Obama Is Finishing The Work Of The American Communist Party

"I ... place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. ... Taxation follows that, and in its turn wretchedness and oppression. ... We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude." — Thomas Jefferson (1816)

A fascinating theory has been advanced by Dick Morris, which, in turn, is being considered by Rush Limbaugh and other leading conservatives. Morris speculates that the Obama HHS mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients is a fight with the Catholic Church that Team Obama wants — and with the focus based narrowly on contraception, not abortifacients.

Dick Morris may be right. It seems no accident that Obama publicly noted that the vast majority of Catholic women use contraception. Yes, the vast majority does, but the vast majority does not support abortifacients — that is, "contraceptive" drugs that cause or induce an abortion.

Obama is underscoring "contraception" generally, not abortifacients specifically. Sadly, our superficial media, which reflexively ramrods everything into a 10-second sound-bite, is aiding and abetting his tactic. Again and again, I hear reporters refer to Obama's mandate not as a mandate on "contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs" (which it is), but as simply one on "contraception" and women’s health

If Obama can successfully frame the debate that way, which should be easy with the American public, he can make great headway on this assault on the Roman Catholic Church. He will appeal to many apathetic Roman Catholics as well as many Protestants who disagree with the Catholic Church on contraception. Among non-evangelical Protestants, Obama will find lots of sympathy from the liberal mainline denominations that flew off the hinges decades ago, and some of which are members of the hideous Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Their split with Rome over matters of birth has roots in the Episcopal Church's embrace of contraception a century ago.

Speaking of a century ago, if this is indeed a gambit by Obama to pit religious believers against the Catholic Church, it would be nothing new from the radical left. Consider some examples:

In Paul Kengor’s book, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, he highlighted the case of Anna Louise Strong. Strong was an editor to the flagship publication of the communist front Friends of the Soviet Union, which masterfully manipulated progressives like Upton Sinclair. He published a photo of Strong and Sinclair together on the "Friends" editorial page, where a stoic Sinclair vows to "expose the lies and slander" against poor old Joe Stalin — maligned by those mean American anti-communists. Click here for more photos.

Anna Louise Strong was a loyal American Bolshevik. In a July 1953 report, Congress described her as "one of the most active agents for the Communist International." She did dutiful propaganda work for Moscow, shamelessly arguing that Stalin had "conquered wheat," even publishing a widely read pamphlet by that name, when, in fact, Stalin launched a famine that killed millions.

Among Strong's propaganda work was to enlist Protestant clergy against the Catholic Church. One egregious example was an incendiary letter to the editor Strong placed in the October-November 1941 issue of The Protestant. There, she made the claim that the Vatican was calling for religious freedom in the USSR not because the Soviets were blowing up churches, killing priests, and gulaging nuns, but because the Church was seeking control of Russia. This was ludicrous, but it was just what some anti-Catholic Protestants wanted to hear.

Among Strong's propaganda work was to enlist Protestant clergy against the Catholic Church. One egregious example was an incendiary letter to the editor Strong placed in the October-November 1941 issue of The Protestant. There, she made the claim that the Vatican was calling for religious freedom in the USSR not because the Soviets were blowing up churches, killing priests, and gulaging nuns, but because the Church was seeking control of Russia. This was ludicrous, but it was just what some anti-Catholic Protestants wanted to hear.

That letter from Strong was so deceptive and such blatant Soviet propaganda that it was highlighted by Congress in a major report on subversive activities by American communists.

Among the communist organs that Anna Louise Strong wrote for was the Chicago Star, known to locals as the "Red Star." The editor-in-chief and co-founder of the Star was Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, who was a card-carrying member of Communist Party USA. You can read more about Frank Marshal Davis by clicking here.

Davis, too, targeted the Catholic Church. He wrote articles with titles like "The church's weakness," reprimanding Rome, the American bishops, and the Catholic laity for their anti-communism. In an October 1947 piece, Davis growled that "the Catholic hierarchy" had launched a "holy war against communism."

Indeed it had. As communists knew well, the Roman Catholic Church had been issuing scathing indictments of communism since the publication of Marx's Communist Manifesto in 1848 — yes, that far back — not to mention in encyclicals by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, and others. Communists were furious when the Catholic Church issued a brilliant, blistering 1937 encyclical on atheistic communism, titled Divini Redemptoris, which called communism a "satanic scourge." One of the most prominent American Catholics leading the fight against the scourge of communists was Bishop Fulton J. Sheen who had a weekly TV show from 1951 to 1957. He predated Glenn Beck in the use of a blackboard on TV.

Committed communists like Frank Marshall Davis thus took on the Catholic Church.

Davis left the Chicago Star in 1948 to head for Hawaii, where he wrote for another communist-controlled newspaper, the Honolulu Record, and where he continued to confront the Catholic Church. In one column, titled "Challenge to the Church" (September 29, 1949), Davis framed communism as friendly to Christianity and anti-communism as un-Christian. An atheist, Davis painted an image of Judgment Day, where anti-communist Christians would be called to account for opposing communism. "The Christian churches, and the Catholic church in particular," asserted Davis, "are making a grievous error in their shortsighted belief that the major enemy of Christianity is Communism." Not only was Soviet Russia not anti-religious, insisted Davis, but Stalin had spared the planet of Hitler's "anti-Christian paganism." Christians ought to thank Stalin, not criticize him.

