More government controls, we are told, are necessary to solve problems such as skyrocketing health-insurance prices, lack of competition among insurance companies, the inability of workers to keep their insurance policy when switching jobs, etc.

Really?

Then why do giants of the computer industry like Google, Microsoft and Apple compete vigorously without a “public option”? Why do we have such plentiful, affordable food without a government “food insurance mandate”? Why does laser eye-surgery, which is not covered by Medicare or government insurance laws, get better and cheaper all the time, while the price of health services the government is most involved in, skyrockets?

The answer is that these other markets are (comparatively) left free–while health care has been manipulated by government “solutions” for decades. Thus, our health–care discussion should focus, not on how government controls can solve our problems, but on how government controls have caused our problems.

Take for instance the common complaint that individuals can’t keep their health insurance when switching from one job to another. The only reason so many individuals can’t keep their insurance in the first place is that they get it through their employer–a phenomenon that was institutionalized by the government post-WWII through tax laws that make individually purchased insurance far more expensive. We don’t face the same problem with car or home insurance when we change jobs because we don’t buy it through our employer.

Or consider the general phenomenon of skyrocketing prices for health insurance. The ways in which the government drives up prices are many and gory, but here are a few.

State insurance-mandates force companies and individuals to buy policies covering all sorts of expensive treatments they wouldn’t otherwise buy coverage for: chiropractic care, psychiatric care, prenatal care. Every such “benefit” means higher costs. Those who would prefer just to purchase insurance against medical catastrophe and pay for everything else out of pocket are prohibited from doing so.

More broadly, since the 1940s, on the idea that health care is a “right” that others must provide, the government has made Americans collectively responsible for each other’s health care, whether through collectivized employer plans or through Medicare; thus, on average, “every time an American spends a dollar on physicians’ services,” explains health economist John Goodman, “only 10 cents is paid out of pocket; the remainder is paid by a third party.”

People consuming medical services on other people’s dime consume a lot more. Prices are further driven up by numerous restrictions on the supply of medical professionals, such as protectionist licensing laws that prevent doctor’s assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, and paramedics from competing with doctors on services they are well qualified to perform (fixing minor bone breaks, diagnosing the flu, etc.).

When supply is artificially limited, and demand artificially increases, prices explode. (Any system promising “universal care” experiences this–the much-vaunted “affordable” European system just deals with it by severe rationing.)

This is just a fraction of the story of how government has mangled the market for health care–a story any honest discussion of health care needs to study and learn from.

Then we will start to hear proposals for a truly progressive idea: a market in health care where the individual is responsible for his own health, the medical profession is truly free to compete for his dollars, and the government has been removed from the equation–the private option.

Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues.

Thus the GOP could continue in its delusions of relevancy, while clearly abdicating any real qualities of leadership. Simultaneously, it would be helping implement the liberal agenda that in reality was orchestrated to empower the Democrats. Meanwhile, the disillusionment among the base of Republican voters would eventually cause a political collapse of the party.

By 2009, it has become undeniable that the plan ultimately worked, although some unexpected events along the way delayed, for a time, the Democrat effort to seize total control of the United States Government. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 briefly shook the nation from a former complacency that had enabled the wayward and corrupt Presidency of Bill Clinton.

President Bush, having embarked on that misbegotten “new tone” effort at finding “middle ground” with the left during his first eight months in office, was suddenly confronted with the reality of the Islamist threat, and had to redefine himself and his presidency as one committed to the reestablishment of a safe and secure American homeland.

The public focus on this aspect of his agenda proved to be a saving grace, circumventing the landslide of Republican losses in the 2002 mid-term congressional elections that inarguably would have ensued, had the Bush White House and Republican Congress been characterized solely by his contemptible pandering to the left, the resultant increase in the size and scope of government, and the inevitable bloating of the national budget that followed.

Nevertheless, the tides of public cynicism eventually caught up with Bush and the Republican Congress. In 2006, America thoroughly repudiated the direction in which these GOP “moderates” had taken it, giving control of both the House and Senate to the Democrats.

Failing to discern the message sent by the electorate in the starkest of terms, the unrepentant GOP continued on its disastrous course. In 2008, with the prospect of archliberal “Republican” President John McCain further sabotaging the conservative movement from within, frustrated and disgusted voters bolted, allowing Barack Obama to assume the nation’s helm by default.

Yet a close examination of the subtleties of the McCain political debacle reveals the truth of what heartland America was expressing during the past two major elections, and what the GOP needs to acknowledge if it is to turn the political tide back on the left. So far however, it does not seem to be getting the message.

John McCain lagged badly in the 2008 pre-election polls, except for the brief period after he had chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. And had the McCain campaign spotlighted her bold and distinctly non-erudite ways, instead of becoming embarrassed by her and attempting to minimize her prominence in his campaign, the outcome of that race might have been entirely different.

Since that time, with the Republican Party in a shambles, Palin and grassroots conservatism have clearly undergone a renaissance. Yet among the Republican “elites” this reality has not yet been comprehended. The mood among conservative Americans is one of outrage and frustration at the status quo, generating an incredible energy and commitment to do something about it.

It is crucial to understand that this groundswell is not about cult followings and personalities, and by her own words, Sarah Palin knows this to be true. Admittedly, the prospect of her appearance at any rally can guarantee an enthusiastic crowd of thousands. But ultimately, such gatherings are not about her. On numerous occasions, far larger crowds have assembled across the nation at “Tea Parties,” and other protests, without any such notable figure on hand as a draw.

Likewise, the sales of her newly released book “Going Rogue” are astronomical. But contrary to the deluge of liberal media distortions which falsely depict a public intrigue over the “He said/She said” squabbles within the McCain/Palin campaign, readers are far more interested in the principles Sarah Palin espouses and courageously represents.

Americans have come to the grim realization that their country and its government is being wrested from them, and they instinctively understand that it is up to them to get it back. Otherwise, the greatness of freedom and prosperity that they once knew will be lost forever.

This is the message that is motivating real America, and that resulted in the recent stunning Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as the incredibly strong showing of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York District Twenty Three. Still, it appears that within Republican Party circles, the disastrous plan is to continue “business as usual.”

In the upcoming Illinois Senate race, as well as the Kansas District 4 Congressional race, “moderate” (read: liberal) candidates are being preselected and anointed by the Republican Party leadership, thereby virtually guaranteeing a repeat of New York District 23, which ultimately fell to Democrat Bill Owens. No doubt, this preposterous “scheme” is being pursued elsewhere.

America is not, and will never be, inspired and motivated by a GOP strategy of diluted liberalism, especially when the full strength version is available right across the aisle. If the Republican movers and shakers can muster the courage to field and support truly conservative candidates, America will rally to them. It would be a tragedy if they once again “fumble” at such an opportune moment.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

For some reason, a disproportionate amount of the major oversimplifications in the world today seem to occur where feminism and the not-so-gifted meet. Having a preset notion of men being bad and responsible, with women being good and victimized, can lead to all kinds of weird theories on how certain issues are a feminist issues, even though they quite obviously are not.

One such issue is climate change. For now, let’s leave aside the whole discussion about the severity of climate change or whether it even exists. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the issue. However, I do recognize idiot simplicity when I see it. The first argument of people who argue that climate change is a feminist issue goes something like this:

Men own more cars and men use airplanes more, therefore men are more responsible for climate change.

The complexity of this observation is that of a four-year-old. Now, I don’t want to insult four-year-olds, because at that age it is quite an astute observation. But when it comes from an adult it leaves a lot to be desired.

Why do men drive cars and travel in airplanes more than women? Well, the traditional division of labor between the sexes is that the man is responsible for producing resources and the woman is responsible for taking care of the children and the home. That division of labor is far less rigid these days, but it is still very much present. So is it any surprise that men need to travel more? In order to support their families, and to keep society running, men (and women) need to travel as part of their work. Proceeding to blame men for this is not very well thought through, since we all benefit from the work these men do, not only the men themselves.

