SENILICIDE: ARE WE THERE YET?
By
Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

Rationing health care for the elderly is one, if not the gorilla in the room, of the trade-offs to implement fully affordable, universal health care for all living in the United States; that is except for the elderly.  The end result of rationing health care for the elderly is senilicide, or sacrificing health care for Americans 75 plus years old to benefit the younger more productive members of society.  This ethical dilemma has challenged society for years.
According to Andre and Velasquez in Aged-Based Health Care rationing (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n3/age.html), Euripides wrote in 500B.C.
“I hate the men who would prolong their lives
By foods and drinks and charms of magic art
Perverting nature’s course to keep off death
    They ought, when they no longer serve the land
          To quit this life, and clear the way for youth.”

If you are elderly are you prepared “to quit this life, and clear the way for youth”?  As callous and as selfish as it may sound, I am not! 
What medical care are the elderly being asked to forego, and who is advocating rationed health care for the post 75 year old Americans?  “The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force recommends against routine screening for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer at age 75 and beyond and it advises against cervical cancer testing after 65…”  Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer at the American Cancer Society said, “the overwhelming majority of folks over 75 should not be getting these screening tests…this is an example of waste”.  (http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-12-12/Many-elderly-screened-for-cancer-despite-risks/51846678/1)  Brawley also wrote “The truth is many Americans cannot afford adequate health care, and health care is rationed in the U.S.  While many do not get the health care they need, some are actually harmed by overconsumption of unnecessary health care. These Americans are treated outside of established guidelines and get unnecessary procedures and take unnecessary medications”. He appears willing to substitute one form of health care rationing for another.  Brawley is not alone.  On December 13, 2011 CBS reported Dr. Keith M. Bellizzi said, “At a minimum in order to see any benefit of screening, you would want your patient to have a life expectancy of more than five years.
Daniel Callahan argued in his 1987 book titled Setting Limits: Medical Goals in an Aging Society that no federal dollars should be paid for life extending medical care for patients beyond 70 or 80. In other words, the elderly should receive only elementary pain relief treatment.  Such age based health care rationing is justified by claiming the elderly have lived a normal, natural life span and are taking from society while younger individuals are in the prime of their productive lives and are contributing to society.  Said another way, the elderly unfairly burden society because they “cost” society more to be kept alive than they contribute to society.  This concept of “collective salvation” sacrifices health care for the elderly for the salvation of the collective, AKA society.
As if the current costs of health care are not sustainable, the implementation of President Obama’s The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, will exacerbate health care costs for all by adding 47 million or more individuals who lack health insurance to the federal dole.  How will this increase be paid for?  Charlotte Allen (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/05/opinion/oe-allen 5],  relates the story of the man who questioned the amount of health care his own grandmother received.  She wrote, President Obama gave us a clue to his thinking when he “questioned the appropriateness of a hip replacement that his grandmother had undergone after breaking her hip shortly after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.”Obama even suggested how such decisions should be made; i.e., “not by patients or their relatives but by a group of doctors, scientists, ethicists [Independent Payment Advisory Board] who are not part of normal political channels”.These comments speak volumes about the intentions of the man who made them.  Just think, as this man evidently does, how much Medicare funding would be available for redistribution to the younger and more productive if medical care for the elderly were denied or rationed thus guaranteeing they would die earlier.  When the man making those statements and using his own grandmother’s health care to argue for rationing health care for the elderly--collective salvage-- is the President of the United States, senilicide is well on the way.
When the POTUS is willing to sacrifice his own grandmother and the elderly by rationing their health care so millions of youthful American citizens and non-citizens can be added to his health care program, the elderly should enter the New Year with their eyes open and with New Year’s Resolutions they will work to implement in November 2012.  Their access to physician and patient determined health care when they reach 65 plus depends on it.

 

A SENSE OF THE COLLECTIVE SELF

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

 “Cogito ergo sum”
Rene’ Descartes

 

Who are we?  Where do we belong? 

The French philosopher, Rene’ Descartes, set the stage for answers to these questions in 1637 when he proposed “Cogito ergo sum”.  The English translation is “I think therefore I am”. Because we think, the above two identity questions will be answered in different ways depending on changes in the social, economic and physical environments.

Arguably since Amerigo Vespucci sailed to a new continent, the name “American” has identified an inhabitant of the northern part of that then unknown continent.  Today a more legal description is “Citizen of the United States”, or “United States Citizen”; however, the single word “American” is most often used in common discourse.

America was proudly known as a “melting pot” where legal immigrants shared a common goal to become Americans.  For the most part the place in the world where they originated was Europe but the land of freedom where they chose to live was America.  Americans were ambitious, industrious and self-reliant with a belief that you own what you earn.  Honor was a central virtue and Americans were optimistic and anticipated a bright future.  They established a federal republic system of government that was more Jeffersonian with power vested in the people and states as opposed to the statist strong central government advocated by Alexander Hamilton.  Americans lived in a country governed by a Constitution based on the enlightened thinking of the framers of the Constitution who reversed the traditional European hereditary kingship model of statist government by empowering the individual collectively as “the people” at the top of the pyramid.

This sense of the “collective self”changed with the election of Franklin Roosevelt who promised “a chicken in every pot” and increased federal employment opportunities to counteract the ravages of the Great Depression. His actions resulted in a social, paternalistic welfare state at the expense of social and economic liberty.  As the federal government assumed ever increasing power during the New Deal, the roles of the states and individuals decreased.  Thus began the characteristics of the entitlement mentality and the concept of the statist welfare state.

Prosperity slowly returned following World War II and a period of relatively comfortable living began that culminated with, as Alan Greenspan described, “irrational exuberance” that led to the Great Recession.  This exuberance was evident in the social as well as economic aspects of life.  Social Science and History teachers began teaching that Americans were “multicultural” and that the concept of a “melting pot” society was passé. Black citizens saw themselves as Black or African-Americans.  And in 1988 Jesse Jackson led the move to institutionalize the official term, “Black-American” because “It puts us in our proper historical perspective”.  Thus began the use of the “hyphenated-American”; e.g., Black-American, African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, etc.  As an aside, it is interesting to note there are no White-Americans, European-Americans, German-Americans, English-Americans or Dutch-Americans, etc. 

Living the life of irrational exuberance came to a jarring end with the Great Recession in 2007.  President Barack Obama modeled Roosevelt by increasing the direct involvement of the federal government in the everyday lives of hyphenated-Americans.  Statism ran amok with a veritable alphabet soup of entitlement programs leading to expectations followed by demands for ever increasingassistance from the welfare state.

As I write this in November, 2011 civil strife has spread around the world and demands for economic and social change have become more vocal and confrontational.America is not immune as evidenced by the so-called “Occupy”movement of the 99% “have-nots” versus the 1% “haves”.  Current events are ripe for another Kent State tragedy where demonstrators were met with live ammunition.  And the stage is being set for a potential civil war between schizophrenic hyphenated-American identity groups and other Americans.

According to a late Summer, 2011 Times/Money poll 60+ percent of respondents were pessimistic government officials would be able to spur economic growth.  And more than 50+ percent were pessimistic about the next twelve months.  Traditional American values of one nation and one flag are challenged daily.  Previously cherished values of honor, self-reliance, independence, collective optimism, hard work, taking responsibility for our actions and the “we are Americans, let’s get it done” attitude are being replaced by an entitlement mentality nourished by statism plus an emphasis on social, racial and national identities.  These changes are not free.  They come at the tremendous expense of the loss of local control and personal, social and economic liberty.

Cogito ergo sum.  I think therefore I am.

 

Article #1 Washington's Conflicted Liberal Voters
By Matt Manweller

Since the election a few weeks ago, I have been trying to gain an understanding of Washington State’s conflicted voters. As a group of people, it seems we are not sure what we want out of government and we send very conflicting messages to our representatives. Let’s look at how we voted in November.
On one level, the voters sent a very conservative message. We rejected every tax increase. We rejected every spending increase. We made it harder to raise taxes in the future and gave an emphatic “NO” to the state income tax.
On the other hand, we returned to Congress and the State Legislature very liberal representatives. Patty Murray won the only statewide race very easily. In other states, Republican made huge inroads into the state legislatures. In Washington, the GOP picked up only a handful of seats, and just barely won those.
Here is a look at the numbers in some of our most liberal counties. On the ballot were three measures. I-1098 imposed an income tax. Tim Eyman’s I-1053 required a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, and I-1107 repealed taxes on some food products. You would think that the same people who voted for Patty “tax increase” Murray would also vote against these measures. That’s not what happened.
In Kitsap County, voters rejected the income tax by 65%. They supported Eyman’s initiative by 65% and they repealed the new food taxes by 63%. At the same time they returned a mostly Democratic delegation to the statehouse giving them between 54-57% of the vote. They voted for Patty Murray over Dino Rossi 52-48%.
Even the incredibly liberal King County voted against the income tax by 54%. They supported Eyman’s initiative by 53% but also supported Murray with 65% of the vote. Can anyone offer some insight into what these voters were thinking? Who votes against an income tax and for Patty Murray?
The trend continued across most of the liberal counties in Washington. Jefferson and Whatcom counties, the most liberal counties after King County (except San Juan), supported all three tax cut measures but then turned around and supported mostly Democratic members for the state legislature and supported Murray with healthy majorities.
To be fair, the only conflicted voters were our liberal voters in Western Washington. If you look at all the legislative districts in Eastern Washington, they voted in an intellectually consistent manner—against tax increases and for Dino Rossi and Republican legislative candidates. You may agree or disagree on whether conservative voters were pursuing good policy, but at least the conservative voters knew what they were voting for!
But with the votes like ones we saw in Western Washington, it is no wonder that some of our elected officials either don’t know what we want, or try their best to “give us our cake and let us eat it too.”
Here are a few hypotheses as to why Western Washington voted the way it does. If they are the classic “fiscal conservative, socially liberal” voters we hear so much about, maybe they vote conservative on the initiatives to reign in taxes, but vote for Democrats to support gay marriage and abortion. Without specific exit polling, it is hard to tell.
Or, maybe it goes back to something ex-GOP Chairman Chris Vance once told me. “They like our ideas, they just don’t like us.” That statement implies a “branding” problem. The argument is that people are more conservative on the inside than on the outside. They support balanced budgets, low taxes, free markets, minimal bureaucracies, but they do not like the image of the GOP. If that is true, then the Republican Party has a PR problem more than a policy problem.
Maybe the best answer is the simplest answer. Our liberal voters on the Westside want government programs, they just want other people to pay for them. In that case, you vote for the Democratic candidate that offers all the government goodies, but you vote for the conservative initiatives to avoid paying for them.

