school bans girl from wearing pro-life t-shirt

TheNewAmerican.comFriday, March 25, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Consumer Prices Fall … or Rise?written by

“Core consumer prices” fell by a monthly 0.1 percent in January, reported the Wall Street Journal onFebruary 19, noting that the last time core consumer prices fell was in December 1982. However, notedthe Journal, citing the U.S. Department of Labor’s statement, the seasonally adjusted consumer priceindex rose 0.2 percent during the same month, the increase caused mainly by higher energy prices.

“Core consumer prices” exclude energy and food.

The Journal article continued:

On an annual basis that are not adjusted for seasonal factors, consumer prices rose by 2.6% inJanuary. Core consumer prices rose by 1.6% from 12 months ago.

The Labor Department’s report showed that energy prices led the increases, rising by a monthly2.8%, the largest gain since August 2009. The gasoline index rose by 4.4% in January. In December,energy prices rose by 0.8% month-on-month.

Food prices were up 0.2% last month, with the index for dairy and related products rising 2.1%,following a 0.1% increase in December.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

An extension of the above-noted January increases throughout 2010 would result in annual increases of33.6 percent for energy prices, with a 52.8 increase for gasoline; and a 2.4 percent increase in foodprices, with dairy and related products increasing by 25.2 percent.

The theme of increasing consumer prices but decreasing “core” prices that excluded items most likely toimpact a family’s weekly budget was repeated in other reports, as AFP noted:

On an unadjusted annual basis, consumer prices were up 2.6 percent from January 2009, a low basefor comparison because consumer prices had fallen for five consecutive months in late 2008 as the

https://thenewamerican.com/consumer-prices-fall-or-rise/

https://thenewamerican.com/

https://TheNewAmerican.com



global financial and economic crisis accelerated.

Core CPI, excluding food and energy prices, unexpectedly fell 0.1 percent last month fromDecember, the first decline since December 1982. [Emphasis added.]

But there was no denying the bottom line. As the Financial Times reported: “Compared with a year ago,consumer prices are up 2.6 per cent.”

Economic reports related to the cost of living tend to contribute to the public’s misunderstanding of“inflation” — a term commonly used as a synonym for higher prices. However, the classic economicsdefinition of inflation is an increase of the amount of money in circulation. When tied to a fixed asset suchas gold or silver, it is difficult to increase this amount and prices tend to be stable. But with theestablishment of the Federal Reserve, and the printing of unlimited amounts of fiat paper currency notbacked by anything of intrinsic value, the inflation of our money supply has run rampant, with thesubsequent effect of much higher prices.

At present, the relatively small increase in prices has masked the inevitable escalation that must followour government’s ongoing spending spree and increase in the money supply. This is partially the result ofdecreased upward pressure on prices caused by a recession-related decrease in consumer spending. Butanother factor hiding inflation is our government’s recent history of borrowing money from foreignsources (principally China) by issuing bonds rather than monetizing our debt.

As for why the Department of Labor expresses price increases (or decreases) using methods thatarbitrarily exclude certain categories that form a major part of most household budgets (such as food andgasoline), the most obvious explanation is that is political trickery designed to hide the poor state of theeconomy from the public. “Prices have gone down,” the government bureaucrats claim, “except for foodand gasoline and heating oil.”

The primary factors contributing to the decrease in the “core” consumer price index were the costs ofhousing and automobiles. However, how often does the average consumer buy a house or automobile?And when the budget is tight, those are purchase that can be postponed until things improve.

But even a modest increase in food and energy prices has an immediate impact on the family budget,especially on those with fixed incomes. The case of retired older American living mainly on Social Securitycomes to mind.

During most years, Social Security recipients receive an annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), basedon the cost of living, using one of the government’s various indices. However, seniors failed to receive aCost of Living Adjustment in 2010 for the first time since the Automatic COLA was introduced in 1975,because the official measure of the cost of living claims that prices have gone down, not up. COLA isdetermined by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which istabulated by the career bureaucrats at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A report published by prnewswire.com about the Social Security COLA notes:

Without the yo-yo effect of energy prices, the COLA for last January [2009] would have been barelyhalf as large. The CPI-W for all items except energy rose only 3.1 percent during the period, basedon monthly figures available on the BLS Web site. But there also would have been a COLA increasethis coming January, too, and probably the year after as well. That’s because the CPI-W for all items

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/51-percent-of-seniors-getting-smaller-social-security-checks-this-year-survey-84468167.html





except energy rose 1.5 percent in the last 12 months. Compare that to the 1.9 percent decline for allitems including energy.

Whatever the cause, Social Security recipients are going to feel squeezed this January, simplybecause they have become accustomed to annual increases. And about one in every four really willbe squeezed, because their Medicare premiums will increase.

Picture yourself as a retiree living mainly on Social Security. The price of your food, gasoline for your car,and heating bill have all gone up. But the government says that increase in food and energy don’t count indetermining the cost of living, so you will get no COLA this year. Yet, with increased Medicare premiums,your net Social Security payment will actually go down. And a major factor in determining the drop in the“core” consumer price index — the cost of housing — has just decimated the value of your net worth byreducing the value of your home.

Our government’s game playing in saying that our rising cost of living is nonexistent (or has actually gonedown) is harmful to all Americans, but particularly to our retired senior citizens.

And while it is true that Social Security and Medicare are not authorized by our Constitution, our citizenryhas involuntarily been made a participant in such schemes. To say that senior citizens should take whatthey get from Social Security without complaint because Social Security is not mandated by theConstitution ignores the fact that by forcing taxpayers to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, ourgovernment has incurred an obligation to return fair value for what was confiscated.

It would be better for all Americans, however, if our government would live within its means, spend moneyonly for what the Constitution authorizes, and not lie about the effects its profligate spending practiceshave had on our cost of living.

Photo: AP Images

1960: A Year That Changed Americawritten by Jack Kenny

https://thenewamerican.com/1960-a-year-that-changed-america/





The lives of most Americans in 1960 were markedly different from a decade earlier in at least onesignificant respect. A great many more of us were watching television.

Thanks largely to Milton Berle, Arthur Godfrey, Lucille Ball, and the who’s who of stars appearing on theEd Sullivan and other variety shows, people during the fifties bought TV sets — so many of them that by1960, a mere dozen years since the dawn of commercial television, 87 percent of American homes weretuned in to one or more of the many local affiliates of NBC, CBS, and ABC, along with a number ofindependent channels. One year later the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, NewtonN. Minnow, would deplore the vacuity of much of network programming, calling television “a vastwasteland.”

Yet television, for all its silly sitcoms, game shows, and redundant cowboys, played a major role in thepolitics of 1960. And on January 2, 1960, the most telegenic candidate of his time, John F. Kennedy, the42-year-old junior Senator from Massachusetts, announced, to the surprise of no one, that he was acandidate for that year’s Democratic nomination for President. Two days later, far from TV cameras andnewspaper headlines, an event occurred that few Americans were aware of at the time. A young Marineand ex-patriot, a defector to the Soviet Union, was sent by the Soviet authorities to Minsk, where he wasgiven work as an assembler at a radio and television factory.


The Winter Olympics were held in Squaw Valley, California, and the host country captured three goldmedals, all on ice. David Jenkins and the Queen of the Ice, Miss Carol Heiss, won the gold in men’s andladies’ figure skating, and the USA hockey team captured a gold medal, beating the heavily favoredSoviets along the way.