Pointing fingers at one sex for performing its gender role could be done in the other direction as well. I could claim that men should be allowed to use more electricity than women since men have invented and built wind turbines, hydropower and solar power. But then I’m punishing women for performing the gender role that they have traditionally been expected to fulfill, which is just as silly as the less-than-gifted feminists who claim that men are to blame for climate change.

A whole different argument that tries to connect feminism and climate change is that women need to be empowered so that birth rates fall in underdeveloped countries. Now I am all for empowering women in poor countries, just like I am all for empowering men in poor countries. However, do birth rates decrease from only empowering women?

To understand the situation better we need to ask ourselves why people in underdeveloped countries have more children in developed countries. The most obvious explanation-and one that has consistently been demonstrated to be true-is that people continue to have lots of children as long as they will need those children to be supported in old age. Therefore, the best way to decrease birth rates is to encourage the process of industrialization and modernization in poor countries, so that less children are needed per family, and so that contraceptives are freely available for all couples. You can empower women all you want, but if you deny a country its continued development (which requires empowered men), then you are likely having a weak impact at best.

You know that a political theory, such as feminism, has gone past its expiration date when it is desperately trying to find a problem that actually needs its solution.

Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about men’s issues and gender liberation beyond feminism.

Democratic support for the decision argues that a civil trial would be a demonstration of America’s might and moral certainty, and such a trial would be further confirmation that America’s justice system is the envy of the world. Republicans counter that demonstrating such civility toward foreign terrorists seeking to destroy America’s way of life is a servile and underserved accommodation which would provide a dangerous platform.

This Administration is loath to acknowledge the term “War,” particularly as is relates to religious extremists. Does this Administration feel this way because the extremists have bases in various countries and are funded from numerous sources scattered around the world, and therefore it is reticent to antagonize those foreign governments? Is there a concern that acknowledging a war would by inference mean an indirect war on countries from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia? Events wherein people using powerful weapons, funded with hundreds of millions of dollars, launch attacks against a country, its people, its embassies and other outposts, are not just “criminal acts,” they are Wars. Pretending that perpetrators of such acts are not “at war,” but are conducting a broad, concerted effort of criminality, flies in the face of rather ordinary common sense.

Civil trials pointing the guns of American jurisprudence at the most infamous terrorists to have ever committed crimes against America on its own soil will become venues that will launch a new crop of lawyers onto the international stage. Could we dare suspect the Administration believes that a New York City trial for these most visible terrorists will keep the “blame Bush” fires alive.

The loud crowing we hear about exposing the world to the American judicial system is disingenuous. The Islamic world already knows the American system is different from its own and doesn’t care how. Most Islamic countries are dictatorships, by any other name, whose leaders don’t much desire open societies, or an American style rule of law. They know it, we know it, and the rest of the world already knows it.

On the other hand, a civil trial, and the legal hams and egos who will run that circus will expose America’s espionage and intelligence systems, and methodologies. We already know waterboarding was used, however, we can expect that it will be used by the defense, and in so doing, once again revisit the application of such torture, purposely putting the previous administration on trial.

We should note that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the five suspects prosecutors would likely seek the death penalty. This is not a very definitive statement, but he had to reassure New Yorkers that they would not likely run into these killers while shopping on Park Avenue. We should also note that Holder’s law firm, Covington & Burling, represents seventeen detainees of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. In time we will discover the true nature of such a conflict of interest. More importantly, given the nature of civil trials, the rights provided to (usually) American defendants, the discovery process and the eventual appeals process, American citizens will not find the hands of justice administering punishment on these fanatics until well over a decade has passed.

Fanaticism is deaf to all pleadings, be they judicial, political or personal entreaties. Pretending that a federal civil trial will be a victory against terrorism is flailing against an ill wind, and will accomplish little but inflate the self-righteous.

True and pure statesmanship should be untainted by idiosyncrasies of politics, or political provocation, however, this is evidently too much to ask for. This trial is guaranteed to become a proverbial three-ring circus. We may also become baffled as publicity ignites strange images on the streets of distant cities around the world, as lawyers play their games on this venue in New York freshly served up by the Administration.

James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post

Naturally, the Democrat leadership is trumpeting the win by Bill Owens in the New York race as a defining characteristic of the current political landscape, validating everything from the budget-busting “stimulus” bill to the Democrat push for socialized health care. Yet Owens typifies the fraudulent nature of such a claim, having perpetrated a complete flip-flop of his professed opposition to the “public option” once he had achieved a victory at the ballot box. In typical liberal fashion, upon securing victory he abandoned every conservative principle that he had touted during his campaign, and now supports the worst aspects of Obamacare.

Nevertheless, he won on Tuesday. If his rambling trek to the halls of Congress represents the manner in which Democrats can maintain their hold on power, so be it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) will gladly accept the presence of such minions if that is how she is to remain at the top of the heap.

It therefore behooves the Republican Party, if its leaders have any expectation of regaining their former political clout, to contemplate the situation in New York with uncharacteristic objectivity and immediately set about to fix the horrendous mistakes made there, in order to ensure that such foolishness is not repeated. For if the GOP once again ignores the glaring evidence and reverts again to its recent abysmal tactic of attempted pandering to the “middle,” a series of repeats of the New York 23 outcome will just as inevitably follow, and the Democrats will retain or perhaps fortify their hold on power in Washington. At this critical juncture, America simply cannot afford such a fate.

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, lost to Owens by four percent, which is hardly a poor showing considering how severely the deck was stacked against him. The Republican Party began its foolhardy endeavor in this election by selecting Diedre Scozzafava, an ultra-liberal candidate with connections to the party inner circles as well as major leftist political players. Instead of focusing, as they should have, on what was wrong with Owens, the clueless Republican Party then dumped nearly a million dollars into Scozzafava’s campaign, often running political ads against Hoffman on the very basis of his conservatism.

Once it became apparent that the liberal Scozzafava was going to be blown out in the general election, she dropped out of the race. But the malignancy of her liberalism was not yet fully manifested. While hapless Republicans lauded her for the noble deed of abandoning a bid that would have proven to be an embarrassing and resounding loss, and extolled her as a great member of their party, she proceeded to endorse Owens, the Democrat candidate.

Against such a backdrop of delusion and confusion, the conservative Hoffman plugged along, maintaining his message of traditional values and true fiscal stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, his effort was not sufficient to overcome the obstacles thrown in his path by both major parties. Yet he managed to display a coherent message that generated an amazing degree of momentum in a short period of time. Had he been properly supported from the outset of the race, and had Owens been exposed for the disingenuous fraud that he is, the end result could well have been completely different.

So where does this misbegotten profusion of errors leave the GOP and its prospects for significant gains in next year’s races? The lesson is simple and unchanged from times past. If the party establishes and adheres to a goal of truly advancing the conservative agenda (a move which should be undertaken immediately), it can benefit greatly from every devious liberal effort to unravel the fabric of America that the Democrats pursue between now and Election Day 2010.

On the other hand, if liberal Republicans repeat their double-minded attempts to find politically “safe” ground that bears outward commonality with that of the Democrats, they can expect to be relegated to the political outback for the foreseeable future.

Real America has roared in the past several years, and in particular since the advent of the Obama regime. The grassroots protests, “Tea Parties,” and Town Hall confrontations are merely reflections of an electorate that has no intention of seeing its country and its heritage mutated beyond recognition, from a free and prosperous society into one of subservience and repression.

Such sentiments are aimed primarily at those Democrats bent on perpetrating this transformation, but also at Republicans who, out of stupidity, cowardice, or some misbegotten devotion to “bipartisanship,” refuse to appropriately confront the liberal threat and effectively neutralize it.

Contrary to the propaganda regularly offered as “analysis” by the liberal media/Democrat Party Axis, the backlash against Republicans in 2006 and 2008 was by no means an embrace of the mindset of the political left. The American people overwhelmingly identify with conservatism, but no longer with Republicans, who all too often disavow any loyalty to it. Having vainly attempted to ingratiate themselves with the political “center,” GOP “moderates” lost touch with the conservative base.

