|
Blog Nancy Pelosi Presented with First-Ever “Vidkun Award”  Students of history will recognize the odious name of Vidkun Quisling, the prominent Norwegian politician who revealed himself as a traitor of the most repugnant kind. Not only did his political party align itself with Hitler’s party, but Quisling himself suggested to Hitler that he invade Norway, and then attempted to claim leadership and halt all resistance once the Nazi’s did invade. In memory of him, ALG News is announcing the Vidkun “Foe of Freedom” Award, which will be given monthly to “a particularly aggressive and egregious adversary of the liberty that Americans hold so dear.”  This month’s Vidkun Award will be given to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for her opposition to principles clearly enshrined in the First Amendment—Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press—by orchestrating the attempt to reinstate of the falsely-named “Fairness Doctrine.” The Fairness Doctrine was created in the 1950s, when concern over the use of broadcast media caused Congress to mandate that “both sides” of an issue be granted equal time, if they request it. Many stations responded to this demand by simply removing political discussion from the airwaves. When the doctrine was finally lifted, a surge of conservative talk-radio hosts took the nation by storm, and evolved into the potent political force that they remain today. A liberal talk radio network, Air America, completely floundered after two years, and filed for bankruptcy in 2006. It was purchased at just over $4 million. (For comparison, sources report that conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh just signed for another 8 years, at around $400 million.) Clearly, the American people have spoken as to what they want to hear. And so, Ms. Pelsoi and her willful band of coercive cronies want to end all debate and dissent, once and for all. The resurrection of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” would potentially shut down conservative talk radio by forcing many stations to “balance” their profitable conservative talk radio programs with unprofitable liberal programs. Facing a loss of revenue, many stations would respond by reluctantly pulling talk radio, thus demolishing one of the few media arenas with a significant conservative presence. The implications for free speech and political involvement are severe. Thus, last year, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to impose a 1-year moratorium on reviving the “Fairness Doctrine.” This year, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), a former talk show host himself, has sponsored a bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would permanently send the measure to what he termed “the ash heap of broadcast history where it belongs.” But now, bowing to pressure from Speaker Pelosi, congressional Democrats who just last year opposed the “Fairness Doctrine” are now wavering—refusing to sign a discharge petition to bring Rep. Pence’s bill up for a full vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporter John Gizzi just last week that she refused to even allow the bill to come to the floor because she sided with members who support the “Fairness Doctrine,” and therefore did not want to risk its demise. When asked straight, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” she eagerly responded “Yes.” ALG believes Speaker Pelosi’s unabashed attempt to gag conservative opposition is in direct violation of the First Amendment. And her ironfisted refusal to allow an up-or-down vote on the Pence bill flies in the face of the open and honest government she promised to usher in. For using the power of the gavel to become an enemy of freedom from within, Americans for Limited Government has presented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with the first-ever Vidkun Award. Posted by Bill Wilson Mr. Malthus, Meet Ethanol Al By Carter Clews Executive Editor  For some reason, widely read journalist and author of the prescient article "The Coming Anarchy" in the Atlantic Monthly some years back has chosen to come to the defense of Thomas Robert Malthus. Seems a little late, I know, since Mr. Malthus passed this veil circa 1834. But, I guess someone had to do it. And who better than the man who predicted as far back as 1994 that population expansion, urbanization, and resource depletion would wreak havoc on the developing world? Malthus, for his part, has indeed been much maligned throughout history—principally by those who for some reason think that because he had the audacity to suggest that Grim Reaper would thin the human herd, he (Thomas Robert) was cheering biolysis on. Here, exactly, is what Malthus posited: "The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world." Clearly, as any fair-minded observer can see, Malthus was not in any way, shape, or form calling for pestilence, plague, and, as a last resort, famine. That would be left to Al Gore. Almost single-handedly, the bloated, bilious Mr. Gore has transmogrified himself from being just another sore loser into the living embodiment of the Tenth Plague. Let’s out it this way: when Al Gore walks through a neighborhood, bibliophiles put the sign of lamb’s blood on their doorposts. I have no doubt that one day in the not-too-distant future when the Grim Reaper comes to thin out Al (Ample Al is a veritable poster boy for high blood pressure), Gore’s epitaph is going to read: “Nobel Prize Winner and Angel of Death.” All over the world today, starving masses are pathetically extending their barren bowls and plaintively pleading, “Please, Ethanol Al, if we say a prayer, will you change the daily fare?” But, alas, Al is unmoved. Gazing disdainfully out from his Belle Meade mansion (which uses twice the electricity in a single month as most homes do in an entire year), or glancing down from his executive jet, the ungainly master of disaster roars his indignation at those who won’t save the earth by starving its children. And the wanton, wasteful – brutal – conversion of food into oil, which Mr. Gore helped spawn, goes on unabated as the death toll mounts. Malthus is once again proven right. And Ethanol Al pockets another few million dollars as the world’s reigning “minister of depopulation.” The fact is that corn is not now, nor will it ever likely be a reliable source of alternative energy. As a source of food, it served us well for several millennia. As a gas pump alternative, it is a costly, inefficient, and deadly bust. Last March, in a scholarly treatise entitled, “Corn Can’t Solve Our Problem,” two tenured University of Minnesota professors put it plainly enough for anyone but a politician to understand: “If every one of the 70 million acres on which corn was grown in 2006 was used for ethanol, the amount produced would displace only 12 percent of the gasoline market … Car tune-ups and proper tire air pressure would save more energy.” Moreover, a gallon of ethanol actually produces far less energy than a gallon of gasoline. E-85 ethanol (a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) has only 72 percent of the energy of regular unleaded. (Note to Al: gasoline actually comes in three primary grades: “regular,” “plus,” and “premium,” or some such – ask your chauffer to explain it all to you). This means that 10 gallons of ethanol will only take you as far as seven gallons of gasoline. But, all of that is trifling compared to the real problem with Ethanol Al’s energy of choice. The real problem is that ethanol kills. Potentially by the millions. And that makes Mr. Gore’s continued push to use food for oil worse than shameful. It makes it sinful. Here’s how International Business Editor Ambrose Pierce-Evans painted Mr. Gore’s grim mosaic in a recent edition of The London Telegraph: “We drive, they starve. The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits. So there you have it. As Malthus opined, “The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves.” Mr. Malthus, meet Ethanol Al. Carter Clews is the Executive Editor of ALG News Bureau. Posted by Bill Wilson “A Constitutional Crisis in the Making”  In what Nevada State Senator Bob Beers is calling “a constitutional crisis in the making,” the Nevada Supreme Court on July 14th will hear arguments to determine the constitutionality of the State’s popular term limits law. What makes this proceeding so chilling is that the Court, clearly urged on by a handful of powerful politicians, will be in the awkward position of determining the constitutionality of its own earlier ruling. This is a capricious set of circumstances for threefold reasons: 1) The term limits amendments were enacted overwhelmingly by Nevada voters in 1994 and 1996, limiting elected officials to 12 years in office; 2) The question of whether the law was enacted constitutionally was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1996; and 3) The Supreme Court had just determined on June 13th that it would not hear arguments on the constitutionality of the enactment of term limits. In 1996, the Supreme Court, when it split the term limits amendment into parts A and B, ruled that: "...this meets the Constitutional requirement that the ballot question be submitted to the voters ‘in the same manner.'" For the Court now to hear arguments on whether the ballot question was submitted to voters constitutionally when the Court itself was responsible for the manner in which it was submitted is troubling to the say the least. That it already ruled that the enactment was constitutional 12 years ago makes it all the more odious to Nevadans, and to all who respect the rule of law. That it turned around after only 12 days to say that it would take up the case after it said it would not is more than puzzling; it is disconcerting. We believe that Senator Beers has it right. This is “a constitutional crisis in the making,” for the constitutional system of Nevada is being torn asunder. And if the Court now rules against its own prior decision, it will have disenfranchised the will of Nevadans who voted in favor of term limits. And it will have rendered future Supreme Court rulings worth less than the paper which they are printed. To make matters worse, the entire case stems from several term-limited local officials who deliberately sought re-election in order to invoke the term limits law. They did so knowing that their candidacies would be challenged under the clear meaning of the law, and that it could create an opportunity to revisit the enactment of the amendments to the State’s highest court. The Court at first refused to take the tainted bait. It should have stuck by that decision. Now that the 12 years ordained by law is up, many Nevadan politicians are clearly doing whatever it takes to keep their own jobs. Instead of representing the will of the people and