Apparently, Moore thinks that capitalism is a system where the government bails out and controls the financial sector, or one whereby a few rich people dominate the entire structure and keep everyone else poor. Both are leftist caricatures that have nothing in common with capitalism properly construed, as best described by its first and best exponent, Adam Smith.

So Moore’s film needs a new title. Perhaps something like, “Corporatism: What the Left Thinks Capitalism Is.”

Watching Michael Moore rail against corporate bailouts in the early scenes of his latest movie, a free marketeer might wonder if perhaps the film maker has inadvertently blundered into the truth. Among other things, he rips apart the notion that government and big business partnering up is good for the little guy. About half-way through the movie, I actually caught myself thinking: Do Michael Moore and disciples of Adam Smith actually agree?

Eventually the film predictably drifts leftward, criticizing “excesses” such as high foreclosure rates, individuals hurt by (downward) stock-market swings, problems with a privatized jail and, of course, the fact that rich people are, well, rich (this from a guy worth millions himself). Moore also makes a faux-religious argument, asking some priests, “What would Jesus do?”

Many on the left similarly cite such “excesses of capitalism” as their reasons for opposing a free-market system. The reality, of course, is that most of these excesses have nothing to do with capitalism. Indeed, things like high foreclosure rates are the result of government policies that subsidized and virtually forced banks to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford the home. The financial and stock-market crashes of one year ago were byproducts of the inevitable collapse of that house of cards.

But alas, excesses and villains are what sell movie tickets. Perhaps Moore will expand on the theme with films on the excesses of non-capitalist systems? How about these?: The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (two million murdered), the Soviet Union (65 million dead), Communist China (70 million dead), and so on. Now, those are some excesses, and gripping ones at that.

Michael Moore incoherently argues that we need to replace “capitalism” with a true American system: “Democracy.”

Ironically, a true capitalist system is the best and most pure system of the democratic ideal: individual consumers and producers engaging in purely voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges. This could not be more different from government and politics, the hallmarks of which are coercion and dishonesty.

Here’s how economist Walter Williams defines capitalism and the proper role of government in such a system:

“Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts, and ensure rule of law.”

Capitalism is a system that has pulled millions upon millions of people out of poverty, but Michael Moore is profoundly ignorant of that. When pressed in an interview, he said he “doesn’t want to get caught up in titles.” He apparently doesn’t want to get caught up in truth either. Yet, condemning a system without understanding its basic principles sells movie tickets—i.e., it makes money—and earns the praise of others who share Moore’s ignorance.

Before this film was released, Moore wrote, “The time has arrived for, as Time magazine called it, my ‘magnum opus.’ I only had a year of Latin when I was in high school, so I’m not quite sure what that means, but I think it’s good.”

Michael Moore may have had one year of Latin, but he either skipped or flunked Econ 101.

— Jarrett Skorup is a 2009 graduate of Grove City College and former student fellow at The Center for Vision & Values. He is a research intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Mr. Skorup can be reached at Skorup@mackinac.org.

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

Easy: Character. The men running the war are mentally the wrong ones to do it.

Think about this for a moment. Suppose that your boss at the lab or law firm or newsroom demanded that, when he entered the room, you leapt spasmodically to your feet, stood rigidly erect with your feet at a forty-five degree angle like a congenitally deformed duck, and stared straight ahead until he gave you permission to relax. You would think, correctly, that he was crazy as a bedbug. If he then required reporters to stand in a square so he could inspect their belt buckles, you would either figure he was a gay blade or call for a struggle buggy and some big orderlies. This weird posturing is not normal, nor are those it appeals to.

Suppose you showed up for freshman orientation at Princeton and your professors bellowed at the tops of their voices, three inches from your face, “Your shoes ain’t shined good, puke. Get down and give me fifty.” (Pushups, that is, which in the military doesn’t mean the better sort of bra.) You would decide that the loon had lost whatever mind he had ever had, and call Domino’s for a cheese pizza, double Haldol.

Should you be so unwary as to suggest the foregoing in print, the response will usually be that militaries need discipline. True, and so do newspapers. However, there is a distinction between discipline and ritualized lunacy. At every publication for which I have worked, the editor was clearly and absolutely in charge. Yet I, seldom senior, could say, “Yeah, Wes, but if we do that, won’t thus-and-so bad thing happen?” His decision was law, but he was happy to hear from subordinates, who might know something he didn’t. Editors do not require vaguely sadomasochistic submissiveness.

This hoopla is not of use in combat. The Taliban seem to be doing rather well. Do you suppose their commanders check their beds to be sure that a quarter will bounce from their blankets?

Now, what kind of kid wants to go for robot training at West Point or boat school at Annapolis? Statistically these kids are bright, gregarious, “motivated” (a favorite military word), athletic, perhaps Eagle Scouts. Psychologically they want (need?) to live under a regime of rigid conformity and obedience that would appear as absurd as it is if we were not accustomed seeing it among soldiers. That is, they are autoselected not to think for themselves or question decisions from above. They are exactly what universities exist not to produce.

The service academies reinforce these unfortunate characteristics. Their schooling consists of four years of learning what to think, not how to think. There are hours of running in formation (“If I die on the Russian front….”), close-order drill, manual of arms (“Hen-spection…harms!”). Why? There is no military value in being able to shift your rifle from shoulder to shoulder crisply. Like the endless inspections of everything, all of this participation in the hive inculcates groupishness and a curious sense of safety in conformity.

The effects are remarkable and, from a standpoint of civilization, undesirable. Large authoritarian organizations make easier the compartmentalization of morality. A colonel typically will be a good neighbor, civic-minded, responsible, unlikely to steal your silverware or kick your dog. If the Pentagon tells him to bomb a city he has never heard of and has no reason to bomb, killing people who pose no threat to him, he will. He feels no individual responsibility for atrocious behavior ordered from above. “I vas only followink orders,” the Nuremberg defense, is the bedrock of military ethics, if any.

Men trained in conformist obedience can work marvels. They just don’t care whether the marvel is good or evil. If you need to handle some vast natural disaster, call on the military. They have the manpower, the aircraft, the medics, the co-operation to get things done now. They will stay on their feet for forty-eight hours without sleep. They take the “mission” (another favorite military word) seriously.

What they do not do particularly well is wage war. Why? Because they have in their minds a view of war that is partly that of offensive linemen—you close with the enemy and destroy him—and partly martial romanticism. They speak of duty, honor, country, bravery, fallen comrades, proving oneself. Military history is rife with silly pageantry, nobility of spirit, glorious charges, and impracticality. Having been trained to think rigidly, they do.