In another typical column from this period, Frank Marshall Davis referred to anti-communist Christians as "the Pontius Pilates of 1949."

In short, American communists and the radical left generally have long targeted the Roman Catholic Church. They know their enemy, one that is both spiritual and eternal. They have long attempted to pit Protestants and Catholics against each other. It's an old art, really, that's totally forgotten today.

And so, is this tactic being resurrected right now under Barack Obama? Is this more of the "fundamental transformation" we were promised — elected by oblivious Americans in November 2008?

Though proud of Davis, and very affectionate toward him, Obama sought to obfuscate the identity of Davis in his book, Dreams from My Father, where he strangely referred to him only as "Frank," conspicuously avoiding his full name. Politically, Obama needed to make Davis anonymous, whereas, personally, he could not avoid acknowledging in his memoirs a man who meant so much to him.

If Obama can frame his mandate as a matter of contraceptive freedom — rather than an obvious constitutional affront on religious liberty — he may be able to successfully pit large numbers of Protestants and even many Catholics against the institutional Catholic Church. It would be the kind of religious agitation that would make the Marxists of the last century — particularly Obama's mentor — very proud. How's that for "hope" and "change"?

What amazes me is that 56% of Roman Catholics voted for Obama in 2008 and that Notre Dame University invited him to address their commencement in 2009 and bestowed an honorary degree on him. I am sure Bishop Sheen is turning over in his grave.

Last Friday, the White House announced that it would revise the controversial ObamaCare birth-control mandate to address religious-liberty concerns. Its proposed modifications are a farce.

The Department of Health and Human Services would still require employers with religious objections to select an insurance company to provide contraceptives and drugs that induce abortions to its employees. The employers would pay for the drugs through higher premiums. For those employers that self-insure, like the Archdiocese of Washington, the farce is even more blatant.

David Rivkin and Edward Whelan write in the Wall Street Journal that the the birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.

“That case limited the protections available under the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion to those government actions that explicitly targeted religious practices, by subjecting them to difficult-to-satisfy strict judicial scrutiny. Other governmental actions, even if burdening religious activities, were held subject to a more deferential test.

The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.

The law also provides that any later statutory override of its protections must be explicit. But there is nothing in the ObamaCare legislation that explicitly or even implicitly overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The birth-control mandate proposed by Health and Human Services is thus illegal.

The refusal, for religious reasons, to provide birth-control coverage is clearly an exercise of religious freedom under the Constitution. The "exercise of religion" extends to performing, or refusing to perform, actions on religious grounds—and it is definitely not confined to religious institutions or acts of worship. Leading Supreme Court cases in this area, for example, involve a worker who refused to work on the Sabbath (Sherbert v. Verner, 1963) and parents who refused to send their teenage children to a public high school (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972).

In the high-school case, the Supreme Court found that even a $5 fine on the parents substantially burdened the free exercise of their religion. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers who fail to comply with the birth-control mandate will incur an annual penalty of roughly $2,000 per employee. So it is clearly a substantial burden.

Objecting employers could, of course, avoid the fine by choosing to go out of business. But as the Supreme Court noted in Sherbert v. Verner, "governmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against" noncompliant parties.

The birth-control mandate also fails the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive means" tests.

Does the mandate further the governmental interest in increasing cost-free access to contraceptives by means that are least restrictive of the employer's religious freedom? Plainly, the answer is no. There are plenty of other ways to increase access to contraceptives that intrude far less on the free exercise of religion.

Health and Human Services itself touts community health centers, public clinics and hospitals as some of the available alternatives; doctors and pharmacies are others. Many of the entities, with Planned Parenthood being the most prominent, already furnish free contraceptives. The government could have the rest of these providers make contraceptive services available free and then compensate them directly. A mandate on employers who object for religious reasons is among the most restrictive means the government could have chosen to increase access.

The mandate also fails the "compelling government interest" test. Given the widespread availability of contraceptive services, and the far less restrictive other ways to increase their availability, the government can hardly claim it has a "compelling" interest in marginally increasing access to birth control by requiring objecting employers to join in this effort.

The "compelling interest" claim is further undercut by the mandate's exclusion, for purely secular reasons, of employers who offer "grandfathered" plans. These are employer-provided plans that existed at the time ObamaCare was enacted and can continue to operate so long as they do not make major changes. They cover tens of millions of enrollees, according to a recent estimate by Health and Human Services.

In an effort to rally its base in the upcoming November election, the Obama administration seems more interested in punishing religiously based opposition to contraception and abortion than in marginally increasing access to contraception services. It is the combination of the political motive, together with the exclusion of so many employers from the mandate that has profound constitutional implications. It transforms the mandate into a non-neutral and not generally applicable law that violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

In short, the birth-control mandate violates both statutory law and the Constitution. The fact that the administration promulgated it so flippantly, without seriously engaging on these issues, underscores how little it cares about either.”

