers of career politicians. What Madison is talking about here is the necessity of having a Senate comprising two members of each state, chosen by the legislatures there of. Originally, in the American Constitution, the Senate was accountable to the states, not to the people, as was the House of Representatives. And being accountable to the states made the Senate less susceptible to the whims of fickle and flamboyant popular movements, because the Senate's constituents were their states' legislators. But with the ratification of the 17th Amendment this changed: now the Senate would be just as dependent on placating and pandering to the people as was the House, until they could assume so much authority they could pretend any disagreement between Senators and a citizen automatically meant the citizen "didn't understand" the situation.

The benefits of having a cool headed Senate ready to slow down the heat of public sentiment and allow reason to dominate any given situation has long been lost. With the 1913 amendment in place the states lost their representation in the federal government. Now any special interest, any lobbyist or popular and temporary wave of fury could influence both houses of Congress equally. And when so many people want the government to take control of an issue there is now no one left to protect the states' rights against federal usurpation. Today we are seeing the results of this tragedy. A federal government which took control of public education and forced us into Social Security has now taken over banking and largely the automotive industry. And taking over our health care is just around the corner.

As big a deal as it is to ignore the 10th Amendment, sadly this is a symptom of a much larger problem. Until the balance of power is restored by repealing the 17th Amendment I fear there will be no stopping the effort to turn the United States into a socialist nation in which we all have so many rights and entitlements that we the people can no longer do anything. In the American government, the ratification of the 17th Amendment spelled the death of the 10th Amendment. Before 1913 Senators responsible to their respective states respected and protected the 10th Amendment, and all the implications that go with it. Without this dynamic of the balance of power federalism is doomed, as is the freedom of the people.

Let's face it, presently there is no effective difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. The end results of their agendas are essentially the same: moving the United States toward Marxism. The pace at which this tragedy occurs is of little relevance.

Since the 2006 elections, when Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress, it has been widely said the conservative movement is dead. This concept was bolstered with the 2008 elections, with Democrats again picking up more seats in the House and Senate, not to mention the Presidency. For a matter of months after that there were many suggestions the losses suffered by the Republican Party proved it should abandon its conservative base. There were also statements such as "The Reagan era is over." Thankfully, the left wing narrative does not establish the reality of the situation.

Conservatives have been analyzing and investigating the past two elections as well. Right wing understanding of Republican losses is strikingly different from the left wing calls for Republicans to essentially remake themselves in the image of Democrats. Conservative think tanks, pundits, commentators and the like seem to have reached a consensus on the fact that the nature of the Republican Party is in flux, but there are many theories as to what this actually means.

Other than calls to liberalize the Party there is also a movement urging conservatives to abandon the Republican Party for something more true to conservative values. In IS 2008 THE YEAR CONSERVATIVES ABANDON THE GOP? Pastor Chuck Baldwin encourages conservatives to vote for a third political party during major elections, such as the Constitution Party. I personally know people who decided to abstain from voting in the 2008 elections altogether. The fear of the ultra left Barack Obama (often touted as a "moderate" and even "conservative" by left wing pundits so far in left field they can no longer find any extremists to the left of themselves) helped push some of those conservatives to reluctantly vote for Senator John McCain.

Despite the many calls to move left or to abandon the party there is another option. A very popular assumption is that the Republican Party has reached the point of no return: either it must move left to survive, or it will never return to its conservative roots and therefore must be allowed to die. But I believe a third option is more likely to provide the competition needed to defeat Democrats at the polls in future elections.

I do not (yet) accept the presumption the Republican Party cannot be rescued. Another well received theory (mainly by grassroots conservatives) is that the 2006 and 2008 elections did not signal the end of conservatism. In fact, the vast majority of Republicans who lost those elections were not conservative, but "moderate" or "progressive" Republicans. To some of us this phenomenon suggests the Republican losses were a signal that grassroots conservatives desired true conservative candidates, and given the choice between a liberal Democrat and a left leaning Republican, liberals and moderates chose the genuine liberal. Grassroots conservatives had few inspiring candidates, so the Republican base was out performed at the polls.

That's why John McCain actually had a fighting chance during the 2008 presidential race. Not because he inspired the American people, but because Sarah Palin did. Never have I seen such vitriol and hate speech spewed from the left and even the main stream news media as I have seen dumped on Palin. Sara Palin's inspiring life story, of a middle America woman moving up through the political ranks and achieving the governorship of Alaska, was relentlessly ridiculed and mocked. Even today, before and after her announcement to resign as governor, Palin is still viciously attacked as if she were still running for a national level political office.