Article #2As the Pendulum Swings
By Dr. Jimmie Applegate

“There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, when taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full ”sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves.  Or lose our venture”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act, Scene 3

 

In two years the political pendulum swung from the liberal left to the conservative right.  In 2008 the incoming Democratic tide was tinted purple, but the Republican tsunami of 2010 inundated maps of the United States from coast to coast with a deep red tide.  Arguably this Republican resurgence resulted from the disgust, dismay and dissatisfaction of voters with the policies, principles and practices of President Obama.  In other words, the 2010 Republican washout of the Democratic power bases in state legislatures, governorships and congressional seats may have happened primarily because Americans were being forced to accept changes they did not vote for in 2008, and did not want in 2010.
President Obama and Democratic majorities in the Senate and House ran rough shod over the expectations of the American people like unwelcome gluttonous guests filling their legislative plates to overflowing in their haste to complete their progressive socialist agenda.  The slow, deliberate legislative process based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that served America well for more than 200 yearswas challenged by egocentric legislators who were intent on enacting legislation to implement their vision of a new and more wonderful world.
Obama’s promises made, implied, or just plain wished for by enthralled Americans were not kept or were unfilled.  And his personal political ideology was seen as based more on European socialist theories than on the practices of the American system of private enterprise.  Americans believed that Obama’s promises of transparency such as publishing proposed legislation on line, no deals in smoke filled back rooms and no earmarks were ignored.  Other promises like being treated with respect as intelligent adults who expected politicians to represent and to work forthe people in the states who elected them were forgotten as well.
OK, so the American people repudiated Obama’s socialist ideology advocating redistribution of wealth through increased taxation and spending, centralizing bigger government, growing government control of private industry and government control of health care.  What are the implications for the Republican Party if the 2010 vote was a rejection of Obama’s failures and not necessarily an affirmation of Republican politicians or policies?
Several points are clear.  A dictatorship of the extreme Right will be no more effective than was the dictatorship of the Left.  Given Obama’s history of immoderation—my way or the highway—expect more of the same despite his murmurings to the contrary.  Governing solely by an ideology that deprives Americans of their constitutionally guaranteed rights and without giving serious consideration to pragmatic alternatives will not work as 2010 showed.  Ignoring strong signals from the electorate as the Democrats did following the elections in Virginia, North Carolina and Massachusetts will result in disaster.  Likewise there will be consequences if Independents and special interest groups are ignored.And the American people are fed up of being ignored by the very people they elected to represent them locally, in state houses and Washington, D.C.
Republicans will ignore these points at their peril.  They must actto cut spending thereby reducing the out of control national debt, to repeal or drastically modify ObamaCare, to enforce state and federal laws, to protect our borders and to decrease the size and interference of the federal government by respecting state and individual rights.  In sum, Republicans must act in concert with the principles of constitutional conservatism in a federal republic governed by the Constitution under the rule of law.  If they do not, the pendulum will swing again in 2012.  Which way and how far it will swing depends on the events of the next two years.

Article #3 Much Ado About Nothing
By Matt Manweller         

For the past few weeks, American politics has been engrossed in a sharp
debate concerning extending the Bush era tax cuts. Republicans argue that
tax increases of any kind during a recession are a bad idea. Democrats
counter that letting taxes on the rich stay where they are will bust the
deficit.

Would you be surprised to know that whether we extend or eliminate the Bush
era tax cuts will have absolutely no effect on the deficit whatsoever?

It seems counterintuitive. One would assume, as Democrats argue, that higher
rates would lead to more revenue. It does not. Sometimes Republicans argue
that lower tax rates leads to higher revenue. They are wrong too.

In truth, federal income tax rates have absolutely no effect on how much
federal tax revenue we collect. Federal tax revenue is always a function of
Gross Domestic Product regardless of the tax rates being levied at the time.

In 1993 Kurt Houser, Chairman of Stanford University's Hoover Institute,
discovered that between 1950 and present day, the amount of tax revenue
collected by the federal government has always equaled about 19% of the GDP.
Always. Without fail. Period. During that time tax rates have fluctuated
wildly. In the 1950s tax rates were as high at 90%. Wanna know how much
revenue we collected? 19% of the GDP. During the Reagan era those rates fell
to as low as 28%. Guess how much revenue we collected? 19% of the GDP.
Clinton came to office promising "fairness" in the tax rates and they
climbed back up to around 40%. And you guessed it, once again, tax revenue
equaled 19% of the GDP.

Just in case you thought the trend might have changed since 1993, David
Ranson, head of research at H. C. Wainwright & Co. Economics, looked at data
since 1993 and discovered in the past 17 years, tax revenue has been exactly
19% of GDP. [One caveat: As tax rates approach 0% and 100% the Laffer Curve
kicks in and you get no revenue at either tax rate.]

Houser's Law as it is known, puts the Bush tax cut debate in perspective. As
a nation we are faced with a simple choice. We can tax people at 35% (The
Bush rates) and get 19% of our GDP in tax revenue or we can tax people at
39.6% (the Clinton and Obama rates) and get the exact same 19% in tax
revenue. Given this data, doesn't anyone, regardless of ideology, choose
option A? Simply put, the Bush solution was for government to take a smaller
share of a larger pie. Obama's solution is to take a larger share of a
smaller pie. The question on taxes is not about taking more or less. It is
about getting the exact same share of a smaller or larger economy. If we are
stuck at 19% of our GDP, then the solution is to make a bigger GDP.

Now some might argue that if we raise tax rates for the rich we can lower
them for the poor, so the fight does matter. Not true again. Looking back at
the tax rates over time we see that the rate the rich pay is independent of
what the poor pay. In other words, raising the rates on the upper brackets
does not raise additional revenue so it does nothing to reduce the burdens
on the lower brackets (at least in terms of net revenue.not rates.)

Houser's Law also puts the deficit and national debt in perspective. If we
want to balance the budget, then the solution is simple. Take your next
year's
GDP and multiply that number by .19. That is how much you have to spend.
Always. Without fail. Period. If you spend more, you get deficits. If you
spend less, you get surpluses. If you spend that exact amount you get a
balanced budget. Pretty simple.

 

Article #4 So What!
By Bruce Coe

Ever wonder why legislation is enacted?  Ever find yourself scratching your head and thinking “What were they thinking of when they passed that?” 

Well, we have a few useful old bromides that help us out.  One is, of course, “follow the money”.  Others like “Cui Bono” (Who Benefits) are similarly useful.  Conversely, the list of reasons to regulate us, punish us or otherwise enter our private lives is as long as the list of government agencies that stand ready to 'serve' us.

A short list of those reasons might be: constitutional, effective, necessary, required by statute, Godly or Reaganesque (almost the same).  Others: in the name of national security, for the health and welfare of...., for the children, for the planet, for future generations, Mom, apple pie, Baseball, safe roads, lead-free toys, the Stars and Stripes, endangered species and the best one yet - “because this problem is too large for anyone but government to solve”.

Once legislation is prepared the coup is delivered in the Legislative Findings attached to each bill.  For legislative findings read 'excuses'.  They start like this, “The legislature finds that...........” and continues on.  And on and on.....

“The legislature finds..”  means “it is in the interest of the people who contributed the most to me”.

“For the health and welfare of....” means for the health and welfare of people who didn't think they had a problem until the government told them they had one.

Conservatives have their own list of justifications, only marginally better because they are generally not intended to provide free services, provide mercury free tuna,  free Willy, or free some serial rapist because he had a crappy home life as a kid.  But I digress.

In this day of slash and burn approaches to budgets (and therefore government) I offer this.  Can't we just add “So What!” to the list of bromides?  My beginning list, and there will be more to follow.....

The United States Department of Education - So What!

If the US Department of Education just up and disappeared do you really think anyone would notice the difference?  Block grant federal education money to states.  Rinse the meddlesome, union-dominated power mongers out of our childrens' classrooms and let the teachers teach.

And mandates!  Local School districts generally have over 50 mandates ranging from integrated waste management, AIDS education to juvenile court notices and green building requirements.  Get the mandates, the hiring quotas (minimum classroom sizes), the silly curriculum requirements, and yes, the proficiency and outcome testing out of the system.  Let schools fail, let teachers go, let our local school districts demand success instead of relying on the federal government to 'mandate' success.

Julian Assange – So what!?

We know that while Assange scatters classified information all over the media with impunity, he objects to the Manchester Guardian for leaking details about his seedy sexual escapades.  We know know that our diplomatic corps is small minded, petulant and foul mouthed.  We know our 'Allies' remain our allies as long as they think that they can get us to do their dirty work by appealing to our better nature.  You know, freedom and liberty and all that booshwah.