Before Agincourt, there were things the French might profitably have learned about long bows, but didn’t bother because chivalry didn’t concern itself with peasants. It was the glory of the thing, not whether they were committing suicide. English generals killed 20,000 young Brits in one day at the Somme; they hadn’t compared the ideas in their heads with then-current military reality (such as that infantry charges over long distances against massed machine guns, artillery, and barbed wire are not especially productive, unless you manufacture embalming fluid.) Authoritarian group-think, love of ritual, romanticism, inattention: not a happy brew.

Further, military service encourages an often-catastrophic sense of masculine potency. Running in formation with fifty other men (“lef-rye-lef-rye-lef-rye-layeff….”) or watching a fighter cat-shot from a carrier deck—the thrill is gonadal, appealing to something deep in the male psyche, a challenge flung at life. It is wonderful, but not a sound basis for judgement.

A consequence is a tendency for militaries of the First World to gravely overestimate themselves, and thus underestimate their enemies. This is why they usually expect wars to be far shorter and cheaper than they turn out to be. As recent examples, the French did not expect those slanty-eyed little zipperheads (les jaunes) to win in Viet Nam, nor did the Pentagon have any idea they the US could possibly lose 60,000 dead and the war in that country, Iraq would be a cakewalk, and those louse-infested towel-heads in Afghanistan had no hope against American swoosh-kerpows. The US military in particular has a compulsory can-do attitude, with slogans like “The difficult we can do today, the impossible takes a bit longer.” This substitution of morale for comprehension is regularly disastrous.

Having no idea what they are getting into is almost doctrine among professional officers. A major does not become a colonel by saying, “General, the French didn’t do all that well at Dien Bien Phu. Maybe we ought to, you know, do something else. We could invade Vanuatu.”

America’s problem is not that its generals prepare for the last war, but that they don’t prepare for it, and then fight it again the same way.

More Fred here.

On Sunday the 25th the news broke from the local television station:

Redmond man jailed on rape, assault charges

Posted: Jan 25, 2009 01:19 AM EST

Kevin Dennis Driscoll

By Kate Paul, KTVZ.COM

A 30-year-old Redmond man was arrested Saturday on rape and four other charges in an alleged assault that occurred more than 24 hours earlier, police said.

Redmond Police detectives also executed a search warrant on the home of Kevin Dennis Driscoll as part of the investigation of an alleged sexual assault that occurred in Redmond early Friday morning, said Det. Sgt. Cory Chase.

Driscoll was arrested around noon in Redmond and taken to the Deschutes County Jail, where he was booked on first-degree charges of rape, sodomy, sex abuse and unlawful sexual penetration, as well as fourth-degree assault. Initial bail was set at $382,500.

At a northwest Redmond home, Driscoll allegedly took advantage of a young woman he’d met just hours before.

Police say Driscoll and the young woman met at a bar early Friday morning.

After a few too many, the pair left with a group to go hot-tubbing. That’s when police say things got way out of hand, and Driscoll got aggressive.

Neighbors of Driscoll said Monday they were stunned to learn a nearby resident would do something like that. They said most in the area are easy-going and keep to themselves.

“It’s quiet you know, and nice, nice people – nice neighborhood to live in,” said Alfredo Arreola. “But you never know who’s around.”

It’s a family-oriented neighborhood because of its location, right next to an elementary school, raising serious concerns and fears for parents on Teak Street.

“You’ve got to be more careful and check on the Internet to see who’s around,” Arreola. “Because you’ve got to take care of your little ones.”

-

That was it, a one hundred and four word press release indicting a man in front of his whole community and terrorizing an entire neighborhood. Furthermore, a fax was promptly sent to Kevin’s employer the next day informing them of his arrest which would lead to his suspension and eventually his termination. Guilty or not, Kevin’s life will never again be the same.

The investigation started with the requisite photos of bruises on the woman’s body, the absence of which would have led to him not being arrested and not having his name broadcasted all over the news. Also, there was the documentation of the account she gave of events as follows from a Forensic Report dated April 23rd 2009:

“Briefly, per the police reports, the alleged victim had been to at least two lounges late on the evening of January 22 and early in the morning of January 23, 2009. She indicated that she had drunk “to the point of intoxication.” She and a number of other individuals went to a house for the purpose of “hot tubbing.” After being in the hot tub she reportedly went to lie down on a bed in one of the bedrooms and sometime later the defendant joined her in the bed. Reportedly the defendant then sexually (vaginally and anally) and physically assaulted her, including biting. She reported two separate sexual assaults by the defendant with him standing at the foot of the bed after the first assault in some fashion to keep her from leaving. During the first assault she reportedly struck the defendant; however during the second assault she did not attempt to resist. The defendant subsequently gave her a ride to her car and provided her his name and phone number.”

The set of photos were documented as being taken at the police station and nowhere else. All other photos in a rape case are supposed to be part of a regular set of photos taken at a hospital where the “rape kit” is performed. No photos were ever provided to the forensic expert or to Kevin’s attourneys that were specifically identified as the photos taken at the hospital.

The stories differed significantly. Included in her account was her trip to Kevin’s house in a taxi, one which several eyewitnesses and video refute. Excluded in her account was the documented fact that she had sex with her acquaintance, Dennis Baker, in the hot tub, a fact that she denied at first and then later admitted too when she realized that there was an eyewitnesses to that event. Dennis account of events, as described in a written statement taken by a Brian Buchanan, include that he and Mellissa went over to Kevin’s in a friend’s car and not long after had some limited sexual contact in Kevin’s driveway, something that was caught on a video from a camera affixed to Kevin’s garage. Later, according to the same statement they found themselves alone in the hot tub out back where she aggressively initiated sex with him. During the encounter Dennis noticed some bruises on her body and asked where they came from to which she did not reply but only “turned her head to one side “ avoiding eye contact “like she did when she was nervous.” In this same document, Dennis points out that he is “friends” with her husband and that he doesn’t believe the events at Driscoll’s house occurred as described by his wife. According to her husband, the document notes, they had to move away from the town they were living in previously because of bogus charges filed by her that ruined their reputation.

Shortly after they had finished having sex others joined them in the hot tub and they reported staying there for a long time. Kevin had gone to bed while the others had been in the hot tub and trusted his friend Pete to look after things. Mellissa exited the hot tub and wearing nothing but a hooded sweatshirt was seen heading towards Kevin’s room. Dennis, before leaving some time later, looked through the house for Mellissa calling her name and upon not hearing anything decided that she may have gone home with one of the others and left himself. Driscoll stated that she unexpectedly came into his room when it was dark and pursued sexual relations with him. He said that they had sex twice, once when she first entered the room and once just before they left the morning after. Early the next morning video footage from the camera affixed to Kevin’s garage documented Kevin entering his car and having it warmed up before Mellissa entered it on her own volition and they drove off. Later footage from a camera near the Fireside Lounge where her car was still parked showed Kevin giving Mellissa his phone number before saying goodbye.