And what merited this widespread hate speech directed at Palin? She spoke of family values, defending our country and returning the role of the federal government to a more limited capacity as was intended by the men who invented the United States. This is the "extremist" philosophy the self proclaimed sophisticates found so repugnant. Even months after the election, before her announcement to resign from office, in her largely invisible political state of governing Alaska left wing commentators and journalists still attacked Sarah Palin as if she were an enemy of the state.

In a way, she was and is. Palin opposes a statist mentality, where all problems are deemed the responsibility of government to fix. The notion that the government's responsibility is to take care of the people is largely the vehicle by which government has robbed the people of so many freedoms enjoyed by previous generations of Americans. Palin respects the 10th Amendment to our constitution, which declares the federal government can do only what is explicitly spelled out for it to do, which does not include retirement, education and certainly not health care.

I don't like the way our government has handled Social Security or public eduction, and I certainly don't want to let that government take control of health care. I would be very excited to see a Republican candidate in the 2010 and 2012 elections espousing these beliefs. Please notice I have only mentioned a few big picture concerns. I'm not demanding specific, small issues be addressed. I believe a government adequately restricted in its power will cause fewer problems for its people and allow the rest of us greater opportunity to help ourselves and our neighbors.

Many Americans agree with me that a properly limited government is vital to the survival of individual liberty, and that the current state of affairs in America suffers an oppressive and heavy hand of a federal government that has stepped far beyond its proper limited role.

Another major, big picture, issue which needs mentioning is the right to life. A friend of mine told me he would have easily voted for John McCain in the 2008 election, despite other objections, if McCain had a less ambiguous pro-life record. This is a friend who had decided to abstain from voting that year, but was inspired to vote in the presidential race simply by listening to the promises of Barack Obama. My friend had no candidate he wanted to vote for, but the Marxian ideas promoted by then Senator Obama motivated him to vote against the Democrat agenda, something which could have been accomplished much quicker had McCain's pro-life record been better (unfortunately, he voted for a third party candidate). Constitutional protection is afforded to terrorists captured on the battle field, but not to unborn children. I would like to see the 14th Amendment expanded (particularly the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") to also apply to children in the womb.

I will mention only a third big picture issue here. The last is the fact that government's proper role of protecting its people is being severely neglected. Instead of taking the war against terrorists seriously, and instead of adequately guarding our borders, our government is playing politically correct games with domestic terrorism, treating right wing groups as dangerous. This is how propaganda and political pandering become public policy. One group turns their political opponents into public enemies. And this occurs under the auspices of protecting the people from threats to their safety. Currently many Americans worry the real terrorist threat is being neglected with this left wing politrick at play.

As long as the federal government offers a social safety net the issue of illegal immigrants benefiting from that safety net will be concerning to many Americans. What's worse, our borders are so under guarded and immigration laws so pitifully enforced that many of us wonder what is there, if anything, to stop Islamo-facist terrorists from continually infiltrating our country.

To summarize, my basics list for an adequate political candidate are:
* support limited government
* be anti-abortion
* be serious about protecting us from foreign invasion and/or attack

With these three requirements met I've no doubt a political candidate would steer the country back in the direction of respecting and protecting the freedom of the people. But why would a politician of this political flavor have any significant influence? Because “Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group, according to a June 15 Gallup poll. So how do we turn the reality of this poll into reality in government? One theory has already been achieved, which occurred at the polls in the most recent two elections: getting rid of lukewarm Republicans. This frees up room for genuinely conservative candidates.

I have another idea that I think will help. The stated goal of this idea is not itself the mission. The process of accomplishing the goal is the mission. Who but genuinely conservative politicians would commit to my three requirements? With the details of many issues come varying opinions and disagreement. I'm confident my short list of general qualifications will meet little objection from main stream conservatives. If I'm right, political candidates proudly professing these sentiments will have a much better chance of winning elections than their opponents. And if my idea is actually accomplished we will restore a vital element of what was so brilliant in the founding of our nation.

