American Culture

Goodbye to Political Correctness, Hello to Real Learning

A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give.

By Dennis Prager, High School Principal

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people. I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.


This school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships. The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity — your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American.

This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans. If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity, race and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values — E pluribus unum, “from many, one.” And this school will be guided by America’s values. This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism — an unhealthy preoccupation with the self — while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interested in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.


I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America’s citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here — it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English — but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.


Because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.


No obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school’s property — whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can’t speak without using the f -word, you can’t speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as “Nigger,” even when used by one black student to address another black, or “bitch,” even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.


We will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way — the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago — by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.


And last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately fortunate — to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.”

Our Children Are Guinea Pigs for a Radical Education Experiment-Common Core

Governor Herbert has been ill-advised by the State School Board, and both have seriously bought in to the federal government lie that Common Core is a good thing that will help Utah’s children be better prepared for employment in the coming world. Being an excellent administrator, having once reviewed Common Core with his advisors and having once decided to implement it in Utah, the Governor naturally continues to support what he believes is a good program for our state. However, much like Obamacare (which was sold as helping consumers by lowering the cost while improving the benefits of health insurance, and by assuring consumers that if they liked their plans/doctors they could keep their plans/doctors-and all these assertions were later found to be lies), as Common Core is implemented, the Common Core lies also began to unravel.

Before Common Core, educational standards (which determine what is taught and tested for) were written by each state with input from the grassroots (i.e. children, parents, grandparents, teachers, local school boards, local leaders, etc.) based on community values, expectations and goals and backed by researched, evidence-based and time-tested principles. Local folks could raise or lower standards based on what the grassroots people (i.e. parents/teachers) determine meets the needs of the local communities. With Common Core, the federal government tells the states what their educational standards will be and even if the local communities wanted to raise the standards, they are prohibited from doing so. Common Core has never been studied, there is no evidence that it can accomplish what is promised and there has not been even a single pilot study. Do you agree with the government that American children should be mandatory guinea pigs in this academic experiment?

Common Core was developed and forced upon the States (enticing them with promises of big money) by the federal government. Common Core is based on Big Government secular/pagan values and Big Government/Big Corporation goals:  to have a ready supply of compliant employees/bureaucrats by total brainwashing and indoctrination of students, total federal control of educational pathways students will take (i.e. college versus vocational, etc.), and gaming the system to produce fake “education outcome equality” (i.e. mediocrity) by means of computer “adaptive” testing. By test design, regardless of what the student actually knows about the subject, every child scores near the 50% mark on each test such that each child passes every course and graduates at the top of his class.

Just as illegal immigration is designed by the federal government to produce manual laborers who will accept lower wages than citizens would, the federal government has designed Common Core to produce automatons, parroting the party-line, carrying out orders and decrees and accepting whatever fate the government decides for them without objection. If you want to learn more of the truth about Common Core, more than the whitewashed hype you can get from the government or the mainstream media, click on this link to go to the  website “Utahns Against Common Core”.


Hispanic George Zimmerman Murders Black Child Trayvon Martin – 1

   TrayvonMartinBiasedNatural001 TrayvonMartinBiasedWhited002-110-Cropped          

This is one of several photos provided to the press by the Martin family. The picture on the left is the unretouched photo of an approximately 14 year old Trayvon Martin as it was originally provided by the family. The picture on the right is the photoshopped version that was published and distributed nationwide by the media, in a shameless attempt to convince the public that Martin was an unthreatening, child-like victim. Demonstrators and other Martin supporters wore T-shirts and Hoodies with the photoshopped picture of Martin on them while they were protesting for law enforcement to prosecute Zimmerman.


fyr_logoGeorge Zimmerman is in the fight of his life because of a fight over a year ago that ended with the taking of a human life.  He is on trial, charged with second degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, on the dark, rainy night of February 26, 2012.  Zimmerman claims to have shot Martin in self-defense.  After more than a year of multiple investigations, there is no evidence that the shooting was not in self-defense, and there is overwhelming evidence that this was, in fact, self-defense, and that Zimmerman is innocent of any wrong-doing.

Despite this, the media, many politicians, many local, state and federal agencies have misrepresented the facts of the case, and have manipulated and  inflamed the passions of Americans for their own selfish purposes:  money, fame and power.  In disregard of the fact that Zimmerman had truly acted in self-defense, he was illegally pursued, threatened, arrested and charged with murder, and is currently standing trial because of the public pressure created by the media and other parasites.

The many large, angry demonstrations, sit-ins and other media events arguing for Zimmerman’s arrest and prosecution were organized by activist protest trainers and leaders from the Community Relations Service (a division of the U.S. Department of Justice), at U.S. taxpayer expense, on orders from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. President Barak Obama to stir up emotions based on race, foment unrest and incite violence.  The FBI was also ordered to investigate whether Martin’s civil rights had been violated by Zimmerman.  It is an unprecedented violation of the Constitution and the laws of our land for federal agencies to be ordered to take Martin’s side in a local criminal investigation, or to intervene and influence in any way a city, county or state issue.

The Martin family sent a letter to Eric Holder requesting that he intervene and demand the city, county and state prosecute Zimmerman.  This may have been the only time that Eric Holder actually communicated directly with President Obama in the past five years, as the President soon spoke out with anger and resolve that this criminal, Zimmerman, would be prosecuted, and the Whitehouse would do “whatever it takes” to help the Martins.  To show his emotional attachment to this incident, President Obama even offered that if he had a son, he would look like:  either, 1) the 10 year old child Trayvon photo, or 2) the 14 year old photoshopped and hoodied  Trayvon photo, or 3) the 17 year old gangsta Trayvon photo with sagging pants, smoking weed, wielding a handgun and flipping the bird.  The Whitehouse did not respond to the rumor that, should the President have a son, he would name him Trayvon.

The prosecution would like to paint George Zimmerman as a mature adult, “big man”, and also a frustrated, wannabe cop, right-wing radical, gun carrying “white” man who racially profiled, and, as the aggressor, stalked his prey, then without provocation, shot and killed an unarmed boy, Trayvon Martin, in cold blood.  In fact, Zimmerman’s voter registration lists him as Hispanic and a Democrat.  Zimmerman’s father, a retired judge, is a Caucasian-American of German ancestry.  Zimmerman’s Peruvian mother is ¼ African-Peruvian, making Zimmerman 1/8 African-American, 3/8 Peruvian-American (mostly Spanish and Indian ancestry), and ½ Caucasian-American (Hey!  Isn’t our President also ½ Caucasian-American?  These two men have something in common!).  George is also close with his uncle, his African-Peruvian mother’s African-Peruvian brother, and his uncle’s family.  Are you as tired of reading hyphenated racial/cultural categories as I am of typing them?  Won’t there be a time when we can shed the chains of racially based categorizations  and free ourselves of hyphenated identities?  Aren’t we all Americans?  Why isn’t that enough?

People of different ancestry (i.e. black, white, Hispanic, mixed) who know Zimmerman do not think he is racist, and even the Martin family insists this case is not a racial issue.  George volunteered and mentored a number of predominantly black boys for a time.  George admired, respected and wanted to pattern his life after the example of his role models while he was growing up:  his father, a judge, and his uncle, a Sheriff.  He has hopes to honor both his father and his uncle by taking courses toward a career in law enforcement and perhaps law-school and working for a seat on the bench.

Why is it that someone who wants to better himself through hard work and education, pursuing a career in law enforcement, the justice system or the military, all of which used to be considered honorable professions, is now considered by the media a despicable person with evil motives?  Along with stigmatizing Zimmerman as a wannabe cop, he is also condemned as an evil person, intent on doing harm, simply because he carried a handgun.  Stigmatizing people in this manner is the same basis for and is just another form of racism, and all forms of racism should be equally condemned.