After his release from jail Kevin got an attorney, Ted Coran, who specializes in sexual assault defense cases and the original trial date was set for June 6th, 2009. Coran assured Kevin that as soon as Dennis’ account of what had happened was presented that the charges would be dropped and Kevin would not have anything to worry about. District Attorney Welsh Ashby was originally assigned to try the case but not long after the case was scheduled a new prosecutor was assigned and immediately it was rescheduled to September 22nd. The new prosecuting tourney’s name was Jody Vaughan.

Jody Vaughan has had a storied past in the Oregon Criminal Justice System. She has been practicing since 1986 and was an assistant DA in Josephine County until 2004 when she got the same job in Deschutes County where Driscoll was booked. While in Josephine County she prosecuted a case in which a 65 year old man by the name of T.J. Burris of Hugo Ore. Burris was sentenced to twenty years in prison for a crime that he and many others say he did not commit. Burris, then an elder at the First Assembly of God church in Grants Pass, Ore., was accused by his granddaughter of beating and sexually abusing her. Two trials were held for this particular case the first of which he was found not guilty. Apparently, the not guilty verdict wasn’t good enough for Vaughan and her boss, Timothy R. Thomson, who boasted a 95% conviction rate in their county. In spite of a confession by the alleged victim between the trials that the allegations were false Vaughan and Thomson were able, through the testimony of the parents of his granddaughter, who had a well documented past of fraud as well as other crimes, to convict Burris and he spent the next eight years behind bars with the remainder of his sentence being served as a parolee. There are no less than six complaints filed against Vaughan during her career as a prosecutor and she is also famous for aggressively prosecuting DUI cases in the county. Thomson has since taken the job of Union County D.A. and has worked for the Oregon Department of Justice.

The treatment of the forensic evidence in the Oregon v. Driscoll case mirrors the cavalier attitude towards testimony and evidence shown in the Burris case. When Kevin’s attorney approached Vaughan in order to procure further photos supposedly taken at the hospital as part of a routine rape kit procedure they were not forthcoming. A document dated January 27th 2009 from the Redmond Police Department was given to Kevin’s attorney stating that Leahey came down to have additional photos taken. Stating that “photos had already been taken and she didn’t see the need for more to be taken” she only volunteered to have those injuries not in her vaginal area photographed. When approached by Coran about the photos of her vaginal area Vaughan stated ambiguously that the photos were either lost or were part of the set that he already had of the bruises examined by the forensic expert on April 23rd.  Coran was incredulous. To date there are no photos of her vaginal area that show any trauma to the area.

Furthermore, the forensic report prepared on the 23rd of April clearly states that the bruises appeared to be much older than would have occurred anytime the alleged events happened due to coloration of the wounds. Also, the report said of the alleged bite mark on the upper right chest that “this area of the body is not protuberant and I think it would be difficult, if not altogether impossible, to create a bite mark in this region without a corresponding bite mark.” Put simply, there are no pictures of the alleged injury to the vaginal region, a forensic expert who had excellent credentials and was well published dismissed the injuries as having taken place the night of the incident and that it was doubtful that there were any bite marks and the presence of testimony by someone who was intimate with Leahey moments before the alleged incident occurred noted the presence of such injuries did not stop Vaughan from pursuing a conviction.

Vaughan’s treatment of the case as it pertains to trial dates and other alleged activities of Driscoll pending trial is also very curious, if not alarming. The trial has been delayed twice with the current date being set at November 3rd 2009. Since Kevin’s release from jail he has been under house arrest and wears an ankle transponder to monitor his movements. Vaughan has accused Driscoll of tampering with the transponder, something that Kevin’s case handler vehemently denies. Former girlfriends of Kevin who happened to not have very flattering things to say about him were corralled in front of the judge at a pretrial hearing in order to qualify them for testimony and the judge refused to let them testify. Allegations were also made by Vaughan that Kevin had made withdraws from ATMs in the area which can be proven false because they were made by his friend and sister and photos are easily procured from the bank cameras. Vaughan has also produced another “expert opinion” to counter the forensic report. A general practitioner from the area who has no forensic experience has been scheduled to testify in the case in order to increase the likelihood of a conviction. Coran calls this a typical case of pitting one doctor against another in order to dissuade the jury.

The press has been extremely ambivalent about the case. Repeatedly, Kevin’s close friend, Angela Dundas of Bend Oregon, has approached local media outlets to tell Kevin’s story and referred them to the work of Joseph Snook, and investigative reporter that writes for a publication called the U.S. Observer that bills itself as a watchdog for Oregon public officials. One of their favorite targets is Vaughan who has apparently given them much fodder for articles in the past. KTVZ has been on record saying that they felt that the U.S. observer is little more than a tabloid and have told Dundas that their writers have a wild imagination. Dundas’ response has been that “they don’t know anything that I didn’t know from the beginning.” However, no coverage other than their original report broadcast on the 25th of January and that of the U.S Observer has been offered to the public about this case.

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

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.

*CHOOSE bright, flame-retardant costumes or add reflective tape to costumes and candy bags so children are easily seen in the dark. In addition, carry a glow stick or flashlight.

*PLAN a trick-or-treating route in familiar neighborhoods with well-lit streets. Avoid unfamiliar neighborhoods, streets that are isolated, or homes that are poorly lit inside or outside.

*NEVER send young children out alone. They should always be accompanied by a parent or another trusted adult. Older children should always travel in groups.

*ALWAYS walk younger children to the door to receive treats and don’t let children enter a home unless you are with them.

*BE SURE children do not approach any vehicle, occupied or not, unless you are with them.

*DISCUSS basic pedestrian safety rules that children should use when walking to and from houses.

*CONSIDER organizing a home or community party as an alternative to “trick-or-treating.”

*MAKE sure children know their home phone number and address in case you get separated. Teach children how to call 911 in an emergency.

*TEACH children to say “NO!” or “this is not my mother/father” in a loud voice if someone tries to get them to go somewhere, accept anything other than a treat, or leave with them. And teach them that they should make every effort to get away by kicking, screaming and resisting.

*REMIND children to remain alert and report suspicious incidents to parents and/or law enforcement.

“Child safety is important year round, but Halloween is an especially important time for parents and children to pay extra attention to their surroundings and not let their guard down,” said Nancy McBride, National Safety Director of NCMEC. “It is important that parents exercise a few basic safety precautions to help ensure that Halloween is both fun and safe.”

