A Lot of Economics in One Lesson by Sandy Ikeda

/in , , , , /by

Economics in One Lesson (PDF) is by far Henry Hazlitt’s most famous book. Like many, I’ve read some of this other works, including Failure of the New Economics, Man versus the Welfare State, and The Foundations of Morality. But whether he intended it or not, EIOL is Hazlitt’s masterpiece.

It’s there that he addresses and elaborates on Frédéric Bastiat’s broken-window fallacy, which claims that destruction can be a gateway to wealth. Bastiat and Hazlitt simply point out that, in fact, destruction destroys wealth, and any perceived benefits of destruction are limited only to what is easily seen. It’s a simple lesson, though perhaps deceptively so.

Indeed, if you’re not careful, you might misstate the title as “Economics in One Easy Lesson.” Anyone who’s read the book wouldn’t make that mistake. While the lesson is simple, fully grasping and applying it is not. Even some Nobel Prize-winning economists don’t get it.

But perhaps because of his book’s welcoming title and popular reputation, Hazlitt, while familiar among libertarians and conservatives, has been underrated as an economist and intellectual. (And if you’re philosophically inclined, I would recommend that you tackle his closely argued and enlightening The Foundations of Morality.)

This summer I have the privilege of lecturing at two of the many seminars that the Foundation for Economic Education offers to select college and high school students, and to prepare for them I reread Hazlitt’s classic. Once again, I was impressed by the level of economic analysis it contains, especially in the chapters titled “Saving the X Industry” and “Minimum Wage Laws” for their rigor as well as the sensitivity to and concern for the human condition that they embody.

I’d like to focus on two things that stood out to me on this latest reading.

Learning the full lesson

Hazlitt states the lesson early on:

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

So in saving a declining domestic industry with subsidies or protective tariffs, what you don’t see are the more-efficient businesses and new products that won’t now serve customers, the workers and capital that won’t now be efficiently employed in those businesses, and the lower prices that won’t now be charged, all because the lowered efficiency and the higher taxes or monetary expansion needed to pay for those subsidies make them impossible. We need to look beyond those directly affected and past the short term.

But the lesson doesn’t say to discount the short-term and particular effects, either. Libertarians too often make the mistake of looking only at the long-run effects of a change on the general welfare, discounting or ignoring altogether the short-run effects on particular people. (It’s a mistake that Hazlitt claims the classical economists made, and I think he had David Ricardo in mind):

It is true, of course, that the opposite error is possible. In considering a policy we ought not to concentrate only on its long-run results to the community as a whole.

In the debate on raising the minimum wage, although it will cause fewer to be employed than otherwise and shrink the potential benefits of those who remain employed, some desperate people may be helped a great deal. Those who argued for bailing out General Motors point to the people who’ve developed specialized skills over many years who would really take a hit were the company to fail. When we respond that the bailout will reward inefficiency and mean fewer good jobs and products in the future, we shouldn’t overlook those who, through no fault of their own, will suffer because of competition and innovation. Thus, Hazlitt counsels:

It is altogether proper—it is, in fact, essential to a full understanding of the problem—that the plight of these groups be recognized, that they be dealt with sympathetically, and that we try to see whether some of the gains from this specialized progress cannot be used to help the victims find a productive role elsewhere.

I note that Hazlitt does not name any government agency or private charity here. I think he was being careful. The point is that he felt that these folks are indeed victims of the market process, and that those who benefit from that process should help them somehow. One can trace such sentiments in the classical liberal tradition back to Adam Smith and his concern for the most vulnerable in society.

Public Choice in reverse

Another passage that struck me also relates to the impact of innovation on people’s lives. Hazlitt writes:

Now it is often not the diffused gain of the increased supply or new discovery that most forcibly strikes even the disinterested observer, but the concentrated loss.

He uses the example of advances in coffee production and shoe manufacturing that over time will create greater benefit for far more people than are harmed by them.

The fact that there is more and cheaper coffee for everyone is lost sight of; what is seen is merely that some coffee growers cannot make a living at the lower price. The increased output of shoes at lower cost by the new machine is forgotten; what is seen is a group of men and women thrown out of work.

One of the more important lessons of Public Choice economics is that political institutions induce people to choose an inefficient policy when the rules of the game allow them to concentrate benefits and disperse costs.

For example, planting trees along the road at a total cost of $100,000 at taxpayer expense might make economic sense if the total benefit from the trees exceeds $100,000. But if the total benefit is only $10,000, it wouldn’t make economic sense. Suppose though that there are 100,000 taxpayers but only 10 beneficiaries of the trees. The tax cost per person is $1 while the per-person benefit is $1,000. In such a case the beneficiaries may be willing to fight much harder than their tax-paying “benefactors,” which makes political sense.

If the rules of the game allow interest groups to disperse costs and concentrate benefits—the opposite of Hazlitt’s observations on the effects of innovation—the result over time will be inefficiency, corruption, and worse.

It occurred to me that here is another way of expressing the contrast between the logic of politics versus the logic of the market process. Namely, in interventionist politics it makes sense to concentrate benefits and disperse costs, while in a flourishing economy, competition sometimes concentrates negative consequences and disperses benefits. And it’s this unfortunate but often unavoidable feature of competition that gives rise to demands for government intervention, and to thinking in terms of the broken-window fallacy. If you pay attention you’ll see many such connections in his work.

That goes especially for economists who wish to explain complex ideas to a popular audience. Reading Hazlitt we would see how a master marries analytical subtlety with clarity and wit, something rare in what today passes for “economics for the intelligent layman.” But Henry Hazlitt’s scholarship would reward anyone who devotes to it the close study that it deserves.

Thank you, FEE, for giving me the occasion to read him again.

ABOUT SANDY IKEDA

Sandy Ikeda is an associate professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism. He will be speaking at the FEE summer seminars “People Aren’t Pawns” and “Are Markets Just?“

Florida: “Am I Free? Am I Free?” Pleads Holocaust Survivor Marie Winkleman

/in , , , , , /by

Why is Florida resident and Holocaust survivor Marie Winkelman still in guardianship?

This is the sixth in a series of articles about the landmark guardianship of Holocaust survivor, Marie Winkelman, in Sarasota, Florida, established by a mediated settlement agreement without any evidence presented or records made.

After dozens of tests administered to her, dozens of hours of examinations and multiple positive evaluations of her capacity, 89-year-old Holocaust Survivor Marie Winkelman is still steel-trapped in Florida’s black-hole guardianship system, with her life in limbo and her assets at stake.  Every court hearing costs Marie’s assets thousands of dollars.  Every mediation costs Marie’s assets thousands of dollars.  And every day costs Marie heartache as she aches to be free.

Why were Marie’s positive evaluations withheld from the court?  Why did Marie’s attorney, Audrey Bear, not file the first positive evaluation of Marie with the court until May 30, 2014, almost four months after its completion in early February?

Why was Marie’s second positive evaluation from another psychiatrist not filed with the court until May 28, 2014, when the report was already signed by the psychiatrist nearly one month earlier on April 30?  Under Florida law, a positive evaluation from a physician can restore a Ward’s rights, but Marie’s rights are not restored despite positive evaluations from two psychiatrists.

To date, Marie Winkelman’s assets mean gainful employment for:

  1. Attorney Rebecca Proctor and at least one other attorney from her firm, Kirk Pinkerton
  2. Attorney Audrey Bear
  3. Attorney Christopher Likens
  4. Attorney Kim Bald
  5. Attorney Barry Spivey
  6. Attorney Erika Dine
  7. Nurse Lori Gaetano
  8. Psychiatrist Miguel Rivera

What Is Restoration of Capacity?

In Florida, any “interested person” can file a petition with the probate court to restore the rights of a person in guardianship.  After the petition to restore capacity is filed, Fla. Stat. 744.464 requires the court to “immediately appoint a physician to examine the Ward,” and his report must be filed with the court within 20 days after his appointment.  In sum, the process to restore a Ward’s civil rights should be short and simple, but Marie has never had an evidentiary hearing to remove her rights and never had an evidentiary hearing to restore them.

Although Marie’s restoration petition was filed on March 7, 2014, Marie has never had any hearing to restore her rights.  The short and simple process mandated by Florida State law used to restore Marie’s rights is now in its fourth month, months behind the statutory schedule.