 And we know that the entire military/foreign aid machine of the United states can be brought a notch lower by some silly, Facebook preening desk-wallah nestled deep in the security apparatus.  And we now know that Bradley Manning, the gay PFC that stole the information and passed it on, should be the poster boy for eliminating DADT.

And speaking of DADT, So What!?

I don't know how many of you have served in the military, but when you live in barracks, Quonset huts, cramped living quarters like submarines, trenches, hidey holes, foxholes and redoubts, you figure out pretty early who is gay and who is not.  And it doesn't matter.  If he's a wuss he doesn't make it, if he's not he's a soldier who probably loves his brothers a little differently and possibly a little more passionately.  Heh heh. 

I was in the US Navy a ways back and we all knew who was gay and who was not and it wasn't because he was constantly hitting on anybody.  He just hung out with really handsome, well dressed guys who just seemed awfully polite and whose work clothes had creases.  No one but the dullest rednecks cared and no one said anything about it.  I don't think anyone really cares.  So I ask – So What?

 Asking questions like “So What” makes you freer.  It frees you from the depending on someone to fill in the blanks for you.  After all, if some bureaucrat or legislator can answer the question before it's posed, they've kind of limited the questions that can be asked.  Now, who woulda thought of that.................................

 

Article #5 My Predictions, 2011
By Bruce Coe

Well, 'tis the season, and I thought that I'd offer a few predictions for the coming year, albeit with the hindsight of 6 days.  And unlike others in the  punditocracy, I'll offer a few local predictions as well.  So sit back and hold tight, crack a brewski, dial up a little talk radio and stay tuned.  It's gonna be another rock 'em sock 'em year. 

Oh....... and before you dig it to these predictions please read the following really fast in in a low voice:

All predictions are based on my intuition for whatever that is worth, do not use these predictions as a basis for any financial or personal decisions, always consult with your attorney, your accountant, your bookkeeper, your stock analyst, Consumer Reports, CSPI, AARP, EPA, ASPCA, NAMBLA and any others groups or individuals who you think will provide a safe and stable future for you.  None of these predictions are intended to insult, harm or in any other way cast denigration on any race, creed, identity group, political party, or their affiliation with any religion of lack thereof, political belief or lifestyle

On with the show!

On the State level

Hans Zeiger (R 25) will become a prominent force in the Washington Republican party.
Zeiger, a Hillsdale/Pepperdine public policy grad, beat Dawn (the big nurse) Morrell by 30 votes in a tightly contested race. Zeigler.  Look for Zeiger, along with young R's like 15th district Representative David Taylor to begin to remodel the  Washington Republican Party, an organization that hasn't been able to fog a political mirror in decades.

Governor Gregoire will continue to fight with public service unions about pensions as part of the budget cutting process, but will do as little as possible during her wait game hoping that the economy will turn around and the tax revenues will increase

Apolo Ohno will consider running for public office in his home district of Federal Way.  (Don't know where that one came from.)

Regional

The current water moratorium that exists in Upper Kittitas County will be extended to cover the Yakima Basin.  This will involve Benton and Yakima counties in the fight, bringing larger constituencies into the fight and hopefully bringing more people face to face with a silly, ideologically driven bunch of drama queens called the Washington state Department of Ecology.

Water activists Agua Permanente, American Rivers and other conservation groups will be caught-red handed in a water for sex scandal that will rock the environmentalist/liberal community.

County Commissioners in the previously mentioned counties will in effect bring a halt to construction in any areas other than UGA's and LAMIRDs through their inability to muster the political courage to fight with the state over the control of development.  BIAW will roll over and yawn since most of their money comes from biggies like Quadrant, Sellen, Skansa, Kiewit, Turner and other internationals able to afford the costs of permitting.

We will see a Suncadia-style PUD proposal for the Teanaway River Valley area from land management company American Forest Resources, mostly because it's the only way the county will be able to afford the upgrade to the Teanaway Road system, a nasty stretch of road that has been ignored for years.  Locals will revolt, expect pitchforks and torches.

National/world

Stock market will continue to rise, unemployment will continue to rise as companies realize that they can do a lot more with a lot less.  Live cheap, invest in the market.

US will be largely out of Iraq by year's end.  President Obama, citing the US economy and the need to “care” for American citizens at home will tout the peace dividend, as he spreads his largesse once again to his constituents.  Expect public service unions, NGO's and the financial sector to profit.  Expect the rest of us to grind on for a few more years.

You will begin to see major convictions of those involved in the financial meltdown as the US DOJ (and states) continue their prosecution of misdeeds in the financial sector. 

N Korea will implode in their usual way, threatening the stability of SE Asia with more military attacks.  They will hold the world hostage for a few weeks and retreat with a lot of grain and some money and wait till next year to try the same thing.  China will, once again, shrug and talk about their “crazy uncle”

Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez will declare war on the imperialist United States in an effort to mask the failure of their miserable little commie states.  Both will continue to tighten control on their populace, though Raul has conceded that Cubans (those who can afford them) may now have cell phones and personal computers though their computers will only operate on an island 'intranet' much like China's.   Cuba's hispanohablantes will not be allowed to join Facebook any time soon.  Violence in Venezuela (19,000 deaths last year) will escalate due to  trafficking of drugs, yet another viable and important commodity in the US energy market.

Price of oil will rise to 125/bbl by June and further hamper American economic recovery.  Expect more pressure to construct alt energy facilities and permit new nukes though the feds will not remodel the statutory appeal processes that give Greenies the power to halt construction of objectionable plants.

The Mexican drug war will explode.  International pressure will rise after a mass grave containing the bodies of 45 children is uncovered.  Expect US military presence along the border by year's end.

Haiti will not get better and will probably devolve into gang/street warfare.  Expect US Military presence by years end.

And on a final good note:  As Americans come to realize that our local, federal and state governments have become bloated superstates, we will demand less of them and in return we will realize that we  can do more within our communities and depend less on our governments.  Hopefully they get roads, war, weights and measures and we get sovereign free people.

I guess the last 'prediction is more of a dream but who knows?  Crazier things have happened!

Article #6 THE CHALLENGES OF LIVING IN A SHINING CITY ON A HILL
By Dr. Jimmie Applegate
Given the centrality of religion in Puritan life it is not surprising that John Winthrop paraphrased these words from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “You are the light of the world.  A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden” in a 1630 sermon aboard his flagship Arbella.  Winthrop shared his hopes for the success of the Massachusetts Bay colonists when he said their new home would be “a city on a hill”.  More recently both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan reinforced that exceptionalism in at least three major speeches to the nation.
Are we living up to the extraordinary demands of living in a shining city on a hill that is the envy of the free world, or are we peering down a dark alley toward a house of ill repute where goods and services are exchanged in illicit transactions?  The effort required to remain exceptional is challenged each day by the enchanting promises of instant gratification echoing from that seedy darkness.
The social-political-economic ideologies of the current administration are liberal, progressive and, yes, Godless in their emphases on socialism.  Some basic tenets of these ideologies listed in admittedly selected descriptive words and phrases to make a point include government activism AKA big government with centralized decision making, transformational reform and change, a professional political corps, progressive taxation to redistribute wealth, unconditional support for organized labor; i.e., unionized, acceptance of the equality of any and all religious experiences, equality at the expense of liberty and to enhance the status of lowest common denominator by ending, controlling and redistributing the development of exceptionalism. 
These changes are not a new phenomenon.  They have happened in fits and starts over more than 150 years; however, my interest here is not the historical development of American liberal, progressive socialism but rather the speed and reckless abandonment and destruction of traditional American values and principles that have been imposed.
President Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and in the brief span of two yearshe and the liberal progressive majority Democrats in Congress cajoled, manipulated and bribed while Speakers Reid and Pelosi proposed, fostered, directed and enacted legislation designed to transform America from a land of “makers” to a “gimme gimme” land of “takers”.  The lyrics of the NewWorldSons “Gimme” are frightening in their plea, “I need you oh, I need you oh, Yes its true I really need you now gimme now”.
The recent changes began when Obama’s election was welcomed by some in America and many abroad with messianic fervor.  He reacted in typical megalomaniacal fashion by perceiving himself as a human manifestation of the second coming.  He travelled widely bowing, lowering his head and slightly kneeling to rulers, kings, monarchs and extending a hand of friendship, even heaven forbid touching the untouchable, all the while repeating one apology after another for American exceptionalism.
Events of the past two years put Obama’s subservient acquiescence in perspective.  The President of the United States once respected as the leader of the free world is perceived by some as a soft touch who lacks the common sense to understand the “gimme now” world view.  It’s the old, “give me an inch and I’ll take a mile” syndrome at work.
And here at home his flailing attempts to be all things to everyone (except those identified as “the haves”) resulted in one attempt after another to transform American social, political and economic ideals by raising federal income taxes on the “haves” to redistribute wealth to the “have nots”.  In 2009 nearly 50% of US households paid no federal income taxes at all and the top 20% earners (households making more than $366,400) paid 73% of federal income taxes collected.  And yes, the bottom 40% of earners made a profit by receiving more in tax credits than they earned.  Now the liberal progressive ideologues want to tax the wealthiest 2% of the movers and holders of wealth to increase the tax credits, health coverage and government entitlements for a government owned and controlled plantation society.  Adding the estate tax to these choreographed actions by a tyranny of the majority is the most blatant example of taxation without representation whereupon death your earned possessions are confiscated and redistributed.  There can be no question but what the basic foundations of American exceptionalism are under full siege.  The effectiveness of this siege is indisputable as numerous Americans appear willing to trade their birthright for unfulfilled promises of happiness.  I invite you to join me in a brief journey through time down a dark and seedy alley.
As we stand at the entrance to the alley leading to a House of Ill Repute we find it littered with the abandoned principles of American exceptionalism much like the arid arroyos of Arizona are full of the discarded belongings of illegal aliens.  On one side of the dimly lit alley lies a pile of principles related to the rule of law.  Sections of the US Code regarding illegal aliens are ignored in the misguided fairy tale that “aliens” are “immigrants” and are entitled to have the “American Dream” fulfilled without regard to the “rule of Law” or the word “pursuit” in the phrase “pursuit of happiness”.
Over here in the corner lies the wadded up principles of a “government of the people, by the people and for the people”.  The ever growing cadre of professional politicians who purchase votes from an ever more dependent citizenry via tax credits, deductibles, bailouts, grants, entitlements and just plain “taking care of the folks back home” by slipping unreviewed earmarks into unread budget documents is responsible for the loss of this principle.  Not to be outdone the administration, congressional leaders and committee chairmen resort to outright bribery to get what they want.  Add the 40 plus administration appointed “czars”; most of whom are not vetted or subject to congressional oversight and the witches brew thickens.  This cadre of professional politicians has forgotten they were elected to represent the people who elected them and not their fellow professional politicians in state capitols or Washington, D.C.
And this pile of discarded principles contains the right to assemble in peaceful protest without being labeled “right wing terrorists”, “brown shirts” and other egregious names by high level administration appointees and elected officials.  Citizen’s acceptance of, and acquiescence to political correctness has pervaded everyday life to the point it controls behavior—think teen age peer pressure.
Maddened by what we were seeing, we reeled against the smutty wall, turned back toward the City on the Hill andas we struggled to wade through the flotsam and jetsam discarded the length of the alley we stumbled into a pile of principles labeled “Trust”.  At the top of the pile was a plaintive plea for trust from a legislator, “Trust us, you’ll love this bill when you know what is in it.”.  The foolishness of such a statement was obvious when citizens learned the legislation that had been passed was neither drafted in its entirety nor read by legislators who caved in to bribery and voted for it.
Finally stepping back into the light, we realized Americans are selling their birthright of exceptionalism.  We are trading our self-sufficiency, independence, individualism, working for what you get, keeping what you earn, our Christian heritage, our federal form of government and being held responsible for our decisions and actions.  We are trading these cherished principles in exchange for the anticipated pleasant satisfaction of climax once we rid ourselves of the demanding expectations required of an exceptional people.
As Walt Kelly wrote in 1953, “There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.”
May this be the clanging of the alarm Americans needs to wake up to the fact that we are selling our birthright for promises of future happiness.We are Americans.  We are exceptional. We will prevail. We will reclaim our birthright, and we will live in the Shining City on a Hill.  But first, we must recognize that we are part of the problem!