This year the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children observes its 25th anniversary. NCMEC has played a role in the recovery of more than 138,500 children. Today more children come home safely than ever before. In 2008, NCMEC helped recover more children than any other year in the organization’s 25-year history, raising the recovery rate from 62 percent in 1990 to 97 percent today. And more of those who prey on children are being identified and prosecuted. Yet too many children are still missing and too many children are still the victims of sexual exploitation. There is much more that needs to be done.

NCMEC: www.missingkids.com
NACOP: www.aphf.org

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.

“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

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 is the liberal-left strategy for fighting a war against terrorists: build schools and hospitals. In other words, increase the number of targets for the enemy — the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” said former NYPD detective and Marine intelligence officer Sid Franks.

“This strategy may have worked in Iraq, but the Afghan terrorists and radicals have been hardened by years of fighting warlords, Russia’s military and now the US. They don’t want our schools and hospitals and Obama just doesn’t get it,” said Det. Franks.

“As usual, when faced with a problem most US politicians believe throwing taxpayers money at it is the solution,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Meanwhile, on the same day as Obama’s law-signing, terrorists attacked three security agency buildings in Pakistan today, including the Federal Investigation Agency headquarters and two police training centers in Lahore. In addition, a suicide car bomber struck in the northwestern city of Kohat, and a bombing in Quetta in the southwest of the country left more dead.

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.

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.”

Our nation is coming apart at the seams, and Barack Obama is proving to be absolutely inept, or worse, at dealing with the situation. Instead of honestly assessing things and advancing solutions conceived in the best interests of the American people, he presses mindlessly forward with his ultra-liberal agenda, ignoring or deriding those who make any effort to forestall his destruction of the great institutions of this country. In league with him are the leading players of the Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA), both of whom have exhibited a vile degree of contempt for real America, and both of whom are pivotal figures in next year’s elections.

Reid, as a four-term incumbent and currently the most powerful member of the United States Senate, faces an uphill battle next year, currently trailing in double digits behind potential Republican challengers. And while Pelosi, despite her deranged political philosophy, is secure in her equally disturbed California congressional district, the fringe-left Speaker of the House has become a paragon of everything grassroots America reviles and hopes to expunge from this thoroughly corrupted and perverse government.

In many respects, 2010 is shaping up to be a pivotal juncture in the course of the nation. The intense anger and outrage expressed at the massive “tea party” gatherings throughout 2009 are likely to metamorphose into decidedly anti-liberal voting patterns next year on election day, which could likewise translate into major gains for the Republican Party. However, such a scenario is by no means secure. And as usual, within the GOP are forces that, if allowed to act unchecked, may yet sabotage the entire situation.

Democrats are on the ropes. So once again, those vaunted Republican “moderates” are attempting to come to their rescue. Whether motivated by stupidity, cowardice, or an underhanded intention to ensure that liberalism ultimately prevails in America, the usual suspects, while identifying themselves as Republicans, are giving aid and comfort to the left, at the ultimate expense of their supposed colleagues on the right. It is high time that their duplicity be exposed and underscored, so that their malevolent impact on conservatism can be finally neutralized.

At a critical milestone in the Democrat attempt to implement a government takeover of America’s healthcare industry, Senator Olympia Snowe (R.-ME) came out in support of the measure in the Senate Finance Committee. Thus she provides the bogus fig leaf of “bipartisanship” that Democrats so fervently desire.

Elsewhere, “Republican” forces are working hard to counteract the enormous influence of Christian and pro-life conservatives in the Party. Somehow, despite the mountains of historical evidence to the contrary, those morally rudderless pragmatists believe this would be a great boon to Republican electoral fortunes, doggedly refusing to accept that by remaking the party according to their “centrist” philosophies, they would ensure the abandonment of the party by enormous numbers of true conservatives.

Thus, their efforts continue. And in them the real animus towards Sarah Palin among GOP “moderates” becomes evident. Despite her lack of an Ivy League pedigree, or perhaps owing to it, Sarah Palin sees moral issues in black and white and, unlike her Beltway insider antagonists, is not afraid to say so. As such she poses a great threat to the Republican “business as usual” Washington crowd that occasionally plays to the right (especially at election time), but ultimately seeks its own advancement.

Over time, an entire class of posturing “conservatives” has been revealed. In the wake of the 2006 electoral disaster, in which both the House and Senate changed from marginally Republican to solidly Democrat, prominent Republicans including Senator John McCain and former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Pennsylvania seized on what they believed was the opportunity to purge the GOP of its Christian/conservative influence. Both offered disparaging words about the supposed political liability of the “religious right” on the gloomy Republican electoral results. And as the abundance of evidence proves, both were inarguably wrong.

In truth, conservatism must be solidly based in traditional Judeo-Christian morality if it is to be conservatism in any sense. So-called “fiscal conservatives” (Senator Snowe considers herself one) merely profess the ludicrous notion that they can confront liberalism’s resultant social rot at a far lower cost than that expended by the Democrats.

Predictably, when disastrous expansions of the nanny state result from such double-minded “governance” on the Republicans’ watch, they lamely attempt to defend themselves by claiming that their spending levels are still far lower than what the opposition would have perpetrated.

It is sad that this posturing among Republican “moderates” is as vapid as the current day “defenses” of policy offered by Barack Obama. In the face of massive job losses during his term in the White House, he insists that had it not been for his trillion-dollar “stimulus package,” the numbers would have been far worse.

Come November of 2010, people will indeed be looking for a real and positive “change” in the composition of this out-of-control federal government. And at this opportune moment, it is no longer sufficient for Republicans to campaign solely on the faults of the Democrat left. If true conservatives in the Senate and House are going to present themselves as a worthy alternative to the abysmal status quo, they must immediately begin defining themselves and the GOP as starkly contrasted from the Democrats. And, they must not allow imposters from the Republican Party’s liberal wing to seize the debate and thereby blur the differences between right and left.

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

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.”

Arpaio’s deputies attended the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Center in order to be trained for immigration enforcement as part of their regular law enforcement and jail management duties. In addition to the DHS attempting to curtail Sheriff Arpaio’s immigration enforcement activities — he states he will not stop arresting illegal aliens — Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, is threatening to investigate Sheriff Arpaio and his department.

Sadly, at the same time 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.

Some illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons as well as local jails, adding to already dangerously overcrowded prisons and jails, the Government Accountability Office reported to the US Congress’ Homeland Security Subcommittee on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

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.

For a population of aliens that entered the country illegally and were incarcerated in federal or state prisons or local jails, the GAO report addressed the following questions: How many times have they been arrested? How many and what type of criminal offenses have they been arrested for? What states were they arrested in?