But one lesson politicians seem incapable of learning is that rhetoric doesn't win hearts or minds for the long term. It may sway people for a short while, but eventually empty promises turn people off entirely. That friend I mention earlier also holds this opinion:

It would take quite a bit for the GOP to win my trust again. Much more than campaign promises or verbally taking a certain position on certain issues. Talk is cheap in politics. It will take political action, not words, for me to support a GOP candidate again.

My idea is for exactly such action. Click the link below to read about it. All the political promises in the world are worthless if you can't stop the nation's foundation from being eroded.

The 17th Amendment and the Balance of Federal Power

Abortion is said to be a women's issue. We hear a lot about a "woman's right to choose" or that the issue is about a woman's right to "control her own body". That line of thinking leads to a natural conclusion that abortion is a "women's rights" issue. And so men who disapprove of abortion are typically told they have no moral authority to speak out against it. An implication here is that "reproductive rights" are exclusively the domain of females. An ironic turn of events has a men's rights group challenging this one-sided right, using the argument of equal protection under the law (see Roe v. Wade for Men). But there is another demographic who's rights are also being neglected: the unborn babies who lose their lives.

One hundred percent of successful abortions result in the death of one or more children. In China, where abortion is often required as a matter of law (no freedom to choose) females suffer discrimination, as the culture lends a gender bias in favor of boys regarding the one child only policy in that country. Efforts are being made to change public attitudes about the preference for boys in a climate where abortion and sterilization are sometimes forced upon women. But the curious thing about compelled abortion in China is that public policy efforts to change the gender imbalance ignore the fact that the one child only policy violates a premise considered sacrosanct to Americans: a woman's right to choose.

In America we typically use this sort of language regarding abortion. We also use terms like reproductive rights, women's health, and more. In our culture a man's reproductive rights are simply ignored, as though such rights didn't exist. We will have to wait and see if the Roe v. Wade for Men agenda succeeds in changing this legal reality. But what is lost in all the debate about women's rights or reproductive rights is the fact that the people who are being killed by the exercise of these rights are babies. Millions of them. In the United States alone approximately 1 million babies die each year as a result of abortion.

So the question I ask is, why is killing babies a women's rights issue? In China the concern about gender discrimination shows clearly that abortion is supposed to apply to male and female fetuses equally. So if boys and girls are both the victims of abortion, doesn't that make this a babies' rights issue?

Here is a bumper sticker available to the public.

Since the recent murder of abortionist George Tiller there has been a lot of buzz on the internet about supposed inconsistency among the "pro-life" movement. I put "pro-life" in quotes since most of this buzz is centered on the term Pro-Life.

I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to the rabid abortion advocates but I'm at a sort of impasse. Do I presume they do not know how language works, especially in the context of a politically charged issue? Or do I presume they are willfully ignorant, and possibly just not intellectually honest?

The contention seems to be over the fact that "pro-life" is not an entirely accurate term. But there is almost no criticism of the term "pro-choice" which is equally inaccurate. Neither of these terms are absolute, and they're not meant to be. They are monikers, political labels.

Abortion supporters tend to argue that to be truly "pro-life" one should be anti-war and anti-capital punishment. If the term were meant to be absolute this assessment would be legitimate. However, it is equally legitimate to argue that to be truly "pro-choice" one must support school vouchers and be an anarchist.

What is the meaning of "pro-choice"? If the term is absolute it should mean favoring one's right to make one's own decisions, in ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. That is the standard to which pro-abortion radicals are holding the term "pro-life". Laws and regulations, by their very nature, limit people's freedom to make their own choices. So if it is hypocritical for a pro-lifer to acknowledge war is sometimes necessary then it is equally hypocritical of a pro-choicer to support the existence government. If it is inconsistent for a pro-lifer to support capital punishment it is equally inconsistent of a pro-choicer to oppose school choice. After all, it is strange to support a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child, but to oppose letting that same woman choose which school to send that child should she choose to let it live.

Instead of acknowledging both of these political terms are labels, intended to be used only on the context of the abortion issue, so many extremist abortion supports take offense at only the term "pro-life". Their selective hostile attention to that label and the refusal to recognize the reality of how both terms are used is intellectually dishonest, at best.

Claiming to be "pro-abortion" doesn't sound as good as claiming to be "pro-choice". This is a marketing tactic, which is manipulative, but apparently has been ingrained in the abortion lexicon. The anti-abortion reaction to this marketing ploy was to use the same trick, hence the term "pro-life" was coined. But the pro-abortion horde won't allow their opponents to employ their same tricks. That's why we frequently see the term "anti-choice" used by the pro-abortion mob. Can you imagine if the pro-life movement started using the term "baby killers" as synonymous with "pro-choice"? That semantics trick would generate phenomenal outrage among abortion supporters. And so the term "anti-choice" should do the same for abortion opponents.