upholding the rule of law, they are dodging it. The law is clear: 12 years means 12 years. There are apparently no lengths that politicians will not go in order to squirm their way out of term limits, the will of their own constituents, and the clear meaning of their own Constitution. Their move undermines the representative, democratic, constitutional system that the State was founded to uphold. The crisis here is over the rule of law, which states that nobody—neither the people nor public officials—can violate the law. It is a crisis over the rule of the people in a democratic society, who in 1994 and 1996 determined that they wanted their elected officials to be term-limited. And yes, Senator Beers, it is a “constitutional crisis” of historic proportions. The justices currently serving on the Nevada Supreme Court need to be reminded that they too are elected officials, chosen by the people, and that they can and will be held accountable for their decisions. They still have an opportunity to uphold the will of Nevadans, and to preserve term limits. The Court should sustain its prior ruling that term limits were enacted properly in accordance with the Nevada Constitution. And it should apply that law to those finagling politicians who have indeed served their prescribed 12 years and tell them in no uncertain terms, “It is not fit that you should sit here any longer.” Posted by Bill Wilson Lord Stephen to the American People: Drop Dead! By Carter Clews Executive Editor  In the name of full disclosure, let me say right up front that I have never been to the Dunstable Road, Cambridge, home of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer and Her Ladyship Joanna Freda Hare. Nor, after writing this column, am I ever likely to be invited. But, then, neither are you, if you’re an average Joe or Jane. And, in fact, Lord Stephen and Her Ladyship would really prefer that you just drop dead. That’s the message, Lord Stephen delivered to Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom in his dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s recently decided Heller v. D.C. case. For those of you who have been too busy tending to such trivial matters as making a living, caring for your the kids, and trying to make ends meet—matters Lord Stephen and Her Ladyship pooh-pooh as mundane—Heller was the decision in which the Supreme Court, by a bare 5-4 decision, allowed the Second Amendment to remain in the Constitution (at least for now). So, yes, you can still own a gun. But the Lord and Her Ladyship are simply appalled. After all, what if you shoot somebody? Or, worse yet in the fou-fou minds of the Lord and Her Ladyship, what if that somebody is a poor, helpless, urban criminal who simply wants to rob, murder, rape, or maim you? Why, tsk, tsk! Here’s how His Lordship framed the issue in his transparently Pecksniffian Heller dissent: “In my view, there is simply no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.” Allow me to pause for a moment while you re-read that piece of retromingent illogic. And while you do, I want you to ponder two additional thoughts:
To the Founding Fathers: Eat dirt. And to you: Drop dead. But, let’s be fair. To fully appreciate His Lordship’s lofty disdain for rebellious Yankees and the common herd, one has to consider his highfaluting frame of reference and lot in life. You see, Lord Stephen long ago made the sagacious decision to marry one Joanna Freda Hare, daughter, no less, of Sir John Hugh Hare, the 1st Viscount of Blakenham, who himself had the good taste to be the son of the 4th Earl of Listowel and the husband of the daughter of the 2nd Viscount of Cowdray. In short, as Lord Stephen’s biographers put it, “Breyer married into the a well-established family of the British aristocracy [which] possessed enormous wealth.” And, hence, Lord Stephen and Her Ladyship Joanna (or, “Hon,” as she prefers to be affectionately called by the social set) moved into 12 Dunstable Road, Cambridge, Massachusetts, where I (nor you) will likely never be invited. Comfortably ensconced on Dunstable Road, will the Lord and Her Ladyship ever be forced to stoop to such vulgar measures as owning a gun to protect themselves from vicious thugs? Not likely old chum. A quick search of Homes.com reveals that in Lord Stephen’s neck of the woods, homes start at $4,500,000 (that’s for a 2 bd, 3 ba) and by page four of the lengthy listings descend all the way down to $995,000 (for a rather shabby 2 bd, 2 ba). Grab ‘em while they’re hot! So, the sad, sickening fact of the matter is that Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer and her Royal Ladyship could care less what happens to lowlifes like you and me. If we get murdered, robbed, maimed, or raped … Well, that’s what you get for living within striking distance of “crime-ridden urban areas.” And as for His Lordship and Lady “Hon,” they don’t have time to talk about it. You see, they’re too busy being whisked off in their cushy new chauffeur-driven limousine to yet another cocktail party at the British Embassy (one of the Lord’s and Lady’s favorite haunts). There, the United States Supreme Court Police force—including Uniformed Services, Protective Services, Threat Assessment Unit, Background Investigation Unit, Honor Guard, Key Response Squad, and HazMat/Bomb Response—will protect them from any and all gun-toting misanthropes from “crime-ridden urban areas.” And as for you? … Well, you can just drop dead. Carter Clews is the Executive Editor of ALG News Bureau. Posted by Bill Wilson Government to the Rescue…as Usual  Government has once again overstepped its boundaries and begun to meddle in the affairs of the free market. As the Washington Post reported yesterday, Fairfax County in North Virginia has approved a program to purchase foreclosed properties and grant subsidized loans to private citizens in order to combat the foreclosure crisis which has hit the Washington area particularly hard. The county, which has allocated more than $10 million in tax revenue to the program, will buy 10 houses up front and will provide government backed, subsidized, low-interest loans to qualifying individuals purchasing houses. Fairfax county Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) defended the county’s action, stating: “Fairfax, like the rest of the country, is facing a foreclosure crisis that’s unprecedented… the county has to use its resources and influence to try to stem the tide…” Perhaps Mr. Connolly and the rest of the board ought to be reminded exactly what the government’s role is—and is not. It certainly is not in the government’s business to use tax dollars to buy up private homes, nor should the government forcibly take money from one individual and loan it to another. Simply put, this is not what government was designed to do. Moreover, the impact of the program is likely to be non-existent—or even negative. One thing that is for certain, however, is that the move by Fairfax County politicians is most certainly a PR gesture designed to give the false illusion that the government is hard at work on a solution to the foreclosure crisis. Ponzi would be proud. If the county has $10 million to throw around, why not use it more effectively than by spending it on a program that circumvents the free market and is likely to have little real impact? For starters, Fairfax County could look inward and gauge how the $10 million could be more effectively used to cushion the county budget and alleviate the tax payer burden in 2009. This in turn could stimulate the county’s economy and encourage private citizens to engage the housing market at an appropriate time when the market levels out and new prices are set. The bottom line is that there is a crisis and its solution lies in the free market guided by private citizens. It is not the government’s place to use extorted tax dollars to help a select number of individuals acquire homes. As Republican Supervisor—and outspoken critic of the program—Pat S. Herrity said, “This is a solution in search of a problem.” Nevertheless, proponents of the “solution” hope to see it spread quickly across the country. Although Fairfax County is one of the first to undertake a measure of this degree, Connolly hopes his program will be a model for the rest of the nation to follow. Hopefully the rest of the nation will choose the enduring and proven model of Adam Smith instead, keeping government and the free market in the separate roles in which they belong. Posted by Bill Wilson Louisiana Politicians Flee in Terror  Politicians in Louisiana are suddenly discovering a sudden, hitherto unnoticed, urge to retire from public life and become private citizens once again. This eureka moment for about 140 (and growing by the hour!) politicians just “happens” to coincide with the approach of the date when Louisiana’s new ethics laws will come into effect. Perhaps the politicians are nervous—and for good cause. A 1996-2007 study of all states with a population greater-than 2 million found Louisiana to be the most corrupt state, based on public official convictions. The average between the 35 states surveyed was just under 3 convictions per 100,000 population. Louisiana had 7.67. Indeed, even before the debacle of Hurricane Katrina, the state had a reputation for high-profile corruption. Which may help explain why, in a recent poll, 75 percent of Louisiana residents responded “no” to the question, “In your opinion, does the state government spend tax dollars wisely?” Even the most unobservant Louisianian likely doesn’t equate padding a politician’s pockets with spending tax dollars wisely. Enter Bobby Jindal. Riding into office on a wave of popular support, Governor Jindal pushed through the legislature a massive ethics reform measure. It would require greater accountability and transparency on the part of government officials, by forcing them to disclose their personal financial information. Any politician affected by the measure (and that’s most) who chooses to remain on the job after July 1st will have to comply with the new full disclosure regulations. And so the panic-stricken politicians are dropping like flies. Already, the Emergency Response Network Board, Garden District Security District, Louisiana States Art Council, Louisiana Geographic Information Systems Council, Louisiana Education Television Authority, Louisiana Board of Ethics, Millennium Port Authority, and the New Orleans City Park Improvement Board have all seen multiple members resign. In some cases, such as the ethics board, nearly all have left. A member of the University of Louisiana Board of Supervisors—and former union leader—resigned. Even the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism Secretary has left office (perhaps to avoid the risk the cultural and recreational pitfalls of a lengthy tour of the state prison). Granted, it’s