Zimmerman was reportedly 28 years old, 5’7″ tall and 200 lbs. at the time of the shooting.  The press demonized Zimmerman, showing rough, unflattering pictures of him in his orange prison jumpsuit, or even a younger picture of Zimmerman showing him when he was less heavy which might then create the appearance that Zimmerman strong and fit.  While Zimmerman went infrequently to the gym, his personal trainer described Zimmerman as “soft”, “weak” and “all fat” (little muscle mass) and that Zimmerman had not learned even the basic element of the trainer’s beginner class:  how to punch. 

Martin still continues to be referred to (in the media and during the current trial) as “that small kid” who is seen in published pictures and presented in the media as a friendly, smiling, family-oriented, immature (no shaving necessary) boy of approximately 10 years of age. The published photos were provided to the media by the family and it was only later the family admitted the initial pictures that the media distributed were taken of Martin at a much younger age.  However, local and national media and the courts continue to use the 10 year old photo as evidence that the Martin killing was the murder of a small child.  On the contrary, at the time of the shooting, Martin was reportedly 17 years old, 6’2″ tall, and weighed 170 lbs.



The photo on the left (provided by the family) is the one the media and the trial still use to misrepresent Trayvon Martin as a preadolescent, no facial hair, smiling, innocent-appearing small boy of around 10 years old.  The picture on the right is Trayvon Martin taken from his cell phone showing him at an age closer to that at which he was shot and killed.  Trayvon Martin was reportedly 6’2″ tall and weighed 170 lbs.  George Zimmerman was reportedly 5’7″ tall and weighed 200 lbs. at the time of the shooting.


The public was deceived by the media due to the pictures published of a younger Martin as a “child victim”, some of which were photoshopped to significantly change Martin’s appearance. and the altered audio tape (edited to sound as if Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin when he hadn’t) of Zimmerman’s phone call to police about spotting a suspicious person in the gated community and requesting police help.

Martin’s girlfriend was talking with Martin on his cell phone at the time of the altercation where Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy-assed cracker”, revealing Martin’s racial profiling and antagonism of Zimmerman, a man he didn’t know except that Zimmerman was keeping an eye on Martin until the police arrived.  If there is any issue of racism in this case, it is solely that of “black against white” racism on the part Martin.

That being said, the fact that Zimmerman stands on trial for murder today is largely due media and others’ misinformation and public opinion manipulation in relation to incorrect assumptions of “white against black” racism.  In terms of violation of civil rights, prejudice and racism, many blacks, not without cause, focus on the struggle for civil rights from when former black African slaves were legally permitted to enjoy their equal, God-given rights to be free men and women to today’s dramatically improved, but as yet imperfect, situation that exists today in the United States.

This perspective on racism is strongly held, actively promoted and vigorously acted upon by many individuals, organizations and arms of government, including President Obama, AG Eric Holder, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Al Sharpton, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Voting Rights Section of Civil Rights Division of DOJ, Community Relations Services of DOJ, NAACP, CORE, CBC, Southern Poverty Law Center and many others) and these entities tend to see most (some would say all) things through that prism.

In addition, many blacks see racism as a single-dimensional evil, where racism, according to this understanding, only occurs in a “white against black” vector.  In the real world, any form of racism still promotes the ugly violation of civil rights and remains an evil, but it is truly multi-dimensional and runs in many vectors, including black against white, black against black, white against brown, brown against white, and pick-any-race/culture against pick-any-race/culture.

The race card has been played so frequently in recent times, often when race is not the issue, that for most Americans it is losing its impact.  The same should be true here, where many have tried to make this self-defense shooting a race issue, but now, I believe most Americans will reject the mindlessness, accept the jury’s findings, and continue to act like true Americans (without hyphens).  This madness of racialization of everything escalating to mob violence, people injured or killed, lives destroyed, homes and property damaged and polarization of the American public must stop with us.



The Casey Anthony Verdict: Justice for Whom?

The problem for the prosecution in this case is that while they provided a lot of circumstantial evidence to support elements of their case, even if we accepted their evidence without question, there remained significant and reasonable doubt that Caylee’s death may have been accidental. Take the elements one at a time:

A hair matching that from Caylee’s brush and recovered from the trunk of Casey’s car, had post-mortem banding consistent with a decomposing body. Experts also testified that air samples taken from the trunk of Casey’s car showed evidence of a decomposing body having been in the trunk. One air sample was said to have high levels of chloroform present, while the other air sample, analyzed by a different lab, found low levels of chloroform present. One expert testified that chloroform would be expected to be found in a trunk air sample where a decomposing body had lain.

Because of the inconsistencies regarding chloroform testified to by experts, there is reasonable doubt that Casey administered chloroform to Caylee: the evidence for this part of the prosecution’s theory is just not there. On the other hand, it is agreed that Caylee’s decomposing body more than likely lay in the trunk of Casey’s car for some time. However, it is possible that following an accidental death, Caylee’s decomposing body was placed in the trunk until a permanent resting place could be determined

Whether or not Casey did a computer search for “How to Make Chloroform”, there is no evidence that Casey had or exercised the capability to make chloroform or administer it to herself, Caylee or anyone else. There is insufficient evidence of Casey, or anyone, having administered chloroform to Caylee and this provokes significant and reasonable doubt that Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform.

The duct tape that was found attached to Caylee’s skull is the same brand as duct tape found in the Anthony home, but we have no assurance that the crime scene duct tape was from the roll kept at the Anthony home. Testimony of experts and others who had visited Caylee’s swampy grave, established that the site had been tampered with and that people, animals, and the elements may have moved parts of Caylee’s decomposed body around. The prosecution theory that the duct tape had been applied by Casey to the nose and mouth in an attempt to smother Caylee was not proven in regard to the positioning of the duct tape or as to who might have positioned the duct tape. There has been no report whether Caylee’s hands and feet were bound. If someone had placed duct tape over Caylee’s mouth and nose to smother her, Caylee would have pulled the tape off with her hands. The duct tape theory is another element of the case that provokes reasonable doubt.

The prosecution theorized that the motive for murdering her daughter was that Casey wanted to be a party girl rather than a mom. Reports have confirmed that Casey has been a “party girl” for most of her adult life, with little change in her partying after Caylee was born or even after Caylee was missing and presumed dead. She had no shortage of ready babysitters to take Caylee frequently so mom could party. Despite Casey’s affinity for the high life, photos presented to the court documented a loving, happy relationship with Caylee; the child was well-nourished, well-developed, and well-dressed. There was no evidence or even rumors of neglect or abuse. In addition, scientists who study human behavior have noted that some people develop a psychologic disorder consistent with mania (which involves behavior such as that demonstrated by Casey during the thirty-one days when Caylee was “missing”) as an expression of their deep and unresolved grief. Again, there is reasonable doubt as to the prosecution’s theory of motive.

While in my “gut” I feel and believe, as many others do, that Casey is somehow responsible for Caylee’s death, I cannot say that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution was unable or incapable of developing and introducing enough solid evidence to remove the reasonable doubts discussed above. The Jury produced a correct verdict given the dearth of convincing evidence and the reasonable doubts that remained at the end of the day.

In our American Legal System, a large percentage of those who are accused of deadly crimes have their day in court and receive justice (conviction or acquittal). Victims of the most violent and deadly crimes, on the other hand, rarely get their day in court. Victims are at the mercy of a legal system that is more interested in preserving the rights of alleged criminals and assuring they get justice rather than in seeking justice for the victims.

While our legal system may have provided justice, according to the law, to Casey Anthony, where is the justice for Caylee? I’m afraid that many innocent victims like Caylee will be denied justice in this mortal world without significant improvement in our society and our legal system.

Should God be Erased From the Public Square?

The latest effort to erase God from the Pledge of Allegiance was recently aired on the NBC network. The Founding Fathers believed that the people would only be able to retain their liberty and successfully self-govern under our unique Constitution if they remained a just, moral and virtuous people, living in accordance with the Laws of Nature (God’s laws).