If the baby killer movement can use semantic games with no scrutiny of its own rhetoric it should allow everyone else the same courtesy.

The book Notice A Pattern? explains the problem of abortion without using cheap rhetoric, as is ostensibly one of the favorite tools of the pro-abortion movement. This book is an essay addressing the reality of the situation, in historical context and with recommendations as to what can be done about it. No where in the pro-life movement do we find advocates of violence or murder. There are isolated cases, such as with Dr. Tiller's murder, that we find someone outside the mainstream of the pro-life movement who acts alone in committing crimes. But then, we don't see much effort among abortion supports to distinguish between these isolated cases and the pro-life movement. It's not as if we were trying to distinguish between Islam and a bunch of radicals who hijacked that religion.

It seems there are really only two qualifications required to be a Supreme Court justice for the current Democrat administration: a left-leaning agenda and being sufficiently minority. That's the impression given by some recent news stories on the SCOTUS nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

• Historic nomination: Hispanic Sotomayor as justice
• How -- and why -- Barack Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

President Obama has made a big deal out of Sotomayor's genuinely inspiring life story. Granted, he has the difficult challenge of getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed by a sympathetic Congress with the distant microscope of a sympathetic press, both of which are quite taken with the gender and race aspects of this particular nomination. Okay, so that's not such a challenge after all. But getting this nomination approved by Congress before anything seriously inconvenient is divulged will be a challenge.

There's nothing wrong with the president nominating an idealogue who supports his own bias and world view, that's what any president does. However, Sotomayor is being treated not as an ideologue, but rather as an idealist. And there's the rub; an entirely different treatment by both Congress and the news media (the very people who decry partisanship, and laud bi-partisanship) from other recent federal court nominees. You may not remember how President Bush's judicial nominees were treated by Congressional and journalistic Democrats, so here's a brief reminder:

• Flashback: Nets Were Quick to Tag Alito and Roberts as 'Ultra' and 'Hardline' 'Conservatives'
• In 2003, Miguel Estrada Was Dismissed As Bush 'Affirmative Action Candidate'
• The Democratic Party: Reject Samuel Alito
• A Spectre is Haunting the Constitution: Alito
• The Supreme Court's Wrong Turn -- And How to Fix It
• Alito the Extremist, Ginsburg the Moderate?
• Lauer Gives Extremist Tag to Alito: "He Is an Ultra-Conservative"
• Alito seen as extremist threat to mainstream rights

John Roberts and Samuel Alito in particular were ridiculed and excoriated by Congressional Democrats and main stream journalists, with plenty of slander and misrepresentation to boot. And what sort of criticisms do journalists have for Sotomayor? Charlie Savage makes a fair effort to explain potential problems one could have with her in his NYT piece A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record. In this piece several statements of Sotomayor are presented. Since conservatives are commonly subjected to an "I know bigotry when I see it" decoder-ring attitude from leftists it seems only fair to acknowledge, as Savage does here, that Sotomayor's statements seem to satisfy Barack Obama's imperative of a judge's "empathy" for ruling from the bench.

• Obama’s “Empathy” Standard
• Obama Supreme Court Candidate Sonia Sotomayor—Part 2

But it appears there is a concerted effort, at least in the general news media and left leaning political circles, to avoid taking a closer look at Sotomayor's record. For example, the May 27, 2009 AP story Push to confirm first Hispanic to Supreme Court makes no effort to detail any potential difficulty with the nomination other than a token quote of unspecified "serious problems" from a Republican Senator. Likewise, NPR's Nita Totenberg spends the vast majority of two news stories on the magnificence of the entire situation, with numerous statements from Sotomayor supporters. There is only one statement included in each story of any possible criticism. (As a side note, suddenly the fact that no one has read all of Sotomayor's legal decisions is presented as pertinent, where as this same lack of preparedness was widely treated as irrelevant regarding the largest spending bill in American history earlier this year). Totenberg tries to portray Sotomayor as a moderate while informing us Republicans will try to portray her as extremist or activist, with the suggestion it is only a few fringe right wingers who would ever think such a thing.