Article #7 CURRENT STATUS OF OUR AMERICAN RIGHTS
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
By Dr. Jimmie Applegate

Are we in danger of losing our American rights?  Kittitas County Republicans agreed with Sarah Palin when she said, “Yep, you betcha!”  One hundred percent of Kittitas County Republicans who responded to an informal, non-random poll believed not only are we in danger of losing our rights, we already have lost many, and many more are threatened.

And these conservative Republicans were not at all hesitant to describe what they believe must be done in the next two years to reverse the trend and even reclaim our heritage.

Lost American Rights
Fifty-five percent of respondents believed we lost our right of choice, especially regarding aspects of health care, with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 AKA ObamaCare.  Specifically they believed we have lost the right to choose health care providers, health care plans and even to choose whether or not we want health care insurance.  Because of this mandate one respondent generalized we have lost our right “not to participate in commerce”.  More than 25% of respondents believed we have lost representation in Congress because elected officials more often than not forget our republic is a government of, by and for the people.

Others believed, in their own words, we have lost the “right to prosperwithout penalty”, the “right to dignity and privacy”, the “right to free speech”, the “right to try and fail or succeed” and the “right to be left alone”.  And, not surprisingly, respondents believed we have lost our “right to freedom of religion” as evidenced by the banning of prayer in classrooms and other public places.  Still others believed we have lost our “right to property” and the “right not to be taxed to death”.

In addition to being asked what rights have we lost respondents were asked to list rights they believe are in danger of being lost.

American Rights in Danger of Being Lost
Seventy-three percent of respondents listed the “right to keep and bear arms” on the danger list.  As a result of the Executive Branch usurping the power of the Legislative Branch others felt the “balance of power” concept was threatened.  Respondents also believed the right “to freedom of speech”, “to freedom of religion”, “to freedom of assembly” and for “protection against illegal search and seizure” were in danger.  The right of “an unborn child to be raised by loving adults” and the right “to be free from government intrusion from cradle to grave” also were listed as being in danger.

Respondents were then asked what must be done in the next two years to reclaim lost American rights
and/or to prevent additional losses of American rights.

Recommended Actions to Reclaim our American Rights
Respondents listed many strategies and actions they believed will reclaim losses and/or prevent future losses of our American rights.  Because their suggested actions vary across the spectrum they are described in their own words to maintain the integrity of their responses.

Many responses were brief and to the point such as “Keep Republicans in Congress”, “Elect Republicans”, “Vote for Tea Party Candidates”, “Elect more Conservatives” and “Elect Republicans for Congress and a Republican President”.  Other suggestions included “Ensure only laws are passed that are based on the Constitution”, “Adhere to the Constitution and enforce it”, and to do this Americans “must stay connected with their legislators”, “participate in judicial elections”, and “select good candidates from the ground up at city, county and state levels”.  Still others suggested “Republicans must stand firm”, must “hold constitutional conventions”, limit entitlements”, “defund government 50%”, “reduce number of government employees by 50%”, “limit entitlements” and “return to a country where citizens are responsible for their actions”.  And finally “limit the scope of courts to constitutional issues”, “limit the legislative branch to enacting laws based on the Constitution”, “limit lobbyists” and “limit,  modify, or repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”.

Summary
All Kittitas County Republican respondents to an informal, non-random poll believed citizens have lost and are in danger of losing even more American rights.  Not surprisingly the rights they believed citizens have lost or are in danger of losing could be categorized as those held by conservatives, constitutional conservatives, libertarians or Tea Party adherents.  And there was a clear recognition that individuals must “get involved” at all levels not only to create an atmosphere for change, but to participate in the actual events resulting in the desired changes.  Respondents believed change requires more than eloquence, hope and wishful thinking.  It requires another conservative value; i.e., work!

Article #8 More on "Civility"
By Matt Manweller

Seems like the buzz word this month is "civility." After the shootings in
Arizona the media wanted to somehow tie the violence to conservatives, the
Republican Party, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin in particular. Of course,
when the facts came out, it turns out that Jared Loughner's  violent
tendencies started before Palin had ever been nominated or the Tea Party
existed. But our liberal media never lets facts get in the way of the biased
reporting.

The Democratic Party also saw an opening to attack conservatives in the
aftermath of the violence. They tried to tie the violence to "hostile
rhetoric" coming from conservative organizations and candidates. Here is
what I find ironic and hypocritical. Democrats only call for "civility" when
they are in the majority or hold the presidency. You never hear Democrats
calling to tone down the rhetoric when they are in the minority.

Let me give you a few examples. When liberal Democrats were out protesting
the Iraq War, the rhetoric was violent, hostile, and flat out offensive. At
some rallies, activists brought a guillotine machine so they could have mock
beheadings of President
Bush.(http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621#photos) At other rallies,
people wore T-shirts that depicted President Bush with a bullet hole in his
forehead and blood running down his face.
(http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621#photos) Where were the calls for
civility then? Where was the outrage on the Left about inappropriate
rhetoric then?

And remember that website of Sarah Palin's that got so much attention? Well,
here is a website from the Democratic Leadership Council from 2006.
(http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171) Notice
the targets. I guess gun imagery is ok when Democrats use it but not when
Republicans use it.

But even after President Obama took office the violent rhetoric of the Left
never died down. In June, 2008 President Obama told a group of supporters
that "If Republicans bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
(http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the
-fight-we-bring-a-gun/)
Can you imagine if Sara Palin said something like that? In September of
2010, liberal talk show host told Liz Cheney to "shut up and go plan her
father's
funeral."(http://www.therightscoop.com/mike-malloy-tells-liz-cheney-to-go-pl
an-her-fathers-funeral
) Can you imagine the outrage if Rush Limbaugh said something like that to
Joe Biden's kids? In October of 2009, mainstream media commentator Chris
Matthews fantasized about killing Rush Limbaugh while he was on the air.
(http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/13/video-matthews-muses-on-killing-rush-
limbaugh/)
I have never heard much like that from people at Fox News. Have you?

The list goes on. In December, 2010 the well read liberal magazine Salon
published a letter to the editor suggesting that Sara Palin be electrocuted
in the same manner that football player Michael Vick tortured his dogs. Very
classy. As a reader of conservative magazines like the National Review, I
can tell you I have never encountered such text.

And it's not just media personalities on the Left who talk like this. It is
not just the fringe of the Democratic Party. In January of this year, a
defeated Dem incumbent named Paul Kanjorski was asked about the new
Republican governor in Florida. Congressman Kanjorski responded,

"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him [sic]
and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

I challenge any listener or critic to find a similar statement from a
Republican. Joe Wilson got in trouble two years ago for yelling out "you
lie." No one even bothered to mention it when Congressman Kanjorski called
for a public execution of an elected Governor.
(http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/09/kanjorski-on-gov-elect-rick-sc)

Well, the list goes on and on and I could be here all day. My point is
simple. Beware the Democrat that calls for "civility." Instead of preaching
about others, maybe they want to clean up their own act before trying to
blame others for the violence in Arizona.