America is ripe for a reestablishment of those former ties. But it remains to be seen whether the Republican Party will recognize and seize this opportunity to return to its roots and return to power. It would be a welcome change.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Twelve members of America’s troops are dead, and at least another 31 have been wounded. These 42 soldiers and their comrades were preparing for deployment to the front. This is major calamity, not just because it occurred on American soil, but this crime was committed, it appears, by one some of their own, on an American base. The shock to hundreds of individuals comprising the related families will last a lifetime.

The priority for the Commander In Chief, IMHO, would be to bypass any planned speech and immediately fly to Austin, Texas, act like a Commander In Chief, go to the site of the shootings, meet with senior staff, assess the situation and events that led to the shootings, speak to the troops, particularly the injured, demonstrate concern and take action based on the findings of your assessment. Such actions should include addressing the families of the fallen and the injured. Assure the American people that their military bases and the security of the bases are not compromised and all possible measures will be taken to tighten what already has been established to safeguard the safety of soldiers.

Once satisfied that orders have been issued on all potential fronts of the follow-up, fly back to the White House, and get on with the addressing the challenges of the Nation.

Would you have remained in Washington, and while giving a speech, mentioned the killings in a “by the way,” addendum? Perhaps not.

James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post

On May 25, 2006 Madison Tenn was illegally moved six states away from her Sacramento, California home by her mother, says dad Donald Tenn.  Since that time Shannon Phillips has committed fraud and perjury in two states, wasted thousands of tax-payer dollars and kept a little girl from her loving, stay-at-home, primary caretaker daddy, he adds.

Tenn is speaking out about his own case he says, because he’s facing 18 months in prison for a peaceful protest for parents rights.  He wants people to know the truth; that he and Shannon were happily married, “We never had domestic problems.  I’m not a violent person.  I believe in communication.  The police were never called to our home.”

My wife told me she was taking Madison to visit her relatives in Illinois . After she arrived she said she wasn’t coming back.  She wanted me to follow her.  I told her a decision like that should be made together.  I asked her to come home and  take six months to talk it over.  She refused.

Tenn says a friend who is an Illinois real estate agent called and told him Phillips and her mother had been looking at houses for sale.  Tenn explained to Phillips that she could stay in Illinois, but she needed to return Madison.  He says she refused.  What he did next, it seems, caused Phillips to set into motion the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) machinery that removes innocent parents, usually fathers, from the lives of their children.

I told her the law says she has to return Madison to California; that there are move-away laws that protect children from this sort of thing.

Tenn filed for an emergency ex-parte hearing.  It was a Friday. By the Monday morning hearing Phillips had declared to people at WEAVE in CA and DOVE in IL, and attorney Tony Nevarez that she feared Tenn.   Phillips was given a restraining order and returned to IL with Madison.

Wanting to keep their close bond, Tenn started sending Madison packages every few days with books, snacks, stickers and small toys.  At first he was allowed phone conversations with Madison by Phillips and her mother Kathy Waseen, but that didn’t last.

Fifteen months later, on October 19, 2007 Judge Peter J. McBrien had a hearing in Sacramento on Phillip’s request to extend the restraining order.  (case #06fl05871)

Judge McBrien stated that he did not believe Shannon.  He chastised her for illegally removing Madison from California.   He did not believe any of her testimony or renew the order.  He told Shannon to come to an agreement on parenting time or he would make a ruling that she wouldn’t like.

I wanted an equal parenting plan but agreed to every other weekend and 2 days a week. I remember Judge O’Brien said, ‘This father will be immediately reunited with his daughter.  I am ordering his first visitation for 2 days from today, Sunday the 21st of October.’  He asked if I could be in Illinois on that date and I stated I certainly would be.

Tenn flew to Illinois and was at Phillip’s mother Kathy Waseen’s house in Bethany for the prearranged exchange.  It didn’t go smoothly.

Shannon kept pulling Madison away from me in order to instill fear in her, as if Madison should be concerned. Her mother Kathy Waseen interfered by taking Madison away from the car for as many as 10 minutes.  Finally, I stated that this parenting time belonged to Madison and I and that we needed to go as our time was limited.

Then Phillips said something that no one expected from the woman who had claimed so much fear of Tenn that she couldn’t return to California.

Shannon suggested that she come along with Madison and I and we all visit together. I was shocked.  I told her that would not be possible.

What Phillips and Waseen didn’t realize was that with two cameras rolling, Tenn got the entire incident on tape.

Continued in parts two and three.

Dedicated to Madison website

I confess that I did not catch the whole piece, but it became quite clear that an American police officer was arguing for the increased use of the death penalty when it comes to child rapists and murderers; and also to “cop killers”. Further along the line, the police officer argued that the range of murderers who should more often get the death penalty should extend to those who murdered medical staff, firefighters and, indeed, to anyone who murdered government workers who “put their lives on the line in the call of their duty.”

Well, in brief, here is my response to these proposals.

1. We are already well on the way to giving far too many special privileges, pay handouts and protections to government workers, and this idea that murdering government workers is, somehow, more heinous a crime than the murdering of anyone else pushes government workers even higher up the pedestal – the pedestal of life itself – something which is clearly very dangerous indeed judging by the history books.

2. Why should the life of a police officer – or any other government worker – be considered to be more valuable than the life of, say, your daughter, your mother, your father, and so on?

3. In addition, if the state accepts that the death penalty is legitimate for the murder of certain people – such as government workers – then it will not be too long before people are demanding the death penalty for the murders of members of other groups; such as ‘women’, ‘homosexuals’ etc. etc.. And it will surely end up being the case that it is only for the murder of white heterosexual men that the death penalty will NOT be forthcoming.

Furthermore, even where such demands were resisted successfully, it would still be the case that people would feel very aggrieved that the murders of some people (especially those of their own loved ones) did not attract the death penalty while others (such as ‘government workers’) did.

The upshot would be a permanent state of fury and anger being directed not only at the system – and those who seemed to benefit from it – but also at those who had, indeed, committed other forms of murder.

Indeed, even abortion is the murder of children – for some people.

Imagine how these people are going to feel towards women who have had abortions if they are indoctrinated into believing that the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for murder.

Even if these people do not actually feel that women who abort their offspring should receive the death penalty, the point here is that they will still likely feel far more malevolent towards them.

And this leads me directly to my next point …

4. The more that we justify the death penalty for others, the more violence among ourselves do we justify within ourselves.

In other words, our tendencies towards violence are ratcheted upwards.

Is this what we really want?

5. It was suggested that government workers who ‘put their lives on the line’ were in need of the ‘greater protection’ that the death penalty would bring them, because the death penalty would help further deter criminals from taking the lives of such government workers.

Well, the notion that the death penalty acts as a good deterrent, in practice, is not very well supported by the evidence, but, for the moment, let us just assume that the death penalty does, indeed, help to deter murderers.

Well, if this is the case, then this takes us all the way back to point 1 – and to all the points that follow it.

In other words, why should we deter more the murderers of some people, but not the murderers of other people?

Why should some people be seen as ’special’ when it comes to deterring murderers?

6. Some time ago, I took a look at the mugshots and the profiles of the inmates of Death Row inside an American prison.

I can summarise them thusly.

They were mostly black, decidedly unintelligent, mentally challenged and, I imagine, never had much of a chance in life.

Furthermore, these individuals mostly had criminal histories that ran to pages upon pages.

And so what we really see going on here is a complete failure of the government to deal with the circumstances, genetic and environmental, that led these murderers to do what they did.

And arguing for the death penalty is just one of the ways in which the politicians and their agencies can pass the buck.

“Nothing to do with us,” they can say. “These murderers are ENTIRELY responsible for what they did.”

Well, I suggest that you, yourself, do a Google search, and so see for yourself the type of individual who typically ends up on Death Row. I think that most of you will see that these individuals had a history that could have been dealt with quite effectively, in most cases, many years before they ended up murdering anybody.