• Obama Picks Sotomayor For High Court
• Obama Picks Hispanic Woman For Supreme Court

Totenberg and President Obama do actually address one specific legal decision of Sotomayor. Others have recently addressed that case in other places as, so far, the only specific instance of her vast and riveting experience the American people seem to be aware of:

• Looking Back At Sotomayor's 1995 Baseball Ruling
• On a Supreme Court Prospect’s Résumé: ‘Baseball Savior’

The lack of any substantial information about this nominee should be concerning. No where in the left wing media, and certainly no where in Congress, are we getting real information other than the heart warming story of Sotomayor's difficult life and her inspiring ascendence to a high federal court.

The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen did some work of truly investigating concerns over Sotomayor. On May 4, 2009 Rosen's The Case Against Sotomayor (a title Rosen regrets) brings us some valid points about temperament and such, though from a sympathetic point of view. There are legitimate questions as to her ability to work well with others and her intellectual competence for the job on the SCOTUS.

Regarding the ostensible unwillingness to challenge President Obama's nomination Alan Dershowitz explains quite well that Congress is the body of representation, and that "diversity" (liberal code for "you are a bigot if you disagree with me") should not be a deciding factor when nominating someone for a seat on the nation's highest court: Diversity on the High Court. Randall Kennedy reminds us a compelling personal story was irrelevant to leftists when Clarance Thomas or Sarah Palin were the political hot topics of the day: Sotomayor’s Biography Should Be Irrelevant.

President Obama and the Democratic Party seem to be operating on the idea that Sotomayor's race, gender, and years of judicial experience are the only relevant factors here. There is no apparent interest in the quality of that experience, or worse - a  left leaning agenda allegedly behind that experience is treated as validation. The fact that the Supreme Court has had to overturn as much as 60% of Sotomayor's decisions which reached them is entirely ignored. The biggest concern conservatives have about Sotomayor is her seeming willingness to disregard the Constitution altogether if she feels it interferes with her sentiments. Evidently alternative news media will have to bring this information to light.

Two such cases can be found already. Before Obama made his SCOTUS pick there were a few contenders. Ilya Shapiro wrote about that May first, for the Cato Institute. In Who Will Replace Justice Souter? Shaprio brings up "Ricci v. DeStefano ... an appeal of a bizarre opinion Sotomayor joined that denied the claims of firefighters who had been passed over for promotion because of their race." Richard Epstein with Forbes.com wrote on May 26 in The Sotomayor Nomination about the infamous Kelo v. New London case. Epstein says this:

Here is one straw in the wind that does not bode well for a Sotomayor appointment. Justice Stevens of the current court came in for a fair share of criticism (all justified in my view) for his expansive reading in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) of the "public use language." Of course, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is as complex as it is short: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But he was surely done one better in the Summary Order in Didden v. Village of Port Chester issued by the Second Circuit in 2006. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion--one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

In the mean time, let's see if Sotomayor is treated like this during her confirmation hearings.

McClatchy Newspapers published a story May 21, 2009 by Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel titled Cheney's speech ignored some inconvenient truths. The best part about the story is that Landay and Strobel also ignored some inconvenient truths.

These reporters begin with Mr. Cheney's statements about enhanced interrogation techniques and how they "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people." But letting this statement go unchallenged would make the Bush administration look good, and we can't have that. The former vice president was referencing Adm. Dennis Blair, who did in fact state the information gained by such techniques "was valuable in some instance." But, for some reason, "in some instance" doesn't get any credit from Landay and Strobel, who try to portray that value as irrelevant.

We are reminded with a further statement from Adm. Blair that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means." This is true for Cheney, but apparently not for Landay and Strobel. Somehow they know Mr. Cheney's statement was an exaggeration and they want you to know it, too. However, even cursory attention to current events shows us Landay and Strobel's assessment can also be described as containing omissions and exaggerations.

Take, for instance, these two recent news stories on suicide attacks: 3 US soldiers, dozens of Iraqis killed by bombings, 3 U.S. Troops, 23 Iraqis Killed in Bomb Attacks. From these stories we see almost 100 people were killed in just two attacks. Notice, also, these attacks are both from Iraq. Let me repeat that: in just two attacks, in one country almost 100 people were killed by terrorists. Or how about this story: April brings highest Iraq death toll in seven months, which reports 355 people were killed just in Iraq, and just in the month of April, 2009. Three recent news stories indicating well over 400 people killed by terrorists. When you consider the innumerable news stories telling us about Iraqi civilian deaths it's not hard to imagine stopping only one such attack could easily save dozens of lives, and stopping dozens of attacks could quite easily save thousands of lives. Iraqbodycount.org shows possibly as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have been killed since the 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq (remember during the 2004 election season John Kerry relentlessly and falsely claiming the U.S. unilaterally invaded Iraq? Do you remember any main stream news stories catching him in that lie?).

