An American Life

Who is Professor Derrick Bell?

    Last Wednesday, March 7th, Breitbart.com released the much-anticipated video of a young Barack Obama embracing a Harvard law professor named Derrick Bell and advising fellow students to “open up your hearts and minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell”. This video was taken during a 1990 student gathering supporting Professor Bell after he vowed to take an unpaid leave of absence from Harvard until it appointed a colored woman to its tenured facilities. Also in the video was one of the future president's Harvard mentors, Charles Ogletree in 2011, saying that the video had been hidden during the 2008 campaign. Here is the video:

 

 

    So why was this hidden? Would it have been harmful to Obama’s 2008 campaign? The answer is clear when you take a look at who this professor really was. According to Wikipedia: “

“Bell is arguably the most influential source of thought critical of traditional civil rights discourse. Bell’s critique represented a challenge to the dominant liberal and conservative position on civil rights, race, and the law. He employed three major arguments in his analysis of racial patterns in American law: constitutional contradiction, the interest convergence principal, and the price of racial remedies.”¹

What does this mean? First, let's define “constitutional contradiction”. In her "Loss of a Critical Theorist: Derrick Bell", Carmen Stokes from the Eastern Michigan University wrote the following.

In his exposition of the constitutional contradiction, Bell elucidated how, in his opinion, the constitution was written to protect the property rights of the forefathers of the United States of America, not for the benefit of “the people” (Bell, 1980). In addition, he suggested that Blacks (and other minorities) were systematically excluded from rights and privileges enjoyed by Whites in society unless extending such rights to other racial groups converged with the interest (i.e. preserving the privilege and/or benefit) of White people, which he coined “interest convergence.”²

So, Professor Bell believed that the Founding Fathers designed the US Constitution to put the black community in a lower class than white people enjoyed.

Moving on, we will discuss his “interest convergence" principal. In an essay titled Brown vs. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence Dilemma, Bell writes:

"Logically, the argument is persuasive, and Black has no trouble urging that "[w]hen the directive of equality cannot be followed without displeasing the whitest, then something that can be called a 'freedom' of the whitest must be impaired. It is precisely here, though, that many whites part company with Professor Black. Whites may agree in the abstract that blacks are citizens and are entitled to constitutional protection against racial discrimination, but few are willing to recognize that racial segregation is much more than a series of quaint customs that can be remedied effectively without altering the status of whites. The extent of this unwillingness is illustrated by the controversy over affirmative action programs, particularly those where identifiable whites must step aside for blacks they deem less qualified or less deserving. Whites simply cannot envision the personal responsibility and the potential sacrifice inherent in Black's conclusion that true equality for blacks will require the surrender of racism‑granted privileges for whites."³

Basically, Bell is saying that white people must step aside so that African Americans can be made equal. In other words, he is advocating affirmative action and sounds eerily similar to Jeremiah Wright, President Obama's controversial former pastor.

Perhaps the clearest example of Bell's beliefs is shown by his short story, “Space Traders”. In this story, white Americans sell black Americans to space aliens in order to pay off the national debt. For Bell, this is not simply an unrealistic piece of fantasy. It is truly what he believes. In an interview on C-Span, Bell said that "My views, my perspective is so jarring that to simply state it is, is very upsetting and I find that I have a better chance of at least being heard if I can place those views in a fable, in a story." ⁴

Below is a segment of the HBO film “Cosmic Slop” based on "Space Traders" in which the Republican administration discusses selling all black men, women, and children to the aliens.

 

    Remember, this is the same man whose words Barack Obama told us to open our hearts and minds to. Professor Derrick Bell is just one more name to add to the growing list of radicals that our president has associated with throughout his life.

Can America really survive another four years of this?

 

~Addie

"I've accepted that as my motto 'I live to harass white folks'" ~Derrick Bell

 

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell

² http://www.emich.edu/coe/powerplay/docs/vol_4/issue_1/10_stokes.pdf

³ http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/bell.htm

⁴ http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?id={3FD26D07-E8D6-4321-9EAC-EEC2F29396A5}&title=DerrickBell I Put My Views In Book Because Theyre Too Threatening To General Populace

Happy Anniversary, Occupy Wall Street

Yesterday, Thursday, November 17, Occupy Wall Street
celebrated its 2 month anniversary.  Several thousand New York protesters marked this “Day of Action”by attempting to shut down Wall Street , storming the subways, and marching across Brooklyn Bridge.  By the end of the day about 275 protesters had been arrested and 7 police sent to the hospital.  

            Since it was the anniversary of this wonderful movement  I thought it would be nice to reminisce a bit about how it all came to be.