Article #9 CCSS—A National School Curriculum
By Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

What do the letters CCSS and CAL mean?  If you are a parent who was asked to assist your 3rd grade student with math homework and ended up frustrated, you might know.  However if you are like most of us the letters are more alphabet soup in an already full bowl.  Or perhaps you have heard the terms Common Core School Standards (CCSS) and Computerized Assessments and Learning (CAL).  These terms replaced respectively the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALR’s), or state curriculum, standards, and the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), or state mandated achievement test.
If you are still with me, a more direct question is: Are you aware that Governor Gregoire and Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) Dorn advocate legislation that will require Washington adopt a national—one size fits all states—curriculum?  And do you know that Dorn supported ESSS Bill 6696, which was adopted June 10, 2010, and further that he provisionally adopted these mandated national curriculum standards  for Washington state on July 19, 2010?  Believe it or not 41 states have adopted these standards.  Many did so before the standards were developed and put in writing.  Talk about buying a pig in a poke!  As parents and taxpayers you also should know that paper and pencil tests of proficiency are being replaced by the on-line CAL.  That little item will require each local district to have a sufficient number of computers and adequately wired computer labs to handle large numbers of students at the same time.  Pity the children who are not computer literate. 
CAL proponents claim that “all the on-line tests have been reviewed, tested and validated using state approved test development specifications and control standards”.  Have the results of those reviews, tests and validation techniques been made available to local district parents?  I do not believe so.  Proponents of the CCSS also claim that Washington state teachers support them.  How do they know that?  Let’s see now.  In 2009 there were 59,487 Washington classroom teachers with 3,974 (6.68%) of them National Board Certified Teachers.  Seventy-nine (1.98%) of the 3,974 were surveyed and this resulted in .132% of the total number of classroom teachers who were surveyed.  If those 79 teachers who were surveyed were not selected randomly no generalizations of the results can be made beyond those 79 who were surveyed.  Even if the 79 teachers were randomly selected, and assuming all other statistical requirements were met, the results could only be generalized to the population of 3,974 National Board Certified teachers from which they were selected.  So much for the claim that “Washington state teachers support the CCSS”.  Proponents also claim Washington citizens support the nationalized common core curriculum.  Do they really?  In 2009, Washington’s estimated population was 6,664,195.  Of these 500 (.000075%) were interviewed by telephone.  Statistically if this were a probability, stratifiedand randomly selected sample—which it most likely was not—an acceptable randomly selected sample size would have been 600 given the confidence levels and intervals claimed.  These basic questions regarding methodology cast major doubts on any claims based on the studies made by the proponents.
Do you know anyone who is familiar with the proposed nationalized curriculum standards?  Ask your neighbors.  Ask local teachers.  Ask members of the local School Board.  Ask them if they know states must agree to adopt CCSS word for word and must comply with the requirement that at a minimum 85% of the state’s standards will be the CCSS.  Are you comfortable with a nationalized core curriculum “informed”--whatever that means--by other states’ curricula and by foreign countries?  If so, a direct result of that “sense of comfort” is the continued diminution and subjugation of states’ rights and local parental influence and control of the education of their children to a central government.  But don’t forget you still will have to pay for that sense of comfort.  It has been estimated the cost of implementing the CCSS and CAL over five years in Washington State is $182,600,000.  The state’s share is estimated to be $17,100,000 (9.4%).  Costs to local districts total $165,500,000 (90.6%).  Given the necessary number of in-service days that will be required to bring classroom teachers up to speed and foradditional staff to assist special needs students (Special Education, non-English speakers, non-computer literate and other disadvantaged students) the personnel costs will be much higher.  When the necessary school infrastructure costs for computer labs and equipment are factored in, hold on to your wallets and purses!  Aren’t you glad Washington State is financially solvent?
There appears to be no question that proponents of the CCSS and CAL were keeping their fingers crossed no one would “look a gift horse in the mouth”.  However after having done so, my response is “No Way”!  I value and support local control and state’s rights, especially where the education of children in a democratic republic is concerned.

Article #10 Obama
By Matt Manweller

In recent weeks, I have started comparing President Barack Obama to
President James Buchanan. For you non-history buffs, Buchanan was president
in the four years leading up the Civil War. During his tenure in office, he
buried his head in the sand, did nothing to prevent a clearly foreseeable
crisis, and left an absolute disaster for incoming President Lincoln. Mr.
Buchanan is often ranked as one of our worst presidents for his
unprecedented lack of courage when it came to rising to the occasion.

He now has company.

President Obama's refusal to take our debt crisis seriously, and offer only
symbolic and meaningless solutions shows not only a lack of leadership, but
a level of cowardice not seen in a president since before the Civil War.
While the grown-ups in the room are offering serious and politically
difficult solutions to our debt calamity, Obama fiddles while America burns.

Here are the cold and ugly numbers.

Of our current $3.6 trillion budget, Obama borrows $1.6 trillion of it. That
means for every 100 dollars he spends, he borrows 40 of them. In a recent
report from the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government posted
its largest monthly deficit in history in February at $223 billion. To put
that number in perspective, Obama's monthly deficits are close to President
Bush's yearly deficits. Think about that. Obama is adding a year's worth of
debt every month.

These numbers provide an enlightening backdrop for the budget debate taking
place in Washington D.C. right now. The Republicans have proposed a $60
billion cut to the budget. The Democrats responded as if the GOP was
eviscerating the budget-pounding the table in defense of poor Big Bird. This
debate reinforces my opinion that if any Democrat could do basic math they
would be Republicans. Even if we accepted all $60 billion of the Republican
cuts, the reduction of the deficit would be minimal. Go back to our monthly
deficit of February at $223 billion. A reduction of $60 billion represents
seven and a half days of deficits! Not seven and a half days of spending.
Just deficits.  And the Democrats are crying like we sent them to their room
without dessert.

Here are some more ugly numbers. Currently, we spend 13% of our budget
paying the interest on our debt. That means for every dollar in taxes I pay,
13 cents goes to pay for things my parents and grandparents consumed. But
that is nothing compared to what Democrats are doing to my children. If
Obama continues to act the presidential coward, and we maintain his level of
spending for the next 10 years, our debt servicing will reach just under $1
trillion dollars a year. That means my two sons will live in a different
economy. Whereas our debt was about 38% of GDP in 2008 when Bush left
office, it could spike to approximately 60% of GDP by 2020. My simple
question to any parent out there is this: How do you look your children in
the eye and tell them that when they turn 18, they will get less education,
less health care, less environmental protection and less security because
mommy and daddy stole their money. I have two sons. I can't do it. I don't
know how Mr. Obama does it to his two daughters.

The common response I get from the Left is that it was the war that caused
all the debt. Not true. Again, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
sets the record straight. According to the CBO, the Iraq War from 2003-2010
cost $709 billion-or about 6 months worth of Obama deficits. Others tell me
that it is defense spending in general that causes our debt problems. Not
true again. If we eliminated all defense spending right down to zero, Obama
would still be running $1.1 trillion yearly deficits.

The truth is that we are going to need a president with a little courage.
The courage to tackle entitlements. The courage to tell the American people
they can either increase taxes a lot or accept that the federal government
can't take care of them from birth till death. Whoever that president is, it
sure isn't our current one.

 

Article #11 Water Water Everywhere......
By Bruce Coe

Most of you are aware of the recent “theft” of water rights in the Upper Kittitas County, and when I say “theft” I mean theft through regulatory measures, the most insidious kind of bureaucratic property appropriation imaginable.  In short, the Washington State Department of Ecology, citing as fact that groundwater extraction affects surface water flows,  placed a moratorium on drilling all wells in the Upper Kittitas County, thereby effectively placing a moratorium on all development.  Why is that a development moratorium?  You can't build a house in Washington State without a certificate of water availability.

The DOE declared their “water emergency” on the flimsiest of evidence in order to issue the moratorium. The logical paucity of their argument was later confirmed by the fact that they immediately commissioned the USGS to do a ground water study.  USGS people are now out around the county assessing both the static level and the age of water in all wells in the study area.

It might have been different if they had said “....from now on you can't dig a well”, but they made the moratorium retroactive.  If you bought land with the expectation of building your home in the future you could no longer do so.

To mollify angry landowners, they created a system that allowed a property owner to purchase and apply a senior surface water right (surface water use is governed by a system of priority dates) to a well in order to dig the well.  Cost – in the range of ten thousand dollars.

We just had one of their field people come by yesterday to look at our water system.  He was a nice guy, did not have the "I'm with the Feds and I'm here to help...." attitude.  We let him survey the well, he was adamant in stating that the data was not political.  I believe him.  It's never the numbers that are political, just the analysis of those numbers that will be used to reinforce DOE's policy on exempt wells.

So I have a question, folks.  If the study proves what we know – that there is plenty of water in the upper county – is a water right seller going to have to refund money to a water right purchaser?  I think not.  Irrespective of what the groundwater study says we will still be stuck with the existing process for three reasons.  DOE can't back down, no government agency ever does.  There is too much money involved in the sales of the rights.  And the need to regulate growth trumps the need to be fair with water allocation in rural areas.

Ecology is not stupid, nor are their staff and advisers, and they know that there is water all over, though in certain aquifers there are always going to be issues.  The Swauk Prairie is a good example.  Traditionally water poor, the prairie seems to contain a perched reservoir.  You may have to dig several deep wells or settle for a few GPM and treat for Iron or Manganese - two minerals that are associated with standing water sources.  Then to use the well you have to buy what is essentially a permit from Ecology, pay a fee to someone with a good water right, and continue to use that crappy well you just spent 20,000 bucks on (400 feet x 30/ft) plus pumps and hookups.

