Small Thoughts for a Complex World™

In a July 13th article titled Coup d-etat, Paul Craig Roberts, the chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, wrote:

Well, if this is a coup, then paraphrasing Ayn Rand's comments about the supposed "rape" scene in The Fountainhead, it is a coup by engraved invitation, seeing as there is so little real opposition being mounted to many of the issues that Roberts raises in his piece.

For generations, the American people have been indoctrinated by government-run education, to forget that, as the Declaration of Independence so clearly states:

It is only a coup so long as the citizens of this country — meaning you, me and others — stand by and allow our sovereignty and our rights to be trampled by this group of smooth talking, totalitarian-bent, street thugs.

It is time for every person that understands what is at stake to withdraw their consent from this illegitimate government that is no longer bound by Constitutional restraints and neither represents our interests nor protects our sovereignty. It is time to assert our right to alter or abolish this creeping tyranny and replace it with government that explicitly acknowledges the meaning of the term individual rights, and serves to respect and protect them.

Roberts concludes his piece with the observation:

He is correct. There is no magic savior coming to rescue us from this pending fate. It is up to us to act—and to act now—if we wish to retain the vestiges of freedom we still possess and to restore the full meaning of personal liberty represented by America's founding principles.

We must each make pushing back agains tyranny a part of our daily lives. We cannot remain quiet in response to our disgust and opposition to what is happening, but should instead become very loud, forceful, and public in expressing our awareness of how our rights are being violated, letting others know, in no uncertain terms, that we refuse to sit back quietly and submit. We must become activists for freedom by, for example, writing frequent letters to the editors of local papers, or by organizing protest marches and rallies against specific government officials who commit abuses, or by establishing groups within your community where you and others lecture to educate more people as to what is happening all around us.

To achieve values in our life requires energy and commitment. Ask yourself what your personal freedom is worth to you and then make sure that you have a plan and are investing an appropriate amount of time, effort and resources to give yourself a reasonable chance of achieving your goal. If enough people are willing to fight for their freedom, then it can be realized. Place yourself on the right side in this battle.

According to Wikipedia, Loyalty Day was first observed on May 1st, 1921, as a counter to the growing influences of communism and anarchism on the American labor movement. In 1958 during the second Red Scare, Congress passed Public Law 85-529 declaring this to be a legal holiday — although one which is rarely observed. Wikipedia states:

In keeping with that tradition, on April 30, 2013, President Obama issued his own proclamation, once again declaring May 1st to be "Loyalty Day." Here is what he had to say:

But of course, as with all things Obama, there are interesting passages contained here that, in the name of this country's founding principles, turn those very principles upon their head. For example, Obama states:

Ignoring for the moment his appeal to faith rather than a conscious understanding and explicit agreement with our founding principles, what are some of those core ideas that he identifies?

"liberty, equality, and justice for all."

Contrast this with the Pledge of Allegiance which speaks of "liberty and justice for all. Where did "equality" come from and what does Obama mean by that?

When the founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

it is perfectly clear that they are speaking of individuals who are separate from one another, but all of whom possess equal rights as an inherent aspect of their human nature—rights pertaining to their freedom and independence; rights which grant them the power to direct and control the course of their own lives.

But this is not at all what Barack ("I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.") Obama means by equality. He is not promoting equality of opportunity to pursue one's desires in the manner of one's choosing. No, he is speaking of egalitarianism — of guaranteeing equality of outcomes. It is his intention to "level the playing field" by chopping off the legs of those that rise too high and using those severed limbs as a platform upon which others will be allowed to stand. And it the government, with him at the helm, that will be doing the chopping and deciding just how much to amputate.

As is the case with all smart totalitarians throughout history, he doesn't plan to go to war with the population in order to extract his pound of flesh. Instead, he navigates the much easier course of simply issuing a call to sacrifice oneself on the altar of altruism, and then stands back as a majority of the sheep lead themselves to slaughter. When Obama speaks here of "our country's core: service and citizenship," or declares that Loyalty Day is "an occasion that asks something of us as a people," he is laying the groundwork to help confuse the latent positive feelings that people retain for the greatness of what remains of this country, and getting them to transpose those feelings towards the act of serving the needs of others at their own expense.

And this is not some one-time occurrence, but a concerted effort and core goal of Obama's administration. Already he has declared both 9/11 and Martin Luther King Day to be National Days of Service. His never-ending call to serve can be found buried within most of his speeches, while more and more children of all ages are being forced to perform mandatory community service in our government-run schools as part of the federal Service-Learning initiative. And as I pointed out in my original article on National Service, the annual spending on the Corporation for National and Community Service has been drastically increased during The past five years, with an underlying goal of ultimately making National Service become a mandatory requirement imposed upon all citizens.

When Obama declares:

he is counting on most people not being aware of the fundamental Enlightenment principles of individualism upon which our American history rests, and an uncritical acceptance of his replacement of our rights to autonomy and self-directedness with his collectivist notion of egalitarianism. Unfortunately, after many generations of a populace indoctrinated in government schools, he can now apparently get his wish.

Well, here we are, facing yet another Obama-mandated National Day of Service. It seems like it wasn't that long ago that we "celebrated" this. Oh, that's right, it was actually just last September 11th that the Day of Remembrance was magically transformed, by edict, into a call for service. And now, only a few short months later, Martin Luther King Day is reconstructed as well.

"This is really what America is about, ... we're all in this together, and we've got to look out for each other, and we've got to work hard on behalf of each other."

"[T]he goal is that as you make your way through life, who are you pulling up behind you? And as long as you're pulling somebody up behind you you're doing the right thing."

To the Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity Congressional Subcommittee: Judy Biggert, R-IL, Chairman Robert Hurt, R-VA, Vice Chairman Gary G. Miller, R-CA Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV Scott Garrett, R-NJ Patrick T. McHenry, R-NC Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-GA Sean P. Duffy, R-WI Robert J. Dold, R-IL Steve Stivers, R-OH Luis V. Gutierrez, D-IL, Ranking Member Maxine Waters, D-CA Nydia M. Velazquez, D-NY Emanuel Cleaver, II, D-MO Mel Watt, D-NC Brad Sherman, D-CA Michael E. Capuano, D-MA Thank you for inviting Peter Schiff to testify on Thursday June 7th, 2012 before your sub-committee in the hearing titled, "Oversight of Federal Housing Administration's Multi-family Insurance Programs." We believe Peter Schiff represented the American taxpayers' interests when he argued for free-market solutions to the housing crisis. We, the taxpayers, are upset and we're watching the votes of our Representatives more closely than ever. We urge you, the sub-committee, and the entire Congress to listen to Peter Schiff and act on his advice. We urge Congress to understand that we do not need another government program to fix our current problems. The government is the problem; slashing programs, departments, agencies, etc. is the solution. Reducing government interference frees up capital and, most importantly, it frees up behavior. With time, new enterprises will spring up to provide the same services as government — but cheaper and better. We urge you to understand that the "free market" is not a unified entity that you can manipulate at will. As the philosopher that was mentioned during the hearing, Ayn Rand, once said, "You can evade reality but you cannot evade the consequences of reality." Enough is enough! The free market is us. We believe that we are better at solving problems when we are free to do so. We urge Congress to keep inviting honest speakers like Peter Schiff to testify and to implement their recommendations. We urge Congress to restore America to being the land of the free and the home of the brave. Sincerely, The Undersigned

Come gather 'round people, wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
—
Bob Dylan

Statism:   [via dictionary.com] 1) the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

Freedom was maximized when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold.

[W]e are now intensely occupied in forging the tools of democracy, the direct primary, the initiative, the referendum, the recall, the short ballot, commission government. But in our enthusiasm we do not seem to be aware that these tools will be worthless unless they are used by those who are aflame with the sense of brotherhood...The idea [of the social centers movement is] to establish in each community an institution having a direct and vital relation to the welfare of the neighborhood, ward, or district, and also to the city as a whole.

The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government.

Beginning in 1913, the Woodrow Wilson (1913-20) administration earned dubious distinction for politically kicking off the progressive era through a series of legislative acts which included:

• Enacting the sixteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, permanently cementing in place the progressive Income Tax and establishing, in law, that the product of your efforts now belonged to society, not you.
  
  
• Instituting the Federal Reserve System (FED) which effectively nationalized the money supply and banking system.
  
  
• Creating the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to track and regulate business and industry practices.
  
  
• Passing the Clayton Antitrust Act to further curtail business independence and freedom of action.
  
  
• Passing the Federal Farm Loan Act, the precedent for the 2,238+ programs currently listed in Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance [CFDA].
  
  
• Regulating the labor markets through passage of the Adamson Act and the later-to-be-determined-unconstitutional, Keating-Owen Act.
  
  
• Reinstituting the military draft during World War I, making it explicit that your life belonged to society, not you.
  
  
• In response to WWI, agricultural markets were regulated and certain prices fixed through the creation of the U.S. Food Administration. Subsequently, Wilson issued a proclamation calling for the public to voluntarily observe "wheatless Mondays and Wednesdays", "meatless Tuesdays" and "porkless and sweetless Saturdays", while mandatory food restrictions were imposed on the baking industry.
  
  
• Energy markets were also regulated through the creation of the Federal Fuel Administration, which took complete control over coal, and to a lesser degree the oil and natural gas industries. Here, the public was urged to observe "heatless Mondays", "gasless Sundays" and "lightless nights". The government determined what were classified as "nonessential factories", which were then order closed.

As Hans Sennholz has reported, during the next fifteen years many of these Wilsonian agencies and policies interfered with normal self-correcting market mechanisms, while the manipulation of the money supply under the aegis of the newly created FED, were together ultimately responsible for the massive credit expansion and resulting stock market crash in 1929. Faced with a recession, the Herbert Hoover (1929-32) administration responded as follows:

• Increased the top personal tax bracket from 25% to 63%. Well, it had already been made clear that the government did not consider it to be your money.
  
  
• Increased corporate taxes. Same principle for businesses.
  
  
• Instituted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raising tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to near record levels and triggering retaliatory tariffs from other countries. The results? U.S. imports decreased by 66% and exports decreased by 61% during the four years of the Hoover administration.

In 1933, happy days were here again, with the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) (1933-45) to the presidency. Despite having campaigned on a platform opposing Hoover's deficits, and calling for "drastic reductions of all public expenditures", "abolishing useless commissions and offices", and for a "sound currency", immediately upon his inauguration he turned his back on his promises and launched into his explicitly anti-capitalist New Deal programs, saddling us with:

• The Glass-Steagall Act which regulated financial speculation (i.e., business risk-taking), while also creating ...
  
  
• The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which nationalized future banking system failures while producing the unintended consequence of training depositors to no longer worry about or investigate the credit-worthiness of their financial institutions.
  
  
• The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which began regulating the stock exchanges and all other financial markets.
  
  
• The Social Security Ponzi scheme, and its FICA Payroll Witholding Tax which hid from view the full impact of the tax burden being born by the typical worker.
  
  
• An increased standard marginal tax rates, up to 91%—and with Executive Order 9250, the creation of a 100% marginal rate on salaries over $25,000. Wake up folks, it's simply not your money!
  
  
• The Thomas Amendment, which authorized currency expansion (i.e., inflating the money supply) at the whim of the president.
  
  
• Currency devaluation through Executive Order 6102. Private ownership of gold was declared illegal, and once confiscated from all citizens it was then repriced from $20.67 to $35.00 an ounce—an inflation of just under 70%—profiting government at the expense of everyone else left holding significantly devalued paper dollars.
  
  
• The creation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to enforce tax compliance.
  
  
• The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the U.S. Housing Authority, which nationalized the construction of low-cost public housing and provided mortgage and insurance subsidies.
  
  
• The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which granted the president the power to regulate industry and authorize monopolies as desired, bypassing the newly minted anti-trust laws on a whim. NIRA is a poster child for the method of handing off regulatory law-making from the legislative to the administrative branch of government. According to Wikipedia:

  NIRA, as implemented by the [National Recovery Administration], became notorious for generating large numbers of regulations. The agency approved 557 basic and 189 supplemental industry codes in two years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 business practices were prohibited, some 3,000 administrative orders running to over 10,000 pages promulgated, and thousands of opinions and guides from national, regional, and local code boards interpreted and enforced the Act.

  In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously held the NIRA to be unconstitutional.
  
  
• Despite his 1940 campaign promises to keep America out of the war, Roosevelt reinstituted military conscription during that same year—the first peacetime draft in U.S. history. The Selective Service System which mandated draft registration was also recreated.
  
  
• The National Labor Relations Act, granting the government the power to regulate interactions between unions and employers, imposing constraints on what actions would be permitted to either group, and thereby extinguishing the right to freedom of association.
  
  
• The Fair Labor Standards Act, which regulated pay levels and instituted the Minimum Wage.
  
  
• The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 which nationalized electric power generation. The federal government forced divestiture of private energy holding companies and regulated the industry, including pricing. The government also went into electrical production with the acquisition of private companies and the creation of public utilities, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, then the largest federally-owned corporation in America.
  
  
• Numerous government make-work programs through agencies such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). At one point, over three million civilian workers were being directly subsidized, accounting for just under 7% of the entire GDP—assuming of course that you are willing to classify much of these agencies make-work programs as actual domestic product!
  
  
• The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, used to pick winners and losers by making targeted loans to state and local governments, banks, railroads, mortgage lenders and other businesses.
  
  
• The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which taxed producers of farm products and then paid subsidies directly to farmers to kill their livestock and to not grow crops on their land, forcing food prices up for everyone else. Never will you find a clearer example of the "fallacy of the broken window!"
  
  
• The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) which securitized mortgages in the secondary market with the intent of increasing home ownership.