             It all began with a little Canadian magazine called Adbusters.  This self avowed anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, anarchist publication explains itself best in it’s mission statement:

”We are a global network of culture jammers: writers, artists, designers, rabble rousers... hackers, philosophers, pranksters, poets and punks who believe that mental environmentalism is the defining social struggle of our era. We vow to change the way information flows and to shake up the production of meaning in our society. Our aim is to catalyze a sudden, unexpected moment of truth – a mass reversal of perspective; a global mindshift – from which the corporate/consumerist forces never fully recover.”¹

         In July, Adbusters put out a call  on its website to "flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades, and occupy Wall Street." ² The idea was a success and on September 17 the movement began with a small group camped in Zuccoti Park near Wall Street. 

            Many people, tired of the poor economy and lack of jobs found the idea attractive, and "Occupy" protests popped up throughout the United States, Italy, France, Canada and other countries around the world. Even Arab nations joined the protests and cries for the end of Wall Street were mixed with "Kill America" 

            People from all walks of life joined the protests and advocated everything from “sustainable stars” to the forgiving of all debts ever incurred.  Corporations, banks, and anyone with a better job or  more money than they had were immediately targeted as the bad guys.

            Speaking of jobs, one of the main complaints among occupiers is the high unemployment but when jobless protesters were offered applications to all manner of businesses, only two out of over 3 dozen people accepted.  One application to Disney, and the other to Solyndra.  You can watch the astounding video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Jvnww7wDw   Below is another video of a totally clueless occupier.  If you want to see more  of these videos, You Tube is full of them.

      

            Even after two months it is difficult to understand exactly what it is these "occupiers" want, but it seems to me to be some form of anarchy where everyone is given everything their heart desires.  In other words, these protesters want a kind of utopian society.  In the meantime however, they are making life for those who have to live and work near the demonstrations, anything but a utopia.  There have been several murders, drug overdoses, and suicides in the larger city protests and at least six reported rapes.  In two cases of rape, the victims were urged by friends to stay silent about the attack.  Robberies and assaults have also run rampant.  In one case three women asked a man to stop selling cocaine to the protesters.  As an answer he attacked them.  In another incident a 78 year old woman was shoved down a flight of stairs.  In one city protesters blocked doors with small
children.  During a protest in Oakland, the first camp to be cleared out, a female reporter was threatened with murder and called racial slurs. There have been numerous accounts of anti-Semitism. In New York city 31% of those polled said that violence would be justifiable if it advanced their agenda.

            Problems with the Occupiers have also spread to businesses.  In San Diego occupy members vandalized two food carts with blood and urine after the owners stopped giving them free handouts.  According to humanevents.com, 

 "Stacey Tzortzatos, the owner of a Panini & Co. store near Zuccotti Park, says that she has “had to put a $200 lock on my bathroom because [OWS protestors] come in here and try to bathe. The sink fell down to the ground, cracked open, pulled the plumbing out of the wall and caused a flood. It's a no-win situation.” Another nearby businessman has had similar problems: "They want to use the toilet, the phones, we give them free water and free ice,” says the frustrated restaurateur. “They sit here and don't buy anything, but they recharge their phone batteries with our plugs, and I tell them, 'Hey, if you guys are going to come, I need to do some business here. We are suffering, too!' And then they start with their own words, going against you." ³

             As bad as it has been here in the US, riots have been far worse in other parts of the world.  The Associated Press reported, “Clad in black with their faces covered, protesters threw rocks, bottles and incendiary devices at banks and Rome police in riot gear. Some protesters had clubs, others had hammers. They destroyed bank ATMs, set trash bins on fire and assaulted at least two news crews from Sky Italia.⁴

It seems Occupy Wall Street is becoming exactly what its founders, Adbusters envisioned.  This is a quote from a recent Adbusters article called "The Politics of Post-Anarchism" 

"Therefore the appearance of social movements on a global scale suggests the attempt to constitute an alternative political space, a new body politic: no longer the body of obedient citizens who respect the formal democratic mandate of power, but rather a rebellious, dissenting body – citizens who do not obey and who refuse to recognize the authority of those who represent them, thus breaking the bond between the subject and the state. Therefore the anticapitalist movement challenges not only the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism but also the symbolic claim of the “democratic” state to speak for its citizens."⁵

            During my research for this post I came across a comment on the Occupy Wall Street forum.  For me it puts everything in perspective.

"You do not represent 99% of the population... I have not come across one person in my city/county that supports your movement. Most see you as anarchist and crazy...You are asking for a fair advantage an equal slate but friends we all have the same advantages... That 1% I promise at some point started off just like you... Now some may have inherited money but somewhere down the line someone worked hard for what they earned and was an average citizen just like you... You have the opportunity to become successful in this country I mean if you do not believe that look at Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. These people saw a dream and took action... If you can not find a job that "you want" then invent your job... market yourself... you can become successful. If this doesn't work and you need money to live and still can't find a job then swallow your pride and become a janitor, work at a fast food chain, there are always a job out there it may just not be exactly what you want or expect. The truth of it is, you feel miserable because of your perspective...You see the world as unjust and unfair because things haven't worked out like the fairy tale you hoped it would be... This isn't kids sports where you get a trophy for just coming out... you have to work to be on top.. if you really want to make a change then change how you view the world you live in... Appreciate the things that matter like family and love... Appreciate the world around you... again to be in America is something people from other countries long for ... you really have no idea how good you have it"⁶

            Occupy Wall Street protesters have noble goals, a perfect society where everybody does what they want and gets what they need.  If that goal was plausible I think everyone would be in favor of that kind of utopia.  The problem is, this is reality.  Someone will always have more money, a nicer car, or a better job than you do.  Life isn't fair.  Instead, focus on what you do have.  We live in a country where everyone has equal opportunity and can become successful if they are willing to do what it takes.  So quit blaming other people for your problems and take advantage of your freedom to succeed on your own.