In the GAO study of a population sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, analysts found that they were arrested at 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.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the former editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subscription” on the subject line.

Grayson ruffled feathers and spread glee among the partisan flock a couple of weeks ago when he made this claim:

“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”

How Grayson could know enough to debate the matter is a bit of a mystery. How many times do we need to mention it? Congressional Democrats are in such a hurry to “do something” about everything, that there’s no time to write, read, or discuss the substance of legislation before agreeing to it. It was a bizarre claim to be sure, but since their “hope and change” has been provoking national rebellion, any distraction is apparently welcome.

Presumptively, the Republicans should have a “health care” plan. Maybe one that would compete with the mystical conjurings of Democrats – costs nothing, does everything. Don’t talk about substantive details though. That would counter-act the magical spells cast upon it by the Wizard-in-Chief Barack Obama. Just imagine, as Alan and Barack want you to, clicking your heals together three times as you do, that the result might be something that you want.

Or how about this? We could all go live in the United States of America again where Congress isn’t actually supposed to be in the insurance business and providing sales commissions to its members. We could imagine instead, on firmer intellectual ground, that they’re trying to pull another fast one on us, overstepping their Constitutional authority again, trying to do something as corrupt as a petrified turd in a drain pipe.

More recently, Grayson stepped to the podium to once again say that he won’t apologize for his earlier remarks – fueling speculation that he might be subtly poking fun at Republican Congressman Joe Wilson for apologizing after yelling “You lie!” during Obama’s stump speech to Congress. (What else should I call it, really?) He had some additional remarks.

“[The American People] understand the if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for over-population. They understand the if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they’d blame him for destroying the defense industry. If fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon.”

Well, Barack Obama did win a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about peace and harmony. If imagining things based on flowery speeches is good enough for the Norwegian Nobel Committee – oh wait, the American people actually have to live with the real-world results and pay for them – even die for them when it becomes too expensive (especially without jobs) to heat homes and buy food and pay taxes and when foreign military actions are not properly managed. That can be especially frustrating when many in the rest of the world are content to leave the expenses and heavy lifting to Americans, and then stand around complaining as they do it.

But those nasty Republicans better stay away from banning BLTs. Bacon might not be good for our health, but I like it. While we’re at it, let’s allow smoking in public places again. A lot of people – American people – like that but somebody came along and banned it. The Democrats should also consider lifting the ban on proper history and civics lessons in public schools, citing the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the National Anthem, and praying. These things are all being replaced by activities that are truly bad for our health.

“Only nine months into his presidency,” reported a baffled CNN news anchor this morning. “President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The announcement made jaws drop even at the White House.”

When I first heard the news, I thought it was a joke.

The announcement from the Nobel Committee defies belief, even as I’ve come to expect the inconceivable from the committee. I learned long ago not to take the Nobel Committee seriously. And yet, this gesture far exceeds any previous towering leap of incredulity by the committee.

To be sure, I knew the Nobel Committee would at some point award Barack Obama its hallowed prize. That was a given. But right now, only nine months into Obama’s presidency, when Obama himself would surely agree that he cannot name a single foreign-policy accomplishment?

Actually, the situation is worse than that: According to news reports, nominations took place eight months ago, only weeks into Obama’s presidency.

How could that be? Does this make any sense at all?

It does when you consider what the Nobel Committee has become, and how it operates according to leftist political objectives. The committee has honored Barack Obama in order to make a political statement in support and encouragement of his foreign policy. The committee knows that its award has nothing to do with the absent foreign-policy accomplishments of a presidency not even a year old, or a diplomatic record that doesn’t exist. Its purpose is to help Obama pursue the kind of foreign policy favored by the leftists who run the Nobel Committee.

The European-globalists on the committee agree fully with the leaders who heaped praise on Obama during the U.N. circus two weeks ago. They agree with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that Obama has brought “hope” to the world. They agree with Fidel Castro’s hailing Obama’s lead on “climate change.” They agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Obama agrees with him on America’s past “ugly behavior.” Like Moammar Kaddafi, they wish Obama could be president “forever.”

This award is not a statement on what Obama has done but a rubber-stamp approval of his plans for America and the world. The committee wants to lend cover to Obama as he pursues a global course opposed by conservative Republicans back home and his generals and commanders abroad. To be sure, this is the kind of meddling in domestic politics that the Nobel Committee usually decries.

That said, I’m actually quite pleased with this action. Why? Because it further undermines the credibility of the Nobel Committee as an allegedly impartial organization. This further shows that the group is inherently political and unabashedly left-wing. In other words, this gesture has the noble effect of exposing the ignoble Nobel Committee for what it really is.

I would like to offer two quick examples from the very recent past:

In 2002, the Nobel Committee awarded President Jimmy Carter. Personally, I long supported recognizing Carter for negotiating the Camp David Accords, which was a great accomplishment in an otherwise disastrous presidency. And yet, the Nobel Committee waited over two decades to give Carter the prize. It awaited the presidency of George W. Bush, whose foreign policy these liberal Europeans doggedly opposed, as did a very vocal Jimmy Carter.

The committee’s decision to finally commend Carter was motivated in large part by its desire to make a statement against Bush. It was a crass political move by the shamelessly partisan committee. It put a dark cloud over Carter’s recognition; it stained the prize.

One more example: A decade before Carter, the Nobel Committee honored Mikhail Gorbachev.

Here, too, I think Gorbachev deserves accolades. I’m a conservative who credits Gorbachev for helping to peacefully end the Cold War. Unfortunately, the committee should have given Ronald Reagan a share in that prize. Instead, the committee specifically thanked Gorbachev for taking down the Berlin Wall, an action that Gorbachev had explicitly opposed from the outset—thus prompting Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech. What a farce.

And now, in 2009, once again, the Nobel Committee has honored a leader in a blatantly political way—and in a way that dishonors itself.

Frankly, Obama supporters should be angry. This award, based on transparent political interests, will not be taken seriously. Had the Nobel Committee done this later, Obama’s advocates would have something to applaud.

Instead, they will find themselves trying to defend the nonsensical—or, at least, the left-wing nonsense of the Nobel Committee.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

Surely, America could only succeed if Obama succeeds. This is the heart and soul of liberalism. But, like the rest of the liberal philosophy, it is fundamentally wrong. From the welfare state to the public school system to the various “family service” agencies that consistently peddle their poisonous anti-family agenda, it is liberalism itself that fails America on every occasion that it gains any new toehold in society.