possible that some of these politicians simply consider their financial information personal, and do not wish to disclose it. That might be plausible, if there were only a handful of resignations. But not when the numbers hit the triple-digits. Maybe, just maybe, the resignations are indicative of the depth of corruption in the state. Too bad Gov. Jindal wasn’t in charge of evacuating New Orleans. ALG Perspective: Whatever Louisiana just passed, Congress needs to do the same thing on the federal level. Then, the next session of Congress can be held in a bread box. ALG News praises Governor Jindal and the LA Legislature for passing these much-needed ethics reforms. While perhaps not perfect, they go a long way towards ensuring real accountability of the taxpayer money that so many crooks have squandered, and transparency in the dealings of these politicians. . The timing of the resignations is proof that the reforms are working: The anti-corruption measure is sending the money-grabbing politicians scurrying for cover, lest their dastardly deeds be exposed for all to see. And that’s good news for the people of Louisiana. Posted by Bill Wilson A Victory for All Those Who Still Value Democracy  Sometimes the will of the people does prevail, and principle triumphs over politics as usual. The citizens of Louisiana have been on the edge of their seats for the past couple of weeks, waiting to see if their governor would listen to their demands and veto Bill 672—the controversial legislation that would have nearly doubled the Louisiana state legislators’ salaries. As ALG News reported, all evidence suggested that Mr. Jindal was going to stand by and let the heinous bill sit on his desk until automatically becoming law on July 8th. And ALG strongly urged the Governor to stick to his campaign pledge not to allow the politicians to pad their pockets. Now, according to WAFB.com, we’re told that Mr. Jindal has struck down the bill, ending the ruckus that has significantly harmed his image since Bill 672’s inception. Said the Governor: “I clearly made a mistake by telling the legislature that I would allow them to handle their own affairs…As with all mistakes, you can either correct them or compound them—I am choosing to correct my mistake now.” Mr. Jindal then elaborated on why he was so hesitant to veto the legislation: “I have said that I was not going to stop legislators from more than doubling their own pay by vetoing this because I did not want to give them any excuse to slow down the momentum of our reform movement here in Louisiana. It turns out this is an unsustainable position. I have come to realize that the reforms I have been fighting for are simply incompatible with this legislative pay raise…The bottom line is that allowing this excessive legislative pay raise to become law would so significantly undercut our reform agenda, and so significantly diminish the people's confidence in their own government, that I cannot let it become law. So, I have vetoed the bill." Although Mr. Jindal’s excuse for not vetoing the bill from the beginning is somewhat dubious and unconvincing, Americans for Limited Government commends the Governor for accepting his error and doing what is best for Louisiana. It is refreshing to know that there are still politicians out there willing to do what they were elected to do—serve the will of the people. Throughout the entire ordeal, the Louisiana Action Council has been one of the strongest voices expressing outrage. Brian McNabb, Executive Director of the non-profit citizen advocacy group, released the following statement today regarding the Governor’s decision: “It is truly a new day in Louisiana when the scare tactics of a few money hungry legislators are not effective any more…Gov. Jindal's decision to veto S.B. 672 proves that the will of the masses is more powerful than the petty threats of a few greedy legislators. It is also important to commend the thousands of citizens who were so adamantly opposed to this blatant misuse of legislative power. This instance is a prime example of what can be done when thousands of citizens in every corner of Louisiana make their voices heard to their representatives in government.” Mr. Jindal has proven that he has the capacity to listen to the people and provide principled, conservative leadership that understands government’s limited role in American society. As a young, but prominent, leader in the Republican Party, the Governor has now staked a claim to the myriad of “Reagan Republicans” left in the lurch by the now disgraced former “do-nothing Republican” majority and a GOP leadership that puts compromise above conservative principles. Hopefully, as the Republicans march on Houston for their presidential nominating convention, they’ll ask the young Louisiana governor to stop by and re-explain to them the lost art of keeping commitments. Otherwise, his GOP colleagues may soon have to concern themselves less concerned with raising politicians’ pay than about collecting unemployment. Posted by Bill Wilson Declining Revenues Create Hard Choices for Government By Howie Rich  “Every crisis presents an opportunity.” Sure, it’s one of the oldest clichés in the book. But clichés don’t find their way into “the book” without invoking some elemental, common sense wisdom. Of course, since such wisdom is generally anathema to our elected officials’ way of thinking, expecting them to behave any differently during the current economic malaise than they have in previous downturns is probably wishful thinking. In a nutshell, here’s the predicament government budget writers are facing – the property taxes that provide their main source of revenue are plummeting alongside national home prices, which suffered a record dip in April of this year. On the other hand, record-high prices at the gas pump are sending their budgets soaring skyward. Caught in a pincers – and already struggling to balance unsustainable health care and employee pension increases – their budget prognoses grow grimmer by the day. Yet despite the gloomy forecasts, government’s impending revenue crisis does present our leaders with yet another opportunity to get their act together. First and foremost, it gives them a chance to reform the way they spend money at all levels of government – an opportunity our leaders utterly failed to avail themselves of during the post-Sept. 11 downturn and the recession of the early Nineties. In both cases, government could not control its special interest appetite and instead passed the pain onto those who could least afford it. Rather than cutting pork projects, trimming bureaucratic fat and adopting a zero-based approach to spending that prioritized activities and results, most governments resorted instead to across-the-board cuts that shortchanged vital frontline services. These services disproportionately impacted middle income earners and poorer citizens – a cruel way of bullying the public into accepting the need for “revenue enhancements.” So what should our leaders be doing this time around? Let’s start with the basic premise that the private sector utilizes when confronted with declining revenues – the principle of maximum utility. In any organization, public or private, there are essential and non-essential services as well as essential and non-essential employees. Unique to government, though, is the philosophy that when tough times come the solution is always to spread the cuts “equally” across government. “We’ve all got to share in the pain,” elected officials will say, usually right before they introduce a bill raising yet another fee or further increasing your tax bill. This politically-expedient approach fails to acknowledge that there are hundreds of functions that government has no business performing, and hundreds more than may be worthwhile but clearly do not fall under the definition of “core” responsibilities. “Maximum utility” is never achieved by simply lopping an equal amount off the top of every agency or program during economic downturns. Nor is it achieved by spending every last dime that comes in when times are good. Each and every year, regardless of the revenue stream coming in, budget writers should start from zero – identifying top priority public needs and then allocating funding based on which government “activities” meet those needs. Of course there’s one small problem with this incredibly common sense approach to spending the people’s money – politicians don’t like it. They don’t want the public to see how their special interest goodies and pet projects stack up compared to genuine obligations. Plus, they don’t want to lose the one pressure point they have for adding new revenue streams that will fuel even more unnecessary spending in the future. The result is a vicious cycle which – along with unsustainable entitlement spending and taxpayer-funded lobbying – continues to perpetuate the growth of government far beyond our ability to pay for it. During America’s last two economic downturns, hard choices were averted because our leaders simply failed to make them. We should expect – and demand better this time around. The author is Chairman of Americans for Limited Government. Posted by Bill Wilson  Thought-crime Tribunal Suffers Setback Chairman Mao must be turning over in his grave—his socialist minions at the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) have failed to produce a conviction against free speech.  