Hence, if government workers such as police officers are so concerned about murder then, perhaps, rather than taking us all down the horrible pathways through which the death penalty leads us, they should seek to persuade the government to adopt policies that would reduce the likelihoods of people becoming murderers in the first place!

For example, reducing the number of single-mother households would reduce the number of murders – as well as the general crime rate – quite significantly.

Bringing more discipline into our schools and on to our streets would also help a great deal.

Reducing excessive immigration would also cut the homicide rate.

There are many, many things that the government could do to reduce the numbers of murders if it really wanted to reduce them.

But governments benefit hugely from murders and from serious crimes, and so they will do very little to decrease their number.

What they will do, however, is forever try to put the blame elsewhere.

7. Of course, we often feel that cold, callous murderers do ‘deserve’ the death penalty. And, in my view, some of them actually deserve far, far worse than the death penalty.

But, in practice, and as indicated above, the death penalty simply poisons us all by increasing our desire for violence across all other circumstances. The evidence does not suggest that it reduces the murder rate. And the death penalty allows the government to keep on passing the buck and to avoid having to address those policies of theirs which lead to a higher murder rate.

Finally, I am not intending to suggest that all lives are equal in value to society. Indeed, this is clearly very much not the case, in my view.

Some human lives are definitely more worthy than others. And some people are just scum.

But my claim is this.

The death penalty poisons us all in very many serious ways; and we would all be much better off without it.

This might not have been true 100 years ago, and it still might not be true in certain countries today.

But, in western countries, at this point in time, I can see no benefits accruing to society from the use of the death penalty, but I can definitely see numerous very serious disadvantages arising from it.

As such, I believe that we should be sentencing those who ‘deserve’ the Death Penalty to life imprisonment – which, in many ways, for many convicts, is probably a stiffer punishment to deal with.

There are currently 192 countries making up the United Nations members list. The vast majority of the member nations are dictatorships by any other name. You can dress their leaders in fancy robes and toss an occasional crown on a head, but from Saudi Arabia to Libya and Gambia, their leaders oppress their populations. They loot as much as they can from their economies, while enjoying a comforting credibility rubbing shoulders with other narcissistic misanthropes under the opulent umbrella of the UN General Assembly.

The UN has never been an effective vehicle for achieving real peace and security, although it was intended to achieve exactly that when it replaced the impotent League of Nations. The overwhelming power of the United States has been the major underlying force that has prevented major international wars since WWII. The UN has been an inept bystander to international affairs. America’s power and influence has generated kick-back that has been fomented within the UN where jealousy found broad fertile ground amongst a majority of member nations, including Europeans such as Norway, Denmark. No need here to extend the list of envious pretenders that easily includes the likes of Russia.

The reaction against the U.S. found new energy when the world found itself in an economic recession, and fingers could be pointed at America for having been too self serving. In slide the opportunists. Beating the newfound drums of climate change fear and catastrophe, they will mutate the upcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change into a perfect vehicle through which begrudging usurpers will once again attempt elevating the UN to status of world power, “over” the U.S.

We can rest confident that the contemplated Copenhagen Treaty emanating from this meeting will find elements to mirror in the cap-and-trade bill now being promoted by Obama and Congress. This, along with the December 10 Nobel Peace Prize presentation, will lock-in support from Washington for the agreement. Obama and Congress will have unwittingly signed on for the formation of Two disasters. The first will be a UN managed onerous extraction of cash from the United States and Canada for what can only be described as payment of a “climate debt.” The second will be the unprecedented endowment of the UN with sweeping powers over the economies of all nations. The text currently contemplated for signing by the membership will provide this body with incisive absolutism over the economic engines that have fuelled both America’s hegemony, as well as its population’s independence of thought and freedoms.

Keep in mind that many, if not most, of the enlightened leaders of UN member countries are the same ones responsible for crimes against humanity, … their own humanities within their own home borders. This is also a membership heavily populated by misogynistic individuals who believe in the subjugation of women and criminalization of homosexuality, all the while pretending to promote the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

The time has long passed for the UN’s charter to be changed. The UN has no ability or capacity to act as a world peace maker. It could remain as an organization directed toward humanitarian efforts, and provide a meeting place for resolving broad international challenges pertaining to education, population, or agriculture. It cannot, however, be allowed to morph into a world power. The United States, which funds almost one quarter of the UN’s budget, should not allow it. Obama and Congress should refuse signing America on to the Copenhagen agreement, or any version of it. Copenhagen has nothing to do with cleaning up our refuse or CO2.

I should add a Third ensuing disaster if Copenhagen materializes: A weaker America would not be positive for long term prospects of world peace.

James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post

The 2010 mid-term congressional races could easily become a rout of the left, with heartland America energized and active as it has not been in nearly two decades. According to current trends and polling data, next year’s races are nearly guaranteed to go decidedly to the right. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has opted to soften its stances and pursue a strategy of “inclusiveness,” which in reality represents a shift to the left, and out of the good graces of heartland America. Nowhere is this travesty more flagrantly on display than in the upcoming New York District 23 special election.

Overwhelmingly rural, House District 23 barely went for Obama in last year’s election. And as was the case throughout the nation, the Democrat ticket was helped immeasurably by the insipidness of the McCain campaign. Clearly, this district is not a “lock” for the Democrats. Yet, when selecting a Republican nominee in the upcoming election its Republican Party apparatus sought to “lead” by following, and chose the extremely liberal Republican Assembly Woman Dierdre Scozzafava. On most issues, she is at least as far left as Bill Owens, the Democrat.

Worse yet, notable figures within Republican circles, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and current House Minority Leader John Boehner are endorsing the Scozzafava candidacy purely on the basis that she calls herself “Republican.” From their perspective, giving the seat to someone who holds that title is somehow superior to allowing it to go to a Democrat. Yet recent history paints a starkly different picture.

In Pennsylvania in 2004, then “Republican” Senator Arlen Specter faced a stiff primary challenge from Congressman Pat Toomey. Believing that Specter would somehow help garner Pennsylvania for George W. Bush in his re-election bid that same year, the President made over two dozen campaign appearances on behalf of Specter. Clearly, this boosted Specter’s political fortunes and helped him win a razor thin victory over Toomey, whereupon he immediately turned on Bush and the GOP, siding with Democrats in several key votes. Ultimately, in the wake of the 2008 Obama victory, Specter came out of the closet and declared what honest observers knew all along, that he was indeed a Democrat.

Is this the great Republican strategy to turn the country back from its current downfall? Do Republican “leaders” really believe that the outrage from middle America over the thuggish nationalization of industry, banking, and possibly the healthcare field by Obama and his minions can be channeled into a boost for the candidacy of a “me too” liberal Republican like Scozzafava?

At least when the Trojans of yore brought that confounded wooden horse into their midst, they did so in total ignorance of the danger it represented. It would have been beyond credible, even in a fable, to contend that they might have still accepted it, knowing its sinister contents, under the absurd auspices that doing so would ensure a greater number of warriors to fight the impending battle against the Greeks. Yet that is precisely the mentality of those who claim an allegiance to conservatism while supporting the likes of Scozzafava.

Fortunately, conservative America has finally had its fill of the empty “RINO” promises. All of the stirring rhetoric of a well-crafted party platform is absolutely meaningless if the party proceeds to accept and even embrace a liberal agenda. While some true conservatives are still working within the GOP in an effort to regain control of it from its liberal captors, others are working outside the party to jolt it with a dose of reality, and hopefully gain the attention of its myopic upper echelon.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, making good on her promise to continue the political fight from outside of public office, has endorsed the candidacy of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate. In this she is joined by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and former Senator Rick Santorum, along with an enormous and extremely energized contingent from grassroots America.

Few on the political “inside” appear to have any comprehension of just how much is at stake in the District 23 race. If Scozzafava somehow manages to win, she will be heralded as the embodiment of what the Republican Party needs to become in order to regain majority status in the Congress and Senate. Consequently, any Republicans running to the right of Scozzafava in subsequent races would invariably be marginalized on the nightly news and among the party liberals as being “out of the mainstream,” thus giving all Republicans an enormous obstacle to overcome in their electoral pursuits.