In short, Limbaugh’s assertion was that he hoped Obama’s far-left radicalism would not succeed in doing still more damage to the country than has already been done by past liberal endeavors at state sponsored “compassion.” Nor does he, or any other sincere American patriot, want to see a continuation of the international disasters that ensue as predictable repercussions of naive, morally and spiritually rudderless leftist dabbling in international affairs.

Unfortunately for the radio talk-show giant, as well as the rest of heartland America, that is precisely what Barack Obama, with his twisted philosophies and his ineptitude, has in store for this nation. The Olympic sight selection fiasco at Copenhagen was only the beginning.

To the hopelessly dull-witted, it may seem contradictory that European nations, who loudly claim to be so much happier with Barack Obama than they ever were with George W. Bush, would nonetheless rule against Obama’s wishes on an issue in which he invested so much of his credibility. The “slap in the face” that they delivered to him on the world stage will not soon be forgotten. Yet to expect otherwise, based on the presumption of universal international adulation for the Obamas, is to ascribe to a worldview that is completely devoid of the realities of modern international relations.

When dealing with the America of George W. Bush, foreign leaders were compelled to respect the intentions and desires of America, whether they liked it or not. In the wake of 9-11, Bush’s assessment of the world as “either with us or against us,” imputed a requirement on all countries to take a side in the Terror War, and expect to be held accountable to it.

Of course this generated much backlash against President Bush, since so many of America’s “allies,” had frittered away the decade of the 1990s, when they should have been shoring up their defenses against the dangerous rise of militant Islam. But while the Islamist threat grew and metastasized, several European nations were making underhanded deals with middle-eastern leaders. The infamous “oil for food” program, by which Saddam Hussein exploited the corruption of so many prominent Europeans, was the most egregious example. That sort of international game playing, which lined the pockets of crooked officials while yielding the insidious side effect of empowering terrorist states, could not continue unchecked without eventually reaching a day of reckoning.

President Bush was indeed despised for standing firm and effectively shutting down the scam. So of course the countries that had benefited from the laxities of Clinton-era international relations were not happy that their lucrative game was ending. Now they once again see increased opportunities to wheel and deal as they had done, unhampered by an American executive branch that is too weak and ideologically disjointed to call them to account.

The problem for Barack Obama is that, prior to the Copenhagen decision, he had perceived the international reaction to him as supportive and sincere. Only under such a muddled premise could he or his wife have hoped, by their sophomoric and self-absorbed lobbying, to garner victory in their bid to have Chicago host the 2016 Olympics. Make no mistake about it, this was no mere decision on the location of a sporting event. By his presence in Copenhagen, Obama had elevated its significance to that of a major international accord. In the end, the other participating nations viewed it as no less significant.

Now, the brutal reality of his real international standing is hitting him directly in the face, though he may still be too self-aggrandizing and shallow to comprehend it. The other nations of the world do not “like” him personally, but they like the detrimental effect he is having on a nation that they have long viewed as too powerful and too competitive with their own interests.

America, in their view, needs to be cut down to size. And Barack Obama, with his abhorrent and counterproductive economic and domestic policies, is just the person to do it. If the American economic engine can be sufficiently weakened, then the rest of the world can move past it. Ditto on the diplomatic front. As the sole world “superpower,” America has historically been the defining force in the direction of international affairs in which it became involved. But if it can be mired down in failed social and diplomatic policy, its international role can likewise be significantly reduced.

This is the America that Europe, and much of the rest of the world wants to see. This is the “change” for which America’s competitors on the world scene had so fervently hoped. And if the “useful idiot” leading the country eventually becomes a victim of the collapsing international standing that he has so diligently championed, such “collateral damage” is of little or no consequence to them.

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

This is yet another plan by Progressives to allow a United Nations style tax on American citizens, according to officials at the American Conservative Union. ACU officials say that this “sickening bill could potentially force the United States to spend as much as $845,000,000,000.00 on welfare to third-world countries.”

While the Senate record of President Barack Obama may appear to be a bit lacking, he did take a leadership position in pushing forward this unique piece of legislation. While the idea of eliminating global hunger and disease throughout the world would be a worthy goal, critics of the Global Tax say this legislation appears benevolent only on the surface.

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the UN’s “Millennium Project,” says that the UN plan to force the US to pay 0.7 percent of its GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the US already spends. Over a period, from the time when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama’s bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Democrat Senators Robert Menendez, Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin, with Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar,. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

“This is the same tax on Americans that the socialists and New World Order enthusiasts have been dreaming about all these years. Americans are a generous people and may believe their leaders want to help the impoverished, but it is an idea that in reality is just one step closer to Globalism,” claims political strategist Michael Baker.

“The socialists would like nothing better than to tax the people of the United States with the blessings of liberal-left American politicians and activists,” he said.

“What is driving the global taxation agenda is a Marxist view that the US is exploiting the people and natural resources of the world. According to this perspective, international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even the UN must be restructured and provided with new financial resources to supervise and manage the redistribution of the world’s wealth. The United States, being the leading capitalist state, has to pay the largest price,” said Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid.

“Their attitude was expressed at a non-governmental organization forum in Monterrey, Mexico, associated with the U.N.’s International Conference on Financing for Development, that Christopher Columbus ‘invaded, destroyed and pillaged’ the hemisphere and that a global tax was necessary to pay for the damage,” said the news media watchdog.

According to critics of the Global Tax, since no one wants to be on the record as not wanting to combat poverty, some politicians — without a doubt — will feel pressure from some of their less courageous colleagues to go along with a policy they know is harmful to the American people. Plus members of the news media have shown themselves to embrace socialism and will help to get this horrendous Obama-sponsored bill passed without alerting Americans about its ramifications.

“This is all part and parcel of a new world order: Third-World countries taxing the American people,” said award-winning actor (Bang the Drum Slowly, Law & Order) and political activist Michael Moriarty.

“These Maoists and Stalinists realized they could never bring people in other countries up to the standard of living we have in the United States. So, what do they do? They try to drag down the American people so that they are as poor and miserable as the impoverished in other countries,” accuses Moriarty, who is a regular contributer to EnterStageRight.com.

“It is not humane to burden the American taxpayer with billions in additional foreign aid. It is more than unacceptable,” he added.

“How do liberals fight poverty? They make more people poor,” said a New Jersey school teacher who has been critical of this nation’s government schools.

“If history is to be our guide, American ‘foreign aid’ often winds up lining the pockets of Third-World tyrants and bureaucrats who hate America and do very little to help those who are truly in need,” she said. “Remember the United Nation’s Oil for Food scandal?”

The educator points to the United Nation’s Oil for Food criminals who made extraordinary amounts of money while the Iraqi people went hungry as an example of the failure of internationalists to help people.