 

~Addie

      “Simply put, you believe that things or people make you unhappy, but this is not accurate. You make yourself unhappy.”

            ~Wayne Dyer

 

¹  http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/help-us-translate.html

²  http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/adbusters-occupy-wall-street-victory-nypd

³  http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47519

⁴  http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/10/15/protesters_in_europe_march_against_corporate_greed/

⁵  http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/97/saul-newman.html

⁶  http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-calling-yourself-the-99/

 

Right to Work

    Last Wednesday I went to New Hampshire's capitol to support a Right to Work bill that was being voted on by the House of Representatives.  This bill had already passed both the House and Senate, but was vetoed by our liberal governor, John Lynch.  The House now had to override the veto by passing Right to Work with a veto-proof majority as the Senate had done the first time around.

    If you are not familiar with Right to Work, it is basically a law that has been passed in 22 states and keeps unions from forcing workers to join a union to keep their jobs.  Many employees object to joining a union for religious reasons but are still forced to pay a fee to the union to keep out of the union.  This is truly a twisted, un-American, un-Constitutional system.  We, as Americans, have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and if we are forced to pay into a system we don't want to be a part of, to pursue happiness (in this case a job), something is wrong with the system and must be fixed.

    Union members say that this bill is union-busting legislation.  Personally I would love it if the unions were busted but killing unions is not Right to Work's goal.  If the unions can't survive without forcing workers to join them, they have no right to exist.  It's as simple as that.

    When my dad, my sister, and I arrived at the State House we were given bright green shirts with a big "YES!!" written on the front to show our support for the bill.  Around four hundred people were already gathered, arguing their sides of the issue and waving signs that said "United we Bargain, Divided we Beg" or "Union Member for RTW".

    At 10:00 the voting began, but an hour later the Right to Work bill still hadn't been brought up so my sister and I left to feed the meter.  Our new shirts attracted plenty of attention, much of it unwanted.  One woman walked up to me and said "I see you are in favor of Right to Work.  What, with your young age and inexperience, makes you think that you know anything about the issue?"  I was surprised and taken aback by her mocking voice.  I have been made fun of for my age before ( I am 16 years old ) but it has always been after the person realizes that they aren't winning the debate and feel the need to get personal.  I tried to explain that although I didn't have as much life experience as she had, I had read the Constitution many times and knew that forced unionism was an infringement on our liberties.  She then quizzed me on the beginnings of unions but obviously wasn't listening when I told her that the problems of the Industrial Revolution were not relevant in today's America.  She continued to laugh at my sister and I until she walked away, calling over her shoulder "Educate yourselves".  I was left with the impression that she would have said the same things regardless of my answers.  She had no desire to hear my side of the story, or even to
convince me to consider her side.  She only wanted to tell me that a girl my age had no right to have an opinion, and should take no part in politics.

    It is people like that woman, people who have no answers, no research, only jabs and insults, that hurt America so badly.  They refuse to look honestly at both sides of an issue.  Instead they choose the side that best suits their agenda, then, when given honest arguments, call names or insult your intelligence.

    Name calling is a liberal's only defense from honest questioning.  During my short time in politics I have been called or compared to, a Nazi, racist, fear-monger, and war-monger.  This is why we as conservatives and Americans have to educate ourselves on all of the issues.  The left will have no answer for the facts.  It takes a lot of work to stay involved and informed, but we have an advantage on our side.  We're right!

    The Right to Work bill was not voted on that day.  The House agreed to postpone it, but the day was still a success for my family and I because we were able to stand and support one of, if not the 
most, important pieces of legislation to go to the governor in many years.

If you would like to learn more about Right to Work laws you can read about them on http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

~Addie

“Labor unions would have us believe that they transfer income from rich capitalist­s to poor workers.  In fact, they mostly transfer income from the large number of non-union workers to a small number of relatively well-off union workers.”

                                    ~Robert E. Anderson

Who is Saif al-Adel?

    After Osama bin Laden's death on May 1, there has been much speculation on who will take his place as caretaker/leader of the terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda.  Without a leader, the many radical Islamic groups united under al-Qaeda would fracture and the organization would be  powerless.  Unfortunately that probably will not happen as an Egyptian named Saif al-Adel, a pseudonym meaning "sword of justice", was recently appointed its new interim leader.