Yet nothing could be farther from the truth. The political ground occupied by Scozzafava is exactly what destroyed GOP momentum in the last decade, and what ultimately cost it in 2006 and 2008. Conservatives know this, and so do the liberals. Only the Republican “insiders” remain oblivious.

From as far back as the Nixon Administration, Republican political fortunes have risen and fallen in direct correlation to the party’s embrace or abandonment of conservative principle. Things are no different this year, despite the stunning successes of the Obama machine in 2008. Disillusionment with the current Administration, by itself, is not sufficient to bolster Republican popularity with voters. Only a real conservative opposition will properly address the outrage and energy of traditional America and, with the promise of a real reversal of the present destructive and unconstitutional liberal agenda, rally the conservative grassroots to victory in 2010.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

He notes that international treaties take precedence over domestic application of the Constitution. The climate agreement aims to create broad politically malleable mandates to be imposed on industry and individuals, managed from the top by an unelected world government. It would result in unlimited undemocratic government power, much of which will be in the hands of foreigners, with no mechanism to impose restraint against intrusion of any kind – thus, eliminating entirely the nation defined by the Constitution and the American way of life.

I’m not the first to ask. What happens when the employees put in charge of government operations rebel and refuse to play by the rules? It is more than our reasonable expectation that the Constitution remains in force, that the federal government operates within limits, and that our sovereignty remains intact. Every office holder has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution as a condition for holding office. We have a contract and natural rights should they choose to violate it.

We have not yet effectively demanded those rights. It seems at times that we have become convinced that in practice the United States operates as a “pure democracy” in which the will of the majority in Congress cannot be held in check. In our system, merely being elected or having a party majority does not in any sense offer a mandate for unconstitutional dealings. We have been given that impression because, regardless of which party is in control, the other party desires a return to power over all else. The only solution they offer is to vote for them in the next election. Once elected, they follow the same general course of increasing their own power. Clearly, the element of democracy that is in our system – represented in fact by a “two-party system”– has failed.

Even if elections provided such a powerful mandate – and they do not – the choices voters made were the result of blatant fraud.

Over the past three decades, party bosses have operated in secret to engineer a dramatic restructuring of government and a complete transformation of its relationship with the people. It was not done formally as prescribed by the Constitution. Party politicians controlling the national purse used public funding to, in effect, purchase “states’ rights” from state party politicians. State party politicians take the money in part, as a surreptitious increase in state taxes (collected in the form of federal taxes). Party judges, who have also received money in connection with these transactions, have transformed the laws so that they fit rules of federal jurisdiction.

Federal government does not operate by the same rules and relationships as state governments. The tasks assigned to the federal government by the Constitution require broad political discretion, while those left “to the states and to the people” are subject to more stringent checks and balances designed to protect liberty. The greatest cost of unconstitutional federalism is civil rights. The best known example is the federalization of marriage and family law, which resulted in the legal destruction of marriage and family as fundamentally private institutions in the eyes of corrupted law. Marriage and family are now defined as components of government programs, completely under arbitrary political control.

Did you learn that from msnbc? No. CBS? No. Time, Newsweek, New York Times, … It is obvious that the political class has used the established communications networks for deception. And we continue to see it now. Were we told openly about the decades long effort to establish a One World Government? No – politicians continuously denied it. We also know that there is no climate catastrophe requiring political action. Yet when voting, many people were convinced that there was. The so-called “mainstream media” maintained the hoax in support of party politics. The people were deceived. The politicians in power simply ignore criticism and continue to lie.

I respect Lord Monckton’s understanding of the Constitution when he says; “If that treaty is signed, your constitution says that it takes precedence over your constitution, and you can’t resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement from all the other states’ parties.” However, I must assert that the people of the United States are in a position to declare any such agreement null and void. Its purpose is deception, to achieve goals that are not within the Constitutionally authorized powers of government. The People do not agreed to cede national sovereignty. The effect of such an agreement would amount to a coup – an act of war.

Beyond that, it is the American struggle to terminate the public employees who have so despicably violated their contract to that end; and to restore a proper relationship between government and the people.

• It shall be the duty of a parent to notify the other parent upon the birth of a child.
• This notification shall occur within 30 days of the event.
• The State will maintain a registry of notifications.
• If the birth event is witnessed by medical or other health professionals they will assist in making sure notification is completed.

PHOTOS OF MURTARI’S CHALK MESSAGES

Murtari has been communicating with Oaks and his staff since May of 2006 about introducing the bill, but he hasn’t gotten very far.   He explains, “They are all very nice people, but right now [Oaks] feels there would be strong political risk in such a Bill and will not introduce it. ”

Saying he’s willing to go to jail to bring attention to the lack of respect for parental rights, Murtari plans on ramping up his peaceful protesting. “I’ll be writing with sidewalk chalk on Monday,” he said, “but this time I’ll be outside the police station.”  (Village Offices at 76 William Street, at 2 PM.)  Murtari says he expects to get arrested, and he’d like to have other parents join him.

Murtari is best known for being fed via Nasal-Gastric tube for 123 days during a peaceful protest while incarcerated for child support he says he never owed.  He was interviewed at that time by news channel 10 and film producer Angelo Lobo.  Murtari can be seen in the documentary SUPPORT? System Down trailer.  He says he gave a preview of the movie to Oak’s staff.

SUPPORT? SYSTEM DOWN TRAILER

When asked why he is willing to sacrifice his liberty for family rights he replied with these words:

“Do we remember that for the majority of “written” human history: slavery was a norm, there was no freedom of religion, no real democracy.  The “early promoters” of modern freedoms were persecuted and killed.  They just didn’t “get it.”  But BIG change did happen.

We think we have “arrived” in our modern time.  That “all Civil Rights” are recognized, but in the near future folks may look back and say, “Can you believe how it was back then, just because you separated — you weren’t an equal parent anymore!  Barbarians!”

Again, again, and again I have to go back to Civil Rights history. The GREAT rights are defined by the sacrifices people made to achieve them. All the GREAT Civil Rights were made manifest by the will of the people — not defined by some Court.

By it’s very nature, sacrifice is not a contract.  You give up this and you will gain that. That would make it easy.  Sacrifice is you give up this and then maybe, maybe, you will gain that?  But always – you gain satisfaction & self respect & peace.  ”They told me to move to the back of the bus in my kid’s life — but I said, ‘No.’  They had to carry me and hold me down.”

Sacrifice – no GREAT CIVIL RIGHT has been won by talk alone, nor with a guarantee of success. In the 50s a Black who peacefully participated in a rally against segregation stood a good chance his home could be burned down by the Klan. At a recent parent’s meeting I asked those assembled if they would attend a Rally for Family Rights, if it meant a chance they would lose their homes/job — not one hand went up…”

“Nonviolent resistance … is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice.  Consequently, the believer in nonviolence has deep faith in the future …[and] can accept suffering without retaliation. For he knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship.” — Martin Luther King

http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil.htm

Original article

Related:

• Family court documentary SUPPORT? at Atlanta film fest this weekend
• More articles on John Murtari
• SUPPORT? System Down
• akidsright.org

Recent family rights articles:

• Texas denies male victims of domestic violence
• Child support torture victim claims hidden bloody evidence
• Tortured for child support
• Feminist DV service providers fight for cash and control, not equality
• Fathers 4 Justice announce support of CT father on hunger strike
• MA getting closer to equal parenting via HB 1400

Recent SF family articles:

• Make these pet costumes for little or no money
• Serve the family healthy hearty stew for ten bucks
• Thursday’s Shake Out drill, family earthquake education
• Energy conservation requested after fallen transmission tower, storm
• Cheap costumes and Antioch’s free costume exchange Wed
• Visit these Bay Area haunted houses
• Halloween freebies for kids and pumpkin stencils
• Thrill the World announces six Bay Area locations for breaking world record
• Halloween decorations: shrunken head apples to electronic displays
• Mom asks Bay Area community to help find missing son

The translation, of course, is that Americans and Europeans must henceforth bankrupt themselves to fund a global socialist agenda, lest global warming, which has not revealed itself in a decade, will rise up to consume those greedy Western capitalists with fire and brimstone.