On February 1, the civil rights movement that would dominate much of the politics of the 1960s received afresh impetus when four black college students sat down at a lunch counter reserved for whites at aWoolworth’s store in Greensboro, North Carolina, and asked for service. They were asked to leave andpolitely refused, thus ensuring their arrest. Sit-ins would soon become a popular form of protest in the1960s. So would freedom rides, with black and white passengers riding side by side on interstate bus tripsthat ended in Southern depots, often with angry white mobs waiting for the “outside agitators” trying tointegrate old Dixie.





The Prominence of Primaries

Party primaries were beginning to play a deciding role in presidential politics and in March, Kennedy wonNew Hampshire in a walk, with none of the other contenders bothering to contest the first primary, sinceit was in Kennedy’s neighboring state. The closest thing to an opponent the Massachusetts Senator hadwas Paul Fisher, a Chicago manufacturer of ballpoint pens. On the Republican side, Vice PresidentRichard Nixon was the darling of the Party regulars. He also took New Hampshire in a landslide, with theman called “Tricky Dick” getting 89.3 percent of the vote. The name of New York Governor NelsonRockefeller attracted a mere 3.8 percent.

Kennedy followed his win in New Hampshire with another in Wisconsin, finishing first against Minnesota’scrusading liberal, Senator Hubert Humphrey, in Humphrey’s neighboring state. The crucial test wouldcome in West Virginia, however, a primary Kennedy entered in a huge gamble.

No assessment of the Kennedy candidacy seemed complete without a discussion of his religious affiliation.Only one other presidential candidate of either major party had been a Catholic. Governor Al Smith ofNew York was the Democratic candidate in 1928 and lost in a landslide to Republican Herbert Hoover.And in West Virginia, many of the backwoods Democrats had never seen, much less known, a Catholic.The denominations that swung the primary to Kennedy, however, were not religious but monetary. Thetremendous Kennedy wealth was put to use with great effect in a small, poverty-ridden state where moneydid not normally abound. Many of those dollars were passed through the hands of mobsters who usedthem to buy off Humphrey supporters. After losing both Wisconsin and West Virginia, Humphrey foldedhis tent and ended his campaign.

On May 1, a U-2 reconnaissance plane was shot down over Russia. At first, the incident seemed no bigdeal. As was standard practice whenever a recon plane was found flying in enemy territory, the WhiteHouse issued a statement claiming it was a weather plane that had strayed off course. But both the planeand the pilot, Gary Powers, had been captured and when the contents of the plane had been examined,Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said he had no idea CIA chief Allen Dulles had such a keen interest inmeteorology.

Later, Americans learned that the young Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union had previouslybeen stationed by the Marines at the Atsugi, Japan, Naval Air Facility, where the U-2 flights originated.When he defected, did the turncoat give information to the Soviets that helped them bring down thereconnaissance plane? Powers later said he believed so.

Eisenhower, embarrassed, had to come clean and admit it was a spy plane, penetrating the closed societyof the Soviet Union. Khrushchev, meanwhile, milked the U-2 incident for all it was worth. A guest ofEisenhower in the United States the previous summer, the Russian leader cancelled plans to host Ike inRussia and called off a planned summit between the United States and the Soviet Union in Paris. At theUnited Nations, Khrushchev appeared in person and pounded his shoe on a table to express hisindignation.

Both Kennedy and Nixon won first-ballot nominations. Kennedy’s came in Los Angeles, where he deliveredhis acceptance speech in a hoarse voice at the Los Angeles Coliseum, while squinting into a setting sun.His father, former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, not wanting to catch any of the media attention on hisson’s night in the spotlight, left L.A. that morning and flew to New York, where he watched theacceptance speech on TV at the home of Time-Life publisher Henry Luce.





Carrying On a Campaign

The convention had gone down very smoothly, but there were a few moments that previewed the politicsof dissent that would become popular during the 1960s and ’70s. A young Senator named EugeneMcCarthy of Minnesota made the nominating speech for the old warrior, Adlai Stevenson. McCarthy in1968 would lead the antiwar movement and score a stunning upset of President Lyndon Johnson in theNew Hampshire primary. Within a fortnight, Johnson withdrew from the race.

The only suspense surrounding Kennedy’s nomination was his choice of a running mate. Choosing SenatorMajority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had sought the nomination himself, was bound to becontroversial. Bobby Kennedy, the nominee’s younger brother and campaign manager, bitterly opposed it.Civil rights leaders were not happy with the choice of a Texan whose record on civil rights was checkeredat best. Key elements of organized labor balked. But Kennedy knew if he wanted to carry any part of theSouth and West, he needed an old hand like Johnson, both a Southerner and a Westerner, to balance hisappeal — and his liabilities — as a young Northeast liberal.

Nixon, meanwhile, was moving resolutely toward a coronation in Chicago. There were rumbles on theRight when Nixon tried to solidify his support from the Rockefeller wing of the party, visiting the NewYork Governor at his Fifth Avenue apartment on the weekend before the convention and agreeing toplatform planks on civil rights and other issues important to the party’s liberals and moderates, but whichprompted the party’s conservatives to raise their concerns about states’ rights and a limited,constitutional role for the federal government. Leading the rebellion was U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwaterof Arizona, whose book, a slender volume called The Conscience of a Conservative, was published earlierthat year and became a huge best-seller and one of the most interesting books of the decade. Goldwaterscorned Nixon and Rockefeller’s “Compact of Fifth Avenue,” dubbing it “the Munich of the RepublicanParty.”

The Goldwater rebellion created a move to challenge Nixon for the nomination itself. The feisty Arizonanallowed the Louisiana delegation to place his name in nomination. It was a short-lived rebellion. When thevotes were tallied, it was 1,321 for Nixon and 10 for Goldwater. So Goldwater went to the rostrum andasked that Nixon be nominated by acclamation. It was a shrewd move, since a national televisionaudience, much of it seeing and hearing the Arizonan for the first time, saw his gracious concession andheard him voice both his own and his party’s conservative principles. Four years later, Goldwater wouldbe the party’s candidate for President. While his campaign was a spectacular flop electorally — he lost allbut six states to Lyndon Johnson — his candidacy helped spark a revival of conservatism in Americanpolitics.

As Kennedy moved into Nixon’s home base of Southern California to accept his Party’s nomination, Nixonraided Massachusetts to capture a running mate. The choice was United Nations Ambassador HenryCabot Lodge, a scion of an influential Republican family, a fixture in the liberal to moderate wing of theGOP, and an establishment candidate whose impeccable foreign policy credentials included the obligatorymembership in the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization dedicated to bringing about one-worldgovernment. Lodge had lost his Senate seat to Kennedy in 1952, but in 1960 he hoped to help Nixon keepthe young millionaire in the Senate and out of the White House.

But the choice, while appealing to the political and journalistic establishment, would not help Nixon in theSouth, where he hoped to build on Eisenhower’s appeal. Ike won four Southern states in the Democrats’solid South in 1956 and in what would likely be a close election, Nixon would need those states and more.





The candidate, adept at walking political tightropes and keeping his convictions close to his vest, trod afine line on civil rights. The Republicans had actually been out ahead of the Democrats on that issue for along time, as most of the congressional Democrats came from the segregationist South. But Nixon couldnot go too far out on a limb without sparking another rebellion on the Right.

A telling moment came when Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested for leading a prayer vigil during one ofhis protest demonstrations against Jim Crow laws in the South. Many feared he would be abused, possiblyeven killed, in jail. By at least some accounts, it was Kennedy’s brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, whoconvinced the Senator that he should make a phone call to King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, to offer hissympathy and moral support. When Kennedy did, Shriver leaked the news to the press. Bobby Kennedywas said to be furious, thinking it would sink the campaign in the South. But millions of black voters heardor read Martin Luther King Senior’s praise of Kennedy. The elder King had already endorsed Nixon, buthe quickly and publicly changed his mind. He had never thought he would vote for a Catholic forPresident, he said, but he was now for Kennedy. “Because this man was willing to wipe the tears from mydaughter [in-law]’s eyes, I’ve got a suitcase of votes, and I’m going to take them to Mr. Kennedy and dumpthem in his lap.”