Elimination of the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance aired by NBC is another attempt by some people to purge all religious references from the public square, often on the mistaken belief that the Constitution created a wall of separation between church and state. While the Constitution does not create a wall between church and state, it expressly restrains the federal government from establishing a “national” religion and from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Those involved in airing the Pledge with “under God” edited out, by censoring free speech and meddling in the free exercise of religion are clearly violating tenets of the First Amendment. These people wrongly believe that the constitutional ban on the federal government establishing a state religion requires the removal of God and religion from all civil discourse or public display, and that this peculiar interpretation of the ban supersedes and justifies counteracting the constitutional prohibition against interfering with the free exercise of religion.

If the majority of the people were to take a similar, extreme position on “separation of church and state” turned away from the Laws of Nature, ceased to recognize the Creator’s hand in mortal affairs (including government) and the people failed to retain the character qualities of integrity, morality and virtue, constitutional guarantees could not prevent the degradation of liberties and civil rights, and “self-government” would dissolve into the tyranny of mob rule and ultimately result in chaos.

Those who thought to erase God from the Pledge were ill-advised and exercised poor judgment. NBC is encouraged to take responsible remedial action in this regard to assure that such a breach of the public trust does not recur.

Actively seeking to eliminate references to God and religion in the media and passively allowing this kind of censorship to go forward is no less bigotry than that exercised against race or gender, and is no less harmful to the nation, and to the confidence of the nation in the media.

Steve Burke CEO NBC Universal

Mark Lazarus Chairman of NBC sports

Liz Fischer Vice President, Corporate Communications (212) 664-4825

Kathy Kelly-Brown Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications & Media Relations (212) 664-3457

Adam L. Miller Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs (212) 664-7330

Is the Tea Party Ducking Social Conservative Issues?

There is broad agreement among Tea Partiers on issues of the economy, jobs, fiscal responsibility, Obamacare and adherence to the Constitution, especially in regard to cutting government spending. However, rifts in this coalition become apparent when the major cause of current government overspending and future insolvency, entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), is considered for modifications that would produce real savings and sustainable entitlements.

Similarly, there does not appear to be as wide-spread support among Tea Partiers for a good number of constitutional issues that don’t involve commerce, fiscal matters, and smaller government, including many so-called conservative “social issues”. A good number of Tea Partiers believe that other priorities must take precedence at this time when our nation is in an extreme economic/fiscal crisis and the fact that our judicial system and leaders in Washington are moving the country away from our traditional constitutional republic towards a totalitarian and redistributionist “nanny” state.

Many, even members of the Tea Party movement, have been critical of other Tea Partiers expressing their belief that social issues should also be addressed. While I may not agree with all that’s said on social issues, I do commend anyone who stands up for freedom, the Constitution and other Tea Party values, and I stand fully behind their right to speak their mind as dictated by their conscience. Any honest person understands that no one person or group speaks for the entirety of the Tea Party movement. It is the Left that seeks to silence any opposition voice. There is no place in the Tea Party, or for that matter, among any people believing in freedom, for suppression of differing or opposing ideas.

“Social issues” can indeed be controversial and divisive, as many of the primary principles espoused by the Tea Party movement can be; but being controversial or divisive does not make them any less valid. In addition, these issues are not foreign to rights expressed as God-given in the Declaration of Independence and confirmed in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution puts into law the right to life, liberty and property, and that these rights cannot be limited in any way except by “due process”. Due process in consideration of the right to life is exemplified by the lengthy court process involved in the eventual execution of a person sentenced to death under the law. This kind of consideration, which we provide to the most evil of criminals, is entirely lacking in abortion, where the life of the innocent unborn is terminated without a hint of due process.

No one educated in the field of biology rejects the fact that, at fertilization, life begins with a full complement of genetic material that identifies the life as human. It is clear that at some point after fertilization and during gestation, this life becomes a living, breathing, self-aware and feeling person. Controversy surrounds the question of exactly when a human life becomes a person. Traditionally, life was thought to begin at “quickening” when the baby’s movements inside the womb are first felt by the mother, and personhood was thought to begin at birth.

Today, we know that life begins at fertilization, and that the fetus develops, in utero, qualities that confer personhood. With modern ultrasound we can see the fetus startle in response to a loud noise, some will be sucking their thumb, and during abortions the fetus is seen to grimace, scream, and recoil with physiologic pain responses to the operator’s probe. In addition, it is apparent that even the tiniest of premature infants in Newborn Intensive Care, are born with their own personalities and clear cut likes and dislikes, respond to parent’s faces and voices, and respond to positive and negative stimuli in an organized fashion.

The dialogue about abortion has been co-opted by those in favor of abortion by expressing the two predominant viewpoints as either “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice”. Since the choice they are talking about involves the willful termination of a life, the correct term for those who want to be able to choose abortion is “Pro-Death”. Abortion takes the life of a human being based solely on the interests of a second party, the pregnant woman, without any regard for the baby’s rights. The aborted baby is denied his right to life, his right to enjoy liberty, inheritance rights he may have had to property, and his right to pursue his own happiness, all without due process. Both Pro-Life and Pro-Death sentiments continue to run hotly among the American people, and controversy surrounding abortion is unlikely to diminish over time. Abortion is very much a constitutional issue that involves the freedoms of everyone and cannot be ignored.

Gay activists insist on special rights and recognition that are contrary to many peoples’ religious views. These activists want to change the definition of marriage, force full fellowship with organizations that are opposed to the gay lifestyle, and silence “hate speech”, which includes reading scripture or preaching in church against the destructive gay lifestyle. Gay activists want to be able to “marry” the same-sex partner they love, and that gay “family” to be recognized and appreciated the same as traditional marriage between and man and a woman with a real family. These activists claim that all they want is equal rights, when they already have equal rights and what they are asking for is special or “more-equal rights”.

In conformance with the Constitution and most state laws, all citizens have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex, while no one has the freedom to “marry” someone of the same sex. There is no inequality inherent in these laws. There are many established cultural norms (often founded on religious beliefs) written into law, that few responsible adults would question.

For example, adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with a child, even if they love each other and the child or family give their consent. Adults do not have the right to marry a sibling or parent. Adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with animals. This fully conforms with the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution, with Natural Law upon which the Constitution is based, and with thousands of years of multi-cultural tradition that has worked successfully to preserve and sustain society and culture.

Another example is adoption agencies that hold religious beliefs that oppose gay adoption and raising children in that environment, being forced to allow gay adoption or cease doing adoptions. This is a violation of the constitutional rights of free association, free speech and the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. The Left also seeks to nullify or restrict the constitutional right to free speech by suppressing any views that oppose the current administration, the right to “keep and bear arms” (where keep means possess and store and bear means carry, display and use), and the right to work free of union control if so chosen by the workers with a secret ballot and without intimidation. While these anti-Constitution attacks do not deal directly with the economy, jobs or fiscal responsibility, the persistent assault on liberty cannot be ignored and must be countered.

Once the country is back on the path to restoration of economic/fiscal and governmental constitutional practices and principles, these social issues will need to be addressed with some urgency. Basic human inalienable rights can be put on the back burner only so long and at great risk to freedom. True freedom and our Constitution cannot exist if some in the country are more free than others and where any constitutionally guaranteed rights are abridged.

The Power to Make & Control Money Derives From Natural Law

In the charter documents of the United States, the Founding Fathers highlighted Natural Law from which mankind’s unalienable rights are derived, including the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. These natural and unalienable rights, especially with regard to property and the pursuit of happiness, necessarily involve economic freedom and free enterprise. Natural Law, the Founders related, also defined and restricted the role of government to that of securing these natural rights to the people, without otherwise getting in the way of the individual’s pursuit of happiness. The Constitution, based on Natural Law, grants specifically limited powers for the sole purpose of enabling the federal government to protect and preserve these rights.