Consider the real problems facing Brown’s England. Mired in past socialist exploits, England’s economy is inarguably in decline. Its unemployment rate is topping eight percent. The structure of English society, once the most influential in the civilized world, has been devastated by the systematic dismantling of tradition and morality. The most popular name for newborn “English” males is Mohammed, a statistic that certainly does not portend a resurgence of the former greatness of Britannia any time soon.

Yet rather than confront, or even dare to publicly recognize the dire threats facing his country, Brown chooses instead to demagogue the myth of “global warming” (by whatever name it is presently being touted) in order to solidify the power grab by the United Nations. Perhaps if he can keep his people sufficiently alarmed and bewildered with worries of being swallowed up by the rising tide of the Atlantic, they will neglect to notice that their nation is on the verge of taking that proverbial one-way journey in a handbasket.

Unfortunately for America, Gordon Brown is not alone. During the past nine months, this technique has been revealed as standard White House operating procedure. Barack Obama resorts to similar behavior every time his far-left agenda appears to be faltering, which of late has been on a daily basis.

Despite strident liberal efforts to implement government health-control through congressional sleight of hand and subterfuge, the American people have become informed on its real ramifications, and by large margins want no part of it. Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi, the far-left House Speaker, and equally liberal Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intend to ram the groundbreaking measure through the Congress by any means necessary.

An epic battle is shaping up between the leftist federal government, and those peasants out in the American heartland who doggedly cling to the notion that the country belongs to them and their posterity. This contest promises to evolve into liberalism’s “Tet Offensive,” the outcome of which, they hope, will be a decisive victory over the America of “Tea Parties,” talk-radio, and alternative media.

So the Obama regime, along with its accomplices in the Congress and on the network news, is pulling out all of the stops. Key to this effort is the vilification of any and all who, no matter how factually or honorably they do so, would dare to stand in the way of the liberal juggernaut. And the ugliness of the effort is astonishing. Only a few years have passed since the time when nothing of such a despotic nature would have been tolerated within these shores.

In response to the only real media scrutiny of Obama’s socialist scheme, which came from Fox News, White House senior advisor David Axelrod actually asserted that Fox is “not a news organization.” One can only assume that, among Obama’s many unappointed and unaccountable “Czars” lurks an individual seeking to determine what is or is not fit to disseminate to those ignorant masses on mainstreet, and censor it accordingly.

Unable to counter the information from Fox with facts, the Obama response is to attempt to destroy the messenger. And what of that “First Amendment” business about freedom of speech? Surely an Obama appointed judge can “clarify” it for us all, in order to prevent the excesses of Fox, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh from hampering the Obama agenda. If Hugo Chavez can pull it off in Venezuela, why not here?

Similarly, Obama is now going after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in the wake of its voiced opposition to government run “healthcare” and business killing tax hikes ostensibly meant to “save the planet,” received a rebuke from White House operative Jen Psaki. In an October 20 statement, Psaki derided the organization for allotting “millions of dollars against productive efforts under way to reform the regulatory structure, provide access to affordable health insurance for more Americans and reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions — all plans essential to the continued growth and recovery of our economy.”

In other words, if you object in any way to the socialist bulldozer, you are guilty of opposing “access to affordable health insurance” for your neighbors, and ultimately want to undermine the purported economic “recovery.”

Amazingly, while engaging in this war against real America, Obama is brushing aside the deteriorating Afghan situation. Worse yet, he has been absolutely silent on the obvious encroachment and attempted infiltration of the U.S. Congress by the “Council on American/Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist front organization with known ties and allegiances to terrorist organizations.

Sadly, average Americans now must contend with a government that is openly hostile to their livelihoods and the prospects for the future, but accommodating to dangerous adversaries and the real threats they pose. On the other hand, during the past year, the power of the common citizen has manifested itself in a profound and unprecedented manner. The massive 9-12 gathering in Washington D.C., “Tea Parties,” and burgeoning Tenth Amendment movement are but a glimpse into the well of energy and passion that is the heart and soul of traditional America. By their malevolent arrogance, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, may have roused that “sleeping giant.”

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

The problem with this display is the blatant gender bias that is apparent from the name alone: “In Her Shoes.”  Community organizer Alex White told The Item, “Those 136 women were daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts, neighbors and friends.”

News Center 25 has a story about the Women’s Crisis Center for Mid-Coast Family Services in Victoria, their 25th anniversary, and how they’re recognizing Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  Their project also involves hanging clothing, this time t-shirts.  News reports show only female victims’ names and stories being told.

What about male victims?  Certainly those in high positions in the Texas family violence industry would make sure to address and provide services for every victim.  Right?

A quick look at the Texas Council on Family Violence website is discouraging to male victims of abuse, and disgusting to their advocates.  It’s all there in their own words.

Each year, the Texas Council on Family Violence compiles a list of the women killed by their male intimate partners in Texas.

It seems they have no concern about men who are abused or murdered during domestic disputes.  It’s not like it didn’t happen.  Texas wasn’t lucky enough to avoid having a woman murder her husband last year.  This is the story of one:

Charles Shanks, 49, was killed by wife Kimberly Shanks, 51, on December 14, 2008 in Allen, Texas during a domestic dispute.  And here’s no chance it was an accident.  Kimberly stabbed Charles for having the TV too loud, admitting she had aimed for his heart.  She then went next door, picked up a heavy rock, brought it into their home, and hit Charles over the head with it.  She still wasn’t done.  She stabbed him again, this time in the back.

I hope next year The SAAFE House will hang shoes to represent the men who have been killed by their female intimate partners this year.  Here are two of their stories:

Michael Jackson was stabbed in the chest and back by wife Dina on February 25 in South Fort Worth.  Dina was apprehended on her way to Las Vegas.

Melissa Dawn Fleming, 40, shot and killed husband Joseph, 45, on June 14 in Gladewater.  She went to the police and nonchalantly stated that she’d shot him.  Police say there have been no disturbance calls to their residence in the past.

It will be interesting to see if there are men’s shoes on display next year to represent Michael and Joseph.  And even more important, how soon will a pair be hanging at the corner of Sam Houston Avenue and 12th Street for Charles Shanks?

Original article.

Subscribe to Teri’s national family rights articles by email or RSS or:

• Child support torture victim claims hidden bloody evidence
• Abducted child’s father faces prison for protest
• Feminist DV service providers fight for cash and control, not equality
• Dirty little secrets of domestic violence programs
• The face of men abused by women

To ensure imported food safety, federal agencies must focus their resources on high risk foods and coordinate efforts, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.

The report, submitted to the US Congress and obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, assesses how the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service are addressing challenges in overseeing the safety of imported food.

It also assesses how the FDA utilizes resources by working with other entities, such as state and foreign governments, and attempts to determine how the FDA is using its Predictive Risk-Based Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance Targeting system to oversee imported food safety.

US agriculture generates more than $1.5 trillion per year in economic activity and provides an abundant food supply for Americans and others. There are continuing concerns about the vulnerability of US agriculture to the deliberate introduction of animal and plant diseases by those wishing to harm American citizens.

“The big problem is money be spent to monitor food products being imported into the United States. So far, the budget for food safety is minimal when compared to other government programs. For example, politicians push for vaccinating millions of Americans against what they characterize as a deadly flu epidemic, yet they do not seem concerned over a very real threat to all Americans — contaminated food,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Federal agencies also have been conducting vulnerability assessments of the agriculture infrastructure; have created networks of laboratories capable of diagnosing animal, plant, and human diseases; have begun efforts to develop a national veterinary stockpile that intends to include vaccines against foreign animal diseases; and have created new federal emergency coordinator positions to help states develop emergency response plans for the agriculture sector. However, the United States still faces complex challenges that limit the nation’s ability to respond effectively to an attack against livestock.