1. Freedom of speech and expression
   
   
2. Freedom of worship
   
   
3. Freedom from want
   
   
4. Freedom from fear

• Full Employment
  
  
• A Living Wage
  
  
• A Market for One's Goods and Services
  
  
• Freedom from Unfair Competition
  
  
• Decent Housing
  
  
• Medical Care and Good Health
  
  
• Economic Protection from Accidents
  
  
• Retirement Security
  
  
• Quality Education

Channeling the New Deal from thirty years earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-68) instituted his Great Society program, including his War on Poverty, once again dramatically expanding the size and role of the federal government while adding a new array of regulations and entitlements through the creation of:

• Medicare, medical entitlement for the aged.
  
  
• Medicaid, medical entitlement for the indigent.
  
  
• Social Security benefit increases and expanded coverage for those in poverty.
  
  
• Food Stamps, as part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
  
  
• Vista, a domestic, federally-funded, community-based volunteer program to aid the needy.
  
  
• Job Corps, to provide vocational training for low-income youth.
  
  
• Community Action Agencies, which received government grants in order to implement local welfare and subsidy programs.
  
  
• Head Start,  Project Follow Through and Upward Bound, all programs designed to provide day-care, education, health and social services to low-income children, from pre-school onward.
  
  
• Federal Transit Administration, (Originally the Urban Mass Transportation Authority), to fund bus, subway, rail, ferry, trolley and other transportation projects.
  
  
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to license automobile manufacturers, regulate road and vehicle safety, set fuel economy standards and establish limits on engine emissions.
  
  
• Model Cities Program, a disastrous federal urban renewal program. (For more information on the negative impact of this and other urban renewal programs, see my article here.)
  
  
• National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), expanding government into the critically important fields of literature, poetry, painting, sculpture, photography, music, dance, and so much more!
  
  
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the funding organization for PBS and NPR. Involvement in supporting specific news and programming outlets placed the government squarely in the propaganda business.
  
  
• Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, regulating the information to be placed on product packaging.
  
  
• The selective service and military draft remained active after WWII, and during Johnson's escalation of the Vietnamese War, the number of American troops stationed in Vietnam increased from 16,300 in 1963 to 536,100 by 1968.
  
  
• The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968, which imposed a temporary 10% surcharge on personal and corporate income taxes (later extended through 1970) to partially cover the cost of the war.

Being a Republican, one might expect Richard Nixon (1969-74) to stand up for free-market principles. One would be wrong. In addition to his well known ethical failings, during his tenure he managed to commit the following acts:

• Imposed wage and price controls on the economy—twice.
  
  
• Eliminated the gold standard, thereby converting the dollar into a fully fiat currency.
  
  
• Submitted a proposal for nationalized heath insurance for the poor, along with mandatory employer-provided health coverage (which did not pass).
  
  
• Expanded the use of government-regulated Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).
  
  
• Created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  
  
• Created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
  
  
• Signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which, among other things, imposed the requirement for environmental impact statements on all development activity.
  
  
• Created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), a companion to Fannie Mae, responsible for packaging mortgages purchasing on the secondary market and then reselling them as mortgage-backed securities.
  
  
• Launched the War on Drugs which has increased the state and federal prison populations at an accelerating rate, from under 200,000 in 1971 to over 1.6 million today.

• Creation of the Department of Energy (DOE), which established a federally mandated energy conservation policy for the entire country, backed up by a new regulatory bureaucracy. (Carter)
  
  
• The establishment of the Department of Education, which began the process of centralizing the administration of education policies across the nation. (Carter)
  
  
• The Job Training Partnership Act, which significantly expanded training subsidies for youth and unskilled adults. (Reagan)
  
  
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which imposed a complex new set of rules affecting employment, transportation, telecommunications, and all publically accessible existing and new construction, enforced through public lawsuits. (Bush Sr.)
  
  
• The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which extended health coverage to the children of families that had incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid. (Clinton)
  
  
• The No Child Left Behind Act, which imposed significant new education standards on state schools as a contingency for receiving federal funds. (Bush Jr.)
  
  
• Faith-Based Initiatives: Legislation designed to make it easier to transfer increased federal funds to religious organizations. (Bush Jr.)
  
  
• The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, an overhaul to Medicare which provided new prescription drug entitlements to seniors, at a projected cost of an additional $549 billion over a ten year period. (Bush Jr.)
  
  
• The initial $700 billion Troubles Asset Relief Program (TARP), used to directly bailout various financial institutions while nationalizing the financial and automotive sectors through the purchase of shares in AIG, Citigroup, General Motors, Chrysler, and other companies. (Bush Jr.)

(Click on image for larger view)

All of which brings us to Barack Obama (2009-12). In less than one term the current administration has disregarded the Constitution, invalidated the rule of law, and been responsible for one of the greatest increases in the size and scope of the regulatory state through a series of acts, including:

• Record Deficits: During the period from 2009 through 2012 (est.), the total deficit spending will be greater than $5.3 trillion, increasing the federal debt to more than $16.3 trillion, which represents over $52,100 of debt for every man, woman and child in the U.S, or more realistically, $208,400 for a typical household of four. The total debt is equal to 105% of GDP, as compared to the debt-to-GDP ratios of: Spain: 69%, Ireland: 104%, Portugal: 107%, Italy: 120%, Greece: 161%—good company, one and all!
  Of course, the above figures are made possible through the use of government accounting practices that would put any private citizen behind bars were they to use them. According to this USA Today story, where the federal government reports a deficit of $1.3 trillion for the previous year, standard accounting practices would properly show that figure to be $5 trillion! That is an underreporting by 260%. Today, in order to cover the total cost of all federal liabilities, each American household is now on the hook for over $561,000. Good luck with that!

• The nationalization of the medical and insurance industries through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare), a 2,409 page bill rammed, substantially unread ("we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it", Pelosi), through Congress using the budgetary trick of reconciliation. It is now conceded by its supporters that rather than reduce medical costs, it will increase the average insurance premium by 20-30% by 2016. And like every other bureaucratized social medical scheme ever tried, it will produce untold inefficiencies and inevitably lead to health care rationing by impersonal panels of government administrators more concerned with cost than care. The constitutionality of the act, including its mandate to purchase insurance, is currently under review by the Supreme Court.

• The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), an additional $831 billion in Keynesian economic "stimulus", over and above the previous $700 billion in TARP funds ($1.53 trillion total), with the primary purpose of creating jobs. The administration indicated that unemployment was expected to rise to 9%, but that with this stimulus it would remain under 8% and fall to less than 6% by mid-2012. Instead, despite the massive spending, unemployment increased to 10.1% (Oct. 2009) and remains at well above 8% today. Based upon the Congressional Budget Office's own figures, the average cost of each job created was between $228,056 and $631,538, although one report puts the figure as high as $4.1 million! Your mortgaged future at work—or more accurately, not at work!

• The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which imposed massive new regulatory requirements on an already heavily regulated financial services industry. This included creation of the:
  
  
  • Financial Stability Oversight Council which determines what constitutes "excessive risk" and then imposes it's edicts on financial institutions in order to promote "market discipline".
    
    
  • Federal Insurance Office to identify "gaps in the regulation of insurers" in order to "develop Federal policy on prudential aspects of international insurance matters".
    
    
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which regulates mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and other financial products offered to consumers.
  
  With the government dictating much of the day-to-day operating parameters and reporting requirements for everything from banks to hedge funds to debt collectors, the freedom to react to market forces and innovate is significantly curtailed. As John Allison has commented:

  Dodd-Frank is a dramatic move toward statism as government bureaucrats can practically decide which industries, companies and consumers have available credit. Dodd-Frank encourages more consolidation in the banking industry and instead of eliminating "too big to fail," makes this practice a permanent public policy.

• Expanding the size and powers of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by tasking it with the administration of the health care insurance mandate. Obama requested a budged increase of roughly $1 billion in order to hire thousands of additional agents.

• The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, part of which fully nationalized the federally-insured student loan industry, curtailing competition and restricting student options while further driving up the cost of higher education.

• The nationalization of the financial industry through the Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, intended to purchase "toxic assets" from failing financial institutions, thereby moving liability from the private sector onto the backs of American taxpayers.

• The nationalization of the automotive industry through the government's acquisition of a majority stake in General Motors and Chrysler. After the takeover, the Obama administration then exerted fiat dictatorial control over these organisations, replacing the CEO at GM, invalidating contract law by simply tossing existing bondholders under the bus, awarding the UAW with an unlawful 40% stake in the restructured company, and selling off Chrysler to the Italian company, Fiat SpA. The Wall Street Journal indicates that there has been a $28.8 billion taxpayer loss on the GM and Chrysler bailouts.

• The Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), a $3 billion boondoggle where taxpayers were forced to subsidize new car purchases for reasonably wealthy Americans (those who could afford to purchase a new car) if they would trade in their older, less fuel efficient vehicles which were subsequently crushed! The net result was that: 1) total costs exceeded total benefits by $1.4 billion, 2) average fuel economy for all purchased vehicles increased by only 0.6 to 0.7 MPG, and 3) the destruction of all the trade-in vehicles caused a reduction in supply and corresponding price increases in the used car market, seriously harming low-income drivers.

• A $7,500 taxpayer subsidy (read wealth transfer payment) for the purchase of each plug-in electric vehicle. In addition, there are huge subsidies for the installation of electric charging stations for these vehicles.

• Despite a failing economy, continuing to push the discredited Global Warming (i.e., Climate Change) agenda to the tune of $70 billion, and investing public funds in failed "green" initiatives such as the following examples: Solyndra ($535 million loss and bankruptcy), Evergreen Solar ($5.3 million federal, $50 million state loss and bankruptcy), SpectraWatt ($500,000 loss and bankruptcy), Mountain Plaza Inc. ($424,000 loss and bankruptcy), Fisker Automotive ($193 million loss, on verge of bankruptcy), Tesla Motors ($465 million loan, posting losses and falling sales), and many others.

• Extending the regulatory powers of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to impose new user fees on drug and medical device makers, while expanding the agency's power to control raw materials used in manufacturing.

• Extending unemployment benefits multiple times up to a total of 99 weeks.

• The enactment of 21 new or increased taxes, many embedded within the health care legislation. In addition, President ("I do think at a certain point you've made enough money") Obama has called for increased marginal tax rates and minimum payments (Buffett Rule) on the wealthy.

• Despite rising oil prices, by edict, Obama suspended new oil exploration and drilling, including the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic Ocean, and along the Atlantic Coast. He blocked construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and imposed federal regulation of the development of Natural Gas resources, and the process of Fracking. Consequently, automotive gasoline prices have more than doubled during his administration, increasing from $1.84/gal. (01-26-09) to $3.79/gal. (05-07-12).

• In keeping with his campaign promise that his energy policies would ensure that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket", mission accomplished. Recent reports reveal massive increases in utilities—850% in some markets—in less than three years.

• Legislating through regulatory department fiat and executive order:
  
  
  • The EPA Declares carbon dioxide to be a health hazard, thereby drastically expanded the scope of that agency's regulatory reach.
    
    
  • The NLRB upholds card check (the elimination of secret ballots in union voting), despite the prior legislative rejection by Congress.
    
    
  • The NLRB blocks Boeing from opening its new assembly plant in South Carolina.
    
    
  • EO 13588: Reducing Prescription Drug Shortages, which requires drug manufactures to report operational data, expands the FDA's regulatory review of the industry, and coordinates with the Department of Justice to prosecute those "stockpiling" inventory or selling merchandise at "exorbitant prices".

Your Education:

Freedom of choice in the realm of education first went out the window in America when the Massachusetts Bay Colony made it compulsory back in 1642. However, after the Revolutionary War, it wasn't until 1849 when Connecticut became the first state to reintroduce mandatory school attendance—something that is nationwide today, notwithstanding the 13th Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude.
Despite constant calls for increased funding and new initiatives, government education is a massive failure. A study by the Broad Foundation shows that the value of public schooling is perceived to be so low that 1.2 million students drop out each year. The study also indicates that 70% of 8th grader are unable to read proficiently, and that out of the top 30 industrialized nations, American students rank 21st in science and 25th in math. This despite many reports showing that government expenditures per student greatly exceeds those of private schools, while producing inferior results.
Rather than address any of these facts pertaining to the abysmal results in the traditional subject areas of reading, composition, history, math, science and logic, the Obama administration has instead made a huge investment in the implementation of Service Learning—now active in roughly half of all government school. This new program requires that all students engage in mandatory community service work for a specified number of hours each year in order to be allowed to advance to the next grade. What types of work? Here are some examples:
• Preparing and serving meals to homeless
• Working in shelters
• Clothing/food/book/toy drives
• Participating in community clean-up projects
• Supervising toddler recreation time
• Campaigning for a political candidate   [Emphasis added]
The time required for these activities can accrue to 200 hours or more (depending upon the school) of enforced labor in order for a student to be allowed to graduate. The idea is to indoctrinate the school children into a view of Service As A Social Norm. This is nothing less than a back-door effort in support of the administration's larger goal of instituting a mandatory program of universal National Service for all Americans, where up to two years of your life are taken over by government masters.
As the above facts make clear, quality education of youth is not the primary goal of our government-run school system. Were that the case, then changes of a completely different nature would be instituted, allowing market-based competition among private schools, with parents able to to freely determine how to best spend their dollars in order to successfully train their children.
Instead, what the evidence shows is that government seeks to control the educational system as a means of being able to indoctrinate one generation after another in its propaganda. Whether it is forcing very young children to parrot praise for our glorious supreme leader, creating an eco-Nazi police force, asking students to report family secrets, or being fed either the progressive viewpoint on diversity, climate change, and social justice, or the evangelical viewpoint on creationism, intelligent design, and abstinence-only sex education, the end goal is the creation of a culture of uniform, pliable minds that can be more easily mobilized into service by a centralized authority—something I previously discussed in my article Building Obama's Army.