Why the swing away from satellite management systems - small localized private water systems?  I know of three wells in the Swauk Prairie area that deliver 50+ GPM (and deliver water that is chemically different from the majority of wells in the area, indicating an active source).  Why not let people get together and form rural water systems with up to 50 connections (or whatever the well will bear) - the economics are there.  20K to dig your own well x 50 customers = a million bucks plus a monthly maintenance fees gets you water to your door.  That's easily enough to permit and build out a water system.  Why not?

The answer is easy - DOE and the environmental groups don't like your sprawly little cabin or your silly sense of freedom.  They don't like you or your horses or your chickens or your gravel driveway or your dogs or your investment plans or your retirement plans or your insistence on living a life that is marginally separated from the reins of government control.  They don't want you to look up at the sky and dream of all the things that could be, they want you mired in the grit and the paucity and the circular silliness and the political correctness of urban/suburban life. That's why you moved here, dammit, or why you want to retire here!  Freedom!

And that, folks, is what they despise.  And that is what they will steal from you every chance they get.

Article #12 The Hidden Curriculum in a Middle School
By
Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

This is a true story of the potential impact of the “hidden curriculum” in one public school in Washington State.  Names, genders and locations have been changed, but the events actually happened.  My purpose in writing this is to illustrate that American rights not only are being lost by overt political action but also as a consequences of overt—and I hope unintended but not well thought out—actions by public school teachers and administrators.
April not only heralds the advent of May flowers.  It also marks the beginning of the Associated Student Body election process in many public schools.  Students in Mayflower Middle School who are interested in “applying for ASB/Leadership” positions must attend one of two meetings to be “eligible for ASB/Leadership”.
Potential candidates are given an “ASB Elected Officer Application” form to complete and submit.  Students elected to office must agree to complete a year long elective called Leadership Class.  Admission requirements for this class include a 2.8 GPA and four teacher recommendations “showing they come highly recommended—scoring an average of at least 80%”.  In addition candidates must have a 3.0 cumulative GPA and “must average at least 56 out of 70 points (80%) between all 4 teacher recommendations” (emphasis added).  The recommendation section of the Application Form is made more confusing by the statement “Candidates should have at least an average of 80% from all his/her recommendations” (emphasis added).  Potentialcandidates also are required to answer 8-9 questions one of which is “As an ASB Officer you will need to think of and implement ideas which will get other students involved in school activities.  What ideas do you have for including or involving more students?”
These requirements ensure the teachers and administrators retain total control over the selection of candidates.  Voting by the students is no more than a pro forma exercise that guarantees a candidate “acceptable” to teachers and administrators is elected.
When Jane, a nearly straight A student, received this note she was shocked: “Dear Jane Eyre.  Thank you for applying for an officer position….  Unfortunately you are ineligible to run because some of your forms were incomplete…Thanks, Leadership”.  Jane couldn’t believe the reason since she had devoted a lot of time to prepare her application.  Her parents agreed and contacted Mayflower Middle School and asked which of Jane’s forms were incomplete.  The parents were told the application forms had been shredded and they did not know.  The parents asked the principal for clarification.  The principal agreed there were inconsistencies in the process and said he would solicit four teacher recommendations—which he did apparently discounting the reason Jane was ineligible was because “some of your forms were incomplete”.  Following this Jane’s parents were informed that she was ineligible this time because her scores did not average 70%--one teacher scored Jane 21 points below the “should have” 70 points.  After further discussion with the parents the principal agreed the procedure was flawed and that all candidates declared ineligible due to recommendation forms with scores below 80% could run.  Problem solved.
But wait, Jane was then told she would have to change her speech to the student body in which she suggested changing the time for a school event to involve more students in the activity.  She was told that was a decision that already been made unilaterally by the administration and was not subject to discussion.  And further when Jane was taping her televised speech she was told after four attempts to get it the way she wanted she was out of time and no more attempts could be made.  Another student was given 23 times to “get it right”.  Sound equal?
Parents must get involved in all school activities.  Ask to see detailed written policies and procedures about school elections.  Many Americans have fought and died to protect our sacred American right to vote our choice.  Don’t let that right be sabotaged by the hidden curriculum,or by the consequences of actions by school administrators and teachers..
If middle school students are learning from the “hidden curriculum that this is the way elections are conducted in a federal republic form of democracy, the once bright light of American exceptionalism is rapidly dimming.  Our American rights are under constant overt attack by forces that discourage or prohibit free speech which might, for example, offend Muslims, but the lessons learned from the “hidden curriculum” in schools are covert.  Not only are they covert but they are insidious and must not be permitted in the public schools of the United States.

Article #13 Obama
By Matt Manweller

It's been about one year since the United States Congress passed and
President Obama signed the worst piece of legislation in my lifetime. Of
course I speak of ObamaCare. Now would be as good a time as any to assess
the magnitude of its failure and unpopularity.

Unless you are talking about prison, one way to judge the success of any
program is to measure how many people want to get in versus how many people
want to get out. If you have a waiting line to get in, you have a success.
If you have people deserting your program like rats from a sinking ship, you
probably have a failure on your hands.

The numbers tell a pretty gloomy tale about ObamaCare. To date, the Obama
Administration has granted over 1,000 waivers from its signature
legislation. Waivers have been granted to unions, corporations, and even
entire states.  I don't know about you, but I have never met someone who
wanted a waiver from a good thing. Never met a man who said, "Mr. President,
can I please get a waiver from this tax break?" Never met anyone who sent a
letter to the Lottery Commission asking if they could be exempt from their
winning ticket. Most people I know seek waivers from bad doo-doo. But I hang
around mostly Republicans so you never know.

If ObamaCare is such a great bill that will lower medical costs, increase
access, and improve competitiveness-as it was all claimed during the
debates-then why would anyone want to be exempt from such a boon? Why are
entire "blue states" like Maine asking to be free from the legislation? Why
are incredibly liberal unions like the SEIU asking for permission not to
follow the new law?  According to the Wall Street Journal, twenty-one
governors representing 115 million Americans have petitioned HHS Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius for some type of exemption from the law. What do those
twenty-one governors know that we don't?

Even worse has been the way the waivers have been handed out. There appears
to be no standards other than the whim of the Obama Administration.  This is
not rule of law. This is government by bureaucratic mood swing. First, the
law is the law, and exemptions are a bad idea. But, if you are going to have
waivers, there should at least be a formal and impartial way of dolling them
out. Adding to the disgracefulness of the "process," it appears the best way
to get a waiver is to be a large donor to the Obama campaign. Three local
SEIU unions were all given waivers. Those same unions gave $27 million to
the Obama election effort in 2008.

This is the way third-world, banana republic dictators raise money. They
pass burdensome laws and then send their thugs out to sell exemptions. Go to
many third world countries and bribes are just an accepted way of doing
business with the government. The dictator stays rich, and those who can
afford to pay the bribe, get to stay in business.  Obama seems to have
adopted their model. He passed a law that will crush businesses, unions,
non-profits, and entire state governments with soaring health care costs.
But, if you play nice with the President, give him money and support his
policies, you get a magic waiver to survive another day.

How sad that American government is coming to look more like Venezuela than
the Greek and Roman republics we modeled ourselves upon.

Article #14 AMERICAN CITIZENS:  THE LOST GENERATIONS
By
DR. JIMMIE R. APPLEGATE

It was1630 when the Puritan pastor John Winthrop, aboard the flagship Arbella on the way to the New World, challenged his flock to “build a city upon a hill”.  Little did he realize his challenge would result in a robust national spirit unknown in the Old World.  This new spirit was characterized by individualism, self-sufficiency, responsibility, pride in accomplishment, love of liberty and freedom, local control and small government.  This budding spirit of American exceptionalism was an object of wonder as described in 1835 by the French politician/historian Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.
Now 381 years later not only have the American geographical and physical environments undergone massive change but, sadly, so have the principles and practices of American exceptionalism that made America great.  We no longer see ourselves as the singular American.  Instead mainstream media in their unbridled efforts to be politically correct identify us as hyphened Americans; for example, Asian-Americans, Black-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Muslin-Americans, Native-Americans, etc.  We “dial 1 for English”.  Official American documents are printed in multiple languages.  Interpreters are demanded and required in schools and other public facilities.  Children in public schools are taught in two or more languages.  Free and/or reduced price lunches are provided in schools—in some locations year round through age 18.  Medical care and food stamps in essence are provided at no cost.  Such entitlements are the norm and have become in bred and expected.
Government has become larger and more centralized to the tipping point where American citizens once born free and nurtured with liberty and freedom are subjected to ever increasing governmental control and demands for information that will lead to more growth, demands and control over citizens by the federal government.
The American Community Survey (ACS) is a case in point.  Most Americans probably are unaware of the stealth-like Department of Commerce survey that some citizens are required to complete each year.  Or if they have heard of the ACS, they most likely do not know how intrusive the questions are, and that Americans are threatened with a $5,000 fine for refusing to participate in the survey.  US Census Bureau representatives argue the ACS replaces the “long form” formerly required during each ten year census even though no constitutional provision permits such questions at any time, let alone each year. 
The ACS has many intrusive personal questions having nothing to do with the 10 year census as described in Article1 and in Amendment XIV of the Constitution.  For example, were you in school or college in the last three months, and what specific major was your bachelor’s degree?  You also are asked what your ancestry or ethnic origin is and if you speak English and how well.  You must respond to questions about your health such as, what health insurance do you have, are you deaf or have hearing difficulty, are you blind or have difficulty seeing, do you have difficulty breathing, climbing stairs, walking, concentrating or making decisions? 
Have you had enough?  The Census Bureau has not because they want to know where you worked (address, city, county, state)—even if just for one hour for pay last week, how did you get to work last week, what time did you leave home for work, and how long did it take you to get to work?  Not only that but you are asked specifically how much annual income you received from wages, salaries, self-employment, interest, dividends, rental income, social security, railroad retirement and Veteran’s payments last year.  You also are asked how many separate rooms are in your house, apartment or mobile home, how many are bedrooms, do you have hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, a sink with a faucet, how is your house heated, etc.
The purpose and time of the Census is described in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution thus:  “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers……”“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such manner as they shall by Law direct”.  Amendment XIV, Section 2 is clear that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according their respective numbers….”.  There is no mention of where you work, what you earn, how you get to work or when you leave for work each day.And just to emphasize a point, there is not a single word here about flush toilets, sinks with faucets or running water!
If you think the American Community Survey is something for Ripley’s “Believe it or Not” and that you must be paranoid to believe such questions are being asked of American citizens, and that American citizens are being forced to accept such government intrusion under threat of a $5,000 fine, you can obtain your personal copy of the official ACS at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/questionnaires/2011/Quest11.pdf
It is axiomatic that as the intrusiveness of the federal government into the private lives of American citizens increases so does the expectation of, and the dependence upon, federal largesse in the form of entitlements to redistribute wealth.  At the same time there is a corresponding decrease in self-sufficiency, independence and pride in accomplishment.  The result is that American’s love of liberty and freedom are sacrificed on the altar of comfort, ease and security.
The American Community Survey is just one example of the many waysAmerican exceptionalism is under attack, and why exceptionalism is an attitude that is becoming a relic of the past among the lost generations of American citizens.