     Not much is known about Saif al-Adel other than that he was active in the rebellion against the Soviet Union during the '70's and '80's, and is a expert in weaponry.

    Al-Adel is one of the FBI's Most Wanted terrorists because of his involvement in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa that killed over 200 Americans.  He is a member of the "majlis al shura" (Shura Council) as well as a high-ranking part of al-Qaeda's military committee and has allegedly given military and intelligence training to members of al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (an affiliate of al-Qaeda) as well as anti-UN Somali tribes.  Saif al-Adel was also one of the men behind the assassination of Anwar Al Sadat in October 1981.

      The decision to appoint al-Adel as the caretaker of al-Qaeda came as a surprise to many experts who believed that Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s longstanding deputy and who Hamid Mir, bin Laden’s personal biographer, described as the brains of al-Qaeda.

    According to Peter Bergen, a famous terrorism expert, al-Zawahiri may not have been appointed because he is not charismatic and cannot elicit the same spiritual admiration as bin Laden was able to do.¹  Being a strong, admirable leader will be very important for the next caretaker of al-Qaeda because he will have to to collect "baya", an Arabic word for allegiance, from all of the smaller groups under al-Qaeda.  "Baya" is a religious oath of allegiance that was sworn to bin Laden instead of al-Qaeda or Islam.  It is not unlike the Nazis that swore loyalty to Hitler only.  Not to a cause or idea, but to one person.  Without "baya" from all al-Qaeda groups, Saif al-Adel will not have the power Osama bin-Laden had and without it, the organization will fall apart.

    With al-Adel in command, America could be in even more danger from al-Qaeda than it was during bin Laden's life.  Leah Farrall, an Australian terror expert said this to SPIEGEL ONLINE:

"Not only would Saif al-Adel's return to the field greatly bolster al-Qaida's operational capability, and bring a rigour to its external operations, but his longstanding connections to groups whose relations with al-Qaida have been subject to tension could herald a new era in operational cooperation for attacks against the West."

    For now, we know very little about the recent developments in al-Qaeda but I'm sure we will be hearing more soon.

~Addie

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

                                                                           Quran 9:5

¹ http://news.yahoo.com/s/time  Al-Qaeda's Alleged New Leader: Who Is Saif al-Adel?

² http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,725181,00.html A Top Terrorist Returns to Al-Qaida Fold

 

Osama bin Laden

    Late on the night of May 1, President Obama addressed the nation with the news that a secret Navy SEAL mission had killed Osama bin Laden, his wife, son, and an assistant.  Sources say that bin Laden acted cowardly in his final moments, even grabbing his wife and using her as a human shield.  The raid lasted only 40 minutes and when it was over, the leader and founder of al-Qaeda, and who Muslims call their “lion” was dead.  He had not hidden in a cave in the mountains as was commonly believed but in a million dollar safe house in the middle of Abbottabad, Pakistan.  The complex had been suspected to be his home since last August but that was only recently confirmed and after much discussion and planning an attack on the complex was approved.

  

    Osama had been actively hunted by the United States since 1999 when he was added to the FBI’s Most Wanted list for his participation in the 1998 bombings of two United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya that killed over 200 people.  After that his list of crimes grew to include the murder of 17 people on the USS Cole in 2000 and the senseless killing of 2,974 Americans on September 11, 2001 when he ordered the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City.  He denied responsibility for the attack until 2004 when he finally told a reporter:

“As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America”.¹

    His crimes did not stop there though.  He instigated attacks on thousands of civilians in attacks on Bali, Turkey, the Philippines, Russia, England, and many other countries around the world.

            What was the point?  Well, according to a fatwa that he signed called “The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders” he said

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual responsibility for every Muslim who can do it, in any country in which it is possible to do it.”²

 
If that isn’t enough, he wrote in the same document

“We – with Allah’s help – call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s orders to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.”²

    This isn’t just a radical murderer encouraging more murder, he is actually obeying the Quran when it says “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness” ³ along with,  “slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.”⁴ Finally, “And kill them [the unbelievers]  wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they turned you out.” ⁵

            The killing of "unbelievers" is only half of the story though.  The other half is much more subtle and has affected America more than we had suspected.  When bin Laden decided to destroy and overcome America, he realized that a world superpower like the United States would never be defeated on the battlefield.  The only way to destroy us was to first destroy our economy and that was what he was aiming for.  He learned this lesson well during the 1980's while the Soviet Union was trying to conquer Afganistan.  Osama was an active part of the resistance and when he saw that the rebels were successful in not only repelling the Russian invasion but contributing to it's collapse in later years, he realized that drawing the enemy into a long, drawn-out war was a drain on its resources and would eventually result in the collapse of the country's economy.  Later he revealed his strategy saying, "We alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went  bankrupt"⁶.  According to Wikipedia;

"Osama's overall strategy against much larger enemies such as the Soviet Union and the United State s was to lure them into a long 'War of Attrition' in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender. He believed this would lead to economic collapse of the enemy nation. Al-Qaeda manuals clearly outline this strategy. The Soviet Union collapsed following years of fighting in Afghanistan, and several prominent authors have stated that the United States was on the verge of suffering the same fate, losing countless trillions of dollars to the ongoing conflict. In this sense, some have credited Osama as the one person who was successful in his fight against both of the world superpowers."