CBP, FDA, and FSIS claim they have taken steps to address challenges in ensuring the safety of the increasing volume of imported food. For example, CBP maintains that the system importers use to provide information to FDA on food shipments; FDA electronically reviews food imports and inspects some foreign food production facilities to prevent contaminated food from reaching U.S. shores; and FSIS employs an equivalency system that requires countries to demonstrate that their food safety systems provide the same level of protection as the U.S. system.

However, gaps in enforcement and collaboration undermine these efforts. First, CBP’s computer system does not currently notify FDA or FSIS when imported food shipments arrive at U.S. ports, although efforts are underway to provide this information to FDA for air and truck shipments.

“This is a problem we see with law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies and other government entities,” claims former police detective and Marine intelligence officer Sidney Frances.

“Whenever we see multiple government agencies involved in one single function, there will almost certainly be some kind of Snafu,” he added.

This lack of communication may potentially increase the risk that unsafe food could enter U.S. commerce without FDA review, particularly at truck ports. Second, FDA has limited authority to ensure importers’ compliance with its regulations. Third, CBP and FDA do not identify importers with a unique number; as a result, FDA cannot always target food shipments originating from high risk importers.

Finally, CBP faces challenges in managing in-bond shipments–those that move within the United States without formally entering U.S. commerce–and such shipments possibly could be diverted into commerce. FDA generally collaborates with select states and foreign governments on imported food safety. FDA has entered into a contract, several cooperative agreements, and informal partnerships for imported food with certain states, and some state officials told GAO that they would like to collaborate further with FDA on food imports.

However, citing legal restrictions, FDA does not fully share certain information, such as product distribution lists, with states during a recall. This impedes states’ efforts to quickly remove contaminated products from grocery stores and warehouses. FSIS has begun to make available to the public a list of retail establishments that have likely received food products that are subject to a serious recall. FDA is also expanding efforts to coordinate with other countries.

In particular, through its Beyond Our Borders initiative, FDA is pushing the US government to station investigators and technical experts in China, Europe, and India, to provide technical assistance and gather information about food manufacturing practices to improve risk-based screening at U.S. ports.

According to FDA, inspectors will analyze food shipments using criteria that include a product’s inherent food safety risk and the importer’s violative history, among other things, to estimate each shipment’s risk. A 2007 pilot test indicated that the system improved FDA’s ability to identify products it considers to be high risk while allowing a greater percentage of products it considers low risk to enter U.S. commerce without a manual review.

On Friday, government officials with the Homeland Security and Justice Departments stated that the veteran lawman’s deputies could no longer make arrests based on a person’s immigration status. However, during an interview on Fox News Channel’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” Sheriff Arpaio told viewers that he and his deputies would continue to enforce the law and pointed to Arizona state laws that he would enforce.

In response to the federal complaints regarding his activities, Sheriff Arpaio dispatched deputies on a two-day “crime suppression” operation. While heralded by the men and women he serves, Arpaio’s sweeps have been characterized as racial profiling by opponents of immigration enforcement.

The nationwide enforcement of immigration law has been under the gun since President Barack Obama took his oath of office. Many political leaders, mostly Democrats, have targeted enforcement agencies and agents over the past few months with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi calling immigration raids “Un-American” and Congressman Luis Guttierez calling Border Patrol agents “The Gestapo.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has also threatened Arpaio with a federal investigation of his Sheriff’s Department and its activities as a result of his success at capturing hundreds of criminal aliens.

“Nothing has changed,” Arpaio told a Reuters reporter while overseeing an operation in a suburb northwest of Phoenix. “We’re still going to be doing what we’ve been doing tonight and during the last two and a half years. I don’t take orders from anyone.”

Sheriff Arpaio first carried out the sweeps after his deputies underwent training offered by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that gave participating state and local police officers authority to make immigration arrests during the Bush Administration. However, during the Obama Administration deputies have now lost their arrest powers as far as immigration laws on the streets.

The Homeland Security Department claims the reason for curtailing the program with local law enforcement is the current restructuring of the ICE program. However, Arpaio states that his officers are still allowed to determine the immigration status of detainees held in county jails.

Sheriff Arpaio was first elected in 1992 and is praised for his success in reducing violence and crime within his jurisdiction. While strongly supported by a majority of citizens in his county, Arpaio is routinely lambasted by Hispanic activists, liberal organizations and civil rights leaders such as Rev. Al Sharpton.

Sadly, at the same time as this government/media crackdown on Arpaio, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States is 10 million. Their total includes those who entered the United States illegally and those who entered legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Critics dispute the federal statistics saying that the number of illegal aliens is closer to 20 million.

Another recent study by the GAO estimates that there are about 15 million illegal aliens living in the United States. The study estimates that nearly 700,000 aliens enter the United States illegally or overstay their authorized period of stay each year.

Their report contained information on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated, their country of citizenship or country of birth, and the cost to incarcerate them. Congress also requested that the GAO provide information on the criminal history of aliens incarcerated in federal and state prisons or local jails who had entered the country illegally.

In the GAO study of a population sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, analysts found that they were arrested a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.

Nearly all of the illegal aliens in the study sample had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien.

One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests.

Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud–including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.

Eighty percent of all arrests occurred in three states — California, Texas, and Arizona. Specifically, about 58 percent of all arrests occurred in California, 14 percent in Texas, and 8 percent in Arizona. In addition, the FBI estimates that there are upwards of 50,000 illegal aliens who are members of crime gangs such as MS-13, the Mexican Mafia and the Latin Kings.

“If the US Attorney General and his boss President Obama are concerned with investigating criminal activity, perhaps they should focus on criminal aliens and gangs rather than persecuting an effective law enforcement commander such as Joe Arpaio,” said former NYPD detective and Marine Sid Frances.

On Monday, October 19, top talk show host Glenn Beck will expose President Barack Obama’s latest power grab: control of the Internet. The show (aired on Fox News Channel at 5:00 PM EST) is a must-see for anyone interested in freedom and limited government, and it’s a welcome change from the Obama propaganda one gets from most news organizations.

However, on September 3, this writer exposed this stealth Obama-Congressional operation in a column worth reading to understand the danger American’s face when the government sets its sights on the last bastion of freedom of expression — the worldwide web. And, of course, they are using the problem of cyber crime to rationalize their takeover.

A Senate bill (S.773) if passed would give the President of the United States the authority to declare a “cyber emergency” and close down the Internet by disconnecting users.

In addition, it will require professional IT people to be certified by the federal government, something that angers many IT technicians and those who believe in the First Amendment. Americans are being deceived by the news media and their elected officials in Washington, DC and it’s Americans who will suffer from that deception, according to information technology experts.

This stealth legislation is being sponsored by the powerful and highly partisan Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and the liberal Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME), claim critics.

“The fact that a man [Rockefeller] who visited other nations to give them a heads up about our intentions [to invade Iraq] would now suddenly care about security is laughable,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

“But there is no laughing about a government that wants to control cyber space, the last bastion of freedom of speech in our crumbling democracy,” said Baker.

“What irks President Obama and the other liberal-left politicians is that fact that while they’re pampered by the mainstream news media, talk radio and the Internet are not in the tank for them,” he added.

During a White House announcement televised on Fox News, CNN and other news networks, Obama said he will appoint a cyber security coordinator—or Cyber Czar—for the critical infrastructure that all Americans depend on.

“We will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient,” he said. “We will deter, prevent, detect and defend against attacks, and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”

The cyber security office will orchestrate and integrate all cyber security policies for the government, the president said. It will work closely with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agency budgets reflect those priorities, and, in the event of major cyber incident or attack, it will coordinate government response.

The cyber security coordinator will be a member of the national security staff and will serve on the president’s national economic council.

But Critics point out that any high-tech program that entails government intrusion should be carefully monitored by not only the US Congress but also private sector experts in cyber security and computer-based espionage.