Article #15 Walter Duranty
By Bruce Coe

The gush of self satisfied liberal chortling surrounding Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation's recent issues with illegal phone tapping is understandable, though more interesting because they come from people who largely would not be seen dead reading any of News Corporations publications.  This is just one more parable in the story of who's newspapers are better.  Good will rise, evil will fall, and Murdoch has long been seen by the left as the evil ruler of the conservative dark side.

Understandable. The right is no better, falling in line behind those who, if they ever read Jonathan Chait probably did so with their finger down their throats..

As if we all, right or left, rise each morning and check the newspapers to see how we should act.

The daily press – print and electronic – is pretty good at convincing themselves that the world is a better place because of their presence.  Investigative journalism generally runs to the maudlin and inconsequential, often basking in the self congratulatory glow of a scoop. 

But within all this is a hidden truth, and that is the duty to report.  And coupled with that duty is the duty to report truthfully, especially if that venue of reporting falls outside the question of illegality.  There is no question that News Corp, or at least the News of the World essentially engaged in illegal wiretapping.  Hacking a message service and wiretapping are the same, separate only in time not in legality.  And there is no question that this will have a long fallout trail over the next year.  Many will fall.

But – a little perspective here.  Those of you who were around in the early 1940's may remember a reporter for the New York Times by the name of Walter Duranty.  Duranty was the Nation and the New Your Times' Moscow correspondent for years, reporting on the consolidation of Soviet power while ignoring the increasing brutality of the Stalin regime.

Duranty described the systematic and purposeful starvation of millions in the Ukraine, the Holodomor, thus:  "Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”

Stalin himself said of his favorite Western journalist:  ''You have done a good job in your reporting the U.S.S.R., though you are not a Marxist, because you try to tell the truth about our country . . . I might say that you bet on our horse to win when others thought it had no chance and I am sure you have not lost by it.''

After it became obvious that Duranty had willfully misrepresented the mass murder of millions, the Times questioned Duranty's objectiveness.  Duranty responded that while he was in Moscow he became convinced of three things:  Communist rule was irreversible,  its crimes were merely the excesses of ''the Slavic soul'' and finally that Stalin, the ruthless Man of Steel, would transform Russia, at whatever cost, into a powerful modern state.

It doesn't help that in an investigative report to The Nation in 1920, Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz (later the editorial page editor for the Times)  concluded in that the Times had approached the Bolshevik revolution thus: "The news about Russia is a case of seeing not what was, but what men wished to see," Lippmann and Merz continued, "The chief censor and the chief propagandist were hope and fear in the minds of reporters and editors."

 

Nor did it hurt that Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1934 for what his judges called ''scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment and clarity.''  Attempts to rescind that prize failed in 1943 because "there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case."  That despite the admission in Duranty's private letters that he had seen mass starvation with no aid forthcoming.  Stalin was feeding the Red Army and his city bound supporters the misery of the Crimea.

The point is not to rehash the Duranty issue, or even try to chronicle the Times' inveterate history of editorial support for progressive causes, however misguided.  The point is that in response to this scandal the News Corporation closed down the 7.5 million reader 130 year old publication (at a significant monetary loss), is cooperating with investigators, has accepted the resignations of people both directly and marginally connected with the issue and issued public apologies by the ream.

The “Gray Lady” remains with us, secure in her stance atop the “liquidation” of 5 million Ukranians and with nary an official apology.

I'll take “LOL ur l8 for Starbucks cu” for a few million dead any day.

Article #16 Addicted
By Matt Haver

To cease smoking is the easiest thing I ever did.  I ought to know because I've done it a thousand times.
~ Mark Twain

            Somebody’s addicted.  According to the American Heart Association, as of 2008, 23.1 percent of American men and 18.3-percent of American women smoke.  In 1990, 22-percent of Washingtonians smoked, but due to the good people in Olympia and their clever anti-tobacco programs, that number supposedly dropped to a mere 15-percent in 2009.  On your standard pack of 20 cigarettes, $3.03 is taxed, and in 2009, over $392 million was collected in tax revenue from the sale of tobacco.  Eighty-three-percent of those dollars went into the state’s general fund.
According to the ruddy, clear-lunged, bike-to-work officials in Olympia, our state’s anti-smoking efforts have saved an estimated $1.5 billion in health care costs and prevented 13,000 premature deaths and 36,000 hospitalizations in the last decade.  For those of you, like me, who rely on our cell phones to figure out how much to tip at Ivar’s, that’s a saving of $150 million per year. At its height, Olympia spent just 18-percent of that, $27 million, annually.  Of course, that number has fallen as the decade has progressed.  Now, staring headlong into the yawning abyss of a $4.8 billion deficit, our normally spend-happy legislature has eliminated all funding for these programs, beginning in July of this year, and banished them to the outer cold that is a pitiful $1.8 million in federal funding.  That $1.8 million will be used to reach the most vulnerable amongst us, the “low-income and rural populations.”
In a March 2008 poll, Gallup discovered something that most of us already knew and took for granted, the fact that lower income people smoke more than those in upper income brackets.  Now, they didn’t break that down into what kind of smoking -- just inhaling tobacco in one form or another.  I’m sure that if they had focused their poll on the intake of Cohiba Behike Cubans, the numbers would have flip-flopped a little.
Poor people smoke more than rich people or even working stiffs.  Only 22-percent of those making between $36,000 and $47,000 annually smoke, while their neighbors making between $6,000 and $12,000 smoke at a rate of 34-percent.  And, shock of all shocks, the poor souls getting by on less than $6,000 per year still manage to smoke at a rate of 30 percent!  (Brings to mind the amusingly candid “Why Lie? I Need a Beer Smoke!” cardboard advertisement I recently had thrust at my passenger window at a red light.
Washington’s “Statewide Poverty Action Network” or SPAN as it’s affectionately known in the Olympia cocktail circle, steals its definition of “poor” from the Feds and calls it a “family of three living on less than $18,310 per year.” And, as one would imagine, those 766,000 Washingtonians are also the ones receiving the lion’s share of financial assistance from the state.   According to the state spending watchdog USGovernmentSpending.com, the Evergreen State spent 11% of its $79.7 billion budget in 2010 on welfare programs -- that’s equal to roughly $876,600,000, or $1,144.52 for each man, woman and child under the poverty level.
So, big deal right? We all know that you can’t redeem food stamps for cigarettes or liquor (or ammunition or fireworks… basically anything fun), but in certain parts of Seattle and across the nation, you can.  Trading food stamps for cold, hard cash -- which will get you the items on the above mentioned list -- is a state and federal crime, yet according to a recent KING 5 investigation, Seattle groceries involved in the caper banked $2.5 million in the course of one year. Just one week prior, two Wichita men were charged with the same crime, this time to the tune of $175,000 in 2010.
So “stamps-for-cash” fraud is obviously taking place, and who knows where that money ends up?  I think it a fair guess that some ends up in the hands of tobacco purveyors.  But that still doesn’t explain why, with all the millions being spent on campaigns like 1-800-QUIT-NOW and SmokeFreeWashington.com, where the simpleminded can educate themselves on the dangers of something called “third hand smoke,” the poor in our state are still out-purchasing, out-smoking and, directly, out-dying, the rest of us!  Maybe the poor have a higher stress level than those of us making more than 18-grand per annum.  Maybe the poor have their priorities all screwed up.  Hell, maybe that’s why they’re POOR in the first place.  But one thing is plain; the glaring lack of restrictions the state puts on smoking when it comes to receiving entitlements.  They simply do not exist.
Enter Captain Irony. Our state will shell our bucko bucks to keep people off the street, their blood pressure low and their teeth clean, but won’t tell them to stop smoking or else.  Food stamps carry restrictions on what you can purchase in order that the recipient eats healthy.  So why the double standard?  We all know that it’s not for a fear of diluting liberty, so it must be something else.  Hmm, what do politicians love more than appearing to care about the poor?  I’ll give you three guesses.  And therein lies the rub, exposing our state leadership for the hypocrites that they are.  Should the state extend any sort of restrictions on tobacco use in order to receive benefits -- beyond their cute catch-phrases and 1-800 numbers -- the largest social group of smokers in this state might just start, one-by-one, kicking their habit.  Remember that $392 million?  That would carve a sizeable (and painful) slice from the 83-percent, aka $325,360,000 that finds its way into the state slush… I mean general fund, each year.  Why kill the goose that lays the Turkish gold eggs, eh?
So, who’s really addicted – we filthy unwashed smokers, or the elected officials we send to Olympia?  You know, the ones who pretend to care when posing for a photo next to a wheezing Vietnam vet on oxygen.  If Olympia truly does have our best interests in mind, and if tobacco actually kills, maims, cripples, disfigures, leaves homeless, rapes, pillages and generally harms the welfare of its users, then why isn’t access to welfare programs (something they actually control!) contingent on smoking cessation?  They love control!
A wise old friend of mine always told me,
“After you shake hands with a government man, always count your fingers.”
That wise old friend lived his golden years well under the poverty level and still smoked two packs of Marlboro Reds a day, and yet he’s right, when you accept something from the State, you always give a little of yourself.  In most cases its liberty.  When you accept state assistance, that assistance will come with strings attached.  The poor eat what they say, see doctors they appoint and live where they dictate.  But in this case, poor smokers are not required to give up the very thing that is, according to science and public opinion, killing them.
I never support the encroachment of any office or official on our rights as citizens, one of those rights being the option to live our lives the way we see fit and inhale, ingest, inject and generally intake what we like.  But the hypocrisy of the very people we’ve appointed to protect the general welfare, especially the most vulnerable among us, expose them for the true addicts they are.