One of the major tasks of government is to protect the nation’s lives, liberty, property and economic freedom from foreign invasion. Primarily for this purpose, the Constitution provides the federal government with the power to raise and command military forces in the nation’s defense against foreign military attack. The Constitution, in granting the government the power to make and control money, also provides for the defense of the country from another form of foreign invasion and attack, that of the International Banking Cartel, which through its ownership and control of the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve’s absolute monopoly to make and control money, seeks to ensnare all Americans in debt-bondage and precipitate boom and bust cycles that lead to the systematic, legalized theft of American property.

The monopoly power to make and control money was usurped by the Federal Reserve while the nation’s leaders stood by helplessly, silently complicit in the construction of this most egregious form of Corporate Statism. This wholly, privately owned business (there is NO government ownership or control of this business) is strictly controlled by foreign banking interests, who operate this government-granted monopoly with the singular goal of acquiring America’s wealth without respect to natural rights. Only by restoring the power to make and control money to the Congress, as prescribed by the Constitution, can the federal government fulfill its Natural Law role in defending the nation against this form of foreign invasion and in securing our natural rights to economic freedom, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Some see the call for restoration of the power over money to government as a departure from free enterprise principles in favor of centralized, typically inefficient and imprudent government control. However, the Federal Reserve banking system, as a government-granted, Corporate Statism monopoly, never was free enterprise, it selectively dispenses financial advantages to its crony businesses thereby removing the effects of free market competition, and its persistently imprudent actions have led to massive erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power and to recurrent periods of economic chaos and collapse.

In addition, there is a clear duty of government to protect and preserve Americans’ natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness in defense against economic invasion, manipulation and conquest by the foreign, International Banking Cartel. Protection of economic and property rights by the constitutional power over money is no less a Natural Law role of government than that of maintaining military forces to defend against military assault.

The federal government has the responsibility, duty and authority to protect America’s property and economic freedom, and can and should restore the power to make and control money to Congress. The concept of the individual States sponsoring their own public banking system, minimizing the power and negative effects of the Federal Reserve banking system monopoly on a Statewide basis, and promoting State commerce, industry, employment and prosperity, is a natural function of State’s rights and sovereignty in the protection of its citizens’ rights, and is complimentary to and does not conflict with the federal power over money.

The Great Recession: what is the root cause and is there a way out?

(Updated 12/05/2010)

Subprime Mortgage: a mortgage given to an individual who is likely to default on payments and the mortgage as a whole.

The narrative promoted by Obama and the Democrats and passed along to the public by the lame-stream media, is that eight years of Bush administration policies, cronyism with big corporations and Wall Street, and war-mongering with loss of U.S. treasure on contrived foreign wars led to the collapse of the housing sector and U.S. financial markets, which has caused our current Great Recession with volatility in financial markets affecting the retirement savings of millions of Americans, the loss of U.S. manufacturing industry, high unemployment and business stagnation.

The story goes on to claim that because of Obama policies, bailing-out and taking-over private companies, and the high level of government spending under the Obama administration working in concert with a Democrat majority in Congress, significantly deeper and more painful economic disaster has been averted by stimulating the economy and saving or creating millions of jobs.

Further Democrat narrative claims that the new Obama financial law brings much needed regulatory control of financial markets that prevents Wall Street from taking the kind of risks that they took with subprime mortgage derivatives that led to the financial collapse. The narrative also claims that the new financial law frees the taxpayer from ever having to pay for anymore bail-outs of companies “too-big-to-fail”.

While this grand Democrat myth seems plausible on the surface and has a certain appeal to a public that has been much abused by the excesses of Wall Street and the loss of gainful employment by businesses moving offshore and deserting everyday Americans, there is the minor annoyance that the facts just don’t support the story.

In fact, the collapse of housing and financial markets, the loss of U.S. industry and jobs, and our current Great Recession were brought about and then worsened by failed Democrat policies that persist in supporting unacceptably high-risk Wall Street ventures based on taxpayer-guaranteed, subprime mortgages that Democrats continue to encourage, and future government-mandated, tax-payer-funded bail-outs of failing “too-big-to-fail” companies that was written into the new financial law.

The new Obama Financial Law canonizes for select, large financial companies that profits are privatized while losses are socialized (i.e. if these big firms undertake high-risk ventures and make huge profits, they will pocket the gains; however, if in taking on high-risk ventures they lose big, their losses will be absorbed by the government with taxpayer funds). Some call this close relationship between government and large corporations State Capitalism, but a more appropriate term would be National Socialism (from which the German National Socialist or Nazi Party name was taken and whose precepts Hitler and the Nazi Party embraced).

It is also the inconvenient truth that Democrat policies have produced the loss of U.S. industry and jobs, and Obamacare, the new financial law, the promise of higher taxes and Democrat anti-business rhetoric has dramatically increased the costs of doing business and created such uncertainty that American businesses are virtually paralyzed. While large, government-favored financial institutions have been showered in taxpayer funds to keep them strong, small banks and businesses on Main Street have been abandoned by the federal government and hung out to dry.

Beginning with the Clinton administration, Fannie, Freddie and other mortgage banks were coerced by the Democrats to give mortgages to low-income families so these families could participate in home ownership and enjoy some of the economic benefits of the middle-class, a seemingly noble humanitarian goal.

While it’s a worthy goal to want to help as many low-income citizens as possible join middle-class America through home ownership, what may have seemed initially like a blessing has now become a curse. In the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath it encourages physicians to do all they can in the interests of the patient, with this final caveat: But above all, DO NO HARM.

Since the mid-1990’s almost all lenders have been making subprime and creative mortgages. These loans are called subprime because the homebuyer is at significant risk of not making payments and of defaulting on the mortgage at some time in the near future. In the originating lenders’ rush to collect the inflated fees and points that were producing huge profits for themselves, lenders often overlooked or failed to verify creditworthiness, employment status, citizenship, or ability to repay the loan.

Since originating lenders quickly bundle and sell the mortgages they write to Fannie, Freddie, other large financial institutions, and Wall Street firms like Goldman-Sachs, what should they care if the homebuyer should default some time in the future? The originating lender has made its profits by charging low-income homebuyers more to make a subprime loan than it charges for other homebuyers.

While the low-income homebuyer gets hit with a huge bill from the lender for advancing the loan, these loan costs are usually hidden in the loan amount to be advanced and taken off the top by the lender, so the homebuyer doesn’t feel it until later on in the loan repayment schedule. After signing loan documents, and before the ink is dry, the originating lender immediately sells the mortgage. The subprime hot potato has been passed to someone else, who will pass it along to again another or multiple other investors (i.e. Fannie, Freddie, Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorganChase, and Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs).

Subprime homebuyers take another hit when the loan terms are written. Typically, an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) is set up providing for an initial low monthly, low interest, interest-only house payment. Then over the subsequent 3-5 years, the homeowner sees his interest rate increase and also begins paying back principle along with the interest payments which often doubles or triples the initial monthly payment to a level that the homeowner had not anticipated, a level of payment that the homeowner cannot sustain for long without exhausting all resources. Many of these subprime loans have a large balloon payment due at 3-5 years. Also, virtually all subprime borrowers are required to purchase mortgage insurance which adds a significant sum to the monthly payment.

The lender predicts while making subprime loans that the homebuyers are likely to default within the first 3-5 years. Even if the originating bank holds the subprime mortgage it makes, the bank makes money from making the loan, collects monthly payments for the duration of home ownership, and forecloses on and takes possession of the home for resale when homeowners default. As long as home values continued to rise, if the bank had to foreclose on the home, the bank stands to make a profit on this too. In addition, since all subprime mortages require mortgage insurance, if the homeowner defaults, the bank can turn to the mortgage insurance company (AIG ring any bells?) to pay off the defaulted mortgage.