The religious issue was thrust to the forefront by a group of prominent Protestant clergymen led bypopular preacher Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, the best-selling author of The Power of Positive Thinking.The group expressed a number of concerns about having a Catholic as President. The issues of dividedloyalty, separation of church and state, etc., came up all over again. Former Illinois Governor AdlaiStevenson, twice the Democratic candidate for President, was both dismissive and contemptuous ofPeale’s position. “I find Paul appealing and Peale appalling,” he quipped. But Kennedy met the objectionshead-on by going to Texas to address the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12.

“I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me,” Kennedy toldthe Protestant clergy. “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute —where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, theNational Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — and where no religious body seeks toimpose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — andwhere religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

Kennedy repeated his stands against having an ambassador to the Vatican and against federal aid toparochial schools. He noted pointedly that no one had accused him or his brothers of divided loyalty whenthey served in Word War II. And for the benefit of his Texas audience, Kennedy remembered the Alamo,where men with names like Fuentes, McCafferty, Bailey, Bedillo, and Carey fought and died alongsidemen named Crockett and Bowie. No one knows if they were Catholics, Kennedy said. “For there was noreligious test there.”

On the very next day, September 13, 1960, another event that seemed insignificant at the time took place.That young defector, still in the Soviet Union, was given an undesirable discharge from the United StatesMarine Corps.

Kennedy was increasingly getting “face time” on national television, helping him catch up in recognitionwith the more familiar Vice President. Television began to play a dominant role in presidential campaignswhen the first ever face-to-face presidential debates were held that fall. Millions watched the first debateand were impressed as the young, attractive, articulate Senator from Massachusetts showed a commandof the facts and issues that surely equaled, if not surpassed, that of his more experienced opponent. And





Nixon, who was known for his debating skills and the pride he took in them, appeared pale, haggard, andoverworked, while Kennedy was tanned and relaxed. The first debate, focusing on domestic issues, wentby most accounts to Kennedy, as the nation began to sense the momentum was moving his way as well.

Another man in his early forties took the spotlight for a brief time in late September. Ted Williams of theBoston Red Sox, who began his major league career in 1939, played his last game at Boston’s FenwayPark and, in dramatic fashion, homered in his final at bat. “Turbulent” Ted, famous for his flare-ups atsports writers and booing fans, took his .344 career batting average into retirement, leaving the baseballworld, as one writer put it, like England after the loss of its colony in India — diminished, yet somehowrelieved.

There would be two more presidential debates. Kennedy did well in both, but there was no sure consensusabout a winner. Still, ever confident, he clamored for a fourth debate. Nixon was trying to fulfill thepromise he made in accepting the nomination: to personally carry the campaign into every state in thenation. It was a promise to which he stuck doggedly, flying to Alaska and Hawaii and losing time in the airthat could have been spent on the ground in swing states with more electoral votes.

Nixon’s campaign hopes surged when Eisenhower joined the fray, campaigning the last two weeks for theman he had elevated to the Vice Presidency. But in the end, it was a photo finish, with Kennedy narrowlyvictorious, due in part to the posthumous vote in Chicago Mayor Dick Daley’s Illinois and LBJ’s Texas.Some of those men at the Alamo must have voted for Kennedy, after all.

A Coronation

The Kennedys went home to Hyannisport to prepare for a new administration and the birth of their secondchild, John, Jr. Nixon returned to California, where he would run for Governor in 1962. He lost, and withthat defeat, his career seemed over. “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” he bitterly toldreporters at his farewell press conference, exactly 10 years to the day before he would win reelection asPresident, carrying 49 states against Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota. The fall of 1962 was alsothe time of a tense and dramatic missile crisis in Cuba. A year earlier, the wall had gone up in Berlin. TheCold War showed no sign of thawing. Kennedy radiated optimism when he announced the goal of landingan American on the moon and bringing him safely back to Earth by the end of the decade. Later hepressed for a nuclear test ban treaty and observed solemnly that every man, woman, and child on Earthwas living under “a nuclear sword of Damocles.”

Nixon went from his defeat in California to a law practice in New York. Nelson Rockefeller was still theGovernor and would be heard from as a presidential hopeful in 1964. So would the junior Senator fromArizona, the candidate who led with his jaw, “Mr. Conservative,” Barry Goldwater. Bobby Kennedybecame the Attorney General, getting a little experience in that office, the President-elect joked, “beforehe goes out to practice law.” Ted Kennedy, having just turned 30 in February 1962, would run for and winhis brother’s Senate seat that fall with the slogan “Kennedy can do more for Massachusetts.” On stage,records, and occasional television appearances, a mimic from New England named Vaughn Meaderparodied the Boston accent and political success of America’s new political dynasty as he urged citizenseverywhere to “vote for the Kennedy of your choice, but do vote.”

On Broadway, Camelot was playing and would soon become the theme of an administration in Washingtonthat radiated youth, energy, and glamour. Also on Broadway, a new play had its grand opening inNovember 1960. Like the year’s real-life political drama, it, too, had a Catholic as its main character. Sir





Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, would not, and in conscience could not, accommodate KingHenry VIII by signing the oath of allegiance to the tempestuous monarch as head of the Church inEngland. More also refused to endorse the King’s decision to divorce his wife Catherine and wed AnneBoleyn. Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons presented More, a Catholic saint, as a martyr for freedom ofconscience. The play would later be made into a motion picture and would win six Academy Awards.

As Richard Nixon grew restless in political exile, Lyndon Johnson remained largely forgotten as VicePresident, and Barry Goldwater thundered occasionally in the Senate, Kennedy dealt with a botched Bayof Pigs invasion, more trouble with Cuba, a nuclear test ban treaty, and a widening war in Vietnam. But helistened with obvious pleasure to Marilyn Monroe singing “Happy Birthday” to him at his 45th birthdayparty at Madison Square Garden in New York in May of 1962 and no doubt allowed himself to gloat just abit that Marilyn probably never sang that way to Vice President Nixon, and certainly not to PresidentEisenhower. And that young Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union had a change of heart and wasallowed to come home, bringing his Russian-born wife and children with him. The former defector foundwork in Dallas, Texas, and settled there.

Camelot Crumbles

Meanwhile, the Kennedy administration went after enemies, both foreign and domestic, with ruthlessabandon. Attorney General Robert Kennedy used the Justice Department to hound executives of U.S. Steelover price hikes, as well as kingpins of organized crime. Attempts to assassinate Cuban leader FidelCastro reportedly shocked even Vice President Johnson, who was later quoted as saying the CIA wasrunning “a g**damn Murder, -Incorporated!”

Neither were allies safe from the schemes in Washington. In 1963, Henry Cabot Lodge, now the NewFrontier’s man in Saigon, had given the go-ahead to a coup against President Ngo Dinh Diem of SouthVietnam. Diem was overthrown and assassinated on November 1. A mere three weeks later, anotherassassination took place in Dallas that would shock America and the world. Lee Harvey Oswald, theformer defector to the Soviet Union and a member of Fair Play for Cuba, was arrested and would becharged with the murder of President John F. Kennedy and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippett. Oswald waskilled two days later by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, who somehow gained entrance to the basement of theDallas police station and shot Oswald at close range while the alleged assassin was in police custody.