    In a way, we have played right into Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's hands with our "War on Terror".  Despite his death, bin Laden's strategy will still work to bring America to it's knees until we bring our troops home.  The "War on Terror" started with a good motive but after nearly a decade of fighting we still lack a solid objective.  Instead we spend trillions of dollars to keep American soldiers in a place they shouldn't even be in. 

    Although the death of bin Laden is a great victory for Americans, especially when we think back to 9.11 it would be naive to think that his threat is gone.  Al-Qaeda will be weakened for a while but one of Osama's sons is expected to take his place in that organization.  His death has stirred up anger from many Muslims in the Middle East and we would be wise to be extra vigilant in our watch for terror attacks.

    For now, as the President said, "Justice has been done."

        

~Addie

“We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.”

                                                                                    ~Osama bin Laden

 

 

¹ Landscapes of the Jihad: militancy, morality, modernity, By Faisal Devji

² Arabic version: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/fatw2.htm  English version: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

³ Quran 9:123

⁴ Quran 9:5

⁵ Quran 2:191

⁶ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/03/usa.alqaida

Transparency (or not) of the Fed

    

      Under pressure from Republicans and Tea Partiers, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, will hold his first press conference about the Fed's activities in an effort to make it's dealings more transparent.  The press conference will take place today and be the first of three similar conferences throughout the year.

    The Fed has never had a good record for transparency, starting at its very beginning on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia.  Jekyll Island was a beautiful retreat for billionaires such as the Rockefellers and Warburgs.   It was also the place that the Federal Reserve system was planned and written by Senator Nelson Aldrich, the Republican whip in the Senate and Chair of the National Monetary Commission, along with five other wealthy and influential men.   These men had entered Jekyll Island pretending that they didn't know each other and concealing their identities.  They would even deny that they had attended the meeting until several years later.                                                                                                     
    

    Why all the secrecy?  Well, according to G. Edward Griffin, author of  The Monster of Jekyll Island,

"If the American people had known that this bill that was supposed to protect the American people from the big, bad bankers was actually written by those same bankers, why then the scam would have been out in the open."¹ 

Although the Federal Reserve Bill was supposed to look like it was protecting the American people from the "big, bad banker", it was really a kind of money cartel that was designed to keep smaller banks from becoming competition to their larger banks.  See, all of the men in that clubroom on Jekyll Island ran huge banking corporations and wanted to keep that money in their hands.

    One week later, the plan for the Federal Reserve was finished.  It included all of the details of how the bank would run, along with its five major objectives.

1.)  Stop growing competition

2.) Obtain franchise to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending

3.) Get control of all bank reserves so that the reckless ones will not be subject to money drains or bank runs

  4.) Shift losses to taxpayers

  5.) Convince Congress that the objective is to protect the people

   The first time the bill was introduced to Congress as the Aldrich Bill, it failed because President Taft refused to support it.  In 1913 however, it was brought up again as the Glass-Owens Bill and was signed by progressive Woodrow Wilson.   

    As you can see, the Federal Reserve is anything but transparent.  It is privately owned by, who-knows-who, there are no elected officials, the president is given a list by the Fed of  names to choose from for the head of the Fed, it has no budget, and is not subject to any audit.  As Ronald Reagan said, "The Federal Reserve is answerable to no-one."²

    In 1993, Henry B. Gonzalez, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, introduced a bill calling for full, independent, audits of the Fed's operations, videotaping the meetings of the policy making committee, and detailed minutes of the policy making meetings no more than a week after the meeting was held.  Of course these requirements were reasonable, but President Bill Clinton rejected the bill saying it would " run the risk of undermining market confidence in the Fed."³  David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, disagrees saying that  market misunderstandings are " less likely to happen the more they [the Fed] talk.   When they make cryptic statements and the market overinterprets, this is most likely to occur." 

   Thomas Jefferson warned us often about the dangers of powerful banking institutions such as the Fed: 

  
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."⁴

He also said,       

    "It is a cruel thought, that, when we feel ourselves standing on the firmest ground in every respect, the cursed arts of our secret enemies, combining with other causes, should effect, by depreciating our money, what the open arms of a powerful enemy could not." ⁵

    Will  Ben Bernanke's press conferences change the inaccessible and unaccountable Fed for the better?  No.  The Federal Reserve was planned, written and executed under a shroud of secrecy and vagueness.  A few press conferences will not and cannot change that. 