“I’m always reminded that when politicians say they want to help you, the best thing you can do is run away from them as fast as you can. They’re not in the business of helping people — they’re in the business of grabbing as much power for themselves as possible,” said Baker.

“Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…

“$845 BILLION is hardly a drop in the bucket and, yes, that’s in addition to our Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers almost $300 BILLION!”

“If the Democrat-controlled Congress passes this bill, the United States will have taken the first step toward the complete surrender of our national sovereignty,” Baker said.

That ending is a perfect metaphor for the fate of the United States dollar. Our currency is headed for a free-fall off a cliff in the international foreign-exchange markets. Why is this almost a certainty? Consider the following:

At no other time in our nation’s history has the federal government ever attempted to embark on a borrowing binge like the one about to unfold; not during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or even World War II.

During World War II, marketable federal-debt levels reached a record 120 percent of GDP. Almost 100 percent of the financing for borrowing came from the savings of American citizens. When the war ended, the borrowing stopped. Our country emerged from the conflict with 100 percent of our industrial-economic might intact. We were a net-creditor nation to the rest of the world, we exported more than we imported, and we enjoyed this very strong economic position with no real competition for over 25 years. Most importantly, the U.S. dollar became recognized as the one and only global reserve currency. As the U.S. economy grew, the war debt was reduced to a comfortable 35 percent of GDP.

Today, our nation faces the opposite. We are now a net-debtor nation, we run large trade deficits, we have minimal private savings, we face significant economic competition from all corners of the globe, and, most ominously, over half of our marketable federal debt is owned by foreign countries that are not particularly friendly to our nation. Thus, the global-reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar is being seriously challenged. And yet, we continue to set records with unending federal borrowing.

How did this serious challenge to the reserve-currency status of the dollar happen?

About 10 years ago, an unprecedented economic imbalance developed in the world’s global trading pattern. China became the world manufacturer of first resort and the United States became the world consumer of last resort.

China, with its low-cost labor pool, became a magnet for global manufacturing. The result, after almost a decade, is that China has become a leading exporter of low-cost, quality-manufactured goods. The accumulated trade surpluses over the years have generated a cash surplus position for China of over 2000 billion U.S. dollars. Not surprisingly, the communist nation has become the single largest holder of U.S. Treasury debt outside the United States. About 800 billion of the 2000 billion cash surplus that China holds has been invested in U.S. Treasuries. The Treasury debt held by China now represents 23 percent of the 3428 billion of Treasury debt held by all non-U.S. citizens. Additionally, the 3428 billion of Treasury debt held by non-U.S. citizens now constitutes over 50 percent of all privately held marketable debt issued by the U.S. government. The 23 percent position held by China in particular, and the over 50 percent position held by non-U.S. citizens in general, represents a financial Achilles heel for the entire U.S. financial system and the reserve-currency status of the dollar.

Economic warfare against the United States is now a very real possibility. Should China and a like-minded group of other non-citizen holders of U.S. debt wish to diversify away from an excessive exposure to the U.S dollar, then our government’s ability to secure financing could become seriously questioned. In addition, our ability to conduct foreign policy and military operations anywhere in the world would also have to factor in the calculus of future financing. (There is plenty of precedent for this economic warfare; the 1956 Suez Crisis is one example.)

The risks are clear: We are a nation very dependent on future borrowing to support our current standard of living. We are also a nation dependent on sources of financing that are increasingly nervous with our future borrowing requirements. We therefore are a nation that could very easily loose access to the foreign-sourced financing we have become dependent on. In short, we are now a nation vulnerable to being forced to raise taxes dramatically or turn to the Federal Reserve to monetize our future funding needs.

As Treasury borrowing dramatically ramps up in the out years immediately ahead, the call for a new global financial regime will also ramp up. If that regime is implemented it will not be a U.S. dollar-based reserve-currency arrangement. The result will be a significant and permanent reduction in the standard of living of all American citizens almost overnight as the reserve currency role of the U.S. dollar is devalued.

Individuals can and often do go bankrupt. Sovereign nations can also go bankrupt. The bankruptcy of a nation just looks different. The beginning of the event is usually marked by a collapse of the nation’s currency. What unfolds next for a country like the United States will probably be highlighted by the number 20, as in 20 percent inflation, 20 percent unemployment, and 20 percent interest rates.

The origin of this financial train wreck has more to do with politics than economics. We are a nation hooked on borrowing simply to support government-sponsored consumption. We are a nation that demonstrates every day a clear lack of political will to cure our debt addiction.

Consider: If you were a career Washington politician, which would you view as the least painful: a decision that could result in personal political suicide or a decision to procrastinate on a decision that could avoid a national economic suicide that you might be able to blame on someone else?

I think we all know the answer to the question. Consequently, there will probably be a “Thelma and Louise” moment for the U.S. dollar in the not-too-distant future.

And with a flourish, that MRA disappears from the scene.  Sometimes even for good.
What that person is typically missing is the viral nature of the men’s rights movement. We do not lead.  We do not tell the “masses” what to think…  This is not a top down organization, if “organization” as a term even remotely applies.

We are not a shaper, a mover, a shaker, or any other kind of “power” in the sense that we can effect real change ourselves.
It is the failure to recognize this blunt fact that some MRA’s have trouble coming to grips with.

…What we do is refuse to allow people to be silenced…
In a relatively well known essay, another prominent MRA has described us as people who are simply “telling [society] what time it is”.  I personally agree, with a caveat.  In knowing the time before others, we can shape the “message”…the spin, as it were, on the issue.

I know, it’s crass.  But it’s the truth.  We have naught but the ability to frame an argument, in the hopes of public support.  We cannot effect direct change without massive expenditures for minimum return.

But, like the rocket scientists we all wanted to be until we found out how mind-numbingly boring it would be, we can effect change in the long term.  Small course changes amount to big corrections over time.  We can frame the debate on OUR terms, if we start now, and persist.

In fact, we should press that agenda at every turn.

Want proof this is necessary, and effective?

Look at Feminism.  What did they do?  Effect change directly?  No, they manipulated public opinion through various channels, until the changes they desired could be supported through public sentiment (however manufactured).  It must also be noted that they shut down opposition vehemently, and continue to try to do so to this day…at the expense of actual equality it seems…

These lessons are not meant to be lost, but modified.  We have no need to lie, or cruelly manipulate, like feminists have done for decades.  But we need to frame the debate in terms of men, and maleness, as being essentially, and inherently, valuable.