Many subprime lenders utilize predatory loan practices that benefit the lender at the expense of the homebuyer. Such as lending to low-income, would-be homebuyers, where the lender knows in advance there is high risk of default, higher loan costs are charged the homebuyer but hidden in the loan amount, ARMs are set up as described above where over several years a reasonable payment becomes two to three times it’s original amount, there may be an unrealistic balloon payment required, and the cost of mortgage insurance is added to the monthly payment.

If not too many homeowners default on their mortgages at once, this is not an unmanageable or unprofitable situation for banks. So, while lenders making subprime mortgages clearly reap huge profits from these predatory practices, the low-income homebuyer takes another hit with foreclosure, eviction, and financial and psychosocial-emotional loss. Rather than being a benefit to low-income families, hundreds of thousands of subprime mortgages have defaulted and are in foreclosure; many more such loans are due to default over the next several years. Massive subprime mortgage defaults resulting in collapse of the housing, financial and insurance markets, and the ensuing Great Recession has brought about untold misery for these families and for most Americans.

The fact that most mortgages are federally guaranteed (using taxpayer money), explicitly or implicitly, encourages the financial sector to consider these high-risk, subprime mortgage bundles and the Wall Street securities and derivatives based on them as low-risk investments.

The government mortgage guarantee converted a known high-risk investment into a low-risk one, being secured by mortgage insurance companies and also by the good faith and credit of the United States. These mortgages were securitized and sold by Wall Street as prime investments, not based on the usual anticipated high homeowner debt repayment level, but based solely on the insured value and the government mortgage guarantee.

When millions of these homeowners began to default on their subprime mortgages as predicted, a glut of troubled or foreclosed upon homes on the market produced a fall in home values, making most American homeowners upside-down in their mortgages (the mortgage balance owed is greater than the current appraised home value). Securitized subprime mortgages were leveraged as derivatives at 100:1 and greater, and when the housing market collapsed and mortgages were defaulted, the value of the derivatives evaporated as well leaving the Wall Street investment banks owing 100:1 on their products which now no one was buying.

In 2006, the Bush administration tried to rein in Fannie, Freddie and the other mortgage banks and halt any new subprime mortgages with government guarantees to people who could not afford them. Democrats in Congress resisted all efforts to provide judicious oversight or regulation of this high-risk activity. As late as 2008, Democrat leadership in Congress assured the American public that Fannie, Freddie, and the U.S. housing and financial markets were in good shape and as strong as ever.

When the subprime mortgage housing crisis began to grow and spread, Wall Street firms and other large financial institutions filed insurance claims based on the defaulted subprime mortgages, that led to the failure and federal bailout of large insurance companies like AIG, that were insolvent and unable to satisfy claims. The financial sector next went to the federal government for the guarantee and the government gave the financial and insurance companies taxpayer money to bail them out.

The bubble of subprime mortgages was contrived and executed and Wall Street and other financial company excesses were subsidized by Democrat policies that led directly to the current Recession. While the Bush administration was admittedly far from perfect, Bush is not responsible for the current recession—this blame is more appropriately laid at the feet of the Democrats.

While the Bush administration did little to hold down government spending and deficits, Obama has raised spending and deficits more than twice as high as levels under Bush. Most of the Bush deficit expenditures were for a prescription drug program for seniors, and providing justifiable action for national security defense against Islamic Jihadist terrorists.

On the other hand, most of the Obama expenditures have been political payback to Democrat cronies, like Wall Street, the unions, environmentalists, ACORN and other subversive groups, and increasing the size of government and the number of government employees, along with ensuring that federal employee salaries and benefits were more than twice those of comparable workers in the private sector.

The fact that Bush did a limited amount of damage to America through deficit spending on widely desired and other essential, constitutional government functions, does not justify Obama’s multiplying Bush’s deficit many times over with frivolous and wasteful, pork-barrel, political payback while aggressively acting to destroy American free market capitalism, abridge American freedoms, stifle the voice of opposition and critical analysis, weaken American and allied national security defenses, increase American subservience to international interests and secure long-term power to himself and the Democrat Party.

Big Labor, and high corporate taxes, both strongly supported by Democrats, have forced companies to leave the United States and take their businesses elsewhere to remain competitive. If we could have stopped the unions in the 1980’s, and maintained a more reasonable business and investment tax policy we might still have a private auto industry, other manufacturing, and a stronger business sector with higher employment in our economy. Even now, we have the opportunity to dramatically reduce corporate and investment taxes and see business and industry return and boom in the U.S.

However, in order to hire employees, expand the business and increase production, business needs capital. Despite a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars, money is still tight. The banks still are not lending to the economy what the economy needs to grow. When the banks get back into the business of providing the needed capital to the economy instead of just investing overcautiously in Treasury Bills, the economy will have a chance to start growing again.

In the United States we don’t have a typical parliamentary system, but we do have a fairly strong two party system. Many times in the past, third parties have been formed, and while they may temporarily sway American thought and the direction of the two major parties, none have been successful in being any real, long-term influence on American politics. The plan of the Tea Party from the start was to take over, from the inside, the Republican Party, taking it from the establishment which had lost its way and return the party to its roots in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes and free markets within the framework and freedoms of a Constitutional Republic. The Tea Party did not want and refused to go down that pointless, third-party road.

Large numbers of individual, average Americans, most for the first time in their lives, moved beyond their comfort level, took a stand against the fiscally irresponsible policies of both major political parties, and worked long and hard hours to get good people with Tea Party views to win in the Republican primaries. Many progressive incumbent Republicans were replaced in these primaries with a Tea Party-supported Republican candidate. In the general elections, many progressive Democrats and earmark and spend establishment Republicans were roundly defeated and replaced with Tea Party Republicans committed to sound fiscal policies.

Over time, the goal is to replace progressives of all party affiliations with Tea Party Republicans such that the Republican Party will be the party of Tea Party principles and values, and the majority party in federal, state and local government. The “Tea Party” is not an actual political party, but a loose organization of Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Unaffiliated and even some Democrats fed up with politics as usual forming thousands of small patriot groups that together make up a rather disjointed but broad-based and committed, grass-roots political movement.

There is nothing illegal, immoral or unethical in being a Tea Party Republican. Rather than serve to prop up the corrupt Republican or Democrat establishment in Washington, Tea Party Republicans have been charged with the special mission of restoring the Republican Party and the nation to correct, constitutional principles of government that promote freedom and prosperity.

There is less than zero basis for any type of legal or ethical challenge to these newly elected lawmakers for not being “real” Republicans. The Tea Party movement believes that real Republicans ascribe to Tea Party principles and values, and that establishment Republicans have strayed far too long from their true conservative roots. The Tea Party movement may, in fact, be a part of another “Great Awakening” spreading across America and even well beyond her shores, presenting the possibly of a second chance for other great nations as well.

With an influx of Tea Party Republicans into governments across the land and a Republican majority in the House, slowing down if not actually stopping altogether and reversing the relentless and destructive Obama socialist/anti-colonialist juggernaut is a real possibility. If the average American continues to stand against what is wrong with America, and fights for what is right for America, in the next several election cycles there will be Tea Party Republicans in power across the country, in the House, the Senate and in the Oval Office.

If the millions of Americans who relate to the Tea Party movement continue to stand up for the God-given, inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, corruption and destruction will fail, freedom will prevail, and America will be back on the road to honest industry and real, non-bubble prosperity, building a better life for our children and grandchildren, instead of selling them into future slavery to foreign powers.

Kiss Your Social Security Goodbye

Unfortunately, you can kiss your Social Security goodbye from the day it started, and the victims of this scandal are the American people. When FDR hatched the scheme of having workers contribute a portion of their income to the Social Security Trust, it was with the promise that those who contributed to the “insurance” program would receive benefits from that Trust upon retirement.