~Addie

 

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers." 
        ~Congressional Record 12595-12603 June 10, 1932

 

¹ March 25, 2011, The Glenn Beck Show

² Ronald Reagan warned us on 27 October 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign

The case against the Fed, By Murray Newton Rothbard pp3

⁴1802 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin

⁵ Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, 1779. ME 4:298, Papers 2:298

 

 

 

Today in History, Lexington and Concord

    

    Today, April 19, 2011, is the 236^th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the American Revolutionary War. 

    On the night of the 18^th, about 700 British regulars, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith boarded boats and began to cross the Charles River towards Lexington.  Their orders were to capture and destroy the colonist's military supplies that were hidden in Concord, Massachusetts and take John Hancock and Samuel Adams prisoner.  

    The colonists had been watching the British Army's every movement and had moved most but not all of the supplies to a safer area.  That night Joseph Warren ( author of the Suffolk Resolves) found out about the Army's plan and sent Paul Revere across the Charles River and William Dawes through the Boston Neck to warn Hancock and Adams of the British movements.  On their way to Lexington, Paul Revere warned the patriots of the Army's advance and by the morning of the 19^th there were roughly 40 men spreading the news throughout the surrounding towns.

    When he heard the news, Captain John Parker, a farmer from Lexington, gathered his troops onto Lexington Green and sent  scouts toward Boston to find out if Revere's warning was true.  Thaddeus Bowman, the last scout he sent, galloped onto the green at 4:15 am and reported that the British regulars were less than a half hour away.  Captain Parker ordered his men to line up between the roads to Concord and Bedford.  Their intent was not to provoke a fight but to show their determination.  As Parker so famously said "Stand your ground: don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."¹

    As the British regulars approached and saw the Americans on the green they formed battle lines.  One officer rushed at the militia, waving his sword and ordering them to "lay down your arms". 
Suddenly a bullet ripped through the air.  No one knows who fired that first shot and both sides denied responsibility.  Regardless, the damage was already done.  The soldiers began firing frantically, making it impossible for the leaders to regain control and during the frantic ten minutes that followed eight Americans were killed.  Only one English soldier was slightly injured.  Finally, Lt. Col. Smith ordered a cease fire and the regulars continued toward Concord.  The militia was, of course, demoralized by their easy defeat but Captain Parker performed what has been called "a miracle of leadership"² when he regrouped his men and prepared to meet the British on their return from Concord.

    Meanwhile, in Concord, militiamen from that town and Lincoln gathered or mustered and waited for the English to arrive.  After hearing reports of the firing in Lexington a group of them marched out to meet the regulars.  They traveled about a mile and a half before seeing the Army and realizing that it numbered 700 to their 250.  The men turned back and reached Concord a full 500 yards ahead of the English.

    The militia, under Colonel James Barrett, quickly surrendered Concord and retreated to a ridge overlooking the town to watch watch the Regulars actions.  Quietly they watched as the British spread through the town, found and destroyed three cannon and several gun carriages and dumped about 550 pounds of musket balls into the mill pond.

    By the time the English finished, men from Acton and Bedford had joined the men on the ridge raising their numbers to at least 400.   Now they moved to the North Bridge where Colonel Barrett ordered them to line up, two men deep, along the road leading to the bridge.  Again they were instructed to wait for the British to fire first.  The 90-95 regulars guarding the bridge began to advance and a shot was fired from one of their soldiers.  In the volleys that followed two Americans fell and at least three regulars were killed or mortally wounded.  At least 17 men were injured.  Trapped and outnumbered, the British abandoned their wounded and fled. 

     We'll never know exactly what the 11 Americans that died 236 years ago today were fighting for but my guess is that they agreed with John Adams who said,

    
    "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.  My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."³

    We are in a similar situation as the men in Lexington and Concord, not with rifles and cannon, but with minds and ideas.  We all know that the government is steadily regulating away our freedoms and it is our duty to study the issues and speak out so that our sons and daughters will have the liberty to study what they want without government intrusion on their lives.

~Addie

 

"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives."

    John Adams

 

¹ Captain John Parker to the company assembled on Lexington Green

² John Galvin, The Minute Men: The First Fight : Myths and Realities of the American Revolution     pp 181

³ Letter to Abigail Adams (12 May 1780)

 

Not the Usual Semi Professional Protesters

 
    

    On the evening of December 16, 1773, a group of 30 to 130 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled at Griffin's Wharf in Boston and boarded three english vessels that were waiting to unload the tea in their cargo holds.  Quickly and quietly they tore open every box of tea on the ships and dumped their contents into the sea.  In about three hours every box had been destroyed and all of the tea lay at the bottom of the harbor.  This is now known as The Boston Tea Party, a protest against the British tax on tea.  Colonists refused to pay taxes when they were not represented.  The Boston Tea Party was a stepping stone towards America's eventual independence.

    On April 15, 2009 another Tea Party was held on the Boston Common, only a few blocks away from the place the first Boston Tea Party was held.  It was one of the first of hundreds of similar Tea Parties held in towns and cities all over the country.  These Tea Parties are also protests against high taxes but they stand for fiscal responsibility in the National government, balancing the federal budget, returning to the Constitution's policies, and allowing capitalism and free trade to flourish as well. 