Suddenly Camelot had ended and a new era was underway in America, an era characterized by politicalassassinations, a protracted and undeclared war in Asia, the government spying on its citizens, riots incities, a growing drug culture, and a sexual revolution. It was an era that might have been describeddecades earlier by an Irish poet named William Butler Yeats:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhereThe ceremony of innocence is drowned.

— “The Second Coming” by William Butler Yeats.

— Photo of JFK: AP Images





The Census and the Constitutionwritten by Denise Behreandt

What purpose did the Constitution’s framers have in mind ordering an enumeration or count of theAmerican people every 10 years? The purpose of the headcount is to apportion the number of seats in theHouse of Representatives and derived from that, along with two senators from each state, the number ofelectors to the Electoral College.

The Census Bureau tells us that this year, it will use a shorter questionnaire, consisting of only 10questions. From what I see, only one of them serves the constitutional purpose of enumeration — namely,“How many people were living or staying at this house, apartment or mobile home on April 1, 2010?” TheCensus Bureau’s shorter questionnaire claim is deceptive at best.

The American Community Survey, long form, that used to be sent to 1 in 6 households during thedecennial count, is now being sent to many people every year. Here’s a brief sample of its questions, and Iwant someone to tell me which question serves the constitutional function of apportioning the number ofseats in the U.S. House of Representatives: Does this house, apartment, or mobile home have hot and coldrunning water, a flush toilet, a bathtub or shower, a sink with a faucet, a refrigerator, a stove? Lastmonth, what was the cost of electricity for this house, apartment, or mobile home? How many times hasthis person been married?


After each question, the Bureau of the Census provides a statement of how the answer meets a federal

https://thenewamerican.com/the-census-and-the-constitution/





need. I would prefer that they provide a statement of how answers to the questions meet theconstitutional need as expressed in Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

The Census Bureau also asks questions about race, and I want to know what does my race have to do withapportioning the U.S. House of Representatives? If I’m asked about race, I might respond the way I didwhen filling out a military form upon landing in Inchon, Korea in 1960; I checked off Caucasian. Thewarrant officer who was checking forms told me that I made a mistake and should have checked off“Negro.” I told him that people have the right to self-identify themselves and I’m Caucasian. The warrantofficer, trying to cajole me, asked why I would check off Caucasian instead of Negro. I told him thatchecking off Negro would mean getting the worse job over here. I’m sure the officer changed it after I left.

Americans need to stand up to Washington’s intrusion into our private lives. What business of governmentis the number of times a citizen has been married or what he paid for electricity last month? For thosewho find such intrusion acceptable, I’d ask them whether they’d also find questions of their sex lives ortheir marriage fidelity equally acceptable.

What to do? Unless a census taker can show me a constitutional requirement, the only information I planto give are the number and names of the people in my household. The census taker might say, “It’s thelaw.” Thomas Jefferson said, “Whensoever the General Government (Washington) assumes undelegatedpowers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to see the Walter Williams column in yourhometown paper.

Climate Scientist Admits No Warming in 15 Yearswritten by James Heiser

https://thenewamerican.com/climate-scientist-admits-no-warming-in-15-years/





Global warming? Not in the last fifteen years. The concession of this fact by one of the leading advocatesof the theory of manmade climate change is the latest development in the rocky post-Climategate world.

Prof. Phil Jones, the former director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,was among the scientists who was embarrassed by the Climategate revelations.

In the aftermath of Climategate, Jones stood as one of the individuals at the very nexus of the scandal.

As scientists and independent journalists began to demand the data to verify claims of anthropogenicglobal warming, Jones and the CRU found themselves at the center of undesired attention as it becameclear that a release of all the original data would not be forthcoming.

Actually, it turned out that the CRU destroyed much of the original data. As the Times of London reported,

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take accountof variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals —stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a newbuilding. The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by ProfessorPhil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access tosuch data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only thevalue-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

At one point, Jones claimed that some climate data could not be released for independent scientificverification because of “confidentiality agreements”—meanwhile claiming that he could not rememberwith which governments such agreements had been made.

Now, Prof. Jones is blaming his poor record keeping for the troubles, and is conceding that the past fifteenyears have shown no sign of climate change. According to a Daily Mail report:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory ofclimate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

http://eastangliaemails.com/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece



http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/climategate-scientific-fascism-and-copenhagen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fo4997gv







Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requestsis that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that helacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his recordkeeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates tosupport the theory. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times thannow – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The notion that the nations of the world gathered in Copenhagen in December of last year to considertreaties which would have fundamentally altered the global economy, and could have ended nationalsovereignty in any meaningful sense of the term, on account of the contended theory of manmade globalwarming is unbelievable enough. To now learn that such inexcusable sloppiness regarding the handling ofthe alleged data which is being invoked to support such actions strains credulity.

The fiasco known at the "climate change theory" ought to call into question the presumptions of elementsof the scientific community which have become accustomed to delivering pronouncements from on high.Credentials are no substitute for science, and the assertion of a theory does not establish that theory asfact.

Photo of UN’s climate chief Yvo de Boer: AP Images

Bill Gates Warns of Climate Changewritten by James Heiser

Microsoft mogul Bill Gates appears to be continuing his bid to become Al Gore 2.0.

https://thenewamerican.com/bill-gates-warns-of-climate-change/





Gates generated some attention several weeks ago with his public prognostications regarding animminent “end of the world as we know it.” As the previous jeremiad was reported at InformationWeek,

Bill Gates said he fears Earth might become a post-industrial wasteland plagued by heat, chronicfood and energy shortages, and rampant disease unless governments and private organizationsinvest more time and money solving what the Microsoft chairman believes are the world’s mostpressing problems."If we project what the world will be like 10 years from now without innovation in health, education,energy, or food, the picture is quite bleak," said Gates, in his annual letter from the Bill & MelindaGates Foundation, published earlier this week.

To his credit, Gates’ Foundation did back up the rhetoric with action, providing $10 billion forinoculations. But Gates’ latest pronouncement appears to signal his intention to become a climate changefanboy at the very moment when the theory appears to have achieved obsolescence. Of course, Microsoft’scritics may find this to be nothing new for Bill Gates.

According to an article at CNN.com,

Gates called climate change the world’s most vexing problem, and added that finding a cheap andclean energy source is more important than creating new vaccines and improving farmingtechniques, causes into which he has invested billion of dollars.The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation last month pledged $10 billion to help deploy and developvaccines for children in the developing world.The world must eliminate all of its carbon emissions and cut energy costs in half in order to preventa climate catastrophe, which will hit the world’s poor hardest, he said."We have to drive full speed and get a miracle in a pretty tight timeline," he said.Gates said the deadline for the world to cut all of its carbon emissions is 2050. He suggested thatresearchers spend the next 20 years inventing and perfecting clean-energy technologies, and thenthe next 20 years implementing them.The world’s energy portfolio should not include coal or natural gas, he said, and must includecarbon capture and storage technology as well as nuclear, wind and both solar photovoltaics andsolar thermal power."We’re going to have to work on each of these five [areas] and we can’t give up on any of thembecause they look daunting," he said. "They all have significant challenges."

Certainly billionaires have a very different understanding of the term “daunting” than the rest of us;exotic energy technologies are a lot more interesting when you have the money to afford a 30-car garage.