In reality, the money taken from your paycheck is not insurance and does not go to the Trust Fund, it goes to the general fund and Congress spends your contributions each year.

Your hard-earned money that you contributed to the Trust Fund has been spent from day one of the program and there is NO money in the Fund today. Currently, more money is paid out to Social Security beneficiaries than comes in in contributions, and this will only worsen as the baby-boomers retire en mass and leave only a relatively few workers left contributing.

What this means is that we have to borrow more and more money each year to continue paying benefits at the current level for more and more people; this is UNSUSTAINABLE, we can’t continue on this path for long.

If the Social Security contributions, from the beginning, had been placed in a true retirement account in low-risk investments in the market, there would be billions of dollars in the Fund, even after the 2008 market decline. Instead, Congress has consistently robbed the Fund and there is ZERO dollars in the account.

If we continue on the current path, there will be no Fund in a few years, and no further benefits will be paid out to anyone. So, with your choice being NO Social Security versus reforming Social Security, which would you prefer? How can we preserve something from Social Security?

We have to make choices that are neither fair nor easy, and this involves the consideration of private accounts, increasing the retirement age, increasing payroll contributions, decreasing benefits, and limiting benefits to wealthy retirees who don’t need them.

Academic elites resist true reform and criticize current proposals as “pretty drastic” and “horse manure”; they’re right about drastic, and drastic reform is all that will save any vestige of this program. We can’t afford to continue to “kick this issue down the road” anymore as Congress has for the last 20 years.

As far as whether or not Social Security is constitutional, this is a moot point. The fact that a Supreme Court packed with FDR yes-men said that Social Security was constitutional is more a reflection of political corruption than jurisprudence. The fact is, it’s a crime perpetrated on the American people by the federal government over the last some eighty years, and this has to stop.

Given the history of the U.S. Congress’ abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund, if there were a choice, would you choose to trust Washington, your state government, or a private, personal investment account that you hold and will grow your retirement money and actually have something for retirement?

My preference would be to have a private account in my name that I possess and have inheritance rights to that the government cannot confiscate and spend that will BE THERE when I retire. One way or the other, we’re going to have to do something dramatically different from what we’ve done in the past, if we want Social Security to exist in the future.

Nixon’s Blood Cries From the Grave for Obama’s Resignation

Nixon resigned the Presidency largely because of Administration “enemies lists”, slush funds to finance “dirty tricks” to influence voters, and the cover-up after the fact of these activities authorized by the President. Illegal Nixon Administration activities, like the Watergate break-in, are now known to have occurred without the President’s knowledge or approval.

President Clinton was impeached by the House essentially for lying to the American people, and remains indebted to the Senate for having the mercy not to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors. What Obama is doing is little different from what Clinton and the Nixon Administration did that led to Clinton’s impeachment and Nixon’s forced resignation. Except that Obama is better organized, better funded, better connected, has the full support of the lapdog, lame-stream media, and is much more dangerous.

President Obama, as a candidate for the presidency, flagrantly violated campaign financing laws in raising the record number of millions of dollars to finance his campaign. As president, Obama encouraged and sanctioned the thuggish activities of ACORN and SEIU, and his stimulus bill sent millions of dollars to these groups for their illegal activities. President Obama has blatantly lied to the American public on many occasions such as when trying to sell Obamacare, the new financial law and the DISCLOSE Act to the people.

Obama’s Justice Department has failed to prosecute criminals intimidating voters or assaulting Tea Party members, investigate serious voting irregularities across the nation, or defend in the courts the Defense of Marriage Act. Supreme Court Justices have been appointed that lack a healthy respect for the Constitution and refuse to abide by the oath of office that requires Justices to render equal judgment without regard to race, status or condition of wealth.

Virtually daily Obama initiatives are slotted to repress personal freedoms from silencing the free speech of those who oppose his agenda, to registration, limitation and confiscation of personal firearms, and even to outlawing sweetened drinks at schools or the addition of salt to our food.

Where Arizona passed a law to permit state law-enforcement to help do the job of enforcing laws governing illegal immigrants that the federal government refused to do, the DOJ sued the State of Arizona to stop the state from upholding the law.

The Obama Administration actively promotes illegal immigration, wants to secure health and welfare benefits for illegals, encourages illegals to vote in U.S. elections thereby violating voting-rights laws, and wants to grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently working in the country that would lead to assuring the Democrats’ grip on power for many years to come.

Many scabs are being hired by the Left to infiltrate Tea Party and 9/12 Project groups and stir things up, creating controversy and behaving badly to attract negative attention, to divide, discredit and incapacitate our grassroots efforts. In a number of locations around the country, the Left has also fielded and funded candidates to run with the Tea Party name on the ballot, to confuse voters, split the conservative vote, and give the elections to Democrats.

In the early 1970’s, there was such a public outcry against President Nixon for being involved in half the offensive activities that President Obama is today involved in, that Nixon was forced to resign the presidency. When George W. Bush was running for president, the public had to see his school transcripts and check his attendance records with the National Guard.

However, Obama has a team of high-powered lawyers criss-crossing the nation daily at taxpayer expense to fight in court the legitimate demand that official records of his stateside hospital birth and school records be released, records that would reflect on Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be the U.S. President.

Are there no longer any waves of shock and shame that our President would stoop or bow to these depths? Does it even matter today that our President is a liar and “…a crook”?

Is former President Clinton secretly frustrated that he was impeached for lying about mere sexual indiscretion while Obama’s many flagrant lies about serious issues that affect the lives of every American go with little public criticism and remain unpunished? While Obama strives for social justice and income redistribution, does the blood of Nixon cry out from the grave demanding of Obama “equal justice”?

And what about all the taxpayer money Obama gives to cronies to promote Obamacare, the financial law, the proposed cap and tax scheme, the Obama Presidency and agenda? And all the taxpayer money spent on criticizing and denigrating the Tea Party movement? Is there no longer any respect for the voice of the people?

Why is my hard-earned money being spent by the government to try and convince me that what I’m diametrically opposed to, is something I really should support? Save my money, it’s not working. And why is my money being spent to neutralize a grass-roots movement of which I’m a part and that is the only hope for preserving our free country?

Is there no longer any respect for property, a right constitutionally guaranteed? Is there no longer any respect for the rule of law where citizens and leaders and black and white alike are held to the same standard of compliance? If we are not a free nation of laws, based on inalienable rights granted man by his Creator and secured by the founding law of the Constitution, then we are no longer a free nation.

If we are no longer a free nation, then we must all join the fight to restore our freedom and a respect for our Constitution and all the other laws that proceed from a constitutional basis. Along with this secular renewal, we must also recommit ourselves to a respect for the laws of our Creator and seek to develop a spiritually-centered individual life and public culture.

When asked by a spectator of the Constitutional Convention what they had made, Benjamin Franklin answered “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Mr. Franklin predicted correctly that without continual vigilance, it would be difficult to preserve our free society in the face of constant and unrelenting assault on our Constitutional Republic from sources both foreign and domestic.

The American people have turned their eyes to heaven to repent from having elected President Obama and given him a Democrat majority in Congress, which, combined have worked to destroy all that makes us a great country, including our spiritually-centered culture of doing that which is right and morally responsible. The full measure of our penitence will be required at the ballot box.

Once we have secured honorable people with strong moral and conservative ideals to high office, we must continue to be vigilant to help our leaders continue to walk the straight and narrow path to which they are committed.

If we persist in this struggle with the far-Left radical extremists that currently are running this great country into the ground, and we continue to win new support on a constant basis, eventually we will succeed in restoring liberty and the rule of law, limited by the Constitution according to the founding fathers’ design which was guided and led by the Creator in the sacred work of founding this great free nation.

Today we would answer Benjamin Franklin’s statement as he left the Constitutional Convention that day, in saying “By the Grace of God we will fight to keep our Constitutional Republic and our freedoms.”