Now imagine the two stories above from May showing nearly 100 people killed were never written. Imagine those attacks were prevented because of harsh interrogations of captured terrorists. That is almost 100 lives that would have been saved. How in the world would anyone be able to prove how many lives were saved by stopping these two attacks? Had those attacks been thwarted and Dick Cheney publicly claimed dozens of lives were saved by stopping those attacks he would predictably be accused of exaggerating the victory and making misstatements. Rather than acknowledge the good that resulted from "enhanced interrogation techniques" we would be reminded instead that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means." However, the flip side of this fact is that there could have been no relevant information what so ever acquired through other means. "There is no way of knowing" means "there is no way of knowing." But Landay and Strobel portray this fact as though Dick Cheney's assessment is somehow less reliable than theirs, as if they actually knew that.

Landay and Strobel include one more statement from Adm. Blair: "The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." It's sad that when approximately 100,000 civilians have been killed by terrorist acts (or government abuse, as was the case with Saddam Hussein) in just one country, and while the U.S. and its allies tried putting an end to all this, the admiral and some reporters think the bottom line is that people around the world don't like the methods used to stop those terrorists. An even worse realization of this situation is that the typical leftist and anti-war activist would has us believe those 100,000 deaths were primarily the result of poorly planned and executed military action in Iraq, because America's troops are incompitent, or just plain evil. Representative John Murtha (D-PA) maintains he was right to call our Marines cold blooded murderers. Accidental civilian deaths are one of the worst aspects of war, and such tragedies do happen. But how does one justify accusing American troops of being just as bad as the terrorists or Saddam Husein because of what is callously called "collateral damage"? Even if a few troops did murder Iraqi civilians, does that justify suggesting all of our military are scum? Where are all the news stories condemning this egregious slander?

Landay and Strobel continue with reminding us Osama bin Laden is still at large. A serious problem, no doubt. But how do they justify suggesting military resources being spent on Iraq before capturing bin Laden was somehow inappropriate? I'm sure President Bush would have liked for the world to be simplistic enough so that he had to deal with only one tough issue at a time, but it just isn't that way. Besides, why are there so few reporters who know about these links between Hussein and terrorists?

• Saddam link to Bin Laden
• Connect the Dots . . .
• Al-Qaeda linked to operations from Iran (and Iraq)
• Al-Qaeda faces rebellion from the ranks
• Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear'
• Iraq Officials: Al Qaeda Insurgent Leader Still in Custody (update on Abu Omar al-Baghdadi)
• ABC News: Iraqi intelligence chief met with bin Laden in December 1998

Next we see a rehash of anti-Bush propaganda regarding the Abu Graib scandal. With their left-leaning brand of impartiality Landay and Strobel try to cast doubt on Cheney's credibility on his denial that the abuses at Abu Graib were secretly condoned by the Bush administration. And we're supposed to treat a report by a supposedly bipartisan (meaning only 75% left-leaning) committee as the authoritative source on this investigation. Only evidence supporting the anti-Bush opinions of these two journalists about the war are included in this story.

Landay and Strobel then rehash the pre-Iraq invasion intelligence curfuffle. While bringing up several points Cheney didn't mention in his 36 minute speech these reporters also neglect to mention certain inconveinent truths about that intelligence. As with the ABC News story and others linked above, there are numerous statements from numerous Democrats prior to the Iraq war (many times years before) providing the same reasons President Bush gave the world for going to war in Iraq:

• Words of Mass Destruction
• Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism
• Bill Clinton: Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program
• Gore To Bush: You Ignored Saddam's Terrorist Ties!
• Democrats before Iraq War started....

Landay and Strobel are sure to remind us "U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly" the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups. But they fail to tell how such an assessment jives with the blatant claims by numerous Democrats to the contrary through out the Clinton era (even during the 1992 election season, as in the Al Gore videos above). In trying to refute Bush administration claims about ties between Iraq and terrorist organizations Landay and Strobel neglect to mention such claims were common place during the 1990s, accepted by almost everyone. Did no one bother to investigate the claims about such links during the Clinton administration? Or have we now decided all of that intelligence does count?