Article #17 FEDERAL DOLLARS BEGET FEDERAL POWER
BY
Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

“O Oysters,” said the carpenter,
“You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?”
But answer came there none—
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one

Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll

 

That America was to become a shining city upon a hill whose light cannot be hidden was foretold by John Winthrop in 1630.  Winthrop’s prescient statement came to pass, but not without multiple challenges to the liberty and to the individual autonomy so cherished by the colonists.  The early colonists love of liberty even resulted in some moving from colony to colony in search of freedom from control by the local establishment.  The  French and Indian War from 1754-1763 was a major challengeto their liberty and it wasfollowed a short time later by the greatest challenge of all—The War of Independence.

Following the Declaration of Independence and the successful conclusion of the War of Independence, Americans continued the debate over the distinction between liberty and power in the arguments between those who supported individual liberty and state’s rights and those who supported the power of a strong central government in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States.

The current  debate regarding the primacy of state’s rights in a federal form of government versus a stronger central government should be viewedin the context of the arguments made during the ratification process.  The Anti-Federalist
Papers 1 were writtenin support of a strong state’s right position. The Federalist Papers2  are far better known and most often cited.  The authors of the Federalist Papers wrote in support of the provisions in the Constitution that created a strong central democratic federal republic.  The position of the Federalists was paramount in the Constitution; however, the Bill of Rights was an attempt to appease the anti-federalist’s fear of a strong central government.

The title of this blog, “Save Our American Rights”, is contemporary, but the conflict between liberty and power began in England, was carried by the colonists to the “shining city on a hill”, survived the early challenges, the War of Independence, the ratification of the Constitution and it continues today.  The Anti-Federalist Robert Yates aka “Brutus” captured the kernel of the conflict when on October 18, 1787 he was critical of the language “Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for  carrying into execution” all powers granted to the government of the United States “or in any department or office thereof”.  Brutus argued the “most natural and grammatical construction” is that such language authorizes Congress “to do anything which in their judgement will tend to provide for the general welfare, and this amounts to the same thing as general and unlimited powers of legislation in all cases…..”.3 

The federalist arguments that were used in 1787 to support a strong federal government inherent in the language“….to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper….” and “….to provide for the general welfare….” are used by the adherents of the liberal-progressive philosophy today to rationalize  increasing the power of the central government.

I believe in liberty that begins with the individual citizen and progresses through local, county, and state governments in that order to the federal level.  It is the “collective citizen as individual” who grants power to local, county, state and national entities—not the other way around.  Or said another way, neither political organizations nor politicians grant liberty to individual citizens.  Liberty, and thus power, is the individual citizen’s inherent right to deny or to cede.

The recent actions by the Obama administration in nationalizing American automobile manufacturing, the firing and hiring of Chief Executive Officers of American businesses, the Common Core School Standards and, of course, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka “Obamacare” are examples of top down actions that centralize power in the federal government.  Today, gun ownership, our choices of the light bulbs we use and the SUVs we drive as well as the content of the fast foods we purchase are threatened.  To solidify power in the federal government, Obama appointed fifty some czars none of whom were vetted or approved by Congress and all reported directly to Obama resulting in unilateral administrative rule making without Congressional action.  Activist judges continue to reinterpretthe Constitution to fit “current circumstances”.  Federal grants and contracts entice the unwitting with so-called free money that is nothing more than brides with strings attached.  School districts, counties and states stand in line to compete vigorously for these entitlements only to discover the real cost is loss of local control and state’s rights to the central government resulting in an ever increasing debt for future generations.  Local sovereignty is sold for federal dollars, and federal dollars beget federal power.

To make matter worse we live in a time when political correctness demands an emphasis on multi-culturalism with hyphenated Americans such as Muslim-American or Hispanic American be they citizens or illegal aliens.  The historical concepts of one American, individual American  rights and American exceptionalism  are under siege.

I fear for the America we have known and love.  But I have faith our future is not that of the oysters who joyously trotted along with the walrus and the carpenter who shed crocodile tears while eating the trusting oysters alive.  We are Americans, we are exceptional and we will survive the current challenges to our liberty and power as we have throughout our history.

1.  Borden, Marton.  The Antifederalist Papers.  The Michigan University Press, 1965
2. Rossiter, Clinton, Ed. The Federalist Papers.  New American Library, New York, 2003
3. McClellan, James. Liberty, Order and Justice:  An Introduction to the Constitution,  Liberty Fund, Indianopolis, 1989.

Article # 18 NEW PROPERTY RIGHTS
By
Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury  with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy…..” Alexis de Tocqueville

The promises of hope and change were sold by “the talk of the lips”.  Americans are painfully aware of the penurious nature of the rest of the story as written in Proverbs 14:23 “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty”.Faced with staggering debt, high unemployment and lingering doubt about the future, the United States has been unable to recover from the Great Recession.  Because people living in the United States are faced with these challenges, the opportunity to “profit” from government entitlements, or gratuities, becomes ever more attractive.

The creation and rapid proliferation of these gratuities was followed as sure as death follows life by the development of an “Entitlement Mentality” in the recipients of federal largesse, and among their supporters irrespective of political affiliation.An “Entitlement Mentality” has been defined as “getting something for nothing”.  Much like a long sought perpetual motion machine that runs forever without expending any energy, those with an Entitlement Mentality believe they are owed a benefit, or profit, without personally having to expend any energy or “hard work”.  The difficulty with this concept is that someone expended energy to produce the benefit or profit they expect to receive without expending any of their energy.  As de Tocqueville said, a democracy “can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury….”.

Is there an Entitlement Mentality in the United States?  Consider that in 2010 one in six people were in some anti-poverty program.  Fifty million people were in Medicaid and the new health care program will add 16M more by 2014.  Ten million people were receiving unemployment benefits and 4.4M were on welfare.  All of these numbers increased in 2011; e.g., food stamp recipients increased from 40M in 2010 to 45M in 2011 (14.7% of US population). 
The Entitlement Mentality has developed with more intensity over time.  Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932-35) began the revolution with the New Deal programs in 1933 to combat the Great Depression.  Democrat President John F. Kennedy (1960-1963) continued federal activities to eliminate poverty and racial injustice with his New Frontier program.  And Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson followed with the Great Society.  These presidents and their democratic successors, supported by their democratic colleagues in Congress, enacted legislation and encouraged legal interpretation of the Constitution that resulted in the development of an entitlement mentality.

In his seminal article “The New Property” published in the Yale Law Journal (1964, pp.773-87),  Charles Reich argued “….certain benefits of core importance to individuals must be held as a right, not as a gratuity”.  He argued that since status is so closely related to livelihood and personality,  any denial of unemployment compensation, public assistance or old age pensions is inappropriate because they are property rights.  The Supreme Court Justices agreed, ‘“It may be realistic today to regard welfare benefits more like ‘property’ than a ‘gratuity’….”’ (397 US 254 1970).  Furthermore,  public assistance  was deemed not mere charity, but a means to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.  This decision broadened the traditional interpretation of “property” in the Fourteenth Amendment,  and it institutionalized the concept that entitlements such as welfare are property rights.

Reich’s article resulted in changing the consideration of entitlements from a social moral argument to a legal argument based on a questionable interpretation and definition of the constitutionally guaranteed concept of “property rights”.  In other words, all men and women may become owners of constitutionally protected “property”  by virtue of government entitlement and gratuity support.  This means anyone can become a perpetual motion machine and receive “profit” earned by others without the expenditure of energy except the little required to place an X beside the name of a candidate who promises “a chicken in every pot”. 

Although the United States is a Democratic Federal Republic, in every day discourse  the single word “Democracy” is often used to describe our form of government.  If de Tocqueville’s prediction is valid, the current debate surrounding spending (entitlements) vs. revenue (taxation)  is much more than a philosophical  disagreement between liberal and conservative politicians.  It is about the future of the United States of America!