Open letter to Pastor John Reed of Sonrise Church, Reno, NV, Sharron Angle’s former pastor

Reverend John Reed of Sonrise Church, Reno, Nevada, and former pastor to Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada, has come forward with a tirade of bigoted anti-Mormon propaganda apparently aimed at Angle’s opponent in the 2010 Senate race, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The following is an open letter to Pastor John Reed:

You claim that Mormons are a “kooky” faith that does illegal and secret things, including hiring people to kill those not in favor with the Church. I’m sure the same kind of false and misleading comments were made by many of the Jewish faith when Jesus Christ introduced his Gospel to the world in the Meridian of time. Is it your wish to be judged on that final day, even as the leaders of the Jews in the time of Christ who rejected Him for teaching new, different and competing ideas?

For someone who claims to follow the Lord’s teachings, your bigoted and false criticisms of the LDS faith are distinctly un-Christian. What about the biblical charge to love one another (even your enemies, which Mormons are not), not to bear false witness, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you? The Bible says that you will know the true Christians by their fruits: the fruit that you are yielding in this regard is bitter, and the tree of the bitter fruit will eventually be hewn down and cast into the fire by the Gardener.

Harry Reid claims to be LDS, but based on his observable actions and beliefs, this is in name only. He would do well if he could be persuaded to follow the guidance of LDS Church leaders and fight against abortion, fight for traditional marriage and family, and fight for individual responsibilities and rights as opposed to “collective salvation” at the hand of the tyrannical nanny state.

Unfortunately, Harry Reid’s creed has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with progressivism/socialism and the domination and coercion of man, according to the plans of the Evil One, stripping man of his God-given freedom and free agency.

Far from hurting Harry Reid’s campaign, your words of ignorance and hatred towards Mormons have unfortunately hurt Sharron Angle’s campaign, which has had much support from the LDS community in Nevada and elsewhere. Was this your intent from the beginning, to hurt Angle and help Reid? Are you a plant from the Left and a subscriber to social justice, an Obama pawn and sleeper cell?

And about things you call secrets: these things are sacred to the LDS people and are between the individual and God and no others. LDS garments are also sacred and symbolic of our faith in Jesus Christ; perhaps you have an article of clothing that you similarly hold as a sacred symbol of your commitment to the Lord, such as a collar or other token.

I call on Sharron Angle and leaders of faith everywhere to denounce this bigotry and un-Christian behavior towards Mormons. How is such wickedness any different from that which marched 6 million Jews to the gas chambers, led to unmeasurable suffering during the Spanish Inquisition, or that which motivated Islamic Jihadist Extremists to bring down the twin towers? How can decent people anywhere sanction such behavior silently?

Far-Right Extremists with a Radical Agenda Are Set to Descend on Washington

The devastating recession was caused by Democrats insistence on banks, Fannie & Freddie providing government guaranteed mortgages to people who could not afford them. These “subprime” loans were turned into stock assets whose value was determined not by the belief that the loans would be repaid by the borrowers, but by the value of the federal government guarantee of these mortgages. Predictably, when borrowers began to default on these mortgages in large numbers, the house of cards created by the Democrats collapsed creating the current recession.

The radical Obama/Democrat agenda led to bailing-out Wall Street and the insurance industry, taking over auto manufacturing, spending billions of dollars in “stimulus” money on pork-barrel and political payback projects which have failed to prevent the ongoing loss of millions of jobs. Instead of helping small businesses create jobs and get the economy going again, Obamacrats have created large, expensive bureaucracies in a takeover of healthcare and financial regulations and taxes that hamstring businesses and prevent job creation and growth.

Obamacare, the new financial law, higher taxes and Washington’s anti-business positions have paralyzed American business and prevented any real economic recovery. Those who want to reduce taxes for all and facilitate the business expansion and job creation that are necessary for real economic recovery are condemned and ignored.

The new Democrat financial law not only raises serious obstacles to economic prosperity, but fails to cure the conditions that produced the mortgage banking and Wall Street collapse. Rather than preventing any further collapses, this puts Obama’s policies of bailouts into law. Now Wall Street is assured that if it takes excessive risk in its ventures and is successful, it will pocket the profits. At the same time, if taking excessive risk results in failure, Wall Street can rely on a federal government bailout.

Given this situation, there is little incentive for Wall Street to limit risk-taking that can lead to financial collapse and recession. The new financial law also does nothing to halt Fannie and Freddie from continuing to back up new subprime mortgages with taxpayer money, the original root of the problem that led to the current recession.

Passage of Obamacare was paid for with more than $500 billion dollars stolen from and weakening Medicare. While Medicare is facing insolvency in the near future, the Obamacrats have done nothing to help sustain this program.

Everyone in today’s workforce knows that they cannot depend on Social Security being there for them when they need support in retirement. The main reason for Social Security going bankrupt is that Congress steals all the Social Security funds collected each year and spends them on general projects, leaving the Social Security Trust Fund empty.

Obamacrats fight desperately against any change that would prevent them from robbing this trust fund each year, and anyone that offers a plan that would restrict Congress’ ability to gut this fund is accused of wanting to eliminate Social Security. All attempts to fix Social Security and Medicare so that they will be there for retirees in the future are condemned by the Obamacrats.

Billions of dollars are collected from the states by the federal government and a small portion of this money is returned to the states by the Department of Education in funding that is given, provided that the states adopt federal government criteria, methods, curricula and teacher and student indoctrination.

Programs to deal with the unproven theory of a “Climate Crisis” (or global warming, global cooling, or just plain climate change), many through the Department of Energy, are designed to make insider politicians and favored corporations rich from taxing the American public for energy usage.

Obamacrat initiatives have shut down American fossil fuel industry precipitating the loss of thousands of jobs, while financially supporting foreign oil production (even that of Mexico in the Gulf), and denying Americans energy independence.

Obamacrats claim that they support a woman’s right to the privacy of reproductive choice, or the “Right to Choose”. For those who understand that abortion is the killing of a human being growing inside the mother, this is no less than the “Right to Choose Death”. There never was such a “right” to kill one human being just because it inconveniences another. However, there is the well-established, God-given and Constitution-assured right to life.

Problems in this country due to illegal immigration are largely due to the imbalance between U.S. demand for illegal workers and foreigner’s lack of viable employment in their home countries. The U.S. government should use policy and diplomacy to strengthen neighboring economies so that home countries can provide the needed employment for these displaced workers. In addition, immigration law should be enforced such that businesses no longer hire illegal immigrants as workers. If U.S. business ceases to employ illegal immigrants, especially if there are good jobs in their home countries, they will pack up and go home.

The Obamacrats claim to be the defenders of American rights; however, there are consistent actions by these people to restrict inalienable and constitutional rights. Free speech that opposes the Obamacrat agenda is to be suppressed. Obamacrats want to register and limit the right to keep and bear arms in preparation for eventual arms confiscation planned by the federal government. The freedom to practice one’s religion is to be suppressed if religion in any way differs from the political thought of those currently in power.

The Obamacrat socialist agenda also calls for government controlling what kind of insurance you’ll buy, what kind of car you’ll drive, what kind of food you’ll eat, whether you can add salt to your food, whether you can drink sweet drinks, and how much you are permitted to weigh.

The Obamacrats have moved the Democrat Party so far to the Left, that regular Americans are now labeled “far-right extremists” and dismissed as favoring a “radical” agenda harmful to America.

Regular Americans who care deeply about individual rights and responsibilities, who want to restrain big government and put America back to work, and who care about the Constitution and the survival of our country and our culture of freedom are cast by the Obamacrats as deluded, manipulated and ignorant “Astroturf”. But these Tea Party, regular American patriots have no intention of being so summarily dismissed; they will be heard.