This McClatchy news story ends referencing a recent Pentagon study of over 600,000 Iraqi documents. Of course, Landay and Strobel don't mention "there is no way of knowing" how many documents were destroyed by Saddam Hussein's orders before he was removed from power.

This looks like another example of Bush Derrangement Syndrome: everything bad is to be blamed on the Bush administration, but anything good is someone else's fault.

Cheney, Master of Pain May 16, 2009 by MAUREEN DOWD

Maureen Dowd has done many obtuse things. But bloviating over torture in defense of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is just the most recent. Her latest opinion piece defending Pelosi isn't really about her.

Dowd can't help but blame Bush and Cheney for Pelosi's moment in the hot seat over what she new about supposed torture, when she knew it, and why she did nothing in protest long ago in the early years of the Bush administration. But this is the most obvious symptom of what is called Bush Derangement Syndrome: blame the Bush administration for everything that can be construed as bad and refuse credit for anything good.

Take, for example, the issue of water boarding. The Democrat narrative pounds on the notion that water boarding is torture, without question, and that this is a settled fact not open for debate. Never mind that there is still disagreement among national security professionals about the issue. But Dowd is curiously concerned about torture, especially when considering her opinion on another moral issue in the middle of a semantics battle: killing unborn children. Dowd fully embraces the notion that unborn children are not people, and so killing them is perfectly alright. If Dowd has such a low threshold for what qualifies as torture I must ask why is her semantic threshold for murder so high?

Another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome is shown in what Dowd calls the administration's "dark arts in broad daylight". I assume she is talking about the misdeeds (I can call it that, if abortion proponents can call abortion "reproductive rights" or "women's rights") of a few guards at the Abu Graib prison. In Dowd's mind those abuses of terrorist prisoners are automatically chalked up as standard Bush policy (but don't tell her those abuses were condemned even by the Bush administration and those responsible were prosecuted for their crimes). Perhaps she is referring to Newsweek's bogus story about Guantanamo Bay prison guards trying to flush a Koran down a toilet, a story Newsweek had to retract (not to mention it caused riots around the world which were responsible for some deaths). Or maybe Dowd is referring to some news media concocted lies about the Bush administration claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, journalistic lies which Orson Scott Card had the courage to expose. Or perhaps she means the absence of WMDs in Iraq, of course with no mention that what George Bush said about Iraq's WMDs after 9/11 is precisely what we were told numerous times by numerous Democrats for years before 9/11/2001. Even this little piece of history escapes notice by Dowd:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

-- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

But this mental disorder of Dowd's doesn't stop with past anti-Bush propaganda; it continues on today. After rehashing past news media abuses and manipulations about the Bush era Dowd continues with the torture issue referring to Ali Soufan, "the ex-F.B.I. agent who flatly calls torture 'ineffective....'" Of course, mentioning Peter Baker's April 21st NYT story indicating torture has been shown to be quite effective doesn't fit with the Bush-is-Hitler agenda. Instead, it makes sense to Dowd to continue harping on the myth that the Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks by quoting other leftist reporters and bloggers who have also bought into that revised history provided and apparently still promoted by the main stream news media.

If Maureen Dowd would actually do the job a journalist is supposed to do she would be just as cynical about Nancy Pelosi as she is about Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and any Republican. But, alas, Bush Derangement Syndrome has claimed yet another leftist victim. But I don't hope her kidneys fail, I hope Dowd gets the psychiatric help she clearly needs.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

— John Adams, October 11, 1798

There is a popular myth that extremism is the opposite of moderation. Moderation is not that simplistic, and neither is extremism. In reality, the opposite of extremism is the polar opposite extremist position. A moderate view is often an amalgam of parts of other views and is often just as fixed and uncompromising. Also, in many other instances a moderate view is something quite different, a pliable position, being swayed by any change in the wind. But that is only one reason moderation is not as simplistic as "the opposite of extremism."

Let us briefly review the brilliance that makes the American government what it is.