Fortunately for Mr. Gates, he is quickly catching on to the intricacies of proclamations of climate changedoom. For example, the earlier declaration of a mere ten years before “the end” has now been extendedall the way out to 2050 — in keeping with the proclamations of Al Gore and other prophets of eco-doom.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing alternative energy technologies — but Mr. Gates should certainlyunderstand that if such technologies are actually economically viable, then private industry will pursuetheir development — and not because of fear, but because some entrepreneur wants to be “the next BillGates.”

http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222500110

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1706-gates-foundation-gives-10-billion-for-inoculations

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1706-gates-foundation-gives-10-billion-for-inoculations

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/12/bill.gates.clean.energy/index.html

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2005/10/17/bill_gates_project_gotham/1





Photo of Bill Gates and his spouse Melinda Gates at the 2010 World Economic Forum in Davos,Switzerland: AP Images

EU Trouble: US Banks Helped Hide Government Debtwritten by Alex Newman

American banks helped Greece and possibly other governments to run massive deficits and conceal themfrom European Union officials and the public, according to international news reports. Meanwhile, theconsequences of the deception are echoing through world currency and debt markets while shaking thevery foundations of the Eurozone.

Under EU rules implemented with the Maastricht treaty, all Eurozone countries are supposed to maintainan annual budget deficit of less than three percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and an overall debtof less than 60 percent of GDP. Nonconforming nations can face fines and other action. But Greece hasnever been able to stick to the 60 percent rule, and has now been caught lying about its deficits. Last yearthe government ran a deficit of over 12 percent, an enormous figure by any standard.

In an effort to raise even more money and conceal the staggering levels of debt, Greece turned toAmerican banks — Goldman Sachs in particular, according to an explosive story published by the Germanmagazine Der Spiegel. The report, entitled "How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt,"alleges that the Greek government used obscure derivatives provided by U.S. banks to delay payment onobligations, borrow even more money and to keep the true figures off the official books.

"Around 2002 in particular, various investment banks offered complex financial products with whichgovernments could push part of their liabilities into the future," said one “insider” cited by the magazine,who also noted that various other Mediterranean governments had engaged in the fraudulent activity aswell. But according to the article, the deception was legal under Maastricht because it involved “cross-currency transactions.” What really happened is that the government and banks colluded to use “fictionalexchange rates” so the state could secretly receive additional credit without raising eyebrows.

https://thenewamerican.com/eu-trouble-us-banks-helped-hide-government-debt/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html





In 2002, the official Greek government deficit was claimed to be at around one percent. It has since beenrevised upwards several times, standing at over five percent according to recent calculations. And theproblem has not improved in recent years.

“Politicians want to pass the ball forward, and if a banker can show them a way to pass a problem to thefuture, they will fall for it,” economist Gikas Hardouvelis, a former official who recently helped write areport about Greece’s accounting, told the New York Times. The banks involved have thus far refused tocomment.

In exchange for the sneaky loans, the Greek government and others promised that various revenuestreams, such as airport fees and lottery money, would be mortgaged to the banks. But with the worldenveloped in a financial crisis, the accounting gimmicks became too difficult to conceal.

Now, other European countries and the EU are pressuring the Greek government on several fronts. Theywant answers about the concealment of the billions in debt and the “assistance” provided by Americanbanks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. Additionally, the EU is calling for tough action includingspending cuts and tax increases for the beleaguered nation.

Greece was even stripped of voting rights at a critical upcoming EU summit, and union officials arethreatening that if the nation does not put its financial house in order, it will lose control of its ownpolicies under article 126.9 of the Lisbon Treaty. Many Europeans are demanding that Greece be bootedfrom the union altogether, with a recent poll of Dutch people revealing that 92 percent favor the expellingthe Greeks (more than 90 percent of the respondents also favored the Netherlands leaving the Eurozoneand restoring its own national currency).

There has been talk of an EU bailout for Greece, or even bilateral assistance from Eurozone countries. Butofficials have warned that there will certainly not be any monetary support before Greece agrees to takestrong action to rein in its spending and debt. And on top of that, the populations of EU countries havebalked at the notion of paying for Greek government excesses.

Greece, however, still claims that it is not seeking taxpayer money from its EU neighbors. “We haven’tasked for money from German, French, Italian or any other taxpayers," said socialist Prime MinisterGeorge Papandreou, also the head of the powerful Socialist International organization. "What we want ispolitical support to end profiteering and the defamation of our country.”

Greece has announced a series of policy fixes supposedly aimed at restoring confidence and re-gainingcontrol of the nation’s fiscal train wreck. "The time has come for major changes, the country can’t affordto wait any longer," announced Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou at a press conference,noting that starting next year, most cash transactions over 1,500 Euros will be considered illegal(presumably in an effort to raise more taxes). Among the measures being proposed are more tax hikes andspending cuts, though critics have said that much more needs to be done.

But some prominent analysts have essentially dismissed all of the proposed “solutions” as futile and areinstead predicting disaster, including the imminent collapse of the Eurozone. “My own view is that thereis little ‘help’ that can be offered by the other eurozone nations other than temporary, confidence-giving‘sticking plasters’ before the ultimate denouement: the break-up of the Euro zone,” wrote strategist AlbertEdwards in a note to investors for French giant Société Générale, one of the largest banks in Europe. Any"help" will simply delay the inevitable, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7252288/Greece-loses-EU-voting-power-in-blow-to-sovereignty.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8506-lisbon-treaty-builds-eu-super-state

http://in.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idINLDE61G0QK20100217

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8535-a-greek-tragedy

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61819O20100218

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8534-the-grasp-of-socialist-international

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE61824V20100209

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/02/15/societe-generale-euro-headed-for-collapse/





Despite the focus on Greece, it is by no means the only Eurozone nation facing a crisis, even if it is themost serious calamity at present. Portugal, Spain, Italy and others are all facing their own majorproblems. According to analysts and observers, the problem is getting worse quickly, with somecommentators speculating that these crises could be the trigger for the second round of the globalfinancial meltdown. The Euro as a currency is obviously facing serious troubles.

And while the situation is developing rapidly, what will happen still remains to be seen. But there aresome lessons emerging already that are clear and undeniable.

Borrowing vast sums of money to maintain the illusion that big government works is irresponsible andimmoral. The Greek people and other populations whose governments engaged in this sort of deceptionshould be outraged. They deserve honesty. Sure, the banks may have contributed to the problems for theirown benefit, but if corrupt governments demand a service, the market will provide it; so the trueresponsibility still rests with the governments and with the citizens who allowed their representatives tobehave so recklessly.

The problems are also systemic in a way, with central banking and the fractional reserve systemcontributing to a world where nearly every individual, family, business, and government finds itselftrapped in perpetual debt. But socialism and the massive government spending in nations like Greececertainly contributed to the fiasco as well.

Lastly, this new crisis has illustrated the dangers of supranational integration schemes. Some analysts arecalling for further “political integration” to keep the economic integration afloat. But this is the wrongpath. Greece is being forced by bureaucrats in Brussels to respond in ways it might otherwise haveavoided. The loss of sovereignty has become so obvious that even all the major news outlets are openlydiscussing it. And Greece’s fellow union members are also now in a bind, forced to decide betweenextorting their already-strapped citizens to bail out the reckless government of Greece, or face a possiblemonetary calamity. The options are not good.

The true solution to crises like these is multi-faceted, but not really that complex. First, drop theintegration ploy. It isn’t working, obviously. Next, fix the banking system and institute sound money suchas gold and silver in place of debt-based fiat currency. Finally, limit the scope of government and onlyallow it to spend beyond its means in extraordinarily rare circumstances when it is absolutelyindispensable.

Following these simple steps, nations could be prosperous and free, with a reliable currency as thefoundation for a sound economy. And citizens and governments could avoid becoming the prey of bigbanks anxious to trap them in debt and reap vast sums of interest. The current solutions being offered bypoliticians and media talking heads will not work. They have already been tried, and they have alreadyfailed. It is time to try something new for once: true change.