The crisis erupted when the Canadian magazine Maclean’s published an excerpt from author Mark Steyn’s The Future Belongs to Islam, in which Steyn warns of the emergence of an Islamic-dominated world, about which he is not too happy. The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filed a complaint to the CHRC against Maclean’s and Steyn, alleging that they participated in spreading “hate” by publishing the article and then refusing to buckle under to the CIC’s demand to print a rebuttal. Following the “Red Guard Tribunal,” a massive outpouring of protest flooded the CHRC, by individuals concerned about their ability to exercise freedom of speech. Even Canadian bastions of liberalism—such as the CBC and Globe and Mail—sided with Steyn on the issue, arguing in favor of free expression. Finally bowing to public pressure, the CHRC ruled that Steyn’s article did not, in fact, meet the criteria of “hate speech” as set forth by previous court cases. They thus declined to try the case under the “hate speech” prohibitions of Section 13.1, which up to that point had a chilling 100 percent conviction rate. Maclean’s issued a strong statement about the ruling, commending the commission for its decision, but expressing strong reservations about the fact the case was even taken up: “Though gratified by the decision, Maclean's continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation's media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience.” Former publisher Ezra Levant—who himself was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for reprinting the Danish cartoons—commented on the ruling, hardly praising the CHRC for buckling to the pressure. He attributed their decision to “losing badly” on a “multi-front PR war.” He warned that the decision was merely an attempt to worm out from under the public’s eye. Levant states that “the sooner they can get the public scrutiny to go away, the sooner they can go about prosecuting their less well-heeled targets, people who can't afford Canada's best lawyers and command the attention and affection of the country's literati.” Unfortunately, the clearcut victory for free speech may be short-lived. While the CHRC has been forced to drop the suit, an identical suit is pending with the British Columbia HRC. And that Red Guard Tribunal has not yet issued a decision. So cheer up, Chairman Mao; help may be on the way. ALG Perspective: ALG News praises Maclean’s for standing up for Mark Steyn and his right to freedom of speech. The fact that this issue is even being debated, though, serves as a stern warning to those who would push to allow any type of regulation of speech in other countries. While the forces of Marxism have suffered a setback, concerned citizens should not allow themselves any time for rest or relaxation, but should rather begin preparing for the next inevitable assault. And keen observers should keep a wary eye out for the growing impact of Red Guard Tribunals across the U.S. Posted by Bill Wilson Arizonans Fight Utopian Nightmare In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the fourth book of C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia series, the young adventurers hear of the Island Where Dreams Come True in their travels through the sea. But before they are able to set foot on it, one of its half-crazed inhabitants reveals to them the ugly truth: The only dreams that come true on that island are nightmares.  Contrary to what Michael Moore and crew would have you believe, all is not well in socialized healthcare. Despite claims of the utopia ushered in by universal healthcare—and it isn’t universal—those who explore the issue further will see images of a nightmare emerge. Just this past month, in the United Kingdom, socialized medicine claimed yet another fatality. When a woman with cancer was denied additional treatment, she attempted to use her own money to pursue the life-prolonging care from a private source. But the UK’s socialist health care providers retaliated by stopping her tax-funded coverage. She died shortly thereafter. Even Canada’s much-vaunted (by liberals) health care system is broken, declares Claude Castonguay, the man who many see as the driving force behind Canada’s system. He states that rationing and increased spending could not solve the problem. So what does he suggest? “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.” A popular measure in Arizona will make sure that never happens in the Copper State. The “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act” is a ballot initiative whose petition has already garnered nearly 330,000 signatures—well over the 230,000 necessary. A poll reports that 71 percent of Arizonans support the proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored by Medical Choice for Arizona (MCA). In a news release, MCA’s chairman, Eric Novack, MD, stated the initiative’s support sent a “clear message” on the importance of individual’s freedom to “remain in control of their health.” He continued: “The last thing we want to see is health care reform by lobbyists and special interest groups that want to limit or even eliminate the ability of people to have choices when seeking out health care for themselves and their families.” Joyce Downey, a concerned citizen, backed him up: “As government places more and more restrictions on us, one area where we can and must resist with all our resources is the right to make our own medical choices. I can’t imagine the horror of having a government employee choosing my health care. It would belike putting my well-being in the hands of faceless, nameless, and blameless bureaucrats.” Yet the very fact that it is necessary for such an amendment—one guaranteeing the right of people to choose what to buy—reveals just how far this country has strayed from the liberty-based philosophy of the Founders. After all, the foundation of liberty is free will: The ability to make choices. The importance of health care choice is illustrated by an Arizonan woman that ALG News was able to contact. Robynne Mieding, of Bullhead City, informed ALG News of a facial growth which was removed from her husband’s face. Upon further investigation, however, they discovered that the doctor had not removed the entire growth. They then sought a doctor who specialized in these growths. After a very delicate surgery, the growth was completely removed. “Relying on a doctor with limited or no experience in this area could have resulted in less than satisfactory results,” Mrs. Mieding said. “We are grateful we were allowed to seek the best possible care and did not have limitations on medical care.” “Free enterprise is one of the things that helps make America great! It encourages suppliers of services or products to compete to give the best possible care or product, at the best possible price. If we eliminate competition, then we can only expect substandard services or products.” Robynne Mieding’s story is a perfect illustration of why medical choice is necessary. As residents of Canada and the UK have found out all too late, the socialist utopia promised them is in fact a nightmare. Like the adventurers in the Dawn Treader, Arizonans are taking heed and turning away. And that’s why they are standing up for medical choice. ALG Perspective: ALG News would like to praise MCA for working to ensure the rights of Arizonans are protected from future government intrusion. The warnings given us by the failed socialized health care systems in Canada and the UK should not be ignored. ALG calls for similar measures to be pushed at the state and national level, to ensure that our freedoms remain intact for many more generations, and that Americans will not be denied their right to the best medical care in the world. Posted by Bill Wilson The Creature is on the Loose—Yet Again “Over the past five years the greenback has lost 40 percent of its value. Oil is close to $140 a barrel. And gold, now trading above $900 an ounce, is warning that if the Fed fails to stop creating excess dollars, inflation could rise to 6 or 7 percent.”—Larry Kudlow, “Where’s Bernanke’s Inner Volcker?”, June 27th, 2008.  The Creature is at it again. No, the Fed didn’t cut interest rates again or bail out another investment bank—this time their crime was a bit more subtle, yet just as harmful. They lied. A few weeks ago, ALG News was very pleased to report that it appeared that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was ready to combat inflation, bring the soaring prices of food, oil, and other commodities under control and helping working Americans struggling to make ends meet. On June 9th, he said: “[T]he latest round of increases in energy prices has added to the upside risks to inflation and inflation expectations. The Federal Open Market Committee will strongly resist an erosion of longer-term inflation expectations, as an unanchoring of those expectations would be destabilizing for growth as well as for inflation [emphasis added].” As a result of that speech, the dollar rallied and oil came down for a few days, until news started leaking that the Fed had no intention of hiking interest rates and actually engaging in dollar defense. Then the dollar started to tank again, and commodities rekindled their upward climb in anticipation of a weak response by the nation’s central bank to the biggest crisis facing the global economy since the stagflation and gas lines of the 1970’s. Unfortunately, those news leaks were right on. When the Fed finally met last week, as ALG News reported, they did nothing. That was actually a bit of a relief, insofar as the central bank had already done so much damage through its weak dollar policies. And under certain circumstances—oh, say, back in March—doing nothing would have been a splendid idea. But this time, that was not good enough by half. As G. Edward Griffin noted in his masterpiece on the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island, since its inception, the Fed has undermined the purchasing power of Americans, causing the very inflation it is tasked by law to control. Over its history, it has responded to banking crises, such as the 2007 subprime mess, with easing (i.e. cheap credit) that always—read that, always—eventually and sometimes immediately results in inflation by boosting the money supply. And now that Creature is on the loose—yet again. Mr. Bernanke created false hope that the central bank was ready to do its job and focus on price stability. Markets began predicting that the Fed might hike rates as soon as last week’s meeting. By failing meet up with the market’s expectations, Mr. Bernanke severely undermined Fed credibility. As a result, since the meeting, commodities have predictably spiked yet again, increasing the economic pains all Americans face. Last week, ALG News predicted that the commodities bubble would eventually pop—and it will. But it will happen later rather than sooner unless and until the Fed backs up its words with real action coordinated with the Treasury, and the G7 to defend the dollar. Right now—the Creature is all talk. Posted by Bill Wilson Virginia House of Delegates Sends $1.1 Billion Tax Increase to Floor for Vote  This could be 2004 all over again. Back then, several Republican traitors voted for a $1.6 billion tax increase against the best wishes of Virginians. And at present, the Republican-controlled House of Delegates has allowed a Senate Democrat plan to raise the gasoline tax by 6 cents per gallon to the floor for a vote by the 100 member legislative body. The Washington Examiner is reporting that the plan, sponsored by Senator Dick Saslaw, would raise taxes and fees by a total of $1.1 billion: “The Senate’s proposal, championed by ardent gas-tax proponent and Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, D-Springfield, would raise $719 million in statewide revenue by fiscal 2015 through the 6-cent gas-tax increase, as well as by increasing the auto titling tax by 0.5 percent and the sales tax by 0.25 percent, excluding food and drugs. It looks like Republicans in the House could be caving, and with only 53 members plus independents that caucus with the GOP in the 100 seat body, it will take precious few defections to help the $1.1 billion tax increase to pass both houses. Speaker Bill