Candidates for office who have a similar vision of America are supported by regular Americans and condemned by the ruling class who see this wave of American will as disrupting their carefully crafted world of privilege and power. The truly radical agenda is that of the Obamacrats and the ruling class, and with any luck, the American people will replace the Washington elite with these new American candidates and the radical Obamacrat agenda will be discarded onto the trash heap of history.

Amnesty (Is) For Dummies

Amnesty is defined as the action of governments by which persons or groups who have committed a criminal offense of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of a country, are granted total or partial, conditional or unconditional, immunity from prosecution for that crime. Amnesty law, the core of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, is not the solution to our illegal alien crisis, despite misguided claims from the Left. Indeed, past amnesty law dramatically increased illegal immigration, and any suggestion of new amnesty law only encourages more of the same, with illegals crowding into the country to get in under the wire at the prospect.

Even the potential for amnesty rewards lawlessness, penalizes legal immigrants & lawful citizens, leads to a dramatic increase in illegal alien immigration, contributes to the deterioration of American sovereignty, culture & language, undermines our socio-economic stability & growth, and promotes unchecked, single-party dominance, destabilizing our two-party political system. No Amnesty should be offered and no illegal aliens should ever be allowed to vote.

One of the key components of the current illegal immigration crisis is “birthright citizenship”, based on misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, where it says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

Based on this “Citizenship Clause”, even children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are currently considered citizens. This definition of birthright citizenship has led to the practice of foreign women crossing the border into the country illegally, for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child in an American hospital, so that baby would be a citizen of the U.S. and serve as an “anchor baby”, facilitating the legal immigration of the entire extended family, and, in turn, the extended families of each individual of the original extended family, and so on. Recent reports have found that, while illegal aliens comprise only 4% of the U.S. population, they account for more than 8% of babies born in the United States.1

Considering this rate of birth of anchor babies, the subsequent family members that will immigrate based on these births, and the current and projected rates of illegal immigration, the sheer numbers of illegal aliens constantly breeching our borders are overwhelming. There is a huge toll to be paid for this; the cost to American taxpayers and culture vastly outweighs any benefit from work done and taxes paid by illegals.2,3,4 Illegal aliens must not receive welfare, medical coverage, Social Security, or any other services at the expense of taxpayers, as this costs the public millions of local and federal dollars, and voraciously consumes local and national resources.

This clause of the 14th Amendment was intended to assure citizenship to the children of African-American, former slaves, in anticipation of Southern challenges to black citizenship rights. Many have the erroneous belief that birthright citizenship applies to all children born on U.S. soil. In fact, children of foreign diplomats born in this country are not U.S. citizens.5 Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was never intended to extend birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. U.S. Senator Jacob M. Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment “Citizenship Clause”. During debate over this clause, Senator Howard confirmed that children born in the U.S. to foreign or alien parents were not birthright citizens. This was recorded in the Congressional Record of the time: 

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”6

Congressional debate at the time also established that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. meant that children born in the U.S. to parents who owed any allegiance to a country other than the U.S. (i.e. a foreign citizen), would not automatically be citizens. Congress was referring, in the 14th Amendment, to those who were completely subject to U.S. jurisdiction, those who would enjoy the full rights and shoulder the full responsibilities of a U.S. citizen, including being subject to military draft, voting and holding office, and being capable of being charged with treason. Illegal aliens simply do not meet this qualification.7

To fix the anchor baby portion of the illegal immigration crisis, it is not necessary to repeal the 14th Amendment, as some have proposed. Rather, congressional legislation could reaffirm the original intent of the “Citizenship Clause” and all children subsequently born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers would retain their foreign citizenship, would no longer be birthright U.S. citizens and would no longer be able to serve as anchor babies.8 

Immigration law mirroring federal statute was passed in Arizona in 2010, in response to a virtual invasion of illegals, with thousands of people crossing the border from Mexico each day. Other States have also noted an influx of illegals and are planning similar legislation. State immigration laws like Arizona’s are necessary when the government fails to uphold, and continues to delay, fulfilling federal obligations to provide border security and protection from violent illegals and foreign drug cartels.9,10 While Arizona went to great lengths to assure there would be no racial profiling and the law would meet constitutional muster, many, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, criticized the Arizona law as racist and unconstitutional, before admitting they had not yet read the law.

In fact, President Obama indicated to U.S. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona that he is holding border security hostage until he gets the necessary political cooperation to pass Amnesty law.11 In addition, rather than provide assistance to this embattled State, the Obama Administration, acting through the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, filed against the State of Arizona in federal court and was granted a stay of several key portions of the law. The injunction was reported to have been issued based on the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause”, where, if there is overlap, federal statutes supersede those of the States. This temporarily halted meaningful implementation of the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070, pending appeal.12

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution grants power to the Congress to uniformly regulate “naturalization”, which is the process involved in a foreigner obtaining citizenship. However, since the power to regulate “immigration”, the relocation of foreigners into the U.S., is not granted to the federal government, this power, by default, belongs to the States. As such, Arizona and all other States in the Union, have the right and obligation to establish and enforce their own immigration laws.

Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution clearly gives Arizona the right to wage a defensive “war” based on the imminent danger of the illegal immigrant invasion of Arizona and President Obama’s persistent delay in providing assistance:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution organizes the judicial system, and determines that where a legal action involves a State, the Supreme Court is the only court where such actions can be tried:


In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Having filed an invalid action in federal court and obtained an invalid ruling from a federal judge in regard to the State of Arizona, Mr. Holder finds himself in another awkward situation. Any action the federal government wants to take against Arizona, must be correctly tried only by the Supreme Court. Whether the federal or State government, in the end, takes responsibility for the border, it is essential that it be secured without delay. The imperative of border security is a key part of National Security and is heightened by the ease with which known terrorists can illegally traverse the border without detection, to infiltrate American society with murderous intent.

Some have proposed, as a solution to our illegal immigration crisis, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, which is Washington-speak for Amnesty. However, we have seen that Amnesty is no solution and would only worsen the problem. The key to a real solution is strengthening and enforcing current immigration law. If proper enforcement prevents U.S. employers from hiring illegal aliens, these jobs will “dry up” and illegal aliens, most of who came here to work, will pack up and go home without further incentive.

Those choosing to commit the crime of illegal immigration understand that family separation is an integral part of this choice. However, families should not be torn apart, if at all avoidable. Rather, as unemployed illegal aliens repatriate themselves, they are encouraged to keep their families intact by taking them along with. Serious consideration should also be given to advancing the legal immigration and naturalization of more highly-educated and skilled workers, if demand exists.


1.  Jordan M. Illegal Immigrants Estimated to Account for 1 in 12 U.S. Births. The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News, August 12, 2010.

3.  McNeill JB. Amnesty as an Economic Stimulus: Not the Answer to the Illegal Immigration Problem. May 18, 2009, The Heritage Foundation.

4.  Smith L. Immigration: Many Questions, A Few Answers. October 3, 2007, The Heritage Foundation.

5.  Gordon R. The Diane Rehm Show: The Debate Over Immigration and Birthright Citizenship. Case Western Reserve University School of Law News.

6.  Howard JM. The Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, Senate, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p. 2890.

7.  Feere J. Backgrounder: Birthright Citizenship in the United States, A Global Comparison. Center for Immigration Studies, August 2010.

8.  Lee M. More Key Issues: Illegal Immigration. Mike Lee for U.S. Senate 2010.

9.  Archibald RC, Cooper H, Hulse C. Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration. April 23, 2010, New York Times.

10. Brewer J. Arizona Border Security Information: Brewer Letter to President Barack Obama on Immigration. April 6, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer’s website.

11. Kyl: Obama Won’t Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package. June 21, 2010.

12. Markon J, McCrummen S, Shear MD. Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 – Judge Blocks Some Sections. July 29, 2010, The Washington Post.
2.  Wagner PF, Amato D. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Facts, Figures and Statistics on Illegal Immigration.