Photo of European Commissioner for the Economy Joaquin Almunia: AP Images





Obama “Wouldn’t Rule Out” War Against Iran,Spokesman Sayswritten by Thomas R. Eddlem

Americans received yet another confirmation on February 16 that President Obama has taken on themantle of his war-mongering predecessor with a statement by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying he“wouldn’t rule out” war against Iran.

Asked by a reporter in his daily press briefing, “Do you rule out military consequences?” against Iran,Gibbs responded:

I wouldn’t rule out anything. Our focus has been on the process of engagement. The Iranians have atvirtually every turn either ignored or disregarded that engagement, demonstrating to the world thatits nuclear program is not of the means and type that they have tried to convince others that it’s for;that as a result of that, not living up to their responsibilities, that consequences will follow. Andthat’s what the President, the P5-plus-1, have been involved in. And, again, the letter that’s gone tothe IAEA from the French, the Russians, and the Americans I think outline a united position indealing with Iran.” [Emphasis added.]

Gibbs made no reference to going to Congress first to seek approval of a military strike, and there’s noevidence that Obama sought congressional approval for U.S. military strikes in recent months againstPakistan and Yemen. Thus, there’s no reason to believe he’d go to Congress to begin America’s fifth war inthe Middle East.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress — not the President — has sole power over war. Article I,Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress all of the war powers, stating unequivocally the followingpowers to be solely given to Congress:

Congress shall have the power … To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the highSeas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque andReprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but

https://thenewamerican.com/obama-wouldnt-rule-out-war-against-iran-spokesman-says/

https://thenewamerican.com/obama-wouldnt-rule-out-war-against-iran-spokesman-says/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-21610

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html





no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide andmaintain a Navy;To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide forcalling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repelInvasions.

Meanwhile, Obama’s spokesmen have turned up the rhetorical war against Iran. "We see that thegovernment of Iran, the Supreme Leader, the President, the Parliament, is being supplanted and that Iranis moving toward a military dictatorship," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told students in a televisedphoto-op in Doha, Qatar, earlier this week.

But the reality is that the United States government is the one moving toward dictatorship. While Iran wasa full-fledged military dictatorship under the Shah and Ayatollah Khomeini, the current government hasallowed some — admittedly tepid — liberalization and competitive elections. Meanwhile, the United Statesgovernment has increasingly ignored constitutional restraints that place the war powers solidly in thelegislative branch of government.

Photo of Robert Gibbs: AP Images

State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movementwritten by Patrick Krey

“Are we going to be free men or are we going to be slaves to the federal government of the UnitedStates?” retired state trooper and current State Delegate Charles W. Carrico, Sr. asked of the 1,000-strong rally gathered on the steps of the Virginia state capitol in January. While the like-minded crowdreacted with enthusiasm, such a rhetorical question might strike the average American as overdramatic.Are U.S. citizens really becoming “slaves to the federal government”?

There can be no mistake that the present-day federal government bears little resemblance to the

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100216/ts_nm/us_iran_usa_clinton

https://thenewamerican.com/state-vs-federal-the-nullification-movement/





extremely limited national government designed by our Founders, where the majority of domesticgoverning was to be left to the state and local levels. Fast forward 200-plus years and now Americans facea seemingly unstoppable centralized leviathan based out of Washington. Consider the following mind-blowing facts about the current U.S. government:

• With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the federal government, excluding the Postal Service, is thenation’s largest employer.

• The U.S. national debt is fast approaching $12.4 trillion, and Congress raised the debt limit by $1.9trillion on February 4, opening the door for our debt to go above $14 trillion.

• Abroad, more than 190,000 U.S. troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in approximately 900military facilities in 46 countries and territories, not to mention the 130,000 in Iraq and soon-to-be over100,000 in Afghanistan.

The enormous size of the federal government is not very popular either. A Gallup poll conducted lastSeptember found that more than half of Americans believe that “the federal government has too muchpower.” Unpopularity aside, keep in mind that history has well established that government cannot growwithout a corresponding decline in the economy, peace, and the rule of law. One need look no further thanpast empires to see what fate awaits a citizenry that concentrates all its power in one central government.How is it then that the U.S. government has morphed from a limited Republic designed by theConstitution to a virtually all-powerful behemoth? How did the Constitution, which was designed tocarefully define and limit the powers of the national government, become an open-ended grant of power tothat very same government? Perhaps an answer can be found in the U.S. Supreme Court, the entity“conventional wisdom” believes is entrusted with the sole power to interpret the Constitution.

A federal government website, “Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government,” contains a cartoon version of BenFranklin explaining how our current system of government works. The site includes the followingproclamation: “One of the Supreme Court’s most important responsibilities is to decide cases that raisequestions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates theConstitution.… Since the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation,its decisions can be changed only by another Supreme Court decision or by a constitutional amendment.”(Emphasis added.)

What’s wrong with this you might ask? New York Times best-selling author and historian Thomas Woodsprovided the answer clearly and concisely at the Campaign for Liberty’s January 15 regional meetingwhen he discussed the views of Thomas Jefferson: “Jefferson’s concern was that if we say the federalgovernment has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, what do you think is going to happen? Thisis not brain surgery. If they have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, they’re going to interpret itin their own favor. Surprise! Then we all scratch our heads and wonder, ‘Why has the government gottenso completely out of control?’” Woods hammered home how completely preposterous it is for the SupremeCourt to have the sole and final say on the extent of federal power with the following analogy: “If youenter into a contract with somebody, never, ever would you say that the other party in the contract canexclusively interpret what it means…. Obviously, if only one party in a contract can interpret it, it’s goingto interpret it in its own favor!”

The Rise of the “Tenthers”Proponents of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have been starting to rise up en masse to





remind the national government of its proper constitutional role under the principles of federalism. Thisloose network of activists, widely referred to as the state sovereignty movement or Tenth Amendmentmovement, were given the derisive nickname “tenthers” by detractors, but in a witty reversal, they gladlyadopted the label. The Tenth Amendment Center, the major hub online for state sovereignty activism, haseven renamed its blog, “the tenther grapevine.”

Typically, the response by some of the biggest names in the news media has been to actively disparageanyone who strictly adheres to the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution. David Shuster ofMSNBC proclaimed that most “people in their right-thinking mind know that the Tenth Amendment is abunch of baloney.”

Fellow MSNBC news anchor Lawrence O’Donnell, filling in for Keith Olberman, also raged against whathe ridiculed as “tenthers” — individuals who believe in the Jeffersonian principles of a government limitedto the powers specifically enumerated within the four corners of our founding document: “The tenthermovement … erroneously claims that the federal government cannot force changes in health care law onthe states.”

In O’Donnell’s view, anyone who would make such a claim is clearly ignorant and trying to dredge upareas that are now settled law. But what can be more settled than the fact that words have meaning, andthe Constitution means what it says? Consider the clear language of the 10th Amendment: “The powersnot delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved tothe States respectively, or to the people.” Yet Supreme Court justices and others ignore and circumventlanguage such as this, based on the absurd theory that the Constitution must be constantly redefined to fitour “enlightened times,” with the power of constitutional interpretation vested solely with the federalgovernment.

O’Donnell and similar critics should read some of the speeches of our seventh Vice President, John C.Calhoun, who warned that such a viewpoint would destroy the Republic and pave the way for tyranny.Calhoun addressed this directly in his Fort Hill address:

Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidatedgovernment; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis ofthe sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in allother unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail. Let it never beforgotten that, where the majority rules without restriction, the minority is the subject; and that, if weshould absurdly attribute to the former the exclusive right of construing the Constitution, there wouldbe, in fact, between the sovereign and subject, under such a government, no Constitution, or, at least,nothing deserving the name, or serving the legitimate object of so sacred an instrument.