Your Career:

Once upon a time it was you who decided whether you had a skill of value to offer, and it was others who decided whether they agreed and were willing to trade with you for your services. But today, that's pretty much a fairy tale. Slowly, the various states began to arbitrarily declare that one profession after another was no longer yours to practice by right, but only by privilege. They started with the licensing of the medical, legal and teaching professions, and by 1920 had expanded into architecture, engineering, accounting, insurance, pharmacy, real estate, the building trades and even hair cutting. And although the common fiction was that these professions were being regulated in order to protect the public "health, safety and welfare", the truth was that in almost every case the restrictions were the result of heavy lobbying by business and trade associations for the express purpose of creating barriers to entry in the profession that would restrict competition and raise prices for its existing members. The onerous licensing requirement significantly increased the educational time and expense—including costly examination fees that can run into the thousands of dollars for certain professions—thereby excluding many qualified people from an otherwise viable career path. One unintended consequence of this was to actually lower rather than raise the overall level of professionalism.
While the politicians may not themselves have been initially interested in the true intent of professional licensing, they soon came to see two major benefits. First, there were the ongoing annual licensing fees that could be imposed upon an ever expanding segment of the population—and new sources of taxes are always a top priority. But more importantly, the politicians quickly realized that with the power to extend the right to work within a profession, also came the power to revoke that privilege. This placed the state in the position of being able to directly control the very livelihood of citizens—a new and powerful lever that could be used to exact compliance from an important segment of the voting public. With these incentives awaiting, the gold rush was on, and the number of licenses exploded. Today, pest control operator, locksmith, animal trainer, travel guide, log scaler and shampooer are among the more than 1,100 distinct professions requiring a license in one or more states. Here is a site listing 10,385 licensed occupations among the 50 states, while this link provides a comprehensive list of 194 occupations requiring a license in the state of North Carolina alone. During the 1950s, only 5% of American workers were licensed. By 2008 that number had grown to 23% of the workforce and is certainly higher today.

Your Business:

As our little stroll down memory lane has shown, the 20th and 21st century attack on free-market business practices has been an unrelenting one. Every new regulation has created a government bureaucracy that has hobbled entrepreneurs' ability to respond to ever changing market forces, while burying them under a mountain of record keeping and reporting that diverts crucial resources away from productive activity.
In 2010 and 2011, the size of the Federal Register exceeded 82,000 pages—each year! This provides some indication of the magnitude of the legislative burden being placed upon business. And as the Wall Street Journal reported, in 2008, the annual cost of complying with all federal regulations was greater than $1.75 trillion!
Consider how many jobs are being destroyed by this direct government intervention. In 2010, the average national wage was $41,600. If we assume a generous 75% markup to cover non-salary expenses, this raises the business cost per employee to $72,800. If that $1.75 trillion were not being diverted to unproductive tasks, it could represent more than 24 million potential jobs, while the current unemployment rate is estimated to be 12.5 million!
That same WSJ article indicates that the cost of these regulations is born disproportionately by smaller businesses:

As a consequence, small businesses—those with fewer than 20 employees—incur regulatory costs 42% greater than firms with between 20 and 499 employees, and 36% greater than firms with more than 500 employees. The regulatory cost per employee for small businesses was $10,585, compared to $7,454 for medium firms and $7,755 for large firms.

Since small business is the center for new job creation, if Obama were truly serious about increasing employment, then he should actively work to reduce the regulatory burden on all enterprise. Instead, his approach is exactly the opposite, so it's no mystery why economic recovery has not occurred.
But the question still remains, if this level of misery is the result, then why are progressives so committed to impeding the golden goose that is business? And the simple answer is their fear of freedom. The mere idea of an unregulated business left to operate under its own direction is, in itself, so abhorrent, that they are more willing to suffer the consequential pain of applying the fetters.

Your Choices:

Telling us that monopolies were bad, the government created antitrust legislation which it has then used to prosecute honest businesses from Standard Oil and Alcoa to IBM, Microsoft and Google. Of course, it is only bad when it is anyone other than the politicians doing the monopolizing.
The U.S. Postal Service is a "good" monopoly, because .... well, because the government says it is. Between 2006–2011 the Post Office lost over $25 billion and is scheduled to lose another $14 billion during 2012. Despite these facts, profitable private companies such as DHL, FedEx and UPS are still prohibited from offering us their services in this area of standard mail delivery.
Gambling is bad for you—unless it is the government that is raking in the proceeds, at which point it is actively encouraged. State governments maintain a monopoly on lotteries and spend millions each year advertising them with the intent of extracting billions of additional dollars ( $53.8 billion in 2006) from their residents. Go ahead and purchase your government tickets. Just don't you try this at home! When it comes to government, what's good for me is prohibited for thee.
Where individuals once dealt directly with businesses vying with one another to provide us with various goods and services, over time the politicians stepped in and created government-sponsored monopolies that eliminating all competition. An early example was the building of roads, followed later by the control or outright takeover of one utility after another. The net result? Not happy with your electric rates, your trash collection or your cable service and would like to look elsewhere for something better? Well tough noogies. You options have been eliminated because there's now only one government-mandated game in town. Your right to choose has been replaced by expanded controls which force you to accept someone elses decisions. And despite the example of AT&T, where the end of the government-enforced monopoly led to rapid innovation, increased consumer choice and dramatically lower prices in the telecommunications industry, there is no will to repeat that success.

Your Property:

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." — James Madison   [Emphasis by Madison]

A free people have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. While this was generally true in the 19th and early 20th century, it is no longer the case.
When it comes to your land, you are now regulated by zoning boards which limit not only what type of structures you will be allowed to build, but their placement, lot coverage, height, shape, permeability, construction materials, signage, lighting, landscaping, and often even the allowable colors will be dictated. For some projects, you may also be required to make "social concessions" such as paying for public amenities, turning over a portion of your land as a park, or building a certain number of subsidized units, in exchange (i.e., as a bribe) for obtaining zoning approval. Then there are the building inspectors, backed by many thousands of pages of codes and regulations, who will demand you make detailed submissions for their review, outlining every change or improvement intended for your property. This submission must typically be accompanied by a very large fee (tax) before the review will be conducted. The Fire Marshall or Army Corps of Engineers may also weigh in, along with many others officiating bodies, depending upon the nature of your project. Should you meet all of the requirement and finally receive building approval, then the inspectors will supervise all work to insure that you perform to their requirements. The concept of private property no longer exists. Government has asserted authority over all usage, and while you bear the financial liability for the construction and maintenance, you are really only a tenant of the land. And each year you will receive a property tax bill from the real owners to remind you of your leasehold status.
Or consider another example. Do farmers have a right to the use of their own cattle? Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler emphatically declared that they do not! In a case where the judge proclaimed that the farm families "do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow," he went even further, stating that Americans "do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice."
Then there are federal asset seizures which have risen over the years to epidemic proportions. This is where regulatory and enforcement agencies are given the power to confiscate property without Fifth Amendment protection of due process. As the Wall Street Journal reports, in 2010 alone:
"forfeiture programs confiscated homes, cars, boats and cash in more than 15,000 cases. The total take topped $2.5 billion"
In the meantime, innocent people are being caught in this unrestrained fishing net. Ostensibly, these seizures of ill-gotten goods are supposed to be returned to victims, but a 1984 federal law allows state and local agencies to retain up to 80% of what is taken, creating what Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice points out is an "improper profit incentive."
So much for your property rights.

Your Income:

Your income is the product of your thought and labor. In a free society it should be recognized as your property by right, to save, invest, spend or give away as you—and only you—wish. But this is not the view of contemporary government. They see your earnings as their property, to be disposed of in a manner of their choosing. By their grace, politicians leave you with a percentage of what you make, but then confiscate the remainder to fund their programs, schemes, junkets and wars. We have already examined the case where FDR imposed a 100% marginal tax rate on income above a certain level, stating in unequivocal terms that should anyone in that position choose to work, they were fully slaves of the state. The following two recent events reinforce this point:
In April, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced Senate bill S.1813 reauthorizing federal highway funding. But hidden within that bill was a provision to revoke the passport of anyone owing more than $50,000 to the IRS. By restricting citizens from leaving the country, this would effectively erect a virtual "Berlin Wall" around America, caging its citizens, who may only depart if and when granted permission.
Then, in May, in response to Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin's decision to renounce his citizenship and reside in Singapore, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Casey (D-PA) proposed the Ex-PATRIOT Act (S. 3205), which would impose a 30% tax on the investments of any person renouncing their American citizenship. In addition, these people would be barred from reentering the U.S., permanently walling them out.
The vitriol exhibited by both Schumer and Casey made crystal clear their belief that Saverin was "stealing" from both them and the U.S. government the millions of tax dollars to which they had a rightful claim but would now be denied, due to Saverin's actions.
Some might argue that the typical progressive is motivated by their radical egalitarianism to work for equality among all people. Not the "equality under the law" that the Founding Fathers recognized, but "equality of outcomes" that promotes uniformity across the entire social spectrum. However, this view crumbles under close examination. Given a choice of proposals, where one promotes that the less well off apply themselves and raise their standard of living towards a more equal stature, while another relies upon the confiscation of property and the restraining of ability of those better off so as to bring them down, the progressive will inevitably select the latter. They do so because it is not empathy and love for the less fortunate that motivates them, but envy and hatred for their betters that fuels their passion. Refer to the actions of Boxer, Schumer and Casey for a case in point.

Your Purchases:

Once the government had exacted its pound of flesh through taxes, it would be nice if you were then left to spend the remainder of your earnings as you liked. But no, the politicians are not through with you just yet. They have an opinion as to just how you should use that money. They know what's best for you.
For example, they think it would be great if you owned a house instead of renting. And it would be swell if you would donate some of your income to charities rather than spend it on yourself. Of course, they have a vested interest in seeing you improve your job skills, since they get more tax revenue as your pay-level increases. So they nudge you in their direction by offering tax deductions for these and other desirable activities.
Or maybe these benevolent fairy god mothers who watch over us all have decided that our behavior should conform to their more "socially desirable" ideals. For example, maybe they would like to see you be more environmentally conscious by weatherizing your home or purchasing an electric car. They accomplish these objectives by taking money from someone else and offering it to you as a bribe.
An when it looks like gentle economic persuasion may not be sufficient to accomplish their goals, then they invent a new trick and simply tell you that you will be forced to make a certain purchase as in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate.

Your Family:

For centuries two people freely decided to marry and then did so. But at some point the government simply asserted that individuals no longer possessed that right and would henceforth be required to seek permission from the state, with the state determining exactly who may or may not wed, and under what conditions. Of course there was also the matter of the ever present fee (i.e., tax). And was the imposition of the marriage license done to better secure the union? No. Its purpose was to prevent interracial marriages, just as today it remains a tool to control or prevent same-sex marriages. The marriage license is nothing more than one more instrument used to control personal behavior and restrict choice.

Your Personal Life:

OK, that's a lot of control, but certainly in other areas of our life we're still free to do as we like. Right?
I can drive wherever I desire.   Well, you had better buckle up!

Then I'll take my bike for a spin.   Just don't forget to wear your helmet.

Can I use a plastic bag?   Fat chance.

Then I'll use paper instead.   You'd better hurry.  I said HURRY!

Certainly no one could stop me from giving you a hug.   Are you so sure about that?

Hold on while I pack my child's lunch.   Of course, she may never get to eat it.

Then I'll take my kid out to eat.   You options may be more limited than you thought.

I'm thirsty. Let's stop and get a soda.   Did you get permission from Mayor Bloomberg?

On the way home I'll get some milk from the local dairy.   Sorry, they've been shut down.

Hmmm, can I have a king-sized candy bar?   Those are not the bars you're looking for.

I need to replace my burned out lightbulb.   Not if you want an incandescent bulb!

At least the 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms.   Not so much.

Can I still smoke?   Sure if you have $15/pack to spare and stand right over here ... today!

I wasn't talking about cigarettes.   In that case, then you can just forget it!

Well, at least I can still use salt on my food.   Nope.

You're kidding, right?   Nope.

Well, no one can make me recycle!   You sure are a funny kid, Johnny, but I like you!

Is there anything at all that I can still do on my own?

Now, that is a very good question!
Channeling Marvin Gaye, today's politicians would say:
There ain't no mountain high enough
Ain't no valley low enough
Ain't no behavior small enough
To keep me from regulating you

So, what's the point?