Howell is taking an awful risk by putting this on the floor. Besides, doesn’t gasoline cost enough already? To date, Republicans in the House have stated that they only support revisiting Virginia’s regional funding schemes to pay for transportation, which were previously struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court because they allowed unelected bureaucrats to raise taxes without legislative approval. That new plan being sponsored by Delegates Phil Hamilton (R-Newport News) and Dave Albo (R-Fairfax) would increase vehicle registration and inspections fees in Hampton Roads, and institute a $100 fee to get a new driver’s license in Northern Virginia. The Free-Lance Star speculates that the Democrat’s bill to raise the gas tax will not actually pass the House because it was sent to the floor “without recommendation.” Democrats are already crying foul, according to the article: “‘They want to try to embarrass us by voting on a gas tax,’ said House Minority Leader Del. Ward Armstrong, D-Henry. ‘It's part of the political process, gamesmanship.’” Perhaps. Or maybe, based on the propensity of certain Republicans in the House to vote for tax increases, they actually mean to get it passed. Virginians will find out in short order, as a vote is scheduled on or after July 9th, when the legislature comes back into session. Not that it matters much, as both parties apparently agree on increasing the tax and fee burden on Virginians, and are merely quibbling over who should get the increase. Missing from all of these proposals is a willingness to examine the possibility of cutting spending as a means of paying for transportation projects. Fortunately, at least one delegate is looking at that possibility according to the Washington Post: “House Republicans want an independent audit of how the Virginia Department of Transportation is spending tax dollars. Under that scenario, there may yet be hope of fixing Virginia’s roads without increasing the tax and fee burden on residents. They should expand that audit to the entire Virginia budget, and assuredly lawmakers would find the funds they are looking for. It is a proposal that the Commonwealth’s GOP ought to seriously consider, and not allow a repeat of 2004 to take place again. Posted by Bill Wilson Heller Represents Return to Constitutionality "Bitter Americans" won a sweet victory yesterday morning in the nation's highest Court, when the decision for Heller vs. District of Columbia was handed down. And that's bad news for the Hard Left's Barack Obama and his angry following of freedom-bashing gun grabbers.  In deciding one of its most anticipated cases in years, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a stinging rebuke to government officials who, while paying lip-service to the Constitution, still attempt to remove Americans’ God-given freedoms, restricting them from exercising their rights. Such was the case for Dick Anthony Heller, the plaintiff in the case, who was denied the right to purchase and keep a handgun in his home. Mr. Heller, a security guard, lives in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and argued that he needed the weapon for self-defense. When a D.C. court refused to hear the case, Mr. Heller appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a shocking 2-1 decision, the circuit court labeled D.C.’s handgun ban a violation of the Second Amendment, using clear logic and well laid-out reasoning. An attempt by the mayor of D.C. to appeal to the full D.C. Court of Appeals failed on a 6-4 vote, and both sides pressed on to bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments were held March 18th, with a majority of the justices seeming to convey that the right to own guns was an individual, not military-limited, right. Dozens of amicus curiae briefs were filed, with over two-thirds of them supporting the affirmation of the lower court’s ruling. Members of congress signed on, 18 opposing, 305 (including 55 senators) supporting. Even Vice-President Dick Cheney signed on, breaking with the official White House line, which supported the individual right to own guns, but tempered it with the “right” of states to regulate. Thankfully, the Court ruled as expected, overturning the blatantly unconstitutional handgun ban in D.C., as well as ruling against D.C.’s law on keeping those few legal guns “disassembled and unloaded.” While the case impacts only D.C. specifically, in principle, it strikes down all such laws, and numerous challenges to gun control laws in other States are expected to arise. As ALG News predicted, this ruling sided with the strict, literal reading of the constitution: “As in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, which upheld a clear stipulation of States’ Rights in the Constitution, Heller v. D.C. will come out on the side of the Constitution. The Court will once again follow a strict adherence to the law, and protecting the right of individuals clearly expressed in the Constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms.” Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson hailed the decision as “a reminder to the revisionists that the Constitution is neither out of date, nor out of vogue.” Indeed, Justice Scalia used his trademark textualist approach in evaluating the meaning of the Second Amendment. Thus, he does not examine the original intent of the author of a bill—though he will often cite it as proof of his reading of the bill, as he did in Heller. Justice Scalia begins his opinion with nearly thirty pages discussing the grammatical intricacies of the Second Amendment, working slowly through each clause, and showing similar historical uses of the words to back up his textual reading of it. Then he delves more deeply into the historical and legal precedents for his interpretation of the text, before listing a few possible restrictions, and giving the final ruling on the case before him. Mr. Scalia values the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances which keeps the government accountable. By leading the way on this ruling, he demonstrates that he is also a strong supporter of the fourth “branch” of government—the people—and their primary check against tyranny—the possession of firearms. If the principles of this ruling are used as precedent in future gun-related cases, then a portion of the Scalia opinion may be applied to the District of Columbia’s response: “Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.” This would appear to undermine the spirit of Mr. Scalia’s opinion, which outlines the certain limited parameters in which regulating guns is permissible: “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Unless D.C. views all places outside an individual’s home as “sensitive,” a reading of Mr. Scalia’s commentary above would leave little doubt as to the dubious constitutionality of the District’s new ordinance. Expect more cases to follow in the wake of D.C. trying to wiggle its way out of the Court’s decision. Additionally, the District encourages that “firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.” Since they district can no longer force citizens to keep their guns under lock and key, they now apparently resorted to suggesting it. Other reactions came from both sides of the issue. The Brady group, one of the most outspoken anti-gun groups in the country, stated the following in their president's news release: “For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership.” Because, of course, no tyrannical government has “ever” attempted to disarm its citizens in the history of the world! But in actuality, tyrants from George III to Adolf Hitler used disarmament as a means of subjugation. Similarly, why else were African-Americans—even free ones—often barred from owning firearms, in past centuries? More from Brady: “For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.” One can only wonder what their press release would have looked like had Heller gone the other way. Perhaps: “We now call on the federal government to confiscate all guns and institute a complete ban on gun ownership”? Brady Center continues: “The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws.” Of course, they forgot to note that, had the decision gone the other way, criminals on the street would have been emboldened by the lack of armed, law-abiding citizens to stop them—and ideological extremists would have filed new legal attacks on existing gun freedoms. The Brady Center goes on to suggest the “hellish” impact of the court’s ruling: “After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day.” And every day, anywhere from 295 Americans (at the very least) to 6800 Americans use guns every day to defend themselves. Those statistics could be much worse with the heavy regulation and outright gun bans of which the Left is so fond. Additionally, according to a National Institute of Justice survey, criminals themselves reported that they are less likely to attack a victim if they suspect the victim is armed; additionally, gun regulations will just prompt them to acquire and use bigger guns. The National Rifle Association also joined in the chorus of reactions, offering praise to the Supreme Court for its decision: “Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it.” As the NRA correctly alludes to above, the Second Amendment is not a right given to the people by the government, it is a right of the people protected by the government. Scalia himself agrees with this take, when he reveals the limits of the court in ruling on this issue: “Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts all demonstrated a proper understanding of the duty of government—to operate within its constitutional bounds. And that is the proper role of the Court. The court did a great job yesterday, demonstrating its constitutional restraint, wise judgment, and legal prowess by declaring D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional, and affirming the right of American citizens to “keep and bear arms.” The court has played a key role in returning America to a true understanding of the Second Amendment. Doing the same for the other nine would be nothing to be bitter about. After all, the Bill of Rights protects all Americans. Posted by Bill Wilson Step Down, Mr. Justice – Now! By Carter Clews Executive Editor Justice John Paul Stevens, rapidly failing physically and mentally, needs to do the honorable thing and step down from the Supreme Court. Simply put, he has become an embarrassment to himself and a danger to the country.  