Calhoun was but one of many of the most prominent advocates of state sovereignty throughout Americanhistory who were true believers in limited government. (For more of a historical explanation, see ourarticle “Nullification in a Nutshell.”)

Early last year, tenthers were instrumental in getting a number of state legislatures to introduce 10thAmendment resolutions that, while legally non-binding, not only invoked the 10th Amendment but stated:“This resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease anddesist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegatedpowers.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4772-nullification-in-a-nutshell





Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key was on the ground floor of the modern state sovereigntymovement when it first started way back in the early ’90s, and was successful last year in getting a new10th Amendment resolution passed in the house legislature in Oklahoma. In an interview with The NewAmerican, Key explained the educational importance of the 10th Amendment resolutions. “I feel verystrongly about this system of government that we have as it was originally created. I feel very stronglyabout how we have moved far away from that and that we need to return to it. I saw the resolution as botha statement and a tool for informing and educating people but primarily as a first step to correct theproblem.” Key explains that this first step is similar to a landlord delivering a notice of eviction to a tenantwho has violated the terms of his lease. “If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just showup one day with an empty truck. First, you serve notice. That’s how we see these resolutions, as a noticeto the federal government. And there definitely will be follow up.” So that brings us to the next step:nullification.

No one ever accused the feds of being good listeners, so when some states passed these state sovereigntyresolutions, the feds continued merrily on their unconstitutional path. States, however, are no longer justrolling over. Something exciting and unexpected is happening. States across the nation are either passingstatutes or proposing amendments that directly conflict with federal statutes.

State nullification is actually an elaborate term for a simple concept that is taught to young children.When a child has a problem with another child who is verbally teasing him or her, they are often told“ignore them and they’ll go away.” State nullification basically follows this same directive. If the feds passa law that a state deems to be outside the boundaries of its proper constitutional authority, the state willsimply ignore the law and refuse to comply with it. This might sound revolutionary to some, but itshouldn’t. It’s already happened.

Nullification Illustrations• The REAL ID Act: REAL ID was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by then-PresidentGeorge W. Bush in 2005, and the resistance to it illustrates a likely scenario for state nullification. Morethan two dozen states have passed laws or resolutions denouncing the act or refusing to comply with it.Have the feds responded by sending in federal agents with their guns blazing? Absolutely not! Instead, thefeds were all too quick to chicken out and postpone enactment of the law. Michael Boldin, founder of theinfluential Tenth Amendment Center, writes, “Another indicator of victory for state-level nullification —the 2005 Real ID act was originally to be implemented in early 2008, and today, it’s still in limbo. Going on2 years later, with more than two dozen states passing laws and resolutions denouncing or flat-outrefusing to comply — and D.C. has no choice but to continue backing off…. Why? With such massiveresistance among the states, the Feds just have no way to enforce it.”

REAL ID seems to have just been the start. As the nullification cat is out of the bag, states all across thenation are attempting to nullify federal laws covering such disparate topics as healthcare and firearms.

• Healthcare: Wisconsin’s Grandsons of Liberty and other groups began lobbying state legislators topursue healthcare nullification by proposing an amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution allowingthe state to opt out of government healthcare. This effort isn’t unique to Wisconsin, as activists in 28 otherstates are also involved in similar actions.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that members of at least 18 legislatures aresubmitting bills that would oppose or limit all or parts of federal healthcare reform efforts. DelegateRobert G. Marshall, the sponsor of Virginia legislation that would nullify Democratic healthcare





legislation, said, “If this starts to roll across the United States, it’s going to send a big signal to Congress:You are messing with things you have no power to do.”

In Missouri, on January 13, 30 lawmakers and Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder joined a rally at the statecapitol to endorse an amendment to the state Constitution that would nullify any national healthcare planthat makes it mandatory for Americans to purchase health insurance. The Missouri amendment states:

No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through penalties or fines, any person, employer,or health care provider to participate in any health care system. A person or employer may paydirectly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for payingdirectly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawfulhealth care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct paymentfrom a person or employer for lawful health care services. Subject to reasonable and necessary rulesthat do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in privatehealth care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

The idea to amend state constitutions to nullify federal healthcare legislation first started at the GoldwaterInstitute in the state of Arizona, where it will be on the ballot later this year. Clint Bolick, a lawyer at theGoldwater Institute who helped devise the idea, said, “The measures are an opportunity for people tomake their views known in a tangible way, to generate some rumble at the grass roots.… Our system offederalism was designed to ensure that the federal government acts only within the boundaries of itsdefined powers and that states may give broader protection to individual liberty than does the federalConstitution. The system can endure only if its principles are applied consistently.”

This is just the beginning according to Wisconsin activist Tim Dake in an interview with The NewAmerican. He and the Grandsons of Liberty have their sights set on other targets for nullification. “Ourgroup has actually hammered out a 12-item agenda we would like to see done legislatively in Wisconsinover the next two years. We’re interested in a healthcare freedom amendment to nullify nationalizedhealthcare but we also want to nullify cap and trade, card check, as well as passing laws like the federalfirearms freedom act.”

• Firearms Freedom Act: While nullification legislation spreads like a wildfire, perhaps no other issue hasgenerated as much controversy and excitement as the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA), which has beenpassed in Montana and Tennessee, has been proposed in Wyoming, and is being considered in 10 otherstates. The FFA openly challenges the federal contention that it has the authority to regulate firearmsunder the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that any firearms made andretained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulatecommerce among the states.

The Montana FFA states that a “personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that ismanufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana isnot subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress toregulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled ininterstate commerce.”

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) informed all licensed arms dealersvia an open letter that such legislation is unconstitutional under the supremacy clause. Governmentlawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief in federal court against the FFA.





Timothy Baldwin, attorney and son of the 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate Pastor ChuckBaldwin, is co-counsel in the federal litigation to validate the Montana FFA. In an interview with The NewAmerican, Timothy Baldwin explained what he thought of the -BATFE’s response that the supremacyclause preempts any state legislation in this area. “That is simply an incorrect political position basedupon the very nature and character of the Union in 1787. When the Ratifiers ratified the compact, it wasunderstood to be what they called both concurrent powers and lines of sovereignty. The states were leftwith powers they did not concede. This was expressed through The Federalist Papers. When the federalgovernment usurps those powers, it is the right of those people of those states to defend and repel thoseencroachments.”

Possible PitfallsThis is not to say that all is rosy and state nullification is on its way to restoring our constitutionalrepublic. A number of nullification laws have been vetoed by Governors or stalled in state legislatures. Ifnullification is going to succeed, many in the movement have to be wise about their next steps. The statenullification movement definitely does have major obstacles obstructing its goal of returning the federalgovernment to its constitutional limits.

Some activists are heading down the fruitless path of endless legal challenges in federal courts to validatetheir state nullification legislation. The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second AmendmentFoundation filed a lawsuit in federal court to uphold the principles and terms of the Montana FirearmsFreedom Act. While good-hearted, these groups are unnecessarily expending their time and energy. Justas Thomas Woods explained at the Campaign for Liberty conference, entrusting one party (the federalgovernment) with the sole power to interpret a contract (U.S. Constitution) is the problem. Mostobservers familiar with the centralizing nature of the federal courts would be shocked if the courtssuddenly did a complete 180 and ruled that an act like the Freedom Firearms Act was constitutional. Thiswas exactly why citizens took their battles to the state legislatures. If Montanans were serious about theirsovereignty, they would simply start following the terms of the Freedom Firearms Act and ignore anyfederal directives.