The point of this historical overview is to expose what is normally hidden from view. The corrosion of our rights has been occurring for decades. Each generation has faced its own smaller set of issues, and at each juncture a tiny percentage of the populace has fought back against the intrusions, with a few battles being won and many more lost. Then society as a whole settles back into abject complacency and learns to accept the new shackles that have been imposed upon it ... at which point the process is ready to repeat, ratcheting yet another notch closer to total enslavement.
The point is to take in the larger picture as a whole and to be horrified by the sight!
For every abridgement of freedom proposed throughout human history, there are an untold number of rationalizations that have been offered up to justify its necessity. At one point a little finesse was required in order to convince people to accept being reamed with the sharp end of the stick, but after a century's worth of abuse—not to mention indoctrination through government schools—the best that today's leader could muster was:
"I had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market system." – Bush Jr.
and apparently that was good enough for most!
But the rationalizations simply don't cut it. When you add everything up, it soon becomes clear that our liberty has not been cashed in to save our country. It was not used as a down payment on maintaining our "way of life". It wasn't sacrificed in service of our fellow man. It was not traded for universal fairness and equality. It's loss has not resulted in brighter, happier people, or the elimination of business failure, or made the trains run on time.
We've exchanged our freedom for the promise of safety and security, and yet we remain unprotected from the Madoffs and Enrons of the world. We find our government-mandated health and retirement systems bankrupt, leaving us exposed and vulnerable. Our entire economy is on the verge of collapse and we are mired in an undeclared and undefined perpetual state of war that cannot be quantified and therefore will never end. We have taken a once productive and self-sufficient people and imbued in a sizable percentage, learned helplessness, creating a class that is no longer capable of taking responsibility for themselves.
For any contract to be valid, each party must gain something of value. In the case of this so called "social contract" that has been rammed down our throats by force, we have paid the very steep price of our liberty. What have we received in return?
Absolutely nothing of value!
I declare this contract null and void.
The point is that we now have a government that no longer honors the limits imposed upon it by the U.S. Constitution, and has come to see citizens as members of three fundamental classes: wards, slaves and rulers.
The point is that we started out with a magnificent proclamation that all men were equal, possessing unalienable rights, and that among these were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, three hundred years later, we have arrived at a point where your life is no longer your own.
The point is that the rationalizations given by our politicians for their acts are just part of the magic and misdirection use to cloud people's minds in order to keep them from identifying the simple and obvious truth: rulers are in it to rule! Today's politicians are small-minded opportunists who enjoy wielding power for power's sake and will pragmatically tell a lie as soon a truth if they deem it will further their ends. These people do not view you as an equal, but see you as a ready mark to be manipulated.
The point is that at the birth of this country men were prepared to take up arms and fight to defend their right to exist on their own terms—not be dictated to by some external controlling force. Today you are not just being taxed and regulated into oblivion, you are being told how to salt you food!
The point is, how much are you willing to take?
The point is, what are you prepared to do about it?

The people are sick'ningly funny---
They want more freedom and growth
And more of somebody's money.
Comedians promise them both.
—
Brian Royce Faulkner

Freedom:   [via dictionary.com] 3) the power to determine action without restraint. 5) personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."        and "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned — this is the sum of good government."        and "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

• Constitutional Measures To Protect The Erosion Of Freedom Have Failed
  [A modified version of the closing section, published in Liberty's Torch: PDF]

Our party firmly believes in the safety net. We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock. [T]he Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today, and it does not promote economic freedom.

Becoming a hammock? Rep. West, that ship has sailed. A majority of Americans now depend on some form of government handouts. This includes rich whites as much as anyone else. These handouts include mortgage subsidies, farm subsidies, essentially permanent unemployment benefits, corporate bailouts, union favors, medical care, Medicare, Social Security, ObamaCare and a host of other goodies as far as the eye can see. West is fatally wrong when he makes a distinction between the government "safety net" rather than a hammock. Whether government provides a "safety net" or a "hammock," in either case it's at the expense of people who are forced to provide it. America, once the land of the free and the home of the ruggedly individualistic, is now a middle class, government-benefit entitlement society. America is the land of Big Babies. Unfortunately, Republicans like Allen West enable the problem by engaging in the pretense that there's any difference between a government "safety net" or "hammock." Government can force us to make hammocks or nets for others deemed deserving. But either way, it's still slavery.

"Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone? It is the key question — a radical question that strikes at the root of the whole dilemma of government. Anyone who answers honestly and abides by all consequences knows where he stands — and what he will die for."
—
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

So, what exactly IS the proper role of government?

• Liberty's Torch – [PDF]

The Weirding Way:  From the science fiction novel Dune, by Frank Herbert The basic principle behind the weirding way is that, as Farad'n Corrino says, "My mind affects my reality." A user of the weirding way has to know that the action he or she "wants" to perform has already been performed. For example, to imagine oneself behind an opponent at the current moment in time; when trained well, this knowledge will place you at the spot desired. — From Wikipedia

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. — Science Fiction Author, Philip K. Dick

The Primacy of Existence: This holds that reality is an absolute, existing independent of conscious thought, and therefore it is the function of the human mind to acquire knowledge by discovering and identifying the nature of this external reality in order to be able to then manipulate it towards productive ends — or as Francis Bacon put it, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."† Here, existence precedes consciousness.
The Primacy of Consciousness: This is the belief that the "reality" that is perceived with one's senses is not external and independent, but is instead actually the creation of consciousness. This view implies that knowledge is acquired through introspection and that the nature of existence can be shaped by thoughts and beliefs, or as John Lennon put it, "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." Here, consciousness precedes existence.

The renowned engineer, William J. LeMessurier, was hired to provide an innovative structural design for the NYC Citicorp Center building which was completed in 1977. In 1978, prompted by a student's inquiry pertaining to aspects of the design, LeMessurier took another look at his calculations and at that time a new thought came to him to check a unique wind loading pattern that had not been required by the applicable codes. To his surprise, he discover that under these new conditions the structure was underdesigned! Now this, in itself, did not pose a serious problem as structural components are typically designed with a 2:1 safety factor which would have dealt with this new condition. But LeMessurier had also recently learned that, without his knowledge at the time, the steel subcontractor, in order to reduce costs, had redesigned the frame using bolts rather than welds, and these two factors now placed the building in danger. He immediately began further investigations which resulted in the discovery that his design team had also treated certain critical components not as columns, but as trusses which did not require the normal safety factor. Taken together, he realized that the building faced a very real risk of collapse in a high wind condition. Despite his reputation being on the line, LeMessurier immediately contacted the architect, a consulting engineer, and the building owners, fully informed them of the situation, and set into motion a plan to rectify the crisis. The story of how this was accomplished is a fascinating tale that can be read in detail at the link above. But what is most interesting is that all parties recognized the serious nature of what needed to be done and worked cooperatively, without recrimination, in order to insure a positive outcome. And as the article's author commented, "The crisis at Citicorp Center was noteworthy in another respect. It produced heroes, but no villains; everyone connected with the repairs behaved in exemplary fashion ." This is an example of the primacy of existence in action, where reality is recognizes as an absolute, to be faced head on, not avoided. Each party maintained a clear focus on the facts as they were uncovered, and as new knowledge was ascertained, actively acknowledged and pursued the consequences. Emotions of fear or anger were suppressed as being unproductive to the goal of averting a disaster and saving lives. Without a doubt, this is a story about heros.

On January 28, 1986 the Challenger Space Shuttle was launched and a little over a minute later, exploded. Subsequently, the Rogers Commission was formed by President Reagan, and charged with investigating the circumstances of this disaster. Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, was one of the commission members, and the tale of his involvement in determining the cause of the accident is recounted in the fascinating story, "Mr. Feynman Goes to Washington: Investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster." As Feynman describes it, while the other commission members were being led around as a herd and presented with information that NASA management wished them to see and hear, he was off conducting his own independent investigation and acquiring a unique perspective on what had occurred. When it came time for the commission to submit a final report, Feynman refused to sign off on it unless his own findings were included, which subsequently made it in as a ten page appendix. It was Feynman who discovered that the direct cause of the explosion was due to joint rotation in the rocket booster sections that were deforming the O-ring seals and allowing hot gas to escape, coupled with a seal resiliency failure due to improper launch under abnormally cold conditions. However, of greater importance was the revelation that the joint and seal problems had been identified early during the Shuttle's design, and yet had never been adequately addressed. Forensic studies conducted after each mission had revealed many cases of charred O-rings, where partial failure of the seals had occurred, and yet the missions continued. As Feynman determined, NASA management treated each case of partial O-ring failure which did not end up compromising the mission as evidence that the problem was of less concern than design specs. indicated, and therefore, "certification criteria used in Flight Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness." When O-ring erosion was observed one-third the radius, NASA management determined that this indicated the rings had "a safety factor of three." But as Feynman so obviously pointed out, "The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred." When asked to estimate the Shuttle's probability of vehicle failure and loss of life, engineers responded with values in the neighborhood of 1 in 100, while management reported 1 in 100,000. Feynman asked: "Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask 'What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?'" As Feynman pointed out in his book, the answer was that while the engineers were applying standard statistical metrics to arrive at their estimates, NASA management was working backwards in their models to arrive at the predetermined number required by political necessity to appease Congress and keep funding flowing. This highlights only some of the fantastic rationalizing that was being done by NASA management, demonstrating a clear case of the primacy of consciousness in action. While the engineers were grounded in science and had a clear grasp of the nature of the problems and the risks they were dealing with, program managers were completely disconnected from reality, having replaced respect for facts with their internal wishes for desired outcomes — an approach which inevitably led to truly disastrous results.

There is no objective morality in the New Age philosophy. We should have tolerance for all systems of truth, meaning and purpose. We should create a world of pure relativism, where morality and religion are strictly relative to each person's individual notion of reality itself. — All About Spirituality

From an article in the New York Times, by Robert Pear "Republicans blame Mr. Obama for the slump, saying he has issued a blizzard of regulations and promised future tax increases that have hurt business and consumer confidence." From an article in Bloomberg, by Steven Matthews "Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said last week the U.S. is facing "a national crisis" with the jobless rate at around 9 percent since April 2009. The European debt crisis, political haggling in the U.S. and a plunge in stock prices have prompted a drop in consumer and business confidence that may hurt spending and hiring. " From President Obama's October 6, 2011 Press Conference Transcript "[T]here is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the year. And every independent economist who has looked at this question carefully believes that for us to make sure that we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip recession, it is important for us to make sure that we are boosting consumer confidence, putting money into their pockets, cutting taxes where we can for small businesses, and that it makes sense for us to put people back to work doing the work that needs to be done."" [All emphasis added]

From an article in the Wall Street Journal, by Peggy Noonan "Throughout the [Suskind] interview the president seems preoccupied with 'shaping a story for the American people.' He says: 'The irony is, the reason I was in this office is because I told a story to the American people.' But, he confesses, 'that narrative thread we just lost' in his first years. "Then [Suskind] asks, 'What's the particular requirement of the president that no one else can do?' [Obama] answers: 'What the president can do, that nobody else can do, is tell a story to the American people' about where we are as a nation and should be." Noonan then comments: "Tell a story to the American people? That's your job? Not adopting good policies? Not defending the nation? Storytelling?" [Emphasis added]

From an article in the Washington Post, by Ezra Klein "All in all, it was a good speech. But it was a good speech because it told the story of a good presidency and an able president." [Emphasis added]

From an article in the New York Times, by Maureen Dowd "It's not a good narrative arc: The man who walked on water is now ensnared by a crisis under water. "But unless he wants his story to be marred ... he'd better seize control of the story line of his White House years. Woe-is-me is not an attractive narrative." [Emphasis added]

Excerpts from an article in the Washington Post, by Jason Horowitz "The Obama 'narrative' is overshadowing this presidency's real stories." "Sing to me of the Obama narrative, Muse, the narrative of twists and turns driven time and again off course." "Journalists and politicians know that voters, like everyone else, are hard-wired to understand the world through stories." "But now his narrative has taken on a life of its own." "'So much of the coverage and commentary has to do with the narrative, stagecraft, the political implications of what he [Obama] is doing,' said David Axelrod, Obama's special adviser for narrative, stagecraft and the political implications of what the president is doing. 'When you are president of the United States, the most important thing is that you cope with the disaster.'" To which, Jason Horowitz adds: "Not, that is, the story line of the disaster." [Emphasis added]

From an article in the Huffington Post, by Dan Carol "This is not to give Team Obama an A-plus across the board on communications or implementation, but the notion that the President doesn't have a core philosophy is simply ridiculous. The problem is Obama's governing narrative does not fit neatly into traditional boxes." [Emphasis added]

From an article in the Wall Street Journal, by James Taranto "At one point, [panel member Peggy] Noonan posed a question: 'What is your plan? You going to spend the next six months blocking the Brooklyn Bridge? Or are you going to harness a movement into political action?' "LaGreca's response: 'What I find amusing is that now people are looking to us to solve the political problems, and they should. But I'm not going to support one party or the other. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. But I will encourage you to be a voter. I think we have succeeded tremendously in pushing the narrative." To which Taranto remarks: "And we all know what backbreaking work it is to push narratives!" [Emphasis added]

You know, wishing won't make it so Hoping won't do it, praying won't do it Religion won't do it, philosophy won't do it The supreme court won't do it, the president and the congress won't do it The UN won't do it, the H-bomb won't do it, the sun and the moon won't do it And God won't do it, and I certainly won't do it That leaves you, you'll have to do it Todd Rundgren, "Fair Warning"

Each year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues baseline projections of federal spending and revenues for the following 10 years. Those projections are not intended as a forecast of future outcomes; rather, they are estimates of spending and revenues under the laws that are in effect at that time and are designed to provide a benchmark against which to measure future policy changes. In January 2001, CBO's baseline projections showed a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion for the 2002-2011 period. The actual results have differed from those projections because of subsequent policy changes, economic developments that differed from CBO's forecast, and other factors. As a result, the federal government actually ran deficits from 2002 through 2010 and will incur a deficit in 2011 as well. The cumulative deficit over the 10-year period will amount to $6.2 trillion, CBO estimates—a swing of $11.8 trillion from the January 2001 projections.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 Reliance on Uncle Sam hits a record; 2010 income was 18.3% entitlements Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds. The trend shows few signs of easing, even though the economic recovery is nearly 2 years old. A record 18.3% of the nation's total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929. The income data show how fragile and government-dependent the recovery is after a recession that officially ended in June 2009. The wage decline has continued this year. Wages slipped to another historic low of 50.5% of personal income in February. Another government effort — the Social Security payroll tax cut — has lifted income in 2011. The temporary tax cut puts more money in workers' pockets and counts as an income boost, even when wages stay the same. From 1980 to 2000, government aid was roughly constant at 12.5%. The sharp increase since then — especially since the start of 2008 — reflects several changes: the expansion of health care and federal programs generally, the aging population and lingering economic problems. Total benefit payments are holding steady so far this year at a $2.3 trillion annual rate. A drop in unemployment benefits has been offset by rises in retirement and health care programs. Americans got an average of $7,427 in benefits each in 2010, up from an inflation-adjusted $4,763 in 2000 and $3,686 in 1990. The federal government pays about 90% of the benefits. "What's frightening is the Baby Boomers haven't really started to retire," says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes of the 77 million people born from 1946 through 1964 whose oldest wave turns 65 this year. "That's when the cost of Medicare will start to explode." Accounting for 80% of safety-net spending in 2010: Social Security, Medicare (health insurance for seniors), Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and unemployment insurance.

• Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program
• Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Demonstration
• Program for Early Detection of Certain Medical Conditions Related to Environmental Health Hazards
• Community National Dissemination and Support for Community Transformation Grants
• Biomass Crop Assistance Program
• Livestock Forage Disaster Program
• Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program
• Durum Wheat Quality Program
• Aquaculture Grant Program
• Poultry Loss Contract Grant Assistance Program
• Distance Education Grants for Institutions of Higher Education in Insular Areas
• ORA Grants to Meet Food, Nutrition and Health Needs of Program Eligible Participants
• Export Guarantee Program
• Repowering Assistance
• Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
• Electronic Absentee Systems for Elections
• Community Economic Adjustment
• National Wetlands Inventory
• Endangered Species Conservation-Wolf Livestock Loss Compensation and Prevention
• Coastal Impact Assistance Program
• National Heritage Area Federal Financial Assistance
• Mississippi National River and Recreation Area State and Local Assistance
• New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park Cooperative Management
• Overseas Schools Program
• EUR/ACE Humanitarian Assistance Program
• EUR/ACE National Endowment for Democracy Small Grants
• Weapons Removal and Abatement
• Export Control and Related Border Security
• Small Business Teaming Pilot Program
• State Trade and Export Promotion Pilot Grant Program
• International Compliance and Enforcement Projects
• Postal Model for Medical Countermeasures Delivery and Distribution

• As of 06-06-13, the number of programs currently listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance has now grown to 2,233. That's one hundred additional entitlements that have been implemented without the general public even being aware that this activity was occurring. That's one hundred additional programs that are being funded through taxation, inflation and debt, on the backs of an already overburdened citizenry.

• Machine Politick
  
• Left Coast Rebel
  
• Rational Nation USA

What Burning What burning, tight'ning anger do I feel Against these petty leaders of mankind. If anger was itself a thing of steel How sharp would fly the bullets from my mind. Blast them for their pity-playing ways; Blast them for their calls to sacrifice; Blast the smiling lying of their days, The hate of reason---their man-denying vice. Yea, blast, and sharply blast, obliterate! Return them to the darkness of their fate! Let truth come quick and stick them in the dust (They haven't earned one light above the ground), Then let them gum the dregs of powder-lust And mouth their mothy nothings of no sound. — Brian Royce Faulkner

To curtail free speech and silence their opposition — by whatever means necessary.

A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal. It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one's product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one's demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one's product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other. There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one's property. — "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?"  from  The Virtue of Selfishness

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security. [Emphasis added]

If anger was itself a thing of steel
How sharp would fly the bullets from my mind.

"If you ask business leaders, the problem is a lack of skilled labor. People don't want to work. Especially in the Delta, people just won't show up on time and often fail drug tests." "'How can this be?' you may ask. You have to work to eat. Well, that's really not true anymore. In fact, our welfare state rewards not working. You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working a $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job."

Jesus recently walked into a bar somewhere in the Western World. He approached three sad-faced gentlemen at a table, and greeted the first one: "What's troubling you, brother?" he said.
"My eyes. I keep getting stronger and stronger glasses, and I still can't see."
Jesus touched the man, who ran outside to tell the world about his now 20-20 vision.
The next gentleman couldn't hear Jesus' questions, so The Lord just touched his ears, restoring his hearing to perfection. This man, too, ran out the door, probably on his way to the audiologist to get a hearing-aid refund.
The third man leapt from his chair and backed up against the wall, even before Jesus could greet him.
"Don't you come near me, man! Don't touch me!" he screamed. "I'm on disability!"

Industries Agricultural Subsidies Art Subsidies and Grants (NEA) Biomass Subsidies Education Energy Subsidies Export-Import Bank Loans Fisheries Subsidies Import/Export Controls Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP) Mining Subsidies News Subsidies (NPR, PBS, PRI, etc.) Tariffs Technology Subsidies Ethnic, Religious and Trade Groups Affirmative Action Programs Faith-Based Services Funding Minority Business Subsidies Indian Casinos, Land, Resources, etc. Special Privileges for Ethnic Groups Religious Tax Exemptions Union-Specific Legislation Corporations and Businesses Bailouts (TARP, etc.) Government Contracts Overseas Private Investment Corp. Loans Publically Funded Infrastructure Research Grants Small Business Administration (SBA) Tax Abatements and Deferrals

Families and Individuals Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) At-Risk Child Care Automobile Tax Credits Child Care and Development Fund Child and Adult Care Food Program Community Development Block Grants Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Education Elderly Nutrition Program Energy Investment Tax Credits Food Stamps Foster Care General Assistance (General Relief) General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) Head Start Home Mortgage Financing Housing Assistance for Low Income Households Insurance Programs (FDIC, Medical, Catastrophe) Interest Reduction Housing Payments Job Corps Library Subsidies Low Income Home Energy Assistance Low Rent Public Housing (HUD) Maternal and Child Health Medicaid Medicare Pell Grants Pensions for Needy Veterans Rural Housing Loans and Mortgages (USDA) School Breakfast and Lunch Social Security Social Services (Title 20) Stafford Loans Summer Youth Employment Supplemental Security Income Training for Disadvantaged Youth and Adults Transportation Subsidies Women, Infants & Children Food Supplements Workforce Investment Program (WIN)

80? 100? 150?

"January 22, 2010 is a day that should live in infamy, at least among believers in limited government. On that day, the federal government added its 2,000th subsidy program for individuals, businesses, or state and local governments."

Advisory Services and Counseling
Direct Loan
Direct Payments for a Specified Use
Direct Payments with Unrestricted Use
Dissemination of Technical Information
Federal Employment
Formula Grants
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Insurance
Investigation of Complaints
Project Grants
Provision of Specialized Services
Sale, Exchange or Donation of Property or Goods
Training
Use of Property, Facilities or Equipment

• AT&T's Bell Labs, which was responsible for inventing radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the UNIX operating system, the C and C++ programming languages, information theory, large-scale integrated circuits, CCD sensors, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

• Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), the birthing place of the modern personal computer, including invention of the bitmapped display, the graphical user interface (GUI), mouse, laser printing, ethernet, what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) text editing, object-oriented programming, along with the liquid crystal display (LCD), the optical disc, IPv6 protocol and the Smalltalk programming language.

• IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center, in conjunction with numerous other worldwide research facilities, created magnetic storage systems, the FORTRAN programming language, invented the relational database, speech recognition, the token-ring network, the Blue Gene super-computer, the scanning tunneling microscope, wrote the SABRE commercial airline scheduling system, and discovered high-temperature superconductivity and fractal geometry.

• GE's Global Research Centers which were responsible for the vacuum tube as well as the fluorescent and halogen lamps, the first television broadcast, the jet engine, non-reflecting glass, silicone chemistry, the seeding or clouds, the auto-pilot, Lexan polycarbonate resin, artificial diamond production, solid-state lasers, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

• First, as CATO puts it, this public-private partnership clearly breeds an "incestuous relationship" where businesses lobby government for special favors, and government officials extract kickbacks (also known as "campaign contributions") in exchange for back-room promises to wield influence on behalf of the paying business.

• Secondly, government influence ultimately ends up directing research away from promising avenues of investigation as identified by smart, creative individuals, and towards areas which supports a predetermined political agenda — perverting the scientific method in the process. There are numerous examples of this, but none so clear as the abomination concerning the public funding of climate science research, turning it into the corrupt handmaiden of political interests.

• And third, when one business can fund its research and development programs at the taxpayer's expense, this frees up those previously allocated funds to be directed towards other areas, including supporting the businesses bottom line. Competitors, still responsible for their own development costs, are now placed at a significant disadvantage and either learn to also feed at the public trough, or eventually close their doors.

"Learned helplessness, as a technical term in ... human psychology, means a condition of a human being ... in which it has learned to behave helplessly, even when the opportunity is restored for it to help itself by avoiding an unpleasant or harmful circumstance to which it has been subjected. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation." "One of the most intriguing aspects is "vicarious learning (or modelling [sic])": that people can learn to be helpless through observing another person encountering uncontrollable events."

• You are not responsible
• You are not in control

• Big Head Press

Well neighbor, you didn't listen to me when I warned you about the importance of wearing you seatbelt during that trip to the corner grocery, so I decided to help you anyway by voting for a legislature willing to enact a mandatory seatbelt law. Maybe that $200 fine will get your attention and help you to start thinking straight. Oh, and you're welcome!
Hello there my Samoan brother. Can't you see that you are being exploited by the capitalist oppressors runing the tuna industry? They offer you jobs in their canning factories at wages that I would not allow them to pay to my dog! Why do you not rise up and demand to be treated fairly? Well, if you will not stand up for yourself, being the busybody and savior that I am, I will do it for you by making sure that the U.S. Congress raises the minimum wage to acceptable levels. What? Starkist and Chicken of the Sea just moved their operations to other countries and now you are unemployed with no other jobs available? Well, at least you should be happy that you are no longer being oppressed! And have no fear my friend, for my love and concern for you is boundless and I will not let you starve. Please accept this can of dog food, complements of the compassionate American welfare system. My mission here is accomplished. Onward and upwards.

Of Cupcakes and Kings An Open Letter to Michael Wolfensohn of the Town of New Castle, NY Dear Mr. Wolfensohn: I side with many other people in finding the actions you have taken against Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff, halting their sale of homemade cupcakes and treats, to be an arrogant and reprehensible abuse of power. Like a great many other politicians from the township level on up to our President, each of you see yourselves as superior to your fellow men and women and wish to rule over us, restricting our free choice to act independently in the pursuit and realizations of our individual dreams. You believe that your position grants you the ability to regulate every aspect of our existence, while reducing the rest of us to the role of beggars who must come, hat in hand, asking you to grant us your beatific permission, whether it is to practice our chosen profession or to sell a measly cupcake — always of course, accompanied by the necessary bribe, oops, I mean requisite administrative or licensing fee. Often, people are confused by the actions of politicians when they shroud their oppressive and unconstitutional acts in misdirecting altruistic rhetoric such as the "public good" or the "general welfare". But here we have a situation where the naked truth is exposed for anyone to see. So Mr. Wolfensohn, thank you for stepping out from behind the curtain and allowing the average citizen to observe the exact nature of your intentions. You have sent a clear message to two thirteen year old boys, wiping away any naive innocence they may have held, and replacing it with a clear understanding of the exact nature of the oppressive society in which they live. It is a lesson I am sure they will never forget -- nor will I. The truth is that through your actions, you have made me ashamed to be both an adult and an American. And to everyone else, whether you are a cab driver, hairdresser, automotive mechanic, realtor, veterinarian, accountant, lawyer, teacher, nurse, dentist, doctor, architect, engineer, therapist, florist, librarian, beekeeper, fortune teller, or any of the hundreds of other licensed and regulated professions, please remember that you are receiving exactly the same treatment as Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff. And where a child should properly be confused and upset at their first exposure to this sort of treatment, we adults know better and should be outraged by it! It is time to put a stop to this abuse. We elected Mr. Wolfensohn, and all of the other politicians, in order to protect our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not for them to become our masters, granted the power to direct and control our lives. Let each of them know that you are a competent adult, capable of managing your own affairs and making your own decisions, and in the name of freedom, you are reasserting your independence and autonomy and will no longer allow them to tell you what you may and may not do with your life. Regards, — C. Jeffery Small

• Big Head Press

maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his "Old Bull" allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.

Dear Congressman: Truly unbelievable! You Republicans haven't let the ink dry on the election when you are already jockeying to override the message that the people sent to you just one short week ago. You have learned absolutely nothing! So you want to hang on to your precious pork, regardless of the harm that this fiasco has inflicted upon the country by inflating the budget year after year with hidden perks for favored members of Congress, and paying off special interests—or those who have made campaign contributions—by concealing these thefts of taxpayer dollars from open scrutiny, honest debate and a public justification. WAKE UP!. The citizens of this country have had enough of this political corruption, and we are not going to allow you to get away with it any longer. We are through with all of you—both Republican and Democrat—treating us as though we were simply a natural resource to be mined for whatever purpose strikes your fancy. We are finished with letting you push us around. The jig is up. The American people have sent you a clear message demanding that, as our representatives, you restore our individual rights by removing onerous regulations and legislation that interfere with our freely being able to pursue our own definition of personal happiness. On that front, you can start with the repeal of Obamacare. We also want you to balance the budget and start whittling away at the national debt, not by increasing taxes, but by drastically cutting government programs and expenditures. To perform the job delegated to you by the Constitution, you will have no need for a single pork-barrel project. If you continue to oppose measures to eliminate earmarks and other governmental reforms, and instead support business as usual, then you are painting a big red bull's-eye on your head, and we will be gunning for you and your like-minded associated in the next, and the next, and the next election, until you have all been sent out to pasture, and replaced with those who understand the proper role of government and are prepared to stand up and defend the principles upon which this country was founded. It's time to choose your side, for we are engaged in a revolutionary war to take back our rights to life, liberty and property from those who wish to rule as our masters. Are you with us or against us? Please write back and let me know where you stand. Sincerely, — C. Jeffery Small P.S. We are not the idiots you take us for -- and we have long memories. I'm watching

• Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
• Thad Cochran (R-MS)
• John Hoeven (R-ND)
• James Inhofe (R-OK)
• Richard Shelby (R-AL)
• Roger Wicker (R-MS)

• Roy Blunt (R-MO)
• John Boozman (R-AR)
• Scott Brown (R-MA)
• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
• Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
• Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
• Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
• Dick Lugar (R-IN)
• Jerry Moran (R-KS)
• Rob Portman
• James Risch (R-ID)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)
• Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
• John Thune (R-SD)
• David Vitter (R-LA)

Politico reports: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his "Old Bull" allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and a new breed of conservative senators. McConnell's heightened activity signals what Senate insiders say is real fear among senior members — that the DeMint plan actually stands a serious chance of passing. And that could have uncomfortable implications for a bloc of GOP senators — like McConnell, a member of the Appropriations Committee — who annually send hundreds of millions of dollars for projects in their home states. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, one of the most conservative senators and an unabashed earmarker, plans a blitz on conservative talk radio to make the case that critics have demagogued the earmark issue in order to make their political points that they're out to reform the excesses of Congress. [A] number of senators who voted for the DeMint plan in March are likely "no" votes now, including McConnell, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and DeMint's fellow South Carolina senator, Lindsey Graham.