Rutgers Administrator Brings Marie to Court

Since early July 2013, Marie Winkelman’s step-son-in-law Robert Szychowski, long-time fiscal administrator for Rutgers University and the New Jersey University of Medicine and Dentistry, has caused an avalanche of legal bills to crush Marie’s lifetime of savings for her retirement.  She is a woman alone, buried in a tsunami of bills she did not make; while Szychowski awaits  millions of dollars that his wife and sister-in-law are guaranteed to receive from Marie’s Trust, which was court ordered to be irrevocable, making Corrine Szychowski and Diane Winkelman the Trust’s permanent primary beneficiaries.

In the meantime, Rutgers officials refuse to accept any ethical complaints filed against Robert Szychowski’s breach of fiduciary duties owed to an elderly Holocaust Survivor remotely “related” to him, upon whose life force he has stomped for nearly one year.

Two Holocaust Survivors Trapped in Fraudulent Guardianships

On July 10, 2013, nearly one year ago, vivacious Marie Winkelman was living independently in a life full of meaning, especially for an 88-year-old Holocaust Survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, author, and recognized painter.  The next day, Marie was immersed in court proceedings about which she knew nothing and was assigned a court-appointed attorney, Erika Dine, who had previously represented an agency, Aging Safely, that placed another Holocaust Survivor, Al Katz, into an infamous Florida guardianship.  Now, it was Marie’s turn to lose her civil rights, assets, independence, and sense of stability – the dearest facets of a Survivor’s life.

Marie’s case is a landmark one in guardianship history, as Marie never was given an opportunity to present evidence on her behalf.  She lost her civil rights and became a Ward of the State of Florida through a mediation that she never attended, which produced a settlement agreement that she never signed or saw, and was adopted by the Sarasota Probate Court without notice to her.  Marie’s step-son-in-law, Robert Szychowski, sought through fraudulent filings in the Sarasota County Probate Court to remove all of Marie’s civil rights – to vote, sign contracts, choose her residence, pick her physicians, and write a check, among many more – and was successful in obtaining a mediation agreement that put all of Marie’s Revocable Trust, worth millions, into an irrevocable Trust at Sabal Trust, which place Szychowski insisted upon, keeping Marie’s Trust totally out of Marie’s control.

In order to file his petition against Marie and place her into involuntary guardianship, Szychowski hired Dr. Miguel Rivera to accompany nurse Lori Gaetano to Marie’s apartment in a gated complex to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of Marie.  On July  2, 2013, Rivera with Gaetano knocked on Marie’s door unannounced, sat at her dining room table, and asked Marie dozens of questions without revealing the purpose of their visit.

According to the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association, “Psychiatrists are often asked to examine individuals for security purposes, to determine suitability for various jobs, and to determine legal competence. The psychiatrist must fully describe the nature and purpose and lack of confidentiality of the examination to the examinee at the beginning of the examination.” Although Section 4, No. 6, of the Principles of Medical Ethics quoted above requires proper notification for such an evaluation to be conduced, Rivera’s refusal to notify Marie did not impede his caustic evaluation of her that he provided to Szychowski, even criticizing a small stain she had on her blouse, which she was wearing while cleaning house and preparing a meal just moments before Rivera and Gaetano arrived.

With Rivera’s evaluation in hand, Szychowski’s lawyer, Christopher Likens, previously involved in the Al Katz guardianship, filed a petition for Szychowski to become Marie’s guardian and for Marie to be declared totally incapacitated by the court.  Days later, Likens filed another petition for the court to appoint an Emergency Temporary Guardian, Dawn Van Beck, who was appointed immediately by Judge Deno Economou.

In August 2013, Marie obtained a new attorney to replace Ericka Dine, Barry Spivey, who signed the mediated settlement agreement later adopted by the court, placing Marie into guardianship without an evidentiary hearing on her capacity or on the need for a guardianship.

Who Were the Signatories to the Mediated Settlement Agreement Controlling Marie’s Life and Millions in Trust?

On November 25, 2013, five lawyers (including the mediator charging Marie $450.00 per hour for his services) and three distant relatives of Marie signed an agreement which Barry Spivey never shared with Marie and Marie never signed. For Spivey’s work on the Mediated Settlement Agreement and other legal work, Judge Economou ordered Marie to pay Spivey $100.00 per hour more than the Sarasota rules permit guardianship attorneys to be paid. Spivey charged Marie $350.00 per hour for a total of approximately $40,000.00.

Although Marie has never had an evidentiary hearing to restore or to remove her rights, Spivey charged Marie for him to hold his own evidentiary hearing on his fees charged to Marie.  On May 1, 2014, an expert witness, Russell Snyder, testified that Spivey’s extraordinary rate of $350 per hour (versus the Sarasota cap on guardianship attorney fees of $250 per hour) charged to Marie was “reasonable” and then charged Marie $1700 for his testimony.

Attorney Rebecca Proctor, a Director of the now-bankrupt agency that put Al Katz into guardianship, has been paid approximately $50,000.00 from Marie’s assets for representing Marie’s two court-appointed guardians, Raymond Millman and Alina Koren, Marie’s cousin, whom Marie rescued as a baby after the Holocaust.

A Private Meeting of Attorneys Seeking More Money from Wards

Both Rebecca Proctor and Audrey Bear, Marie’s current attorney, met in a private meeting on June 2, 2014, at 1:30 PM, with Judge Economou in his courtroom with approximately two dozen other Sarasota attorneys to obtain the Judge’s agreement to raising their hourly fee cap for guardianship cases.  Also among the attorneys present was Edwin Boyer, who filed a bill in the Al Katz guardianship for $40,000.00 in legal fees “for [his] services rendered [from August 25, 2010, to December 14, 2010]… for the benefit of the Ward,” who passed away on July 11, 2010.  The attorney arranging the private meeting with the Probate Judge was a good friend of Edwin Boyer, Gerald O’Brien, who is being sued by Al Katz’s Estate for exploitation of a vulnerable adult while Al Katz was in guardianship.

On the day following the private meeting with Judge Economou, attorneys Audrey Bear and Rebecca Proctor, who are close friends, held a hearing in front of Judge Economou to obtain Marie’s financial accountings from Szychowski.  Both of these attorneys plus Christopher Likens and Szychowski’s other attorney, Kim Bald, all knew well before the hearing that Marie had been determined in multiple reports to be capacitated, but the result of the hearing was to schedule another expensive mediation without any evidence presented or records made.

Meanwhile, dear Marie asks “Am I free?  Am I free?  When will I be free?”

NOTE:  On Friday, June 6, 2014, Beverly Newman filed a motion pro se to have Robert Szychowski removed as agent pursuant to Marie’s Durable Power of Attorney, due to his continuing abuse of POA powers and fiduciary duties.

RELATED ARTICLE: Incapacitated: Florida’s Guardianship Program – ABC News

Gunophobia is a serious national problem — Therapy Now Available

/in , , , , /by
child with water guns

Stop gunophobia – its the right thing to do!

It is time to end the irrational, psychologically impairing and irrational disease sweeping America known as gunophobia. Gunophobia is defined as:

An unreasonable fear or hatred of rifles, pistols, pop-tarts shaped like guns, cap guns, water pistols or strangers who own guns or of that which is foreign or strange like buying a gun, shooting a gun, duck hunting and/or carrying a gun.

Notable gunophobics include: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Foundation. It should be noted that President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden like shotguns, which are guns.

The early explorers and settlers of the United States took full advantage of the abundant game to be found in the new lands they were beginning to inhabit. The ability to hunt wild animals for food not only offered a means for survival, but also allowed settlers to expand their territories farther west. It was taken for granted that every man, starting in his teenage years, would know how to shoot a rifle.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1791, as a direct result of the Revolutionary War; without access to weapons, the colonists would not have been able to defeat the British troops. In part, the Second Amendment states that a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mainstream: Girls with Guns in America
Texas Gun Store Marquee – ”I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters – Undocumented“
Wildlife is Thriving Because of Guns and Hunting

Why Would WaPo Wait Three Months to Release a Bill Gates Interview?

/in , , , , , /by

On Saturday, June 7, 2014, Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post published this article based on a 28-minute interview she had with billionaire Common Core State Standards (CCSS) funder, Bill Gates. In the interview, Gates spills quite a bit of “insider information,” not the least of which is that in the summer of 2008, then-Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) President Gene Wilhoit and national-standards-writing-company-gone-nonprofit Student Achievement Partners (SAP) founder and CEO– and CCSS “architect”– David Coleman approached him about bankrolling CCSS.