    The Tea Party is made up of many, many different kinds of people from different religions, ages, races, and educations.  Many are Democrats and Libertarians as well as Republicans.  These people come from all different backgrounds and walks of life but three basic beliefs hold them together:

1) Fiscal responsibility.  At 11:17 AM today, the US national debt was $14,292,407,684,302.  Forty-five seconds later it was $1,179,889 higher.  The debt per taxpayer is $128,545.  This debt is obviously unsustainable and will crush the country if we don't rein it in.   Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to Samuel Kerchival that  "I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements."₁  You can find the National Debt Clock at http://www.usdebtclock.org/.   What is beginning to happen in America is a simple cycle that has played out several times over the centuries, including in the empires of Rome and Spain.  A country is born and thrives, eventually it's government begins to spend irresponsibly and runs up large amounts of debt.  The burden is then transferred to the taxpayer who is unable to pay the taxes forced on him so the government becomes insolvent and collapses.  John Adams said it best when he said that "The consequences arising from the continual accumulation of public debts in other countries ought to admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth in our own."₂

2) Strict Constructionism.  Daniel Webster said "We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land -- nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. That chart is the Constitution."₃  A strict constructionist believes that the text of the Constitution is important and any interpretation of it should 
be a minimal as possible.  As Daniel Webster said, the Constitution is the country's map and, if followed correctly will lead to a strong and succesful nation. 

3) Limited Government.  The founders knew that keeping the government small and controlled was the key to a free country.  Thomas Jefferson said that "The tenth amendment is the foundation of the Constitution. "₄   The tenth amendment reads, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."  Jefferson also wrote "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."₅  If he thought that 200 years ago, what would he say to us now? 

    The liberal media has tried to misconstrue, lie, mock, or just ignore the Tea Party's efforts to change the corrupt way politicians run this country.  They have called them racist, sexist, and Muslimophobic.  All of these labels are nothing but lies and have no backing.  According to a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28 2010, "Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large."  That is shown clearly in the chart below. 

 
     This Friday, April 15, 2011, The Tea Party will be gathering in towns and state capitols across the country to stand against high taxes, out of control spending, and large government.  presidential candidates, Governors, and other conservative men and women will speak in favor of a return to the Constitution and personal responsibility.  Please, see if your town will be organizing a rally and attend with your family and friends.  Opponents of the Tea Party have said that we are radicals and don't represent the average middle-class citizen.  That is not true.  Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, wrote in the New York Post on April 13, 2009 that Tea Partiers "aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches.  These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before.  They represent a kind of energy that our politics haven't seen lately, and an influx of new activists."  If you believe that America needs to strive to become the country that the Founding Fathers envisioned when they penned the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, join your local Tea Party on Friday.  I promise you, you won't regret it. 

~Addie

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

    Edmund Burke

 

₁Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kerchival. vii, 14. Ford Ed., x, 41. (M., 1816.)

₂John Adams, First Address to Congress, Nov. 23, 1797

₃Daniel Webster, September 29, 1847

₄Thomas Jefferson to President George Washington, opinion against the constitutionality of a national bank, 15 February 1791

₅ Letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824

_

 

Government Shutdown

    

    Recently, there has been a huge amount of  talk swirling around about the budget battle on Capitol Hill and a possible government shutdown.   Speaker Boehner and other House Republicans have proposed a budget with $61 billion in cuts, far below the promised $100 billion, and House Democrats refuse to cut more than their proposed $33 billion.   

    The Federal government has been operating under continuing resolutions for six months now.  The last extension will end on April 8th and if Congress fails to reach an agreement by that point, the government will shut down.  What exactly would a government shutdown look like?  There has been plenty of speculation on it over the last few weeks, along with fear-mongering.  Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner  told CBS that a shutdown would mean telling "the troops fighting in Afghanistan that we're not going to pay their bills at a certain time".  Senator Harry Reid, while talking about the effect of a government shutdown on his fellow Nevadans said "We have 400,000 seniors who are Social Security recipients who'd have their checks basically eliminated.  We have 250,000 veterans who would have their benefits cut."  David Mark from Politico.com chimed in saying "Probably the most tangible effect it could have is to stop Social Security payments to senior citizens." 

    These claims however, are false.  When the government shuts down because it has no budget to fund its actions with, it discontinues all "non essential" activities.  "Essential" activities include police work, firefighting, utilities, air traffic management, corrections, and of course Social Security, welfare, and care for veterans and armed forces.  The US Postal service supports itself so the mail would be delivered as usual.

    "Non essentials" would include processing new Social Security and welfare claims, care of national monuments and historical sites, and processing applications for visas and passports.  Well, I'm sorry if you're planning a vacation out of the country or to a national monument but if the worst thing that a shutdown will bring is an inconvenience for vacationers, it isn't nearly as bad as the Democrats are making it sound.  