(thanks to notdemocracy for posting the video online)

Positions on moral, religious, political, economic, philosophical and any other type of issue can vary so widely it becomes necessary to use grand labels. Labels such as "conservative" and "liberal" and "extremist" help us fit a differing view into our lineup, often separating people along ideological lines in our minds. The fact that we often misguide ourselves and make unreasonable assumptions using such labels is inconvenient enough to ignore. We put such emotional investment into strongly held beliefs it becomes almost an autonomic response to pigeon-hole people who disagree with us. Even inventing alternate monikers (such as "progressive" or "centrist") smells of propaganda rather than an attempt to honestly distinguish between certain patterns of thinking so we can pretend to be more open minded than we really are.

Despite the enormous diversity and complexity of thought on such issues there do, in fact, appear to be some patterns. It is not intellectually honest to reflexively use the term "extremist" (or "fundamentalist") just because someone may be "conservative" but it could be perfectly fair to use the label "conservative". After all, there are certain ideals which most, if not all, conservatives share. These ideals typically begin with broad concepts such as individual liberty, which requires minimal government. These general ideas necessarily produce logical implications, such as a desire for low taxation, minimal government regulation, self-sufficiency rather than government reliance, private aid rather than public assistance, etc.

One result of the conservative precept of individual liberty is a powerful insistence on observing consequences. The conservative mindset is fixated with freedom to make one's own decisions, and this attitude requires any attempt to help people must pass the test of end results. If ideas or intentions do not achieve the purported results the conservative is very likely to discard the methods used to implement those ideas or intentions. Public assistance is one example: welfare programs do not encourage self-sufficiency or individual freedom, but instead typically result in trapping people in poverty. This result leads the conservative to conclude welfare is a bad idea despite its compassionate intentions. Trapping people in poverty is not the kind of help they need. This result doesn't help the people it is supposed to, but it robs them of the freedom to live their own lives.

The general reaction to this right-wing position on welfare is remarkably one sided. Regardless of the moniker one chooses (liberal, progressive, centrist, etc.) the criticisms of the conservative objection to welfare are almost a monolithic accusation of greed and selfishness, a lack of compassion. This odd phenomenon is not an isolated case. In fact, this near uniform reaction to conservative ideas occurs on almost every controversial issue. When one steps back from the details for a moment to observe the larger picture even larger patterns emerge. Despite the immense diversity of thought and agenda and effort there seem to be, astonishingly, only two main spheres of influence in American public life.

These two forces each pull in their own direction, which seem to be diametrically opposed to each other. One force, the conservative or the right wing, pulls toward individual liberty, the freedom to makes one's own decisions. The other, the left wing, pulls toward government control - which invariably diminishes individual liberty. America's founders understood this phenomenon.

The concept of a Social Contract is fundamental to the success of the American experiment. The men who invented the United States knew civilization could not survive by anarchy, neither by an all powerful government. They understood government to be a necessary evil to check human nature. The challenge was to find an appropriate balance between the two extremes. This challenge is probably best described by James Madison in The Federalist No. 51:

[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

America's founders knew that to give control to government was to take freedom from the people, and vice versa. In modern conservatism, as defined by President Ronald Reagan, the ideal balance is with minimal government protecting the natural rights of the individual. These rights center on the freedom to make one's own decisions. In Reagan's view the ideal balance between freedom and the state was where this pendulum swings in favor of individual liberty, while still maintaining minimal government involvement in the lives of its citizens.

This conservative understanding of the Social Contract, as shared by our founding fathers, was that to give government more power was to increase government oppression of the people. Rush Limbaugh correctly describes this political pendulum as (paraphrasing) anything that is not conservative is, by default, liberal. Political momentum is in perpetual motion, with both major forces constantly striving for dominance. Hence, the political pendulum is always swinging one way or the other.

There are many signs available today indicating this political pendulum is swinging quickly to the left. These signs are not limited to the political arena; they affect all aspects of citizen life. And that should be expected when the most fundamental requirement for the success of the American Constitution is eroding: the moral and religious constraints of the people. Ironically, when morality is customizable and based on the fickle whims of individuals moral anarchy results. This does not mean an oppressive application of religion or law is the solution. But it should be acknowledged that the abandonment of religion and morality leads civilization ever closer to self destruction. Unfortunately an oppressive nanny-state application of law is exactly what our nation is embracing now. This may be the inevitable result of abandoning traditional western moral values.

Walter E. Williams has a good column on the cultural impact of such political battles titled Law vs. Moral Values. It's short but poignant. Have a read.