The Gates purse would fund not only organizations positioned on the inside of the CCSS effort, including CCSSO, SAP, the National Governors Association (NGA), the Hunt Institute, Fordham Institute, and Education Trust, but also scores of auxiliary organizations useful in “implementing” CCSS, including both national teachers unions.

As Layton notes, support for CCSS was intentionally strategized:

With the Gates money, the Hunt Institute coordinated more than a dozen organizations — many of them also Gates grantees — including the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, National Council of La Raza, the Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, Achieve and the two national teachers unions.

The Hunt Institute held weekly conference calls between the players that were directed by Stefanie Sanford, who was in charge of policy and advocacy at the Gates Foundation. They talked about which states needed shoring up, the best person to respond to questions or criticisms and who needed to travel to which state capital to testify, according to those familiar with the conversations. [Emphasis added.]

In the interview, Gates notes that he decided to financially support CCSS because he “believes in” the standards.  However, in March 2014, Gates is quite clear in an interview with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that his support of CCSS was because “scale is good for free market competition.”

Gates is all but “free market.” In bankrolling CCSS, he purchased American public education. Incredibly, the federal government is fine with that. After all, USDOE already had an incestuous relationship with the Gates Foundation. As Layton notes:

Several top players in Obama’s Education Department who shaped the administration’s policies came either straight from the Gates Foundation in 2009 or from organizations that received heavy funding from the foundation. [Emphasis added.]

Indeed, as Layton points out, Gates’ influence upon the White House manifests via multiple, interrelated connections– connections that swiftly advanced CCSS before America knew what had hit it:

While the Gates Foundation created the burst of momentum behind the Common Core, the Obama administration picked up the cause and helped push states to act quickly.

There was so much cross-pollination between the foundation and the administration, it is difficult to determine the degree to which one may have influenced the other. [Emphasis added.]

Undoubtedly, this Gates interview was chock full of sensational news.

So, here’s a looming question:

Why did Layton wait three months until releasing the Gates interview video and her article?

The 28-minute video that is part of Layton’s June 7, 2014, article includes the following descriptor:

Bill Gates sat down with The Post’s Lyndsey Layton in March to defend the Gates Foundation’s pervasive presence in education and its support of the Common Core. Here is the full, sometimes tense, interview. [Emphasis added.]

The video specifies the interview date as March 14, 2014.

Maybe Gates was tense because in March 2014, he was clearly trying to “protect his investment,” so to speak, and save the standards, which Gates told the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards needed protecting– otherwise America would be “back to what we had before.”

What, to state standards not bankrolled by one billionaire?

Why wait three months?

I do believe I know exactly why.

As of March 14, 2014, 39 states and DC were in legislative session– a session that was particularly stormy for “state led” CCSS.

By Saturday, June 7, that number dropped to 11 and DC, with 6 and DC having no session end to anticipate.

2014 legis map

For a larger view click on the map.

State legislative session graphic for Friday, June 6, 2014  Note: Map has two errors: South Carolina and Vermont sessions had ended (June 5 and May 10, respectively). Also, Virginia’s special session was on budget and Medicaid.

Hold the story until the first Saturday in June, when most legislatures are no longer in session.

Quite the standards-rescuing coincidence, n’est-ce pas?

Like my writing? Read my newly-released ed “reform” whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who in the Implosion of American Public Education

Rough Seas for Hawaii Gov. Abercrombie’s Obamacare Exchange

/in , , , , /by

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s ObamaCare Exchange Is Most Expensive In Nation

News Release from Republican Governors Association May 20, 2014:

“Bad news is piling up for Governor Abercrombie’s Hawaii Health Connector. A recent study found Hawaii’s ObamaCare exchange is the most expensive per capita in the country, costing 26 times the national average. Hawaii’s exchange has already received $204 million in taxpayer dollars and is expected to need an additional $15 million a year. Plus, Hawaii’s two largest health insurers are reporting millions in losses due to ObamaCare fees, which one insurer said could raise premiums an average of 13 percent. Millions more in taxpayer money, low enrollment rates, higher premiums; It is clear ObamaCare is not working for Hawaii. ” – RGA Communications Director Gail Gitcho

[youtube]http://youtu.be/6_GOK42s2AsH[/youtube]

Hawaii Health Connector Costs 26 Times The National Average

Hawaii Health Connector, Hawaii’s ObamaCare Exchange, Is The Most Expensive In The Country. “Hawaii’s Obamacare exchange, the Hawaii Health Connector, costs the nation’s taxpayers the most per enrollee, according to a new study by Kaiser Health. Hawaii’s exchange, which has just more than 8,500 people registered, has a tab of about $23,899 per person.” (Malia Zimmerman, “Hawaii’s Obamacare Exchange Most Costly In Nation,” Watchdog.org, 5/15/14)

Hawaii’s Enrollment Cost Is 26 Times The National Average And 2 ½ Times The Cost Of The Second Most Expensive State. “Former U.S. Rep. Charles Djou, D-Hawaii [sic], noted Hawaii’s enrollment cost is 26 times the national average, 2 1/2 times the cost for the second most expensive state . . . and considerably more than the national average of $922 dollars per Obamacare enrollee.” (Malia Zimmerman, “Hawaii’s Obamacare Exchange Most Costly In Nation,”Watchdog.org, 5/15/14)

“According To The Study, Just 8,500 Hawaii Residents Signed Up For The Hawaii Health Connector, While 150,000 People Are Needed To Make The Program Self-Sustainable.”(Malia Zimmerman, “Hawaii’s Obamacare Exchange Most Costly In Nation,” Watchdog.org, 5/15/14)

Read more.

No, Obama is Not Above the Law

/in , , , , /by

It was hard enough trying to keep up with the revelations of various scandals that have been the product of the Obama administration, but now into the second year of his second term, the news of its actions—some of which are illegal, some of which ignore Congress’s authority, and some of which seemed determined to destroy our economy and attack our constitutional freedoms–all keep assaulting our comprehension.

Like many Americans I have fears of losing our freedoms as set forth in the Bill of Rights. I have doubts about an almost invisible “recovery” of the economy when 92,009,000 are still not in the labor force. I look at the Obama presidency and see one that seems increasingly lawless and witless in so many ways.

The latest assault was the exchange of five Taliban detainees, top field commanders, for an American soldier who administration spokeswoman, Susan Rice, said had served with “honor and distinction.” Like her lies about the Benghazi attack, this too was a lie. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had, we swiftly learned, walked away from his post in Afghanistan. That makes him a deserter, something the administration must surely have known. Giving up the Taliban leaders, done without the required thirty days’ notice to Congress, looks more like Obama’s intention to empty Guantanamo then the claim of retrieving an alleged POW. Negotiations to achieve this had been ongoing for months.

This comes at a time when a report by the think tank, the Rand Corporation, spells out a 58% increase from 2010 to 2013 of jihadist groups worldwide, from 31 to 49, and a doubling of the number of jihadist fighters to an estimated 100,000. In addition, the report notes the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates had increased to roughly 1,000 from 392. As Seth G. Jones, the author of the report, says, “The current trends suggest that the struggle against extremism is likely to be a generational one, much like the Cold War.”

Not exactly the “end of a war” that Obama keeps talking about.

At the same time Obama turned five Taliban commanders loose, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced the creation of a special task force within the Justice Department to combat what he characterized as “escalating danger” from “homegrown” terrorists within the U.S. Given the fact that we have a huge Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, one wonders why such a task force is necessary, but we are told it will be composed of members of the FBI and the Department’s National Security Division.

The Obama administration is the same one in which the Internal Revenue Service targeted Tea Party and patriot groups seeking non-profit status. A pattern of using the government against them reflects an agenda to target any American who disagrees and speaks up against the abuse or neglect of constitutional rights.

One of those is the right to own and bear guns, but this is also an administration that has made many efforts to curb the Second Amendment and gun ownership. At the same time, we have read reports of massive purchases of ammunition and weapons by various elements of the federal government. One can understand the need to arm agents of the FBI and Homeland Security, but why did the Postal Service and Social Security agency, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need to purchase lots of ammunition?

Concurrent with this has been the deliberate reduction in the nation’s military strength to a point that rivals what existed prior to World War Two. We have a far smaller navy. Our Air Force has both older and fewer aircraft. Our Army and Marine units have far fewer men and women in active service. There are concerns about the capabilities of our National Guard as well. Meanwhile, police forces around the nation are being given military-level vehicles and weaponry.

Largely unknown to most Americans is the National Defense Authorization Act which empowers the U.S. military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial, and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

Reportedly, a study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.” Does that include members of the Tea Party movement? Members of the National Rifle Association and of veterans organizations? Opponents of abortion? All have been described as potential domestic terrorists by elements of the Obama administration

A friend-of-the-court brief in a case opposing the Act, stated: “The central question now before the court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”

Writing at World Net Daily, Bob Unrah noted that “The new law authorizes the President to use ‘all necessary and appropriate force’ to jail those ‘suspected’ of helping terrorists.’” Since the law passed,” reported Unrah, “multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement.”

While Obama is releasing declared enemies of the nation to return to the battlefield, he and his Attorney General are expressing concerns about homegrown terrorists and the mere accusation of being sympathetic to terrorism will be enough to get a lot of people detained without any Bill of Rights protections.

Obama has unleashed the Environmental Protection Agency to assert new limits on greenhouse gas emissions by many, if not most, of the nation’s 600 coal-fired plants that generate electricity. Many plants have already closed their doors. Joseph Bast, the president of The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, responded saying, “President Obama and the Democrats are once again unleashing the Environmental Protection Agency on the American people. This is Obamacare for the environment: guaranteed to raise costs, reduce choices, and destroy an existing industry. By the time the EPA is finished, millions of Americans will be freezing in the dark.”

David Rothbard and Craig Rucker of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), another leading think tank, warned that states will be required to impose “cap-and-tax regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous.”

This is a pattern of activity that will harm the U.S. economy by reducing the production of energy vital to nation’s current and future growth. In a similar fashion, the Obama administration has reduced access to explore and extract vast offshore energy resources and those that exist on federal lands.

Taken together these and other actions put at risk the future and the freedoms Americans have enjoyed since the U.S. Constitution became effective on June 21, 1788. We are watching this 226-year-old republic being put at great risk of survival.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

What could possibly go wrong? Federal agencies are building a massive database to collect personal financial data

/in , , , , , /by

The federal government is building a database that will contain extensive personal financial information for over 200 million Americans, the Washington Examiner reports:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau posted an April 16 Federal Register notice of an expansion of their joint National Mortgage Database Program to include personally identifiable information that reveals actual users, a reversal of previously stated policy.

FHFA will manage the database and share it with CFPB. A CFPB internal planning document for 2013-17 describes the bureau as monitoring 95 percent of all mortgage transactions.

FHFA officials claim the database is essential to conducting a monthly mortgage survey required by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and to help it prepare an annual report for Congress.

…

[U]nder the April register notice, the database expansion means it will include a host of data points, including a mortgage owner’s name, address, Social Security number, all credit card and other loan information and account balances.

The database will also encompass a mortgage holder’s entire credit history, including delinquent payments, late payments, minimum payments, high account balances and credit scores, according to the notice.

The two agencies will also assemble “household demographic data,” including racial and ethnic data, gender, marital status, religion, education, employment history, military status, household composition, the number of wage earners and a family’s total wealth and assets.

The National Mortgage Database (NMD) website insists that “We Are Protecting Your Information”:

Information in the database will not identify any individual and we have put safeguards in place to ensure that information in the database is handled in accordance with federal privacy laws and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Critics like the U.S. Chamber’s Center for Capital Market Competitiveness disagree with this assertion. A CCMC letter to the FHFA states that the database “will intrude unnecessarily upon Americans’ privacy, increase the risk of financial fraud and identity theft, and undermine consumer confidence in the security of their financial information.”

CCMC has a number of criticisms with the database:

  • “The FHFA has not clearly stated the need for the NMD” nor has it explained “why existing databases or a more limited version of the NMD might not meet the FHFA’s purposes.”
  • The FHFA “lacks clear authority to gather, store, and analyze the vast amounts of sensitive personal and financial information that will be tracked in the NMD.”
  • Federal privacy law “does not allow an agency [FHFA] (here likely acting beyond its authority) to share confidential information with another agency [CFPB] simply because they share similar policy goals.”
  • The FHFA hasn’t adequately explained how this tempting target for hackers will be protected.

Since the FHFA will be sharing the database with the CFPB, it’s important to look at some questionable behavior from this agency. Last month, it was discovered that the agency will spend nearly $400,000 on an all-staff meeting in Washington, D.C. in July. Also earlier this year we found out that a renovation of its Washington, D.C. headquarters has “soared to $145.1 million from a prior estimate of $95 million.”

The CFPB is housed inside the Federal Reserve and isn’t funded by Congress, it is, in the words of Rep. Jeb Henserling (R-TX), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, “unaccountable to the American people.”

Both agencies can say, “Trust us,” but in the case of the CFPB, its fiscal track record and the lack of institutional accountability should make us question its ability to keep that promise.

Follow Sean Hackbarth on Twitter at @seanhackbarth and the U.S. Chamber at @uschamber.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Photographer: Justin Grimes/Flickr. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

As Obama EPA Regulations begin, more Scientists Reverse Belief in Global Warming

/in , , , , , , /by

Climate Depot statement: “As President Obama is stepping up his “historic” effort to attempt to legislate weather and climate through EPA regulations, scientists from around the world continue to reassess the scientific claims of man-made global warming and are reversing themselves or are becoming more skeptical.” (The latest scientist is below. More scientists in the “related links” section.)

Prominent Scientist Dr. Daniel Botkin, who has studied climate change for 45 years, told the Committee in Q&A: 

‘I have been concerned about global warming since 1968 and in the 1980s, it looked like the weight of evidence lent towards human induced climate change, to a significant extant, and since then it’s moved against it.’

Later in the hearing, Botkin elaborated: ‘I was concerned that there was a human induced climate warning and I gave talks and TV interviews that said that, but since the middle of the 1990s, there is evidence that is running against that.

For example the temperature change is not tracking carbon dioxide very well. Then there is the information from the long term antarctic ice core and some from recent paper in the arctic,  that suggest that carbon dioxide does not lead temperature change,  it may actually lag it significantly or may not lead it at all, and if that is the case that is still an open but important scientific evidence.

So there are several lines of evidence that are suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case.’

Full Committee Hearing – Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process
2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | May 29, 2014 11:00am
Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process
WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY.
MAY 29, 2014

Dr. Daniel Botkin, Professor Emeritus, Department of  Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara (Full Bio here)

Selected Excerpts: (Full Testimony here)

Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate.

Related Links: 

Climate Depot Note: Dr. Botkin joins many other scientists who recently publicly dissented from man-made climate fears.The global warming movement continues to lose scientists, many formerly with the UN IPCC.

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents: Environmental physicist Dr. Jean-Louis Pinault: ‘This is a very uneven debate, skeptics cannot enforce their arguments in scientific journals that are subject to censorship’ – Declares AGW has produced an ‘economic and political media frenzy unprecedented in the history of science’

Another Dissenter: Geoscientst & former UN Consultant Dr. David Kear declares warming fears ‘based on unfounded unscientific beliefs’ – An ‘innocent gas, CO2, has been demonized and criminalized’

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares

Flashback: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol admits no global warming for 17 years – Rips bias in IPCC – UN’s ‘inbuilt alarmism made me step down’ – ‘By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years’

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’

‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’

Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months

Congressional hearing links:

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips IPCC at Congressional Hearing: ‘The IPCC leadership has in the past been very adept at putting troublesome authors in positions where they cannot harm the cause. That practice must end’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips 97% consensus claim: ‘The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever’ – IPCC Lead Author Trashes 97% Consensus claims: UN IPCC Lead Author & University of Sussex economist Dr. Richard Tol: ‘Science is, of course, never settled.’
Tol: ‘The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody.  I had a close look at what this study really did. as far as I can see, The estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that’s in the paper. The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.

Flashback: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol admits no global warming for 17 years – Rips bias in IPCC – UN’s ‘inbuilt alarmism made me step down’ – ‘By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘One of the startling facts about climate change is that there are very few facts about climate change. Climate change is mainly something of the future so we are really talking about model projections’

Congressional hearing: Scientists say UN IPCC puts politics before science, needs reform – IPCC Lead Author Tol: ‘Competent people are excluded because their views do not match those of their government’

UN Lead Author Michael Oppenheimer Admits to Congress Climate Science Not ‘Settled’: ‘The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result (of rising CO2), that’s not’ settled

Sharyl Attkisson: How the Government Violated Its Own Ethics Rules, Then Covered It Up

/in , , , , , /by

Sharyl Attkisson, a senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal, talks about her story on premature babies, the National Institutes of Health and accusations of unethical human experimentation.

Sharyl grew up in Sarasota, Florida where I live and publish this online magazine. I envy The Daily Signal for recruiting such a principled journalist.

To demonstrate just how principled Sharyl is Nolan Peterson, from YourObserver.com writes, “When Sharyl Attkisson was a junior at Riverview High School [in Sarasota, FL], she wrote a letter to the editor of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune [then owned by the New York Times Company]. She complained the newspaper was being unfair, slanting its high school sports coverage in favor of Riverview’s archrival, Sarasota High School. The newspaper even went so far, Attkisson claimed in her letter, as to poke fun of Riverview’s cheerleading squad (Attkisson was a cheerleader at the time). It was a bold move for the then 15-year-old, but Attkisson felt like an injustice had been committed, and she was compelled to correct it…”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/YQc_GyKjiQ0[/youtube]

 

ABOUT SHARYL ATTKISSON / @SharylAttkisson

Sharyl Attkisson, an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist, is a senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal. She is the author of the forthcoming book, “Stonewalled.”

Personal Liberty Digest Poll Results: Marco Rubio — Is Global Warming Fake?

/in , , , , , , /by
The total number of people who voted in this poll: 18,134
1) Do you think climate change (global warming) is real or a hoax?
 9%  voted:  Real. Climate change is real as is seen in the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet and in extreme changes in temperature and weather patterns.
 88%  voted:  Hoax. Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the green energy industry, there has been no real scientific proof.
 3%  voted:  I don’t know.
2) Do you believe human-caused greenhouse gases are to blame for extreme weather?
 4%  voted:  Yes, unregulated greenhouse gases caused by humans are causing global warming that is setting off an environmental chain reaction resulting in more extreme weather.
 95%  voted:  No, the climate is and has been historically cooling and warming throughout centuries and humans are not to blame.
 1%  voted:  I don’t know.
3) Do you, like Rubio, believe that global warming regulation and laws will do nothing but destroy the U.S. economy?
 95%  voted:  Yes, global warming laws will make everything more expensive as restrictions will change the way goods can be produced.
 4%  voted:  No, regulations and laws are absolutely necessary as we won’t have an economy if the environment is destroyed.
 1%  voted:  I don’t know.
4) Do you believe the United States should be the leader in solving the world’s climate issues?
 11%  voted:  Yes, the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world and needs to lead by example.
 85%  voted:  No, the U.S. needs to look out for its own economy and interests.
 4%  voted:  I don’t know.
5) With which political party do you most closely align philosophically?
 2%  voted:  Democrat
 33%  voted:  Republican
 8%  voted:  Libertarian
 34%  voted:  Tea Party
 21%  voted:  Independent
 3%  voted:  Other

Thank you for your participation.

If you haven’t voted click here.

Veterans Groups Urge Immediate Passage Of Rubio VA Reform Legislation

/in , , , , , , /by

Ten Senate Democrats now back bill.

Concerned Veterans for America’s Darin Selnick: “Members of Congress who have asserted more oversight of the flailing department should continue to demand change. A good place to start would be with demanding an up-or-down vote on Senator Marco Rubio’s VA Management Accountability Act in the Senate.” (Darin Selnick, “After Shinseki’s misrule, VA needs accountability: Column,” USA Today, 5/30/2014)

  • Selnick: “This bill, which already passed the House of Representatives by a large bipartisan majority, would empower the next VA secretary to remove and replace executives who fail to perform. It’s a critical and common sense reform that would go a long way toward starting the VA on the road to repair.” (Darin Selnick, “After Shinseki’s misrule, VA needs accountability: Column,” USA Today, 5/30/2014)

Concerned Veterans for America’s Pete Hegseth: “[V]eterans, their families and taxpayers who care about government accountability should take up the cause and contact Harry Reid and Bernie Sanders. Demand that the Senate give the VA Management Accountability Act (sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio) and up-or-down vote. Demand that senators go on record as either being for the bureaucrats or for our veterans.” (Pete Hegseth, “Vets died. VA lied. Heads must roll. Congress must act,” FoxNews.com, 5/29/2014)

  • Hegseth: “Let’s not allow Senator Sanders, Senator Reid and the Obama administration to get away with burying this scandal. It’s time to send a clear message: veterans are the ones who are ‘mad as hell’ and we will accept nothing less than action.” (Pete Hegseth, “Vets died. VA lied. Heads must roll. Congress must act,” FoxNews.com, 5/29/2014)

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America: “The Senate must act now to pass the VA Management Accountability Act. The bill (endorsed by Secretary Shinseki in his final public remarks) gives the Secretary of the VA the authority to remove under-performing Senior Executive Service employees from their jobs. Without the ability to fire poor-performing managers, the next VA Secretary will struggle to restore a culture of accountability throughout the VA.” (“IAVA’s 8 Steps to Restore Confidence in the VA,” Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Blog, 6/2/2014)

Fleet Reserve Association: “The House has recently passed the ‘Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act’ (H.R. 4031), that authorizes the VA Secretary to remove any agency senior executive if the individual’s performance warrants removal. … Members are urged to use the Action Center to ask their senators to support this legislation.” (“FRA Outraged by VA Improprieties,” Fleet Reserve Association, 5/30/2014)

Pro-Sin America Combats Global anti-Sin Movement

/in , , , , /by

Daily we read about new examples of the United States government officials promoting sinful behaviors, both domestically and globally. People are beginning to awaken to this disturbing trend and serious global push back is occurring by US citizens, Christians, Jews, Muslims, states and foreign nations.

In the United States it appears that sinful behaviors are not only promoted, they are enshrined in law, upheld by courts and well funded by government agencies and private institutions.

For example,  wrote, “The Associated Press reported on February 26 that the United States, ‘troubled’ by an anti-homosexuality movement in Uganda and across much of the world, is launching a new effort to combat what Secretary of State John Kerry described as a ‘threat to human rights’. Comparing a Ugandan anti-homosexuality law to oppressive government crackdowns on German Jews in the 1930s, Kerry said that according to the AP report, he was going to direct American ambassadors to look at ‘how we deal with this human rights challenge on a global basis.’ He said 80 nations worldwide have anti-homosexuality laws on some levels, and he called the one in Uganda — which does not apply capital punishment — ‘atrocious’ and ‘flat out morally wrong.’”

“Now, in the definition of the US government, anti-homosexuality movements (groups opposing gay ‘marriage’ and other homosexual perversions) are a ‘threat,’ because US officials see the homosexual behavior as a noble ‘human right.’ Do “human rights” rape and kill? They did so in Uganda. According to Scott Lively, in the past the African nation had a law that required all men and boys in Uganda to submit to the homosexual seduction of its ruler, King Mwanga. By official count 22 young men were executed under this law. When Ugandans began to convert to Christianity in the 1800s, a group of Catholics led by Charles Lwanga refused to allow themselves to be sodomized by the King. Enraged, King Mwanga had them torturously bound, marched 37 miles and then roasted alive in a fire pit. The date of their execution was June 3rd, 1886, and is today a national holiday commemorating Uganda’s rejection of homosexuality and commitment to Christian values,” writes Severo.

When did a sexual behavior become part of and influence US foreign policy? When did homosexuality become a “human right”?

Let’s look at current examples of pro-sin policies. As a benchmark I use the Ten Commandments as written in the Torah the book of Exodus. Exodus 20:

[1] And God spake all these words, saying, [2] I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 

There are many false gods promoted by government, including the false god of government itself. Governments always error on the side of more control over the individual. That is why the Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution establishing a Republic. They knew what history teaches: as government grows liberty subsides. The First Amendment put freedom of religion first. For without freedom to worship God, there is no freedom of speech, assembly, the press or right to petition elected officials. That is the First Principle.

[4] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: [5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; [6] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Today there are many “graven images” in the news, on television and the internet. From sports figures to movie stars, athletes, singers, dancers, and of course politicians. These graven images are false ones and lead those who report on them into a system where criticism is forbidden. We are in a world of “selfies” where even a president feels compelled to take a photograph at the funeral of Nelson Mandela, who himself became a graven image.  With the growth of social media sites like Facebook we have a growing number of people taking selfies and sharing them. Are we in a new golden age of the selfie? Are we our own graven images?

[7] Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

The entire rap music craze is famous for taking the Lord’s name in vain. The criticism it there but muted because those in rap music are black. Yet most blacks embrace God and are Baptists by their very nature. We see profanity used in movies, in television shows and book, particularly young adult novels. This profanity includes pornographic materials being used in our public schools. The justification is that we should not protect the innocence of our youth, rather we should encourage them to face the realities of the world. But whose realities are they? Perhaps it is better to change these realities and teach our youth the values and morals needed to be good citizens and moral individuals.

[8] Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: [10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: [11] For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How many businesses today, or families for that matter, remember the Sabbath day?  A few major corporations like Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby observe the Sabbath and allow families a day of rest and reflection. Many small businesses do the same. The US government observes the Sabbath with only essential services open. There was a time in America when all businesses were closed by government decree known as “Blue Laws” to observe the Sabbath. Gradually, these laws were changed or have been abolished altogether. Business trumps the Sabbath day across America and the world.

[12] Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

In the United States, government at every level is working to redefine motherhood and fatherhood. Public schools are teaching that mom and mom or dad and dad are perfectly natural and must be embraced by our  children as the “new normal.” Those who speak out against this new normal are demonized and labeled racist or homophobic. Marriage is under attack and its redefinition is touted as a civil right. Those who say that sexual behavior does not rise to the level of being called a civil right are classified as “hate groups” by well funded organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The new normal has destroyed entire cultures like in Massachusetts, the first state to recognize homosexual marriage. Even while government health agencies point out the risks of sex between men, the juggernaut moves on. Christians are under assault, even by the IRS, for holding on to their beliefs that sodomy is wrong culturally, a threat to the family and to the health and well-being of the individual. The US Department of Justice has not and will not support the Defense of Marriage Act, even though it is required to do so.

[13] Thou shalt not murder.

The first policy that comes up when discussing the VIth Commandment is Roe v. Wade, which was decided in 1973. The legalization of abortion remains a contentious issue that has split the nation and the world. US federal government policy does not allow directly funding abortions. However, the current administration supports abortion and the activities of Planned Parenthood. We have written about Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics movement, which has transformed itself into the the science of genetics. There are growing concerns that, like Eugenics, genetics is about “racial purity.” Black babies are being aborted at an alarming rate in Georgia, where over 56% of aborted babies are black. Genetics has two branches – negative genetics and positive genetics. It is important to understand how both are creating a “racially hygienic” society in America today.

The second aspect is about self-defense, known as stand your ground laws. The George Zimmerman case in Florida led to a national discussion on the right to self-defense. It must be noted that the Bible allows for killing in self-defense. It does not allow for murder and specifically forbids it.

[14] Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Adultery has become the subject of movies, TV shows and books. The swapping of wives is the basis of the ABC series “Celebrity Wife Swap“, “Wife Swap U.S.” on Lifetime and “Wife Swap UK.” Various notable figures in politics, professional sports, the media, actors, actresses and even leaders of Churches have violated the VIIth Commandment.

[15] Thou shalt not steal.

Stealing is illegal, unless the government does it via the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The income tax system in the US has become a tool used by special interests and politicians to reward supporters and destroy opponents. Revelations about the IRS targeting TEA Party groups, Christian and Jewish organizations is both troubling and endemic to a system where thievery is lauded as public policy. Even in films it is the thief who is portrayed as a hero in movies like “Identity Thief“, where a man’s identity is stolen by a Florida woman.

[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Bearing false witness is lying. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for a person to not testify if that testimony would incriminate. A the 9th Circuit court case US v. Alvarez a federal judge ruled that lying is permissible so long at the liar does not benefit from the lie. According to Dalhia Lithwick of Slate, “In 2007, Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, California, was elected to the board of the Three Valleys Water District. At a board meeting, Alvarez introduced himself by saying: “I’m a retired Marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.” Alvarez did not just lie about being a war hero; he lied about many things. His catalog of untruths include playing hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, marrying a Mexican starlet, and rescuing an American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. Xavier Alvarez isn’t just a compulsive liar.” The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that, “The Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about having received military honors or decorations, violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.” Lying is free speech?

[17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Income inequality has become a cause being used not only by politicians but also the Holy Pontiff Pope Francis.

Recently Pope Francis restated his wish for world leaders to redistribute the world’s wealth to the  poor. According to Time, “Pope Francis reaffirmed his plea on Friday for world leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor during an address before top U.N. officials and called for a global initiative to reduce the income gap. Pope Francis on Friday renewed his call on global leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Francis made his plea during an address to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other U.N. leaders gathered in Rome for an audience with the pope, CBS News reports.”  Perhaps Pope Francis can take a lesson from Pope Leo XIII on socialism? Income equality is the all about coveting, until there is no income, due to government controls, left to covet.

QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS (On Socialism) issued by Pope Leo XIII on 28 December 1878 states:

But Catholic wisdom, sustained by the precepts of natural and divine law, provides with especial care for public and private tranquility in its doctrines and teachings regarding the duty of government and the distribution of the goods which are necessary for life and use. For, while the socialists would destroy the “right” of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate.

When public policy must be held up to the highest moral standards. The founding fathers understood this that is why they wrote the Constitution and included within it certain unalienable rights granted to each citizen by God, not government. The only control needed is that of God’s will and grace.

RELATED VIDEO: Tap dancing in a Godless mine field:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/v31dZm6upAg[/youtube]

RELATED STORIES:

How Liberalism Violates All 10 Commandments
Democrats’ great green hope? Americans only want to vote for marijuana
Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals – Telegraph
Pro-Sin US Combats Worldwide Anti-Homosexual Sin Movement
Vatican Chief Justice: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’ – CBS St. Louis
Pope Francis calls abortion an ‘abominable crime’ in strongest remarks to date | LifeSiteNews.com

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Paul Holloway. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

What would Jesus do about Global Warming?

/in , , , , , , /by

The road to Hell, as we all know, is paved with good intentions. The latest example is the people, many of them religious leaders, who are going to help the poor. How? They’re going to save them from global warming.

For a specific case, consider the current campaign to convince Florida Governor Rick Scott – a previously documented skeptic during the 2010 campaign – to create a plan for dealing with climate change. The campaign is led by Rev. Mitch Hescox, leader of the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN). There’s a petition there to be delivered to Gov. Scott.

Archbishop Thomas G Wenski

Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski, Miami, FL.

Within my own faith, there’s the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which just released a letter to Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, praising the new standards on carbon dioxide emissions to be released on June 2. It’s signed by Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski, Archbishop of Miami, who is Chairman of the  Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. The opening paragraph goes as follows:

“I write on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to address the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to develop standards to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants and thereby mitigate climate change. The USCCB recognizes the importance  of finding means to reduce carbon pollution. These standards should protect the health and welfare of all people, especially children, the elderly, as well as poor and vulnerable communities, from harmful pollution emitted from power plants and from the impacts of climate change.”

All the dangerous Shibboleths are here – “carbon pollution”, “climate change”, “poor and vulnerable”. It goes on to say:

“As bishops and people of faith, we do not speak as experts on carbon pollution or on the technical remedies to address climate change.”

This is the archtypical Liberal good-intentions approach to public policy. One would think the Catholic bishops, having been double-crossed by Obama on healthcare and the contraception mandate, would be a little cautious in believing his extravagant claims about the havoc being wreaked on us by “severe weather.” Nope.

Or, while admitting a total lack of expertise on this scientific topic, they abjure any responsibility to learn more. Just for the record – in case this comes to Archbishop Wenski’s notice – there has been no increase in severe weather worldwide or in the US, and there’s been no global warming for 16+ years. There have been several US House Science and Technology Committee hearings on this topic; there was one just a few days ago. The four scientists who spoke all agreed the “science is unsettled” and we are unable to forecast the climate. (We can’t even forecast the weather beyond a week.)

In the very different world of faith-based ignorance, the Vatican this month hosted a conference on Sustainability. Apparently Pope Francis plans to release an Encyclical Letter on climate change to the Church in the next year. Expect the message to be:

Climate change has the greatest effect on the poor; As Christians, we have an obligation to help the poor; We can help the poor by stopping climate change.

The first two items are correct. Think of Hurricane Katrina, people who had money and/or automobiles flew or drove out of New Orleans before Katrina hit. The most terrible example was in Bangladesh in 1972, where hundreds of thousands (no, I’m NOT exaggerating) drowned in the 20 foot storm surge from a tropical cyclone.

Item two is the essence of Chapter 25:40 of Matthew’s Gospel:

“[W]hatever you have done for these, the least of my brethren, you have done for me.”

Pretty fundamental Christianity. So why am I concerned? There are two reasons.

First, anyone who thinks we humans can stop climate change by minimizing or eliminating our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is delusional. Recorded climate has changed throughout history, long before industrial CO2 emissions. But even if one believes CO2 is the climate control knob, China is burning more coal than the rest of the world combined (according to the New York Times), and India is following close behind. American CO2 emissions are dwarfed by Third World countries trying to raise their people out of poverty. The CEO of Peabody Coal notes coal has been the fastest-growing major fuel of the past decade and is set to surpass oil as the world’s largest fuel in coming years.

Consider the irony: pagan India and atheistic China are lifting their poor out of poverty by giving them cheap on-grid electricity. First World Christians advocate helping the poor by denying them cheap on-grid electricity, to reduce emissions.

Second, the poor are best helped by lifting them out of poverty – as China, India, and most countries of Latin America are doing. That’s history; that’s what happened in America, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, Iceland, Israel – the First World. With resources, especially energy, you can mitigate climate change – but not stop it.

But the World Bank won’t fund construction of coal-fired electricity generating plants in sub-Saharan Africa. Worse yet, the Catholic Climate Covenant and other interfaith environmentalists encourage colleges and universities to divest their endowments of fossil fuel assets. In April, America Magazine, a publication of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), carried an article titled Getting Out of Oil. This was followed by a webinar, Catholic Perspectives on Divestment and Reinvestment, led by Doug Demeo, the author of the AmericaMagazine article, and two Catholic theologians, Dr. Erin Lothes and Dr. Richard Miller. In her presentation, Dr. Lothes asks what “a world beyond fossil fuels would look like?”

I can tell Dr. Lothes what “a world beyond fossil fuels would look like” – it would look like the world of 1000 years ago, when it was being rapidly stripped of trees to burn as fuel. You can find a review of the webinar at the National Catholic Reporter.

Reading the smug assurances of Lothes, Miller, and Demeo makes me want to scream with frustration. What makes these intelligent, well-educated people so scientifically naive? I can only conclude that religious faith predisposes one to uncritical acceptance of authority, especially if it’s religious authority. Demeo, Lothes, Miller and other writers on this topic – saving the poor from global warming – accept the premise of human control of climate without demur. Sometimes a Doubting Thomas is a useful member of the congregation.

Aristotle, a pretty smart man, claimed heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. For more than 2000 years, no one (that we know of) bothered to challenge that claim by experiment. Galileo claimed to have done so, from Pisa’s Leaning Tower. Aristotle’s logic was correct, but his assumptions were faulty. As the historian Daniel Boorstein wrote, “The opposite of knowledge is not ignorance; it’s false knowledge.”

The Scientific Method has several principles; the first is to not accept claims about natural philosophy (as it was originally called) without data, experimental results that can be verified by repetition. “The science is all settled” is an oxymoron, though I don’t include Obama and Gore in the ranks of theologians – or even honest men. The 17-year “pause” in the IPCC’s unanimously-predicted warming demonstrates the hypothesis is flawed.

Where is Galileo when we need him?

Florida: A Victory for Human Rights – “Yasmeen’s Law” signed by Governor Scott

/in , , , , /by

May 12, 2014, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law a bill to protect the human rights of women and children in the Sunshine State from the intrusion of foreign laws and doctrines undermining fundamental Constitutional rights. There is nothing in the law that Governor Scott signed that mentions Muslims, Sharia, Islam or any other religious or ecclesiastical law. It is facially neutral.

However, the legislation, while based on the American Law for American Courts model law adopted in various forms by six other states, offers in  the Florida version relief to women and children against predatory practices often in violation of federal, state and even international law. One of those foreign laws is Sharia, Islamic law, which controls every aspect of a Muslim’s life, and in all too many cases, the lives of non-Muslim wives and the children of those unions. Under Sharia, a husband, a son and male relatives are deemed to have  absolute control over their wives and children.

Florida Governor Rick Scott

Research conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and its affiliate the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA) found over two dozen instances in which foreign laws had intruded in family and other matters in both lower and appellate court decisions in Florida. The law signed by Governor Scott, diverged from the American Law for American Courts model developed by incorporating applicable Florida case law to preserve those rights in family law and other matters. This enabled passage and ultimate enactment in the 2014 Tallahassee legislative session.

Yasmeen A. Davis

Video Testimonies about American Child Abductions under Foreign Law

Key to the 2014 legislative success was a graphic message about Shariah’s war on American women and children conveyed in two video interviews we conducted. One was with Margaret McLain, a retired Arkansas State University professor who lost her five-year-old daughter, Heidi, now 16, years earlier to an abduction and removal to Saudi Arabia by her Saudi ex- husband. We had chanced to meet Professor McClain at a Jonesboro ACT! For America Chapter presentation in September 2013. Through Professor McClain, we were introduced to a 28 year old South Florida woman, Yasmeen A. Davis. Ms. Davis had been abducted at age 11 by her mother’s Saudi ex-husband and removed to Saudi Arabia. Yasmeen was mistreated at her father’s residence in the Kingdom because of her refusal to convert to Islam and still bears the effects. Her Saudi father still keeps tabs on her through periodic calls to her from his American lawyers and an ex-FBI agent hired by him. She suffers from the equivalent of PTSD as a result of her experience. Ms. Davis was rescued through the resources of her family at age 13.  Both Professor McClain and Ms. Davis had testified in a series of US House of Representative hearings in 2002 along with a panel of other similarly victimized American parents and children. The hearings were held before the US House of Representatives Government Reform Committee chaired by former Indiana Republican Representative Dan Burton and was televised.

It is our contention that the ALAC legislation enacted in Florida in 2014 might be called Yasmeen’s Law. It is a testament  to the courage and resolve by Ms. Davis and her family to secure her rescue. During our interview with her, she hoped that ALAC might protect other similarly importuned American families in Florida from what she experienced 17 years ago.

Florida Senator Alan Hays

The Phone call that began the battle for enactment of Florida ALAC

Introduction of the model ALAC legislation in the 2011 session was facilitated by Christopher Holton, then VP for Outreach at the CSP and New Orleans lawyer, Stephen M. Gelé, Esq., who headed the APPA.  The sponsors of the model ALAC legislation in the 2011 legislative session in Tallahassee were  Sen. Alan Hays (R- Senate District – 11 Umatilla) in the Senate and Rep. Larry Metz (R-House District- 32 Groveland).  The fact that it took four years after the introduction of the model law in the 2011 Florida legislative session indicated that its fundamental merits survived the deliberative process.

Joseph Sabag, Esq.

A volunteer advisory team that supported this effort resulted from a phone call in January 2012 from Joseph Sabag, Esq.  a politically astute young Southern Florida lawyer who contacted this writer on an unrelated matter.

Florida Christian Coalition Citizen Lobbyists in the State Capitol Rotunda on March 13, 2014

Enter Anthony Verdugo and the Citizen-Lobbyists of the Florida Christian Coalition

The Sabag phone call led to discovery of the citizen lobbying prowess of the Florida Christian Family Coalition (CFC) led by Anthony “Tony” Verdugo. Verdugo had an amazing grasp of the nuances in the Florida legislative process. That was evident his ability to invite Florida Senate and House leaders and a Presidential candidate to the January 2012 CFC Annual Legislative Prayer Breakfast. Former US Senate Republican majority leader, Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum spoke at the 2012 CFC event before an audience of more than 120 citizen – lobbyists. Verdugo’s group represents 5,000 members in the Sunshine State. His leadership of CFC’s diverse members has successfully obtained passage on a number of social issues.

Anthony Verdugo, Florida Christian Family Coalition

Enter Florida Senator Hays and the Volunteer Advisory Team

Sabag introduced me to Sen. Hays who was the sponsor of the Stand With Israel resolution. At that initial encounter in his Senate office in 2012 we briefly discussed the ALAC bill and underlying issues. The Stand with Israel resolution was passed by the Florida Senate on February 1, 2012 by a resounding bipartisan Senate vote, 39 to 0, while the House version passed on February 29th by 108 to 0.

Out of that success emerged the voluntary advisory team that included Sabag, Christopher Holton,  now with Act! for America, Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, Verdugo of CFC and this writer. The volunteer team worked closely with Sen. Hays and other legislators to conduct research and develop FAQs, training aides, media op-eds, and video presentations.

Although the bill stalled in the 2013 legislative session in Tallahassee, Sen. Alan Hays held a conference call with the advisory team. He noted there was no longer a super majority of Republicans in both chambers, but nevertheless asked, why not make another try in 2014? In 2013, the ALAC bill had once again passed all the House committee referrals and a full chamber vote. On the Senate side under the leadership of Senate President Don Gaetz (R. Senate Dist. 1 – Destin) the bill was referred to four committees, but was prevented from going forward to a final hearing by the Senate Rules Committee, the penultimate stop before a floor vote. The advisory team suggested that to start the process in the 2014 session earlier than normal with legislative planning sessions in the summer of 2013. This was to be followed by bill enrollment and securing a reduced number of committee referrals from the leadership preceding the start of the 60 day legislative session in March 2014.

Christopher Holton, Esq., Act! for America

Overcoming the Opposition to Florida ALAC.

It is said that the legislative process is equivalent to making sausage. Perhaps that analogy may be the pragmatic reality. In 2014 the core message of protection of women and children coupled with research in foreign family laws matters contributed to overcoming vocal opposition from the strange alliance of Muslim advocacy groups and Jewish Defense groups. The  Muslim Advocacy groups  included the Florida and national Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Emerge USA, United Voices for America, while Jewish defense groups included the Anti-Defamation League and the National Council of Jewish Women. They were bolstered by representatives from  both Family and International Law sections of the Florida bar association. The opponents frequently voiced the opinion that the legislation was “unnecessary,” “duplicative,” “ didn’t recognize the competency of the state’s judiciary,” and “prevented foreign investment” in Florida.  At its worst the Muslim opponents resorted to ad hominem attacks accusing bill sponsors of being “Islamophobes,” “racists,” and “bullies.”

Jewish defense groups contended that the legislation would bar recognition of Israeli Rabbinic family law decrees recognized under Florida practice. It was research by a Family Law expert at Tel Aviv University Prof. Daphna Hackner published in a peer reviewed international legal journal that put that to rest. Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, educated in bothJewish Halacha and Sharia Islamic law, with US law degrees and education at the American University in Cairo, enabled him to interpret both religious laws. An Israeli  lawyer and family relation of Rabbi Hausman’s facilitated the connections with Professor Hackner. Rabbi Hausman drafted op-eds and letters to legislators explaining why the change in laws was necessary.

Rabbi  Hausman’s video interview on the legislation and those of Professor McClain and Ms. Davis were loaded into Sen. Hays’  iPad so that he could take them around to show Committee chairs and members during hearings on the measure. The advisory team prepared training presentations, revised FAQs to be used in sessions organized for the 2014 CFC citizen lobbyist day on March 13, 2014. The approximately 100 CFC citizen lobbyists who were bused in to the Tallahassee Doubletree Hotel listened attentively to presentations by Sen. Hays, House sponsor of ALAC, Neil Combee (R. House District 39, Auburndale), and guest speaker Professor McClain. By the end of the day, they secured commitments from 39 Florida legislators.

The Victory for Florida ALAC

After four years of effort in the face of misinformed opposition, an amended version of ALAC passed the Florida Legislature. The Senate sponsor, Senator Alan Hays, said on April 28th when the Senate passed  the measure by a partisan vote of 24 Republicans to 14 Democrats:

I am delighted that my colleagues in the Florida Senate passed SB 386 – The Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases.

It is my fervent desire to make sure everyone in a Florida courtroom is protected from the imposition of any foreign law that may diminish the rights of that person which are afforded by our US and Florida Constitutions. This bill codifies case law to offer those protections and is a welcome addition to the statutes of our state.

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of many others who assisted in the passage of this landmark legislation.

Florida Representative Mike Hill

House Rep. Mike Hill, (R. House District -2 Pensacola), a member of the Subcommittee on Civil Justice, following House passage on April 30th of HB 903 by a vote of 78 Republicans to 40 Democrats, said:

I am honored to join my colleagues and vote ‘yes’ on the bill that passed the Florida House codifying that American law only will be used in Florida courts. It is our duty to do so as I took an oath to protect the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida.

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman and I were in the Florida House Public Gallery on Tuesday, April 29th and witnessed the floor debate with questions from opposition Democrats to House bill sponsor Rep. Neil Combee. Misinformed, they persisted in asking why the measure was necessary. Rep. Combee cited both lower court and appellate level cases in which foreign law had been recognized that did not comply with the comity principles under Florida practice as justification for passing the measure.

Stephen M. Gelé, Esq. of the New Orleans law firm of Smith Fawer LLC

Prior to the Senate and House deliberations on  ALAC we suggested to the bill sponsors that the amended version be reviewed by Stephen M. Gelé, Esq. of the New Orleans law firm of Smith Fawer LLC, former Chair of the APPA. Despite his being on vacation, Gelé sent his assessment of the legislation that we received via Christopher Holton of ACT! Gelé wrote:

The Florida Legislature recently passed and Gov. Scott signed into law SB 386, a bill that will help protect Floridians from foreign law that is inconsistent with American values, such as Islamic Sharia law. The law will help protect Florida parents who face loss of their children to a foreign custody judgment; help protect spouses who face unfair foreign judgments of divorce, spousal support, or marital property distributions; help protect parents and spouses from marital contracts (including Islamic marital contracts often named mahrs) that would force decisions regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions to be decided in foreign courts or under foreign law in American courts; and, help protect parents and spouses from having disputes regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions from being dismissed by Florida courts in favor of being decided in foreign courts.

Although American and Florida courts have held in the past that foreign law should not be applied when the foreign law offends public policy, this concept has not previously been strengthened by statute. Further, under current Florida child custody statutes a judge can refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment only “if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.” Unfortunately, statements by the U.S. State Department suggest that “fundamental principles of human rights” should be interpreted more narrowly than most Americans would interpret the phrase. However, ALAC  allows a Florida judge to refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment under the much broader standard of whether the judgment offends the public policy of Florida.

Therefore, the most important effect of  the law will be to protect parents from losing their children to foreign custody decrees, which has happened before.

Gele’s comments are reflective of a new theme based on the recommendation of Kansas House Speaker Pro Tempore, Rep. Peg Mast. Mast successfully secured bi-partisan support for passage of ALAC in the 2012 session in Topeka. She suggested emphasizing protection of “fundamental Constitutional rights” for Florida women and children. That meant putting a human face to the theme of the foreign law war on women and children. This was reflected in interviews women, Professor Margaret McClain and Ms. Yasmeen Davis.

Florida Representative Matt Gaetz (R. House District 4 – Shalimar)

Without the dogged determination of the legislation’s sponsors like Sen. Hays and Rep. Combee with the support of advocates in the House Reps. Mike Hill, Larry Metz and Matt Gaetz, what occurred in the final week of the 2014 Florida legislative session might not have happened.

Other important legislation was passed in Tallahassee in the final week of the 2014 session

.

Sen. Hays had also deftly maneuvered another measure directed at text book review, SB 864, which passed the Senate with a tally of 21 Republicans to 19 Democrats. The measure reversed State Department of Education control over selection of textbooks returning that role to Florida’s 67 school districts, requiring open public hearing on texts used in courses. SB 864 was largely prompted by objections of parental groups in several Florida counties about the treatment of Islam and Muslim culture in world history textbooks that are on the Florida State Department of Education list of approved texts.

The House passed the amended SB864/HB 921 by a resounding bi-partisan vote.

Florida Representative Larry Metz

Like the experience with ALAC SB 864/HB 921: “on K to 12 instruction materials,” was amended following a conference with both Senate and House sponsors in consultation with the Governor’s office. While it requires clarification that standards of fact-based accurate in world history texts should be adhered to, it also creates a process giving parents an opportunity at school district level to trigger a public hearing. The laws also adds requirements that instructional materials “accurately portray the religious and physical diversity of our society.” Further, it makes the school district boards responsible for the content of all instructional materials used in the classroom. One important requirement is that the amended law would add a new topic in the curriculum specified in 1003.42, F.S. –“the events surrounding the terrorist attacks occurring on 9/11/01 and the impacts of those events on the nation.”

Those of us who have been involved with the support of both measures consider them landmarks for possible consideration in other US states. This might not satisfy all of the concerns in certain quarters; however, they reflect two well turned precepts. Voltaire wrote: “a wise Italian says that the best is the enemy of the good.” German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck said: “politics is the art of the possible.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

The true meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause

/in , , , , /by

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Judge Andrew Napolitano gives a speech from the heart about freedom and from where our rights come. The Judge explains the hard core truth about the Constitution and why we must fight to regain and retain our freedoms.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/7n2m-X7OIuY[/youtube]

Video courtesy of CampaignForLiberty.com. Edited by FreeTheNation.com.