And, to quote, Cromwell, “It is not fit that he should sit there any longer. He should now give way to better men” (women, children, or sharp-eyed canines, as the case may be). Lest anyone wonder whether such a decisive call for so definitive an action is justifiable, consider the following excerpt from Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller v. D.C. It concerns Justice Stevens’ convoluted—and clearly confused—scribblings in his dissenting opinion, and it is as revealing as it is reviling: “Giving ‘bear Arms’ its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase ‘keep and bear Arms’ would be incoherent. The word ‘Arms’ would have two different meanings at once: ‘weapons’ (as the object of ‘keep’) and (as the object of ‘bear’) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying ‘He filled and kicked the bucket’ to mean ‘He filled the bucket and died.’ Grotesque.” Now, normally, Supreme Court justices treat each other with kid gloves—so much so that one often wonders if the nine of them spend their off hours reciting the Serenity Prayer and popping valium. But, in this case, Mr. Scalia was clearly so off put by the octogenarian Stevens’ senile ramblings that he could not spare the rod—even if it meant spoiling Mr. Stevens’ second childhood. And so, we saw the one-word sentence—“Grotesque”—applied very likely for the first time ever by one august justice to the reasoning and writings of another. Which is why this “runner who renown outran” should now give way to better men. Now, please understand: this call for Mr. Stevens’ balding scalp has little or nothing to do with his wrongful decision in Heller. It has everything to do with his frightful decision-making capacity. It is not so much that he reasoned wrongly; it is that he wrongly reasoned—if at all. Those of us who have disagreed almost uniformly with Mr. Stevens for decades always had a distinct feeling that, quite likely, he couldn’t read (at least not the Constitution). But, now that we know that neither can he write … well, that’s a problem. The fact is, he’s senile. And that’s not one to be taken lightly. After all, if you can no longer trust a man with the keys to the car, should you really continue trusting him with the keys to the kingdom? Unkind, you say? Perhaps, but certainly not unfair. Consider, if you will, the prevalence rate of dementia among the elderly: 75-79 -- 5.6% Mr. Stevens is 88 years old. His latest meanderings have been described by his own learned colleague as “Grotesque.” And we are to refrain from asking this befogged and befuddled elderly icon of the Hard Left to give us all a break and grab himself a cab just because liberals like the old coot? Hardly. Let me put this in terms that the crotchety old gentleman himself—whose first auto ride was in a rumble seat—might well understand: "Sorry, ya old Palooka, but you're just no longer the bees knees. In fact, you're scribing like you're spifflicated. So, it's time to pack up the flivvers and flappers in your old kit bag and 23-skiddoo." Lest anyone think I’m being too cruel, allow me to share a personal anecdote with you … When Dad died, after 53 wonderful years in the Methodist ministry, I was privileged to be given the well-worn Bibles he had carried into the pulpit over the decades. I remembered them well, and as I was glancing through the last two, I saw that on the flyleaf of each, he had written a brief, single-line observation. On the first was written in his own hand: “70 is old.” And on the second was written: “80 is really old!” Yes, 80 is really old. Justice John Paul Stevens should realize that now and step aside in an honorable and dignified manner. To do otherwise would, indeed, continue to be “grotesque.” And if Mr. Stevens won’t leave of his own accord? In that case, the Congress of the United States should re-introduce the aged jurist to Article II, Section 4 of a document with which he now shows only the vaguest familiarity. It’s called the U.S Constitution. And as the High Court showed in the Heller decision, ours is still as strong as Mr. Stevens’ is weak. Posted by Bill Wilson Sooner Sense By Howie Rich While much of the U.S. Constitution invites legitimate debate as to the “Framer’s Intent,” the twenty-eight words which comprise the Tenth Amendment are as unambiguous as they are forgotten.  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” One of the clearest and most compelling proofs that our Founding Fathers indeed envisaged a limited federal government, the Tenth Amendment is a vital safeguard against an overreaching central authority. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most routinely discarded pieces of our nation’s founding wisdom. In fact, judging by its scant enforcement, it’s almost as if this cornerstone of the old adage “the government closest to the people governs best” was written in invisible ink. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment has become the redheaded stepchild of the Bill of Rights, viewed by generations of politicians as an historical nuance to be cast aside when it impedes our federal government’s insatiable appetite for new revenue streams and new sources of power. Certainly some expansions of federal power—such as the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments—were warranted due to changing social conditions and the need to protect individual liberties. But more often than not, these expansions sought to expand the size and scope of the federal government at the expense of our personal freedoms, and to strip state and municipal governments of their right to enact laws which are in the best interests of their people—while seizing more of the people’s revenue in the process. Consider this—only twice has our modern U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law because it was found to be in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Is this because such violations weren’t occurring? Of course not—generations of activist judges have simply chosen to look the other way. Using an increasingly thin stretching of the “Elastic Clause” (also known as the Commerce Clause), the federal government over the past seventy years has gone about regulating one industry after the next and blackmailing states into adopting new laws by threatening to cut them out of annual appropriations bills. Because the Tenth Amendment has been ignored, some of the basic freedoms guaranteed to by the rest of the Bill of Rights have been trampled upon—with states left powerless to protect us. Fortunately, leaders in one state have finally stood up and said “enough is enough.” By an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 92-3, the Oklahoma House of Representatives recently passed a resolution that reaffirmed that state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. Specifically, the resolution tells the feds to “cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.” In other words, the Oklahoma House is telling the federal government to back off—and using America’s founding blueprint as its justification for doing so. Not surprisingly, Washington D.C.’s officialdom remains utterly tone-deaf to this sorely-needed expression of state sovereignty. In fact, when asked to comment on the resolution last week, President Bush’s spokesman had never heard of it, and could only say “maybe, maybe I will” when asked whether he would look into the matter for the purpose of providing the administration’s official response. By contrast, the resolution’s lead sponsor—State Rep. Charles Key—was nearly as unambiguous as the language of the Tenth Amendment in explaining his desire to protect America’s “forgotten” right. “The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time,” he said. “The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread.” And so have our liberties. Here’s hoping that leaders in other states will join the Oklahoma House in standing up to protect both. The author is Chairman of Americans for Limited Government. Posted by Bill Wilson A Call to Arms!  Since being ignominiously reduced to minority status in the 2006 Congressional rout, Republicans have appeared to be sleepwalking their way to political exile in 2008. They have nominated a moderate as the presidential candidate who embraces the theology of Global Warming, wants to artificially cap America’s carbon emissions, and routinely demonizes the oil companies that keep the economy moving along. And in so doing, they seem to have robbed themselves of the gas-pump issue that could have fueled their resurrection. Now, however, it appears that after wandering in the darkness, there may be a ray of sunshine for the GOP. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has thrown down the gauntlet against the Green Revolution. In a recent national radio interview on The Mike Gallagher Show, Mr. Boehner said of Democrats in Congress, “These people worship at the altar of radical environmentalism.” (Please note: it is not yet known how many of Mr. Boehner’s colleagues collapsed with The Vapors upon being informed of his “indiscretion.”) In the interview, Mr. Boehner notes that the Democrats in Congress have blocked increased energy production for decades and most recently have blocked efforts to lift the Congressional ban on offshore drilling. He promised to continue working on these issues all year, “I’m going to tell you right now that we are going to fight with these Democrats up here each and every day until November, until the election, until they put real energy solutions on the floor and let’s let the House vote.” Now, in the old Western vernacular, them’s fighting words! And welcome words at that. Yet, while they are encouraging, there’s a point that needs to be made that nobody has stated loudly and clearly enough in the energy debate: Democrats crave high energy prices! They really do. And it needs to be said over and over again. They want high—even higher than they are today—energy prices in order to control demand. The Democrat nominee, Senator Barack Obama admitted as much recently when asked if high oil prices help America: “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment,” said Mr. Obama. In other words, yes, he believes that the high prices help, because “our demand is badly outstripping supply…” And why would he want to reduce demand? To reduce carbon emissions, of course. Reduced demand means less energy use, which means less carbon emissions—those “poisonous” gases the Cult of Global Warming’s dogma dictates will wipe out humanity. And that’s exactly what they want. The Greens know it, too. As AutoNation CEO Mike Jackson recently stated, “The biggest lie in America[n] politics today is to say you care deeply about global warming and advocate for the price of gas to go down. Those are mutually exclusive concepts.” He’s right. Democrats can’t have it both ways. Nor can John McCain. One either wants to make energy more affordable—thus increasing its use—or less affordable to ensure some sort of sadistic approach to “conservation.” An even bigger point that should be made is that the theology of Global Warming, cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and the like, are simply tactics in a greater strategy to turn the United States into a command-and-control economy. Today, America is the bread basket of the world, much as Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa in 1980. But then the Marxist, Robert Mugabe, took over in that troubled, tragic land. He decided—as his fellow travelers in America have now done—to ration scarcity under state control. And the bloated bellies of his victims attest to the error of his ways. Walter Williams has a good summary, “Once a food-exporting country, Zimbabwe stands on the brink of starvation. Just recently, President Robert Mugabe declared that he's going to nationalize all the farmland. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the consequence will be to exacerbate Zimbabwe's food problems.” And that’s what happens when entire sectors of an economy are nationalized, as Democrats would like to nationalize the energy sector: Those goods and services become less affordable, more scarcely used until the economy collapses. Instead, what is needed is to increase energy production to fuel a growing economy in the 21st century. Democrats may be satisfied to knock America down a notch or two until the people are living in Third World conditions. But the American people ought to not stand for it. Now is the time for the American people to rise up and take back the energy resources Congress has locked away. Mr. Boehner will need help, for he cannot do this on his own. He needs reinforcements in his crusade against radical environmentalism. For if he fails, America, like Zimbabwe, will swiftly go from bread basket to basket case. And there will be no one left to bail us out. Or even weep our passing. Posted by Bill Wilson A Ray of Sunshine  At its highly anticipated two-day meeting, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors finally did something good: Nothing. At last putting a stop to its excessive interest rates cuts—which were designed to stimulate the economy through the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the housing slump—the Fed held the Federal Funds Rate steady at 2 percent. As ALG News predicted months ago, those excessive rates cuts were going to result in spiraling inflation. And they did. Back in March, oil was trading at about $100/barrel. Today it’s up to about $135/barrel. Just a note: Back in August 2007 when the sub-prime crisis hit and the Fed began its latest round of rate cuts, it was about $70/barrel. It proves the point: Oil—which is priced in dollars—has nearly doubled in a single year as the dollar has concurrently weakened. Essentially, the cheap credit overly-boosted the world’s money supply, which always causes inflation. There’s a lesson to be learned here. And it seems the Fed has belatedly caught on to the problem. In its statement yesterday, it wrote, “[I]n light of the continued increases in the prices of energy and some other commodities and the elevated state of some indicators of inflation expectations, uncertainty about the inflation outlook remains high… Although downside risks to growth remain, they appear to have diminished somewhat, and the upside risks to inflation and inflation expectations have increased.” In other words, it will cease with its “easing”, loose monetary policy because as one investment expert recently put it on CNBC’s Kudlow & Company, “Easy money is the root of all evil.” If the good news is that the Fed finally did nothing, the bad news is that it still appears to be torn by its dual mandate—stimulating economic growth and ensuring price stability—enacted during the Carter administration. If it had been solely concerned with price stability, it would not have reduced interest rates in the past year. The world would not have suffered this recent commodities bubble. And it would have taken back at least a portion of those cuts yesterday. Instead of preventing inflation, the Fed has caused it. But finally, it appears it is ready to undo the damage it has done—and the biggest winner will be the American people’s purchasing power. So, three cheers for doing nothing. Now, let’s see even more of the same. ALG Prediction: The commodities bubble will eventually pop. As the Fed works to counter inflation and inflationary expectations, the dollar—which has been in a virtual freefall for years—will finally begin a strong rebound. A strong currency will mean lower prices for Americans at the grocery store and at the gas pump, and it could prevent an inflationary recession—stagflation—before it’s too late. Posted by Bill Wilson Fur Coats, Favors, and Friends  Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon is discovering that one’s personal life can’t be hidden from public scrutiny—even when covered in fur coats. Of which, Mayor Dixon has more than a few. And state prosecutors believe that at least some of them were gifts given her by one Mr. Ronald H. Lipscomb, owner of the development company Doracon Contracting. The two friends, we are told, had a “personal relationship,” and exchanged luxurious gifts. Sounds lovely, right? But wait, there’s a problem. Mr. Lipscomb courted Ms. Dixon’s favor with expensive forays into New York, Chicago, Boston, and the Bahamas—in addition, of course, to the fur coats. (Sometimes, the gifts were funneled through a third party—Doracon’s vice president, who was then reimbursed). Ms. Dixon, then head of the city council, returned the favor by voting to approve a $13.6 million tax break for one of Lipscomb’s projects and voting to change zoning laws to allow another major project overseen by her “friend” to proceed. While the circumstances surrounding these contracts are suspect, to put it mildly, any doubt of culpability is removed when it is discovered that Ms. Dixon did not report any of the gifts she received. That stands in contravention to city law, which requires council members to report under oath any gifts they have received by persons or companies who may benefit from the council member’s duties. And benefit Mr. Lipscomb most certainly did. Ms. Dixon did not confine her gifts to her romantic interest, however. Her former campaign manager was hired without a contract to work on the city council’s computers—for a half-million dollars. Some of the Doracon projects Dixon pushed also benefited her sister’s company, which was hired by Doracon after it received its massive tax break. In 2005, Doracon was fined for exceeding the allowed campaign contribution limits. Lipscomb and his company, it turns out, had given contributions to several politicians, Dixon among them. Mayor Dixon has defended herself, saying that “there is a process,” and that their “brief relationship was personal, and it did not influence my decisions related to matters of city government.” Unfortunately for her, state prosecutors aren’t buying it. Following the Baltimore Sun’s expose of these shady practices, a state investigation was launched, aimed at uncovering any impropriety in Mayor Sheila Dixon’s actions. Her case is now before a grand jury, which will decide if the charges are true. Ms. Dixon may end up losing more than just a fur coat, once all is said and done. Let’s hope for her sake that she looks as good in an orange jumpsuit as she does in sable. ALG Perspective: It seems that nepotism isn’t limited to congressmen from South Carolina. Whatever happened to being “above reproach”? Do politicians today have no sense of decency or propriety? Unfortunately, this case proves that James Madison was right when he stated: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist No. 51) But men are not angels, thus their actions must ever be scrutinized by the public eye, lest they become corrupt, distorting justice and welcoming bribes. Or fur coats. The Baltimore Sun’s investigative reporters are to be congratulated for breaking this story, which could break corruption’s stranglehold on yet another government office. Posted by Bill Wilson And We Wonder Why Inflation is Running Rampant…  The hot topic of the moment is energy: Where can we get it? Where can’t we get it? How can we bring the price down? Are there other options? So, of course presumptive presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has proposed some solutions, which he feels will alleviate the stress Americans are feeling, since their cost of living has increased so drastically due to energy costs. He proposes to tax the windfall profits that oil companies reap by providing consumers with the good they demand at the price the market has demanded. Aside from the obvious flaws in the plan to tax profits—disincentives and the like—there is a blatant hypocrisy that Mr. Obama has perpetrated. By consistently supporting the subsidizing of corn-based ethanol production he is not only funding Big Business, predominantly agribusiness and oil companies, but he is also contributing to markedly increasing inflation today. By blocking more efficient means of ethanol production through subsidies and taxes, Big Agribusiness is assured steady profits from ethanol that is produced from corn. Although ethanol can be produced much more efficiently from sugar cane, not only do we not use this method in the U.S., but we engage in brazen trade protectionism by taxing the sugar cane-based ethanol from Brazil at fifty-four cents per gallon. While Senator John McCain has come out in strong opposition of such anti-trade measures, Mr. Obama is a firm supporter. Although neither was present to vote due to campaigning, the ominous Farm Bill contained further corn subsidies, which to no surprise, were strongly supported by Mr. Obama while Mr. McCain pledged a veto were he president. Interesting, because Sen. Obama hails from an area of the country that is know particularly for its large corn industry. Illinois is the second-largest producer of corn in the US. And while it is his duty to support his constituency, there is a definite line between representation and corruption. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Mr. Obama has some suspicious connections with Big Ethanol. His economic policy director, Jason Furman, was quoted by the Times as saying that “Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits” and “his policies are based on what’s best for the country.” Meaning, that the Senator is focused on using ethanol in the most beneficial way for the nation as a whole, not just for special interest groups, such as Big Ethanol. However, this did not stop Sen. Obama from seeking earmarks for his ethanol connections and supporting further subsidies of the industry since the beginning of his Senate tenure in 2005. In addition, the Times further revealed that Mr. Obama partook in controversial subsidies of his air travel courtesy of none other than the largest ethanol producer, Archer Daniels Midland, which oddly enough is also based out of Illinois. Senator, this does not look like action that will make this nation better off—but it could certainly benefit your agribusiness supporters. Not to mention the most interesting aspect of this blatant hypocrisy. Although the Senator has come out time and time again demonizing Big Business in any way possible, not only do these subsidies primarily benefit Big Ethanol corporations, but they also benefit the most evil of all corporations: Big Oil. Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil and BP all have alternative energy exploratory departments of their corporations. In addition to wind and solar, each of them has a bio-fuels division which is substantially devoted to ethanol. What other incentive is there for a huge oil conglomerate to invest in technology that obviously is not the source of their profit than merely a favorable impression? And furthermore, what incentive for entry into the alternative energy market is there for companies who are not big oil? If the oil companies will essentially be paid through the ethanol subsidies and the break on the windfall taxes according to Mr. Obama’s plan, then really the Senator’s plan will only increase the size of oil companies and their profits, rather than decrease. Sen. Obama’s solution to the present energy crisis is to tax the profits of the industry providing a necessary and highly demanded good, to subsidize and prop up an inflated, inefficient industry and to increase spending in order to fund his Big Agribusiness supporters. Now, in Economics 101 we all learned that taxing a good will increase the cost, and thus lower the incentive to produce, which in this case would effectively decrease the oil supply to Americans further. As for subsidies, basic microeconomics states that by subsidizing an industry, that industry has its costs decreased, while still being able to charge the going price, thus driving out any competitors. Basically, Barack Obama is proposing to increase the price that Americans pay for energy even more. To add further insult to injury, the subsidization of corn has ramifications that extend to the entire Consumer Price Index. Corn and its by-products are a main component of just about every food good imaginable—how many things have corn syrup in them? In addition, corn is a main component of beef and milk production, and the price increases of corn we have been seeing in the commodities market are directly attributed to the subsidies. What is his argument? Well, suddenly the Senator becomes very concerned with national security and makes an attempt to connect subsidizing corn –based ethanol with protecting the US. He is quoted in the New York Times as saying: "'[O]ur country’s drive toward energy independence' could suffer if Mr. Bush relaxed restrictions, as Mr. McCain now proposes.'It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol…'" Rather than provide the American consumers with the relief they desire from these inflationary pressures, Mr. Obama would much rather support protectionist measures that would assure the Big Ethanol corporations in his home state the artificially secure market they desire. To Mr. Obama, it seems that Brazilian ethanol poses a greater threat than foreign oil from anti-American regimes. Once again, Sen. Obama has got it backwards. If Barack Obama is allowed to implement his policies by being elected as president, rest assured that there will be plenty of corn-based ethanol, however there may not be anyone who can afford to buy it. Posted by Bill Wilson “The Future of our Bureaucracy is at Stake!” “[T]he Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child-rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made.” —US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor  California parents are getting another chance to defend their constitutional right to homeschool, as arguments began at the California appeals court this week. The court is rehearing a case that was the cause of much controversy, when the court ruled that homeschooling was illegal in California unless performed by “credentialed” teachers—thus making it impossible for many veteran homeschoolers to teach their children at home. The decision handed down in Grace v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, on which ALG News has previously reported, has raised the ire of a broad spectrum of homeschool allies who are coming out in support of California parents’ right to homeschool. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Attorney General Edmund Brown (D), and the state’s top school superintendent, Jack O’Connell, have all publicly defended homeschoolers. In fact, one of the only groups that has continued to openly oppose homeschoolers in this case is the (surprise!) California Teacher’s Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union. The backlash was intense. Many were upset that this case, which focused on one unique situation, was used to broadly “rule” against homeschoolers across the state. Following the outcry, the court quickly agreed to rehear the case. That provided a welcome reprieve for California homeschoolers, since the original ruling will not go into effect while the case is being reheard. Damian Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, stated in his amicus curiae brief that any ruling prohibiting parents from directing the education of their children would violate the 14th Amendment of the US constitution, which protects the “fundamental right of parents to make childbearing and related decisions, including the decision not to send their children to public schools.” He went on to state that the intent of the previous case—ensuring adequate education for children—can be met by standardized testing, which would not be unconstitutional. ALG News was able to obtain an exclusive interview with California resident Daniel Osborne, presently a computer science major at La Sierra University. He told us of his family’s decision to homeschool and the resulting benefit he has received from it: “My father has taught at the public school for many years. My mother has taught at the community college as well. Their choice to homeschool me was an entirely educated decision. They saw the results of kids at public school, and they knew that with God's help, they could take me beyond that. Not only did I learn more than most public school kids, I had more freedom to go on field trips. Daniel’s story is not unique. Across the nation, homeschoolers have demonstrated academic proficiency above that of their public-schooled peers—and that those results are independent of parental credentials. Thus it becomes clear that any opposition to allowing “uncredentialed” parents to homeschool is based purely on ideological motives, not with the child’s best interests in mind. As Michael Farris, chairman and cofounder of the Home School Legal Defense Association stated, “You cannot deny parents the right to do good for their kids.” ALG Perspective: This case is a brilliant example of the utter stupidity of judicial activism. Homeschoolers have a solid track record of well-above average performance nationally, and are fitting into society just as well as their public schooled peers. For the state to attempt to deny parents the right to homeschool is laughable, if it were not such a threat to their rights. The real motives of those who oppose homeschooling are to perpetuate the government education bureaucracy and support the teaching unions, not to promote the education of our children. Posted by Bill Wilson Break a Promise, Keep a Promise  August 18th, 1988—the day then-Vice President George H.W. Bush accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for president—was also the day that would prove to seal his political fate in 1992 when he lost his re-election campaign to Bill Clinton. That was the day he uttered the now-infamous words, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” It turned out to be one of the most famous broken promises in modern political history. With Democrats in control of Congress, President Bush worked out a 1990 budget compromise in which several taxes were raised after considerable pressure was applied to him. The impact was devastating to him politically. It fueled Patrick Buchanan’s 1992 primary run against Mr. Bush; and it was later exploited by Mr. Clinton in the general election campaign. It proved to be his Achilles’ heel. But, like many episodes of history, this one contains a very important lesson to would-be-politicians: Make a promise, keep a promise. Fast forward to 2008 to the State of Louisiana and the case of Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican, and it appears that history is repeating itself. As ALG News has reported to you, the Louisiana State legislature has voted to more than double its pay. And thus far, Mr. Jindal has refused to veto this measure, though it is clearly within his powers as governor to do so. The trouble for Mr. Jindal is this: When he ran for governor in 2007, he promised to “prohibit legislators from giving themselves pay raises.” Which is exactly what they did. And last week, after the pay increase had passed both houses of the legislature, he said, “I will keep my pledge [to the legislature] to let them govern themselves…” As the Times-Picayune wrote in its editorial on June 23rd, Mr. Jindal has created quite the political dilemma for himself: “It won't be easy for him [to veto the pay raise]. He's said repeatedly that he won't veto the measure, and if he does now, he will have misled lawmakers. But if he doesn't veto it, he will have misled voters, breaking an unambiguous promise he made on the campaign trail to ‘prohibit’ raises such as this.” Really, this is a no-brainer for Mr. Jindal. When posed with a choice between living up to his word to the people who elected him, and the legislators who have put him in the position to break that word, his moral obligation is to his constituents. And they clearly have made their voices heard loud and clear: They want him to veto the pay raise. And now, the issue is creating national press attention, reaching the pages of the New York Times yesterday. The Times outlines some of the uproar that Mr. Jindal has generated among Louisianans through his inaction: “‘This pay raise is devastating him,’ said Moon Griffon, a conservative talk-radio host with a wide following in northern Louisiana, the most Republican and evangelical part of the state. ‘I’ve gotten over 5,000 e-mails from people who say they voted for him, and who say they would never vote for him again.’ That his base is ready throw him out on his ear makes Mr. Jindal’s inaction all the more inexplicable. Are the relationships he has cultivated with those lawmakers who voted in favor of the pay raise so important to him that he is willing to sacrifice his credibility to the voters |
|
|||
Social Networks