So You Want to Keep Your Earmarks? Dear Congressman: Truly unbelievable! You Republicans haven't let the ink dry on the election when you are already jockeying to override the message that the people sent to you just one short week ago. You have learned absolutely nothing! So you want to hang on to your precious pork, regardless of the harm that this fiasco has inflicted upon the country by inflating the budget year after year with hidden perks for favored members of Congress, and paying off special interests — or those who have made campaign contributions — by concealing these thefts of taxpayer dollars from open scrutiny, honest debate and a public justification. WAKE UP! The citizens of this country have had enough of this political corruption, and we are not going to allow you to get away with it any longer. We are through with all of you — both Republican and Democrat — treating us as though we were simply a natural resource to be mined for whatever purpose strikes your fancy. We are finished with letting you push us around. The jig is up. The American people have sent you a clear message demanding that, as our representatives, you restore our individual rights by removing onerous regulations and legislation that interfere with our freely being able to pursue our own definition of personal happiness. On that front, you can start with the repeal of Obamacare. We also want you to balance the budget and start whittling away at the national debt, not by increasing taxes, but by drastically cutting government programs and expenditures. To perform the job delegated to you by the Constitution, you will have no need for a single pork-barrel project. If you continue to oppose measures to eliminate earmarks and other governmental reforms, and instead support business-as-usual, then you are painting a big red bull's-eye on your head, and we will be gunning for you and your like-minded associated in the next, and the next, and the next election, until you have all been sent out to pasture, and replaced with those who understand the proper role of government and are prepared to stand up and defend the principles upon which this country was founded. It's time to choose your side, for we are engaged in a revolutionary war to take back our rights to life, liberty and property from those who wish to rule as our masters. Are you with us or against us? Please write back and let me know where you stand. Sincerely, — C. Jeffery Small P.S. We are not the idiots you take us for — and we have long memories. I'm watching.

From Wikipedia: In 1947, Saint Louis planners proposed replacement of DeSoto-Carr, a run-down black neighborhood, with new two- and three-story residential blocks and a public park. The plan did not materialize; instead, Democratic mayor Joseph Darst, elected in 1949, and Republican state leaders favored total clearing of the slums and replacing them with high-rise, high-density public housing. They reasoned that the new projects would create a net positive result to the city through increased revenues, new parks, playgrounds and shopping space. In 1948 voters rejected the proposal for a municipal loan to finance the change, but soon the situation was changed with the Housing Act of 1949 and Missouri state laws that provided co-financing of public housing projects. The approach taken by Darst, urban renewal, was shared by Harry S. Truman administration [sic] and fellow mayors of other cities overwhelmed by industrial workers recruited during the war. Specifically, Saint Louis Land Clearance and Redevelopment Authority was authorized to acquire and demolish the slums of the inner ring and then sell the land at reduced prices to private developers, fostering middle-class return and business growth. Another agency, Saint Louis Housing Authority, had to clear land to construct public housing for the former slum dwellers. Pruitt-Igoe was a large urban housing project first occupied in 1954 and completed in 1955 in the U.S. city of St. Louis, Missouri. Shortly after its completion, living conditions in Pruitt-Igoe began to decay; by the late 1960s, the extreme poverty, crime, and segregation brought the complex a great deal of infamy as it was covered extensively by the international press. The complex was designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the World Trade Center towers. At 3 PM on March 16, 1972 — 16 years after construction was finished — the first of the complex's 33 buildings was demolished by the federal government. The other 32 buildings were destroyed over the next four years. The high-profile failure of Pruitt-Igoe has become an emblematic icon often evoked by all sides in public housing policy debate.

Does anything above sound familiar? Government urban planners, with big ideas and only the best interests of the "general public" at heart, use the power of the state to seize huge tracts of private land, raze everything in sight, hand over that land to private developers, and proceed to create a new social and economic Shangri-La. Except things, for some unexpected reason, don't really turn out as anticipated! Oh well, don't worry. We'll get it right next time.

From Wikipedia: During the 1950s and 60s, New Haven [Connecticut] received more urban renewal funding per capita than any city in the United States. New Haven became the de facto showcase of the new modern redeveloped city and plans for its downtown development were chronicled in publications like Time and Harper's magazines throughout the 1950s and 60s. Robert C. Weaver, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Lyndon Johnson Administration, once said that New Haven during this time was the closest America has ever been to having a "slumless" city. Since 2000, downtown has seen an increasing concentration of new restaurants, nightlife, and small retail stores. The area has experienced an influx of hundreds of new and renovated apartment and condominium units, and a significant number of up-scale restaurants and nightclubs have opened.

Well, that certainly sounds more promising! However, as an architect and a resident of New Haven from 1978-1988, I recall a slightly different picture. Through the 60s, 70s and early 80s, despite being the home to Yale University, New Haven was an economically depressed area. All of that urban renewal money had been spent purchasing low-rent buildings within the downtown core, knocking them down, and creating temporarily gravel parking lots while wondrous new structures were planned. However, by the early 1980s, after 25 years of "planning", most of these areas remained open gravel lots, giving much of the city the appearance of a bombed war zone rather than a thriving community.
But what about the claims of being a "slumless" city? Well, that might well be true. Every building within New Haven that offered inexpensive storefront rents and provided affordable housing on the upper floors were demolished. All of these self-sufficient business owners were displaced, as were their clientele, the low-income tenants who had previously occupied these buildings. With no place left to live or work, these people moved on to other cities or became new clients of the state-run subsidized housing developments springing up everywhere.
While private development was being encouraged in the mid-to-late 80s when I left the state, I think the article's reference to economic expansion beginning to take real hold after 2000 — a 45-50 year period of economic stagnation — is the ultimate indictment against urban renewal. Strike two.

From Wikipedia: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began. The city contended that the residents have been on city property for those five years and owe tens of thousands of dollars of rent. The case was finally resolved when the City agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location. The controversy was eventually settled when the city paid substantial additional compensation to the homeowners. In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre waterfront tract of land for $1 per year) was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city. In addition, in September 2009, Pfizer, whose upscale employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies. Shortly after the merger closed, Pfizer decided to close its New London facility in favor of one across the Thames River in nearby Groton by 2011; this move coincides with the expiration of tax breaks on the New London campus that also expire by 2011, when Pfizer's tax bill on the property would have increased almost fivefold. [As reported in the papers] "Pfizer Inc. announced that it is closing the $350 million research center in New London that was the anchor for the New London redevelopment plan, and will be relocating some 1,500 jobs."

Remember, these are the people who believe that they can run automobile plants, manage the entire US economy, and will soon be in charge of your life-and-death health care decisions.
In each of the three cases cited above, who knows just how many houses, businesses, and millions of tax dollars were taken from productive people who would have furthered their lives and made sensible investments with their money, only to instead have it squandered by these bureaucrats? Then, realize that it is not three, but hundreds of similarly failed experiments taking place across the country each year, and the mind boggles at the lost wealth, in the billions and trillions, that has been pumped into these rat holes of disastrous attempts at social engineering by the central planners. They failed in the 1950s, and again and again in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, right up through the destruction of the town of New London, CT in 2009, and still no lesson has been learned — other than we can have our property confiscated from us at any time, so long as the magical incantation "for the public good" is first proclaimed.

But until they come along and take your property for some urban planning scheme, it's yours to do with as you see fit, right? Not a chance. So called Euclidean Zoning laws, instituted in the early part of the 20th century have long placed a complex set of restrictions on what any individual could do with their land and buildings. These regulations specify what types of uses are allowed (residential, commercial, religious, etc.), the location where any structure may be placed on the lot, overall land coverage, total usable building area, height, allowable exterior pavement, types of landscaping required, restrictions on signage, lighting, grading, drainage, and on and on.
After more than one hundred years of imposing these guidelines and restrictions all across the country, we must, by now, certainly be living in a designer's paradise. Well, according to a July 8th article in Architect magazine titled Brave New Codes, the result has been as follows:

The separation of uses written into Euclidean zoning codes made sense to the lawyers who wrote them, but they have the effect of creating bland and inefficient places, Plater-Zyberk says. Great places weren't being produced under Euclidean zoning, according to Plater-Zyberk. "It became evident that this regulatory framework was really what was driving suburbia, sprawl, and the things that were being criticized as being inefficient and unsustainable," Plater-Zyberk says. "It wasn't that people wanted it to be that way—the codes were just written that way."

So, the ill effects were not produced because "people wanted it to be that way", they were forced upon us all because "the codes were just written that way". Then the solution is obvious! Remove the zoning codes and let people achieve those better results that they desire. But no, freedom and choice is never a solution that crosses the mind of the totalitarian planner. Just as we saw in the case of urban planning, the zoning advocates believe that they now have all the answers and can create nirvana with a different set of regulations. So coming soon to a city near you is Form-based Zoning, the cure for what ails you.

From Wikipedia: Form-based zoning relies on rules applied to development sites according to both prescriptive and potentially discretionary criteria. Design-based codes offer considerably more flexibility in building uses than do Euclidean codes, but, as they are comparatively new, may be more challenging to create. [...] When form-based codes do not contain appropriate illustrations and diagrams, they have been criticized as being difficult to interpret. One example of a recently adopted code with design-based features [...] creates "form districts" One version of form-based or "form integrated" zoning utilizes [...] three district components - a use component, a site component and an architectural component. The use component is similar in nature to the use districts of euclidian zoning. However, with an emphasis on form standards, use components are typically more inclusive and broader in scope. The site components define a variety of site conditions from low intensity to high intensity such as size and scale of buildings and parking, accessory structures, drive-through commercial lanes, landscaping, outdoor storage and display, vehicle fueling and washing, overhead commercial service doors, etc. The architectural components address architectural elements and materials.

As a home or business owner, you have really got to love that "potentially discretionary criteria". It can really add some excitement to your life! And as an architect, it has got to be a relief that the form, elements and material design choices will now be made for you by a government agency rather than being a decision formulated between you and your client — much as medical decisions under nationalized health care will now be dictated by a bureaucrat rather than resulting from a consultation between patient and doctor.
Here are some additional comments from the Brave New Codes article:

"A lot of times, [the zoning codes are] just telling you what you can't do." [Peter] Park says Denver's form-based code tries harder to guide developers and designers toward what they can do, mainly by being a very visual document.    [Emphasis added]

So instead of being left free to do anything other than what is specifically restricted, the new codes turn western culture upon its head by actively prohibiting everything except that which is explicitly allowed. Your right to use your property is now being placed in a straitjacket where a few subjective, discretionary strings are then loosened to allow you some very restricted range of motion, based not upon what you desire, but upon what others deem is best.

"If the architects could understand that they're part of a larger effort of placemaking, and it's not just a restriction like any old code, I think that they would have a good time working with form-based codes." "Often 'design freedom' becomes another term for 'anything goes' solutions that contribute little, if any, to the collective enterprise," Jimenez adds. "Limits are not the curtailing of freedom, but rather opportunities to transcend them."

Translated, this means that, as an architect, I will learn to enjoy my new role as an implementor of their rules, as soon as I come to accept my proper place as a comrade in the collective enterprise of state-mandated placemaking. These people have covered all the bases and their actions would bring a smile to Ellsworth Toohey's face.
This collective premise is so pervasive in our society that many people are not even aware of the extent of its effect upon them. For example, in another article in Architect magazine titled If a Tree Falls, the author, Lance Hosey, discussing the ecological benefits to using regional construction materials, makes the following offhand statement:

How would the construction industry change if builders were limited to what's in their own backyards?

Notice that he didn't say "if builder's limited themselves", but "if builders were limited", ignoring the possibility of using persuasion and immediately assuming that external force should be applied against all builders in order to achieve his desired results — a result which apparently is to be taken as self-evidently correct and proper. For the collectivist, individual choice and personal freedom are nonexistent concepts, and all that matters here is an economic calculation concerning the use of raw materials. Trees and water are precious. Humans are beneath consideration.

Which brings us to the real purpose of this piece. From an article written by Bob Livingston, it came to my attention that back on August 6, 2009, Christopher Dodd submitted to the Senate S.1619, a bill titled the Livable Communities Act of 2009, which was followed on February 25, 2010 by the companion House resolution H.R.4690, the Livable Communities Act of 2010. On August 3rd, 2010, S.1619 was released from committee and sent to the Senate and is currently awaiting a vote. Let's examine the major provisions of this legislation.
• Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities
  This establishes another huge federal bureaucracy with broad powers applied at the state, regional and local levels, to promote planning and construction meeting federal guidelines for sustainability, energy conservation, affordability, and mass-transportation.

• Implementation of Grant Programs
  This sets up a huge sub-bureaucracy for various grant programs used for the distribution of federal tax dollars to state, regional and local governmental organizations, as well as to private consultancy groups. This is the carrot used to induce participation and the hammer which elicits cooperation, and ultimately submission, to federal authority.

• Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities
  This establishes an executive-branch council that coordinates and oversees the operations of the entire program. Of course, there would be one or more new czars installed to oversee the overseerers.

• Funding
  The initial appropriation through 2013 is in excess of $3.7 billion.
As has been the case with all recent congressional legislation, the bill deals with the establishment of a large and complex bureaucratic framework intended to implement goals which are merely hinted at within the text. At this point there is no direct way to gage the intentions of, or the specific actions that might be taken, by those ultimately chosen to staff this operation. In this way these bills can be made to appear as all things to all people, while being immune to meaningful criticism. Nevertheless, I think we can draw a few broad generalities based upon the goals of those sponsoring this initiative.
• The creation of a federal planning and development agency would be a new and significantly greater infringement upon the remaining property rights of individuals and businesses.

• The additional bureaucracy and costs imposed by this bill would create a substantial new impediment to economic recovery and future economic growth.

• A large segment of the grant funding can be predicted to go to eco-groups who will be eager to finally be able to impose their "green" policies upon everyone else.

• The sustainability and energy conservation goals of this legislation would significantly increase the cost of construction and energy in an effort to drive development in a different direction.

• The mass-transportation goals of the bill would result in strictly controlled development corridors of high-density housing, serviced by rail. Gasoline prices would be forced significantly higher to discourage the freedom of automobile usage.

• The affordability goals of the bill would be used as another tool for the redistribution of wealth in the country.

• A long term goal might be the elimination of all suburban or rural homes, with these citizens being forced into cities. This could easily be accomplished by a congressional act condemning these properties and then razing the structures, just as we have seen demonstrated repeatedly by urban planners of the past.
If central planners of the past were able to create such devastation in the wake of their grand schemes, imagine the magnitude of harm that could be unleashed by placing this much power in federal hands.

Dodd's bill is the first significant piece of legislation introduced in the United States which attempts to implement the goals of Agenda 21, described by the UN's Division for Sustainable Development (A division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs) as follows:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment. Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

During that conference, Agenda 21 was signed by President George H.W. Bush.
A review of this document reveals the following goals:
• Unite all nations in a common effort for sustainable development, with the UN ultimately acting as a super-government having authority over the remainder of the world's national governments.

• National governments are required to "strengthen institutional structures to allow the full integration of environmental and developmental issues, at all levels of decision-making".

• A massive redistribution of wealth from the rich (developed) countries to the poor (undeveloped) ones under the guise of creating "a more efficient and equitable world economy". In other words, eliminate world poverty in the name of promoting sustainable livelihoods and reduce the standard of living in developed countries as a necessity for reducing environmental stress.

• Developed countries are to provide health care for undeveloped countries.

• Global financial institutions are to be funded by rich countries in order to implement the environmental policies dictated by the UN.

• By recognizing the "increasing interdependence of the community of nations", and working to "overcome confrontation", "foster a climate of genuine cooperation and solidarity", "strengthen national and international policies", and by adapting "to the new realities", strong countries are to be subjugated to the weak.

• Use the UN's now discredited IPCC report as justification for throttling the economies of developed countries.

• Adjust all land-use and resource policies to mitigate changes to the atmosphere, promote bio-diversity, conserve resources, minimize pollution, promote sustainability, provide shelter for all, promote sustainable construction, energy distribution, and transportation.

• "Transfer" environmentally sound technology from the developers to those with a need. (Steal it.)

• Promote education, public awareness and training. In other words, an active propaganda campaign.
Agenda 21 is nothing more than a capitulation of the good to the bad, the rich to the poor, the strong to the weak, the productive to the unproductive, the creative to the uncreative, and the free to the unfree, all under the pretense of a global warming disaster which has been thoroughly debunked as one of the worlds biggest lies.

As was the case with Health Care, the Disclose Act and Finance Reform, the Livable Communities Act is likely to be another piece of legislation that will be attempted to be pushed through the Democratic Congress with little regard for the impact upon the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country, or upon the fragile state of our economy. This is an administration focused upon one goal only — that being the consolidation of power — and this bill would expand federal power into devastating new areas. I encourage everyone to spread the word about this bill, and to contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote NO when this Act comes up for consideration.

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. -- Barry Goldwater (The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960)

"two-month summer social action activities such as looking after the elderly as a cure for the 'national scandal of all this wasted promise'. He originally proposed a compulsory scheme until voluntary sector bosses persuaded him that would not work - but will pledge to get all teenagers involved 'over time'. Money for the first two years of the programme ... will come from the Government's "community cohesion programme".

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

• Limiting the Direct-To-Consumer advertising that drug companies are allowed, thereby overriding their First Amendment rights, immediately on the heals of the recent Supreme Court ruling that just reaffirmed them.

• Force drug companies to sell product directly to the government rather than having it buy on the open market. (It's unclear exactly what this would entail.)

• Since government is funding the majority of drug research, price controls on resulting drug products is justified in order to eliminate "price gouging" of the taxpayer.

• Force drug re-importation to be allowed, overriding the drug companies right to conduct business as they see fit.

• Promote (how?) private, free-market drug research - but only with "safeguards", "limitations" and "rewards".

The President--(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Here is the problem that I see with this whole plan. We have seen the tactic used by this administration over and over again: find or create a crisis, then violate the people's liberties to deal with it. We saw it with the banking industry. We saw it with the mortgage industry. We're seeing it with the auto industry and the energy industry, the global warming hoax, and many others. This is a president who wants the federal government to control everything of any significance. Controlling the Internet would be most helpful to him in forcing his Marxist agenda down the throats of the American citizens. [...] Just like with the banking, energy, and auto industries, once Obama gets his foot inside the door he uses that foot to kick the door wide open and take over the industry. First come the government demands, then the regulations and finally the control. If we allow him to do this with the Internet then we can be assured that our first amendment rights to free speech will be seriously curtailed and the Democrat Socialists will gain a clear advantage in all future elections.

• The Liabilities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

• $1.6 Trillion of Corporate Debt

• $4.7 Trillion of Mortgage Obligations

"[I]t seems Obama and his budget wizards decided that including the liabilities at Fannie and Freddie would be too much reality for the world to handle. So they left the companies out, in a trick worthy of Enron's playbook, except not quite so hidden."

This is important folks, so pay attention!

"OFA is launching a national internship program connecting students all over the country with our organization on the ground — working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond"

Week 1: Introductory Training
Training includes: "Mobilizing to Win On the Issues (issue advocacy)", "OFA Health Care Campaign Overview", and "Health Care Service Project"
Suggested Reading: "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, and "The New Organizers" by Zack Exley
Week 2: What is Organizing?: Building Relationships and Organization
Purpose: "To understand basic voter contact tactics and the importance of confirming calls"
Suggested Reading: "Dreams of my Father" by Barack Obama
Week 3: What is Organizing?: The Power of Good Data and Reporting
Potential Actions: "Use reporting to track follow-up actions around the health care campaign"
Week 4: Strategizing for Effective Change
"Intern program concentrates on developing an effective strategy to influence change. Effective community organizing is strategic, and requires a clear analysis of power structures, community assets, and opportunities for influence."
Suggested Reading: "Stir It UP: Lessons in Community Organizing and Advocacy" by Rinku Sen, and "Politics the Wellstone Way: How to Elect Candidates and Win on the Issues" by Wellstone Action
Week 5: Developing Leadership
Potential Action: "Help train new Community Organizers / Neighborhood Team Leaders or Help Identify and Test"
Week 6: Managing Events
Discussion: "You just found out that Vice President Biden is coming to your turf in one week to do a healthcare-focused town hall event. What role would the following departments play and what actions would they need to take in order to fulfill their responsibilities, keeping in mind all three components of a successful event (pre, during, and post)"
Week 7: Building Coalitions
Purpose: "What coalitions in your community exist that are working for health care, energy and education reform"
Suggested Reading: "A Strategic Approach to Collective Action: Looking for Agencies in Socialist-Movement Choices" by James M. Jasper
Week 8: Working with the Media
"Program will introduce participants to effective strategies in dealing with the media. Sharing OFA's message — both in general and around health care specifically — is key to our success. By sharing our message with the larger community, we can influence public opinion and move legislators in support of our policies."
Week 9: Utilizing New Media
Recommended Reading: "Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle" by Zack Exley
Week 10: Celebration, Evaluation & the Long Haul of Change
Purpose: "Many of these Interns will be considering a future career in organizing and we also want them to leave the program encouraged to continue as organizers."
Potential Action: "Have Intern agree to participate in a December conference call with OFA headquarters (and ideally a special guest). During the call, we can unveil our larger strategy for student and youth strategy [sic] in the states. After the call, we will follow up with specific contacts for each participant so that they can get immediately get [sic] plugged in to OFA's efforts within their communities."

"The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

"Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker's congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else."

Dear Mr. Brown: Congratulations on your win last night. I was one of the many from outside MA that provided financial support for your campaign leading to this great day for both you and the entire country. But Mr. Brown, please do not let us down. You have been sent to Congress for one purpose: to do everything you can to stop the socialist juggernaut from crushing the spirit of America. Your job is to defend the rights of every individual and to cut the scope of government back wherever possible, doing what you can to return it to its singular function of protecting our rights, and nothing more. So once you have cast your vote against the health care legislation as you have promised, remain true to the principles of the people who elected you and continue the valiant fight to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If you do that, you will stand at the forefront of the Second American Revolution and earn yourself a place in history. Do not be seduced by the congressional seat and decide, as so many others have, that being elected has somehow granted you the wisdom and the powers to assume the role of making decisions for and manipulating the lives of the citizens of this country. Always remember that we are each sovereign individuals with the constitutionally guaranteed right to our own lives. We are not wards of the state. This means that we each get to make the decisions for ourselves as we best see fit, and that right is not limited to health care, but to every aspect of how we pursue our lives and every decision we make in disposing of our earnings. As the Constitution states: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" — Fifth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." — Ninth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" — Tenth Amendment The United States government was not granted the powers to make health care decisions for the citizens, and therefore, it remains a right of each individual. And that same reasoning holds true whether it pertains to deciding whether to invest in an energy efficient appliance, a fuel efficient car, determining whether and what type of mortgage to obtain, and whether we wish to provide financial help to a poor individual, a failing company or a foreign country in the aftermath of an earthquake. Always remember that the products of each person's efforts are their property, to dispose of as they - and only they - see fit. And the choices that they make are their means of pursuing their own happiness. The single proper role of federal government is to be a protector of the rights of the citizens. Every time the government steps outside that role and passes legislation to regulate business or personal actions, it has transformed from a protector into a violator of those rights. The majority of the text of the U.S. Constitution was written with the express purpose of constraining government so that it would not violate its mandate and become an agent of oppression. As you can clearly see, those protective measures were long ago breached and this country has been on a rapidly accelerating slide towards totalitarianism. Please make it your single-minded purpose to go to Washington D.C. to put the governmental genie back in its bottle and restore the right of every citizen to determine their own future. So again, I send you my best wishes for your victory and am excited to see you head to Washington and help us all in the struggle to recover our lost liberty. Sincerely, C. Jeffery Small

Scott Brown's website:	www.brownforussenate.com
Scott Brown's email address:	scott.p.brown@state.ma.us
Scott Brown's street address:	200 Reservoir Street Needham, MA 02494

Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines. Is this some nightmarish dystopia? No, this is contemporary Japan. The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs.

Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare. Nanny state regulations and universal healthcare thus feed a vicious cycle of increasing government control over individuals. Both undermine individual responsibility and habituate citizens to ever-worsening erosions of their individual rights. Both promote dependence on government. Both undermine the virtues of independence and rationality. Both jeopardize the very foundations of a free society. The American Founding Fathers who fought and died for our freedoms would be appalled to know their descendants were allowing the government to dictate what they could eat and drink. The Founders correctly understood that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights and otherwise leave men free to live — not tell us how many eggs we should eat. If we still value our freedoms, we must reject both the nanny state and universal healthcare. Otherwise, it won't be long before the "Waistline Police" come knocking on our doors.

Warrantless Wiretaps?		Control!
Declaration of Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant?		Control!
Outlawing Student Loans from Private Institutions?		Control!
TARP Bailouts - with Strings Attached?		Control!
Nationalization of the Housing Loan Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Automotive Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Financial Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Insurance Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Medical Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Energy Industry?		Control!
Mandatory Community Service for All School Children?		Control!
Proposed Mandatory National Service for All Citizens?		Control!

Do These People Really Have Your Best Interests at Heart?