“People went ballistic when they discovered the Bush White House authorized the interception of telephone and other electronic communications by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and rightly so. Yet, I haven’t heard a peep from these same people who claim they are concerned with ‘privacy rights,’” said security expert and former NYPD cop Mike Fitzgerald.

“This may come back to haunt us as the first step down a truly slippery slope,” said former the Police detective and director of security.

“The technology involved is so complicated that it may take computer scientists to discover whether the government is protecting Americans on the worldwide web or spying on them. And what are businesses that rely on the Internet supposed to do if the President closes down the Internet?” asks Sam McCarthy a former police commander now a computer security expert..

The cyber infrastructure is not limited to the federal government. The office will work with state and local governments and international partners to combat cyber attacks, and also will work with the private sector to ensure an organized and unified response to future cyber incidents, Obama stated.

Experts agree that America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security, which also affects public safety and national security. However, most experts contacted said that cyber security should be the responsibility of the private sector not government officials.

“We count on computer networks to deliver our oil and gas, our power and our water,” said McCarthy.

“Computers help run public transportation networks from the skies to subways, he noted, and hackers have launched attacks on electrical grids,” he said.

Part of the Obama program is a national campaign to promote cyber security awareness and digital literacy. The effort also will be part of the president’s initiative to build a digital work force for the 21st century. However, according to security experts, Obama is seeking powers never before given to a President even during the height of the Cold War.

“Once Americans realize what’s happening it may be too late thanks to Obama’s supporters in the news media. Do a search and you won’t see stories about this power grab in the major media,” warns Baker.

Regardless of what culture we are talking about, and regardless of the level of development of that culture (pre-modern, modern, postmodern), men and women are part of the same gender system and are assigned roles and tasks according to what works, not according to any kind of oppression. Therefore the gender system is always some kind of variant of women being protected (and perhaps limited) in order to be safe during pregnancy and when raising the next generation, while men take risks in order to find adequate resources for the women and the children, as well as defend them from any dangers. Instead of taking in the entirety of this gender system, feminism somewhat simplistically postulates that the gender system oppresses women while giving men all the benefits, and this very assumption means that feminism tries to correct an imbalance that doesn’t exist, instead of effectively working towards increased freedom and opportunity for both sexes. This is exactly what is now starting to happen in Third World countries.

One example of how misguided feminism is creating unnecessary problems in poor countries is microfinance programs. These programs usually target women, instead of giving equal opportunity to men. Partly this is because feminism informs these organizations that women’s role will be strengthened by allowing them to start their own business, and the other common reason given is that women are more likely than men to repay these loans. However, neither of these arguments are sound.

Regarding the feminist argument that women’s role need to be strengthened… well, this is nothing but propaganda, since it is notoriously hard to determine what gender is worse off in any given society, and since the two sexes are part of the same gender system, it usually makes sense to help both sexes at the same time. Women may be more likely to repay the loans they are given, but that is because women generally take lower risks when doing business. Assuming less risk may decrease the chance of bankruptcy, but it also decreases the chance of creating a truly profitable company that will end up employing lots of people. Men, on the other hand, tend to assume more risk, and while this may lead to bankruptcy it may also lead to larger companies, industrialization and the eradication of poverty.

When it comes to education in poor countries, feminism states that women should be educated first, since they will educate their children, thereby spreading the knowledge. As correct as that observation may be, it is only a partial truth. Men may not be as prone to teaching their children, but men–as we just saw–are more likely to use any skills, funding or education they receive to start new companies and build prosperity here and now. Educating men can thus lead to prosperity within five or ten years, without having to wait a full generation, which the feminist model assumes is necessary. Why not simply educate men and women alike, thereby creating positive change both short term and long term?

There are many more examples of how the feminist mantra “we must always help women” creates new problems and imbalances in underdeveloped nations, but for now, I just want to say that postmodern feminism is problematic in Third World Countries for two reasons:

• It is in itself a skewed model of reality that doesn’t produce beneficial results even when applied to postmodern countries, therefore it makes no sense to export it to other countries.
• Learnings from postmodern societies cannot always be applied to pre-modern societies, even when they are sound. Pre-modern societies need to make the transition to modernity and industrialization, before becoming postmodern. Poor countries are therefore less in need of human rights than they are of industrialization, because it is industrialization that leads to human rights, not the other way around.

This is not to say that there aren’t lots of important gender issues to be addressed in poor countries, just as there are in modern democracies. We certainly need a strong awareness of gender roles when analyzing any given society and its problems. However, feminism is too flawed and too one-sided to be the model that guides us in these endeavors, and I dearly hope that we will soon reach a point where gender issues are discussed more freely, using research and facts as much as possible.

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

The embassy issued the condemnation of the attacks as President Barack Obama signed a law that provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years. The funds are part of a comprehensive plan that recognizes the importance of confronting the root causes of extremism as well as extremists themselves, stated Miles.

The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

The American taxpayer is provided an abundance of opinions and fantasies surrounding economic progress packaged as truths, facts or principles. The certitude applied to the delivery of this inspiring radiation has maximum impact on the behavior of the audience.

The vast central swath through the middle of the American political spectrum representing a majority, seeks reasonableness from government. The majority expects its business to be conducted with some integrity, without the encumbrance of concrete boots of left or right extremism demanded by party affiliation. This expectation of common sense, and forthrightness has not been honestly accommodated by politicians. The cost of reaching elected office has so escalated that special interests have become the overwhelming force behind all thrones influencing legislative agendas. As a result, every utterance emanating from a political pulpit has become suspicious.

When Paulson and Geithner browbeat their economically illiterate, and incurious bosses, into bailing too big to fail financial firms, and to launch profligate spending programs, the taxpayers had no input, nor were they provided enough truthful information to know right from wrong. Furthering confusion came in the form of suddenly popular Keynesian economists affirming government stimulus spending. Their continual proclamation of mission accomplished, and the recession is over, has become a tired refrain.

With unemployment hovering at 16%, when you include marginally attached workers and part timers for economic reasons, the principal energy in the system is the government’s $1.25 trillion mortgage support program artificially inflating home prices, borrowed with future taxpayer sweat.

The two principal pulls at opposite ends of the government intervention string, are Financial Stimulus, and Lowering Taxes. The arguments move the cursor of political will along this confusing line with abundant force pulling effectively from both ends. Over the long term, practical evidence suggest that there is little positive impact on GDP from supposed spending multipliers, so the amount spent as financial stimulus will not find itself increased or even mirrored in the amount of the nation’s gross domestic product. From the other side of the great divide, the lowering of taxes has shown some positive affect, however long-term impact has been almost impossible to empirically quantify.

In the middle, rests the most reasonable path which mandates that government, and politics (humans guided by special interests), remain out of the equation altogether, with some leaning toward easing of corporate and personal taxes, and reducing government expenditures. As his will not occur, and as we have seen, the likely reality is for a continuation of tax increases facing the enormous deficit demanding to be satiated.

Your perceptions as consumers, and taxpayers, will impact economic activity. You will dictate the direction, which the economy takes, and through that process, minimize the influence from politicians and experts confusing your judgment with mutable notions of economic confidence. Instilling confidence is intended to move consumers to borrow and spend. Ignore the noise.

As the recession continues, and it will, we should all remain diligent with each dollar we earn, and even more so with each dollar we borrow, unlike the examples set by Washington.

The biggest financial decision we make pertains to our dwellings. We will be hearing newly energized implorations of mortgaging ourselves into evermore elaborate dwellings, or increasing the debt on those we already inhabit. The reality remains that a home’s increasing value should never become a source of newfound cash while we live in it. Perceive your home as an expense if you have purchased one. If you still rent, congratulations, you have bypassed the heavy stress that millions of mortgage borrowers have endured over the past couple of years.

As the ravages of unemployment persist, we can each contribute to a return of long-term national economic stability by viewing each dollar we earn as if it were your last one for a while. The behavior might just be contagious, and spread long enough for political representatives to assimilate the message since elections don’t appear to change much in Washington’s behavior.

James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post