This brings us to the next and biggest problem: How will the feds retaliate if states do start ignoringfederal laws? The most likely scenario if states refuse to comply with federal mandates is the often usedtactic of “power of the purse.” An example of the feds using funding as an incentive for a state to play ballis the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required the states to uniformly raise their agesfor purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10 percent of their federal highwayfunds. The states all complied, and the rest is history. If states start resisting federal direction, the fedswill utilize this tactic of threatening to bankrupt the states to silence the opposition. Can the fedsblackmail the states into compliance?

Many of the 10th Amendment resolutions contain a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court’s case New Yorkv. United States, as precedent that the federal government cannot “commandeer States into the service offederal regulatory purpose” via funding. While Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did make this statement inher opinion, it was in regard to a specific clause of federal regulation that actually would have forced thestates to “take title” to radioactive waste. The Court actually did rule that two other funding-relatedclauses were constitutional under the taxing and spending clause of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, inFullilove v. Klutznick, the Court has ruled that “Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power tofurther broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipientwith federal statutory and administrative directives.” Tenthers have another think coming if they thinkfederal precedent is on their side.





Timothy Baldwin is concerned, but told The New American that such action will be more detrimental tothe feds in the long run. “Certainly the strings that are attached to federal funding are conditioned on thestates going along. They may attempt to use that, but what I believe is that they will reveal their hand.They’re revealing that they are using federal funding as a method of enslaving the states. They will nolonger have good faith in governing through the Constitution but rather are simply looking out for thepower of the federal government. I think it will unravel for the federal government the more and morethey press the issue.”

But will state residents support this if they’ll lose out on what many perceive as free cash? How wouldstate residents react if a state that passes a healthcare nullification amendment loses out on all federalfunding for popular programs?

Besides hoping to make D.C. appear like an extortionist by withholding federal funding, there is alsoanother tactic states may use. A proposed state law entitled State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act,which has already been introduced in three states, would enable the states to interpose themselvesbetween the federal tax collectors and state citizens. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, such“laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel oflegislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to thefederal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal andConstitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that arecurrently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people of the state.” A boldmove like this might stop the flow of money to the feds before they could even use it to force the statesinto submission. Again, tenthers will need to be wise about how they handle the political gamesmanshipwith the feds because they risk alienating the average voter if their tactics are too aggressive orconfrontational. Perhaps even the threat of such legislation might be enough to make the feds back off ontheir threats of cutting off funds.

Finally, another potential pitfall lies in the possibility of someone taking the state nullification movementtoo far in the wrong direction. The goal of nullification should simply be inaction when the feds wantaction; however, some newer nullification legislation has become more forceful. A Firearms Freedom Acthas been introduced in New Hampshire that contains the following clause:

Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporationproviding services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act,order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm,a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in NewHampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

The bill’s prime sponsor, state Representative Daniel Itse, said, “This is about protecting the rights of ourcitizens when the federal government has no jurisdiction.” This is the first FFA in the nation where federalofficials could be criminally prosecuted for trying to enforce federal firearms laws. While that might soundgood to some, the states need to be cautious about appearing as the aggressor. One false move couldtarnish the state sovereignty movement and forever damage the cause in the court of public opinion. Thekey to successfully using nullification is to expose the federal government as the aggressive,unconstitutional usurper, and states would be wise to not directly confront them.

The Future of NullificationWhile many mainstream media news articles on nullification paint it as a GOP tactic of merely paying lip-





service to their anti-Obama base, nullification legislation appears to be cutting across the politicalspectrum. Some legislation is not limited to causes typically associated with the conservative movement.For instance, there is state nullification in the areas of marijuana decriminalization, as well as efforts tobring National Guard units home from unconstitutional wars overseas.

The “Bring the Guard Home” legislation, currently introduced in seven states and active in 20, wasinitially proposed by a liberal activist, but it is now being embraced by the grass roots from all walks oflife. The proposed legislation would simply require a state’s Governor, and/or the legislature, to evaluatethe legality of orders for Guard deployments and first have an opportunity to either allow or deny thedeployment. One can only imagine how popular such legislation will be considering that opposition to thewar in Afghanistan has risen almost as high as 60 percent.

Many within the freedom movement are excited by the prospect of liberal grass-roots activists in bluestates nullifying unconstitutional conservative federal actions, with conservative grass-roots activists inred states nullifying unconstitutional liberal federal actions.

If the tenthers continue to play it smart, there is a good chance the sovereignty movement will continue tothrive and grow. If it does, it will continue to spark debate over not only the proper separation of powerbetween state and federal governments but who decides when the federal government oversteps itsproper authority and how to rein in the federal government when it does overstep. All of America will bewatching to see how the federal and state governments actually react to these measures. As more statesbecome involved in the surging nullification movement, the feds will find themselves faced with a veritableuprising of noncompliant states. The strong potential for the nullification movement to move far beyondpartisan politics means that even if control of the capital shifts back and forth among the two mainpolitical parties, D.C. might begrudgingly find itself limited to doing only what’s allowed in theConstitution.

Related article:

Nullification in a Nutshell

Antiwar Catholics on Ash Wednesdaywritten by Patrick Krey

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4772-nullification-in-a-nutshell

https://thenewamerican.com/antiwar-catholics-on-ash-wednesday/





Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. — Matthew 5:9 WednesdayFebruary 17, 2010 was Ash Wednesday, which marked the start of Lent, the traditional 40-day period offasting, prayer, and penitence for many Christians around the world. Lent is the period of the liturgicalyear leading up to Easter. In observance of the day, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and manyother Christians hold church ceremonies in which the “foreheads of the faithful are marked with the signof the cross with ashes made from last year’s Palm Sunday palms as a sign of repentance and reminder ofmortality.”

In Downtown Buffalo, New York, Catholics outside St. Joseph’s Cathedral handed out flyers featuringFranz Jagerstatter which promoted their own unique fast. Jagerstatter was an Austrian conscientiousobjector from Hitler’s Army who was beatified (i.e., declared “blessed,” or having possessed heroic virtue)on October 26, 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI.

When the Nazis arrived, not only did he refuse collaboration with their evil intentions, he evenrejected benefits from the regime in areas that had nothing to do with its racial hatreds or paganwarmongering. It must have hurt for a poor father of three to turn down the money to which he wasentitled through a Nazi family assistance program.… But he serenely decided that he could notallow himself to contribute to a regime that was immoral and anti-Catholic.


The flyer handed out by the “Franz Jaggerstatter People for Breaking the Silence” contained the followingexplanation for their unique fast: “Inspired by the witness of Blessed Franz Jaggerstatter; angered by theinvasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by our government and the subsequent acts of terror andcivilian atrocities committed in the past eight years, mourning American casualties, both loss of life aswell as physical and mental disabilities; we admit our own complicity by our failure to raise our voicesmore forcefully.”

Such a statement might seem outrageous to the many American Christians, who in great numbers supportan imperial foreign policy of maintaining or increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq, whileexpanding operations in Pakistan, Yemen, and possibly Iran. But is the present U.S. foreign policycontradictory to Christian principles? (We already know it is contradictory to constitutional principles.)

http://www.franzprayforus.org/

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0261.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0261.html

http://www.clnfi.org/

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0707e.asp





According to Laurence Vance, author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State,Christians who truly believe in the sanctity of life should be fervently opposed to war.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976344858/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0976344858&linkCode=as2&tag=libert0f-20&linkId=GCEYUB3VCWHK5OY7

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance193.html



school bans girl from wearing pro-life t-shirt

Documents