Hodgepodge

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." — James Madison

The Media

This weekend, we saw Palin-palooza in Washington, D.C. when Sarah Palin spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and Linsanity across the nation when Jeremy Lin, on the grandest basketball stage, scored 38 points against the Los Angeles nation and got the sports world in a buzz.

Though Palin showed this weekend that she could generate the enthusiasm the other presidential candidates could not and proved again that nobody captures the heart of Republicans more than she does, there was chatter among some in the GOP establishment — even those who saw the speech and the crowd reaction with their own eyes — that Palin did not do any better or any worse than the other candidates.

This is demonstrably false.

Such silly-talk would be the equivalent of sportswriters writing that Lin performed poorly last week in New York and the Knicks won despite his poor performance.

The difference between sports and politics is that nobody in sports can write such nonsense because everyone watches the same game. And if someone did write such nonsense, they would be resoundingly mocked and run out of the profession — that is in and of itself enough of a deterrent to keep sportswriters honest

Furthermore, sportswriters can hate or love teams or players but they still have to objectively write about what happened on the field of play. Again, because everyone is watching the same game.

But in politics, the chattering class and many of those who write about it have the gall to try to convince people that “x” happened when “y” occurred.

In a more interconnected world — made more possible by the proliferation of social media — this will be harder to do.

I wish politics had a deterrent or check similar to that in sports, in which writers and commentators would not dare to pen something that went against what everyone saw.

In any event, one thing was clear this weekend: LIN Nation was out in full force, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not being honest.

Notre Dame Reverses Course on Obama

Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members--led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars--have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand."

The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School--is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

“The Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.”

Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame's top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university's Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame.

In 2009, Father Jenkins awarded President Barack Obama an honorary Notre Dame Law degree.

Some of the other distinguished Notre Dame faculty who signed the statement condemning Obama’s mandate are Prof. Patrick Griffin, chairman of Notre Dame's History Department; Prof. Richard Garnett, an associate dean; John Cavadini, director of Notre Dame’s Institute for Church Life; Christian Smith, director of Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion and Society; Prof. Paolo Carozza, director of Notre Dame’s Center for Civil and Human Rights; Prof. Philip Bess, Notre Dame’s Director of Graduate Studies; and Father Wilson Miscamble, a professor of history.

Other leading organizers of the letter included Prof. Robert George of Princeton and Prof. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School.

When Obama received his honorary degree at Notre Dame's May 17, 2009, commencement, he vowed to respect the conscience rights of those who believe abortion is wrong.

“Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women,” said Obama. “Those are things we can do.”

Many Catholic bishops and lay leaders had criticized Notre Dame's decision to grant Obama an honorary degree — pointing to his long-standing position in favor of legalized abortion on demand, which included going so far as to oppose a law in the Illinois state senate that would have simply said that a baby born alive in that state was entitled to the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as any other born "person."

In their statement released late Friday, the 25 Notre Dame faculty members and the many other prominent scholars from other institutions who joined them said that Obama’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate--even with Obama’s proposed adjustments on Friday--remains an “assault on religious liberty and rights of conscience.”

“The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (‘cost free’) these same products and services,” said the scholars. “Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

“This so-called ‘accommodation’ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy,” they said. “It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.”

The statement also said that Obama’s latest iteration of the regulation is “an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims” and “cannot stand.”

“The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization,” the scholars said. “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.”

My confidence in the moral values of the College of Our Lady is being restored.

The Obama Administration and Media Maters.

According to The Daily Caller an internal Media Matters For America memo obtained by The Daily Caller reveals that the left-wing media watchdog group employs an “opposition research team” to target its political enemies. Included in the list of targets are right-leaning websites, conservative think tanks, prominent financiers and donors, and more than a dozen specific Fox News Channel and News Corporation employees.

“We will conduct extensive public records searches and compile opposition books on individuals,” declares the memo, likely written in late 2009. Investigations, it says, “will focus on the backgrounds, connections, operations and political and financial activities of the individuals.” (RELATED: Media Matters sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations)

One of those singled out for scrutiny in the memo is PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, a self-described libertarian. Thiel “directly funded, through a small government group, prior racist attack videos by James O’Keefe, the right-wing operative who staged the recent ACORN video sting,” states the memo. “Thiel’s role in funding such attacks has gone completely unremarked and largely uninvestigated.”

“An opposition research team will serve to hold Thiel and others like him accountable.”

In addition to Thiel, the memo contains this list of “preliminary targets”:

News Corp

• Fox News Channel
• Fox Business Network
• Fox News’ websites

Conservative news sites

• WorldNetDaily
• BigHollywood.com
• NewsMax
• BigGovernment.com

Conservative think thanks

• The Heritage Foundation
• American Enterprise Institute
• Cato Institute

News Corp executives

• Rupert Murdoch
• Chase Carey
• David DeVoe
• Lawrence Jacobs
• James Murdoch

Conservative donors

• Peter Thiel
• Richard Mellon Scaife
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• John M. Olin Foundation
• Koch Family