The “worst” part about a false accusation of rape is NOT, for instance, any supposed “chilling effect” on “real victims”…that detracts from (hell, completely ignores) the REAL victim of false accusation…namely, the guy.  Not allowing ANYONE, be it a “friendly” person or not, to frame this type of issue in this way without first and foremost acknowledging the hell it puts a man through is, I think, the first thing MRA’s should have in mind.

By that, I mean that denigrating men, even through omission or inference, cannot, and should not, be tolerated.

Again, for proof look to feminist behaviour.

“Oppression Olympics” ring a bell?  How about shaming language meant to shut men up mid-complaint?  “Poor white male” comments ever get thrown your way?

Simultaneously controlling both the debate and the language, while suppressing dissenting voices, was the formula Feminism followed for success.  Our job as MRA’s is merely the job of publicizing that fact, and exposing the government, certainly various swaths thereof at best, as the massive cynical man-hating parasite it really is, feeding from such a hateful ideology…

It really is that simple.  And that complicated.
Getting heard is not easy these days, and lack of credibility will lose you a ton of public respect…hey, just ask me, I’ll tell you.

It takes diligence, and a focused effort..but really, only sporadically.

Want to be an effective MRA?  Want to effect real change?  In a hurry?  Here’s how.  Go to www.standyourground.com (for simplicity’s sake), post on a thread in the introductions section, and list your skills.  What do you do for a job, what do you like to do for a hobby.  What city you live in.  Make yourself available for some small labour projects.  I understand about the protesting and the embarrassment thing…if you’re not into it, no one’s going to twist your arm.

Write articles, if you can write.  I do a magazine…send an article in for consideration.  Do research for someone if he can write, but can’t research.  Put yourself on a mailing list (try SYG again…why not?) and offer to email your representatives with questions.  Are you an artist?  Make some art…we can always use cultural pieces regarding men’s issues…hell, it’sactually a glaring deficiency, so if you can, please do!  Know how to crunch numbers?  Compile data for the poor souls like me whose eyes cross immediately upon laying them on a multi page spreadsheet…

Many of you do this already.  Keep doing it, or if you get bored, move on to something else for a while…come back when you feel ready for it again.

This is a grassroots movement here people.  Try not to forget that.  All we need do, is let the most men know as we possibly can, that it’s OK to feel however they feel, that it’s OK to think certain aspects of society are bull, that men deserve equal rights, and that anyone who takes issue with this idea is the jerk, not the person advocating for it.  The important thing is, to do the absolute best job of it we can, and put our best argument as far forward as we can.

When the term “mens rights advocate/activist” no longer confuses, we will have won.  And the best part is, to arrive there, all we need do is tell the truth. And no, it doesn’t have to be a full time job…as long as the job gets done…you know?

Thanks for Listening

Last week, New York City’s Empire State Building was aglow in red and yellow. Why? To commemorate the 60^th anniversary of the victorious revolution of the People’s Republic of China—i.e., the establishment of Mao’s Red China. (Click here for photo.)

I’m not kidding. This took place not in Beijing, or Pyongyang, or Havana, or, say, Moscow in the 1950s. It was done in New York City, in 2009, at its highest building, the very symbol of the Empire State.

In effect, New Yorkers basked in the glow of a nation that killed more people more quickly than any nation in world history—under the glorious colors of Chinese communism.

Had this happened in America 60 years ago, Harry Truman would have thrown a fit. Joe McCarthy would have called hearings to find out who was responsible. And that was before the Chinese killing-machine ramped up and got down to business.

Of course, I’m not shocked. For years, I’ve written and spoken about the appalling failure of American education, from public schools to our scandalous universities, to teach basic economics generally and the horrors of central planning and communism specifically.

Several years ago, I did a review of high-school “civics” texts used in public schools. What I found on China was awful. I’m not exaggerating when I say that portions of certain texts looked like they had been lifted from propaganda sheets churned out by the PRC’s Central Committee. There was nothing on the staggering death tolls generated by Red China, nor the stifling array of human-rights travesties.

To the contrary, there were rosy descriptions of life in the Chinese classroom, of “youth groups” and “children’s organizations” like the Young Pioneers, of the wonderful achievements for Chinese women under communism—with no mention of the repressive one-child policy. One text, titled, Global Insights, claimed that Mao’s Great Leap Forward enabled China to “make significant economic gains under communist rule. By the mid-1960s, it was ranked among the ten leading industrial nations in the world.”

When our schools teach ignorance, we shouldn’t be surprised when ignorance results. This has been the Long March of our educational establishment. We are reaping what we’ve sown.

In the interest of offering a smidgen of a corrective, I’ll try to turn this into a teachable moment. Perhaps I can provide some suggestions to educators and parents.

Here is why Red China should not be memorialized:

Within the first two decades of communist China’s existence, upwards of 60-70 million people died. They died from purges, murder, malnutrition, starvation, the collectivization of agriculture, and an overall complete transformation of society through totalitarian communism. This happened primarily under the Great Leap Forward (1957-60) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-69).

An entire nation and its people were forcibly molded into one gigantic social laboratory. Private possessions were eliminated, from clothes and hygiene products, to pots and pans, to the most basic liberties, from speech to press to conscience. “Private fires” for cooking food were banned, with the only permissible smoke being that which emanated from collective kitchens.

Two reputable sources on the death tolls that resulted are the seminal work by Harvard University Press, “The Black Book of Communism,” which estimates 65 million dead, and the recent authoritative, “Mao: The Unknown Story,” which claims over 70 million dead.

To give you a sense of the calamity, this vast killing field exceeded the total dead in World War I and II combined.

Beyond the numbers, if you want to educate yourself or your children on Red China, here are some particularly good books: Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, “Mao: The Unknown Story;” Nien Cheng, “Life and Death in Shanghai: Communism in Mao Tse-tung’s China;” Li Zhisui, “The Private Life of Chairman Mao;” Jung Chang, “Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China;” John King Fairbank, “China: A New History;” and Jasper Becker, ”Quiet Ghosts.”

There’s a vivid depiction in Becker’s “Quiet Ghosts,” where the inmates of Mao’s nation-turned-insane-asylum scavenge the fields during the day, looking for seeds, frogs, salamanders, insects, tree bark, anything to eat, while at night they wander the paths in search of human corpses to devour.

This wretched scene has played out again and again under communism. Mao’s experiment was repeated with the same horrific folly in Cambodia from 1975-79 and North Korea from 1995-98. (On these, I recommend Loung Ung, “First They Killed My Father,” and Kang Chol-Hwan, “Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag.”) The people of those nations, too, were ignorant of the unspeakable failures of central planning and collectivization.

The brutal madness that raged in Red China isn’t anything to commemorate. Our ignorance in America has moved from appalling to offensive to dangerous.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”