    This budget battle has been called a game of chicken between the two parties and the question most people are asking is who will chicken out first in order to keep the government active?  Michael Tanner, the Senior Policy Fellow at the Cato Institute says that

    "The Republican leadership will give in, dropping policy riders from the bill and accepting cuts in the $35 billion to $40 billion range....This will end any serious budget reduction attempts on Capitol Hill.  Democrats will realize that they can always call the Republican's bluff, and will dig in their heels for the future"

    David Stockman, a former US Representative said "It's time for the Republicans to man up and let it burn."  Are the House Republicans attempts to cut the budget only bluffs or will they "man up" as Stockman says and let the government shut down in an effort to balance the budget?  Many people believe that this is the Republicans last hurrah and if they fail in this attempt to cut spending America will never be the same.

    It seems the Republicans are stuck between a rock and a hard place.  No one wants to give up any of their entitlements and President Obama has vowed to veto any "extreme" cuts that the Republicans send to his desk.  We, as citizens need to participate in this battle as much as we can.  Send your representative a note supporting the budget cuts.  At least then we will have done our part to balance America's budget.

Addie~

 

"When you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty"

~ Benjamin Franklin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Constitution vs. Sharia Law

 
 
    Herman Cain, A potential presidential candidate, has been taking some major heat this week for his views on Muslims and Sharia law. During an interview with Think Progress' Scott Keyes over the weekend he said this "No, I will not [appoint a Muslim to my cabinet]. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they‘ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly."  Yesterday he backed up that claim when he appeared with Neil Cavuto on Fox News.  "I did say no and here’s why…I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this United States. And many of the Muslims – they are not totally dedicated to this country, they are not dedicated to our Constitution. Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country." 

    When I first found out about this, the first thing that came to my mind was "Is that even Constitutional?"  I looked it up and found Article VI.  "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." So no, it isn't unconstitutional because Cain is not proposing a test to keep certain people out of office, he is just looking for a 
certain kind of person to surround himself with.  For him "One of the biggest things a leader needs to do, especially the president, is surround himself or herself with the right people." People who " are totally committed to the Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the United States."  Appointing someone to his cabinet who he doesn't believe would do what is right for this country seems like a bit of a conflict of interests to me.

    After I found Article IV, I started thinking about the other statement Cain made "There is an attempt to ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government." Now, what exactly is Sharia law?  The Sharia is the Islamic code of conduct derived from the precepts in the Qu'ran and the living habits of Muhammed, the Muslim prophet.  Here are a few things that the Sharia permits and encourages:  Husbands beating their wives if they feel they are being disrespected-4:34, "honor killing" when a family feels its honor has been compromised, severing the hands of both male and female thieves- 5:38, the crucifixion of highway robbers-5:33, stoning fornicators-24:2, and Jihad(holy war) against all unbelievers-2:191, 4:74, 5:33,8:19, 8:65, 9:5, 9:25, 9:38-39.

    The worst part is that this violent Sharia law is not only implemented in Muslim countries.  It has infiltrated the UK (there are certain areas in England that English police are forbidden to enter because of Muslim rules) and has been steadily creeping into the American culture and its Judicial system.  According to the New York Post, Harold Koh, the Legal Advisor of the State Department, said that "judges should interpret the "Constitution according to other nations 'legal norms'. Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts".  Judges all over the country have taken him seriously.  This month in Tampa, Florida, there was a dispute over some funds given to a mosque in 2008.  Former trustees of the mosque are now claiming that they have the rights to that money.  The current leaders are requesting that the case be decided according to Florida civil law but the judge ruled that "this case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law pursuant to the Qu'ran." 

    This isn't the only instance Sharia law has been given preference over state laws.  In 2009 a New Jersey judge denied a Muslim woman a permanent restraining order on her husband who had allegedly been beating and raping her several times a day.  This judge ruled that the husband had not committed a crime because he was following his Islamic beliefs.  One question, what if the husband had been a Christian or a Jew?

    In 2009 and 2010 Christian missionaries were arrested by police in Dearborn, Michigan for preaching to Muslims, an act forbidden by Sharia Law.

    In January of this year 70% of Oklahomans supported a law against implementation of Sharia law in Oklahoma.  The law was overturned due to pressure from the radical terrorist organization CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).  I have been racking my brain but I can't come up with one good reason to be making decisions based on what radical terrorists want!  It just doesn't add up.

    Herman Cain may have fatally wounded his campain for President when he announced that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet if he were elected, but he was right when he said that "Being politically correct isn't something I'm going to spend a whole lot of my time worrying about when we've got all of these other problems that we're facing right now in this country."

    Being politically correct isn't something any of us should be worrying about.  Please, read the Qu'ran, study the Sharia, it will shock you.  We all need to focus on what is best for the country, not what everyone will think of us.

 

Addie

 

"[Eliminate] Western Civilization from within and sabatoge its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."   1991 Muslim Brotherhood memo