THE HUGEST HEIST IN HISTORY By Bradley Harrington "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." — Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations," 1776– In a commentary I wrote shortly after the 2008 presidential election, in discussing the upcoming fiscal policies of the soon-to-be Obama administration, I said: "You are about to witness a government spending spree that is going to make the meddling of FDR's 'New Deal' or LBJ's 'Great Society' look like penny-ante poker in comparison." I was chastised, at that time, by many for my "alarmist" prediction. Now, over a year later, let's look at the facts: (1) Previous spending: in our rear-view mirror, we see nothing but bailouts—AIG, GM, Chrysler, "stimulus" spending, etc. Price tag: well over $1 trillion. (2) Current/projected spending: "jobs" bill just passed by House; price tag of $154 billion; "omnibus" spending bill just signed into law by President Obama; price tag of $447 billion; health care "reform" proposals; price tag of $1 trillion. "'The New Deal by today's standards involved a miniscule amount of spending,' said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University." ("Analysis: Obama plans eclipsing New Deal spending," Tom Raum, Associated Press, Feb. 20.) And more: (3) Federal budget: fiscal year ending in 2009, $3.1 trillion; fiscal year 2010, $3.55 trillion, an increase of nearly half a trillion. (4) Federal budget deficits: fiscal year 2009, $1.42 trillion; projected federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2010, $1.2 trillion. Projected federal budget deficits over the next decade, $9.1 trillion. (5) National debt: this stood at $9.9 trillion in 2008, and was lifted to $12.1 trillion in February of this year. And, in just the last few days, Congress and President Obama lifted that ceiling again by another $290 billion (barely enough to fund the federal government's ocean of red ink for another piddling two months), and both intend to raise that ceiling again come February, when it is expected to be boosted to $14 trillion. In fiscal year 2010, this will equal 98.1% of our GDP. Translation: Our national debt will soon equal the entire amount of production of the entire United States for an entire year. So, who pays for it all? Who provides the blank check? The producers, who else? Money does not grow on trees, despite what our "leaders" seem to think—if they think at all. And don't kid yourself about how it's only the "rich" who will pay for this: there simply aren't enough "rich" people in this country to fund a $14 trillion bill. With a current population of 308 million, the national debt now exceeds $40,000 per capita; when the debt ceiling gets raised again in the next couple of months, that figure will jump to over $45,000 for every man, woman and child in America. This, I submit, is an absolute looting spree, happening right before our eyes, and, as such, constitutes the hugest heist in all of human history. It is nothing less than an irrational, amoral, legalized, politically-promoted plundering of the productive assets of the United States, with no thought or reason given to the consequences, of which there can only be one: total, terminal economic dissolution and disintegration. And what can we expect from such a collapse? Social catastrophe, martial law and the final destruction of the American Republic. What did Rome get when she fell, devastated by taxes and control? The barbarians and the Dark Ages. What did Germany's Weimar Republic get when she was shattered by hyperinflation? Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. That is the future that awaits us, should we continue our present course: and not in some far-off, distant time, but in the next few years. Is that the "American Dream" you'd like to experience for yourself and your children? And, if not, what do you intend to do about it? Sitting on your butt, collecting a "welfare" check and voting for more of the same is no longer an acceptable answer. If you think it is, you might choose to ponder the words of one of America's Founding Fathers who had a much better grasp of the issue:  "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams, Philadelphia State House Speech, 1776.) As for the rest of us, isn't it about time we rolled up our sleeves?

Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

• Tea Party Organizations
  • Tea Party Patriots
  • Tax Day Tea Party
  • Nationwide Tea Party Coalition
  • The Tea Party and Revolution
  • New American Tea Party
  • Tea Party Express
  • Re Tea Party
  • Big Stick Tea Party

• Other Activist Organizations
  • Freedom Works
  • Get Out Of Our House! - [An effort to replace all 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives]
  • National Strike Day - [Strike against government oppression - January 20, 2010]

• Petitions
  • Please Stop Lying About the Tea Party Movement

• Direct Actions You Can Take
  • Grade Government
  • The Pink Slip Project

"The Nevada Democrat [Harry Reid] agreed to a series of concessions on abortion and other issues demanded by Nelson"

"The Nebraskan [Nelson] also won increased federal funds to cover his state's cost of covering an expanded Medicaid population at a cost that one Democratic official put at $45 million over a decade"

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., claimed credit for a last-minute, $10 billion increase in funding for community health centers nationwide" "Another provision in Reid's changes provides additional federal funding for hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and the Dakotas, although no cost estimate was available." "The revised bill also calls for a .9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid's earlier bill had a smaller hike, .5 percent." "The bill also taxes high-cost insurance plans"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security, ..." [Emphasis added]

"Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us"

• Step up your efforts to write and phone the White House and all members of Congress. Commit a certain amount of time each week to write new letters and make repeated calls to the most deserving politicians. Don't tell them that you disagree with their policies — tell them that you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any longer! Let them know in no uncertain terms that the gloves are coming off and that you are going to do everything in your power to dismantle the corrupt machinery of government and take back your constitutionally guaranteed rights to your life, liberty and property. When they are receiving this message from thousands of people all across the country, they are going to get very nervous. Make it your personal mission to make Nancy Pelosi cry. And don't stop with her! Contact information for all congressional members can be found at Congress Merge.

• Write articles and letters-to-the-editor of your local paper expressing your outrage over the constitutional transgressions being exercised by Congress and the President. Help transition the political dialog in country away from less important issues of specific tax or legislative proposals to the critical issues of constitutional rights. As Nancy Pelosi and other politicians have demonstrated, they are completely unprepared to defend themselves on constitutional grounds. This makes them very vulnerable to attack from this quarter.

• Get involved with your local Tea Party chapter and help organize local and state protests. Generate as much noise and publicity as possible. Again, the message should now become not one of simple disagreement, but a vocalization of honest outrage and a principled unwillingness to voluntarily comply with the intent of Congress and the President. Become conscientious objectors - unwilling to participate in your own enslavement.

• Start planning your strategy for the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th. Organize family and friends and come up with a creative idea that will generate publicity and convey your personal message to as many people as possible.

• Make plans to go to Washington DC when the next Tea Party march gets scheduled in 2010. If the press thought that 1.2 million protesters was "a few thousand", let's see what they have to say when we make it 3 million or more!

• Show your commitment and make a symbolic statement with a Personal Declaration of Independence, by adding your name to the John Galt Pledge, if you have not done so already.

• Link to this article on your personal blogs and help spread the word that the time for action is upon us.

[Sorry. Cartoon has gone missing!]

A GOP congressional report accuses the White House of doing favors for Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and prominent ally of President Barack Obama. [...] The investigation also found evidence that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled "damage control" after allegations surfaced of sexual misconduct against Johnson, her now-fiancé. The probe was launched after an AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, was abruptly fired in June by White House lawyer Norm Eisen. Walpin, who was appointed to his position during the Bush administration, was pursuing allegations that Johnson misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope Academy, a nonprofit school he headed for several years. Among the accusations: AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for Johnson, washed his car and engaged in political activities. Walpin's firing caused an uproar, with his defenders arguing that his removal was politically motivated and that Walpin was an effective watchdog who blew the whistle on the president's friends and pet causes. The U.S. attorney for the area, Lawrence Brown, a Bush appointee, did not pursue charges against Johnson, instead filing an ethics complaint against Walpin for overstepping his authority in his investigation of Johnson. "He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier," Brown wrote in an April 29 letter. As a result, the federal Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency opened a review of Walpin's actions. In early June, Obama said in a letter to Congress that he was firing Walpin because he had lost confidence in him.

"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option."

I write you because we need your help in nurturing key relationships in Congress. These relationships are very important as we promote policies that give more youth in this country meaningful opportunities to engage in service-learning.
     [...]
It's a critical time for service-learning and it is so important to let Congress know that service-learning works and we care.

S.CON. RES. 46: CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Recognizing the benefits of service-learning and expressing support for the goals of the National Learn and Serve Challenge.
Whereas service-learning is a teaching method that enhances academic learning by integrating classroom content with relevant activities aimed at addressing identified needs in a community or school;
Whereas service-learning has been used both in school and community-based settings as a teaching strategy to enhance learning by building on youth experiences, granting youth a voice in learning, and making instructional goals and objectives more relevant to youth;
Whereas service-learning addresses the dropout epidemic in the United States by making education more `hands-on' and relevant, and has been especially effective in addressing the dropout epidemic with respect to disadvantaged youth;
Whereas service-learning is proven to provide the greatest benefits to disadvantaged and at-risk youth by building self-confidence, which often translates into overall academic and personal success;
Whereas service-learning provides not only meaningful experiences, but improves the quantity and quality of interactions between youth and potential mentors in the community;
Whereas service-learning empowers youth as actively engaged learners, citizens, and contributors to the community;
Whereas youth engaged in service-learning provide critical service to the community by addressing a variety of needs in towns, cities, and States, including needs such as tutoring young children, care of the elderly, community nutrition, disaster relief, environmental stewardship, financial education, and public safety;
Whereas far-reaching and diverse research shows that service-learning enhances the academic, career, cognitive, and civic development of students in kindergarten through 12th grade, and students at institutions of higher education;
Whereas service-learning strengthens and increases the number of partnerships among institutions of higher education, local schools, and communities, which strengthens communities and improves academic learning;
Whereas service-learning programs allow a multitude of skilled and enthusiastic college students to serve in the communities surrounding their colleges;
Whereas service-learning programs engage students in actively addressing and solving pressing community issues and strengthen the ability of nonprofit organizations to meet community needs;
Whereas Learn and Serve America, a program established under subtitle B of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12521 et seq.), is the only federally funded program dedicated to service-learning and engages more than 1,100,000 youth in service-learning each year;
Whereas Learn and Serve America is a highly cost-effective program, with an average cost of approximately $25 per participant and leverage of $1 for every Federal dollar invested;
Whereas the National Learn and Serve Challenge is an annual event that, in 2009, will take place October 5 through October 11; and
Whereas the National Learn and Serve Challenge spotlights the value of service-learning to young people, schools, college campuses, and communities, encourages others to launch service-learning activities, and increases recognition of Learn and Serve America: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress—
(1) recognizes the benefits of service-learning, which include—
(A) enriching and enhancing academic outcomes for youth;
(B) engaging youth in positive experiences in the community; and
(C) encouraging youth to make more constructive choices with regards to their lives;
(2) encourages schools, school districts, college campuses, community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and faith-based organizations to provide youth with more service-learning opportunities; and
(3) expresses support for the goals of the National Learn and Serve Challenge.

Dear Senator Murray:
I am reading the text of S.CON RES. 46, and I am trying to get a better understanding of the exact nature of service-learning. There are a great many claims made in this resolution regarding social and cognitive benefits to be realized by youth from their participation in this program. Specifically, the resolution states:
"Whereas far-reaching and diverse research shows that service-learning enhances the academic, career, cognitive, and civic development of students in kindergarten through 12th grade, and students at institutions of higher education;"
I have scoured the NSLP website looking for just this type of research, but have not been able to locate it. As the primary sponsor of the legislation, I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the research that you used when crafting these statements. Alternately, you could just point me to a location on the internet where I could review the research.
The resolution also states:
"Whereas Learn and Serve America is a highly cost-effective program, with an average cost of approximately $25 per participant and leverage of $1 for every Federal dollar invested;"
I was confused by this passage. Could you please explain to me just how this leveraging works? What is the $25 cost/participant and what is the time unit associated with this $25 cost (per student/year, per student/event or something else?) Can you then explain why this is cost effective? In relation to what exactly?
Finally, I must plead serious ignorance when it comes to the day-to-day workings of Congress, but I am trying to understand exactly what is the purpose of a resolution such as this? There does not seem to be any legislative component here, and I cannot determine what action or impact this resolution is supposed to produce. Could you please enlighten me.
Thank you for your time and help in improving my understanding in this area.
Sincerely,
--
C. Jeffery Small

U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job

"Dear National Service Colleagues,
Today marks the beginning of a new federal fiscal year, and I want to update you on recent actions on the Corporation's budget.
Earlier today, President Obama signed a continuing resolution which will fund federal agencies and programs at Fiscal 2009 levels through October 31. The continuing resolution, which was attached to the legislative branch appropriations bill, was needed to keep government programs operating after the official end of the fiscal year.
As in prior fiscal years, our operations under a continuing resolution are limited and we will be following our normal annual practices for the time we are receiving this interim funding. Also, the continuing resolution will affect the timeline for implementing some of the new program activities authorized by the Serve America Act and proposed in the President's FY 2010 budget. While we cannot allocate funds for new Serve America Act initiatives until we receive our full FY 2010 appropriation, we are laying the groundwork to carry out these exciting new initiatives by developing rules, writing guidelines, issuing funding notices, and taking other steps that don't require final enactment of our appropriation.
As you recall, the FY 2010 budget process began last May, when President Obama submitted a budget request of $1.149 billion for the Corporation and its programs, a $259 million or 29 percent increase over the FY 2009 enacted level. The House of Representatives included $1.059 billion for the Corporation in the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill passed on July 24, followed a week later by the Senate Appropriations Committee providing $1.157 billion in its version of the bill.
The actions taken by Congress so far reflect strong support for national service during this tough budget year, and we are hopeful the final measure will fully fund the President's request. As community needs continue to grow, and as Americans look for ways to give back, national service is a critical, cost-effective investment that engages citizens in tackling our most serious challenges.
Please visit our budget page for more information on the President's request and Congressional actions. We will keep you posted on further developments."    [Emphasis added]

It takes a village to raise a child, except when the government gets involved. In a small rural Michigan township southeast of Grand Rapids, Lisa Snyder volunteered to do a favor for a few neighborhood mothers, and watch their children for an hour before school so the mothers could get to work on time. She helps them get to the bus safely, and does not take money for it.
A neighbor reported this activity to the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS), and in a spasm of regulatory over-kill, the agency sent a cease-and-desist letter to Snyder right after the school year started. In it, the DHS demanded that she stop helping her neighbors by providing an "illegal daycare operation," because she was not a licensed day-care center.
A Michigan law prohibits persons from caring for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers. Violation of the law is a criminal misdemeanor and can result in fines and jail time.
After getting the letter, Snyder, a stay-at-home mother, contacted the Department of Human Services, but she "got nowhere."
Somehow this situation came to the attention of higher-ups in the government, and this week the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, publicly weighed in on the matter. She instructed the agency Director, Ismael Ahmedm, to work with the State Legislature to try to change the law.
Yesterday, Michigan State Rep. Brian Calley (R-Portland) said he was working to draft legislation that would exempt situations like Snyder's from coverage under Michigan's current day-care regulations. "The bill will make it clear that people who aren't in business as day care providers don't need to be licensed," Calley said.
Ironically, Snyder was threatened with jail for providing a service to her community, a "crime" for which another tax-funded state agency may bestow an award to her. The State of Michigan funds the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC), whose mission is to "build a culture of service by providing vision and resources to strengthen communities through volunteerism," and "to help individuals get involved in their local communities." Outstanding volunteers are even given special service awards by the Governor.
Apparently, volunteerism is not legal unless it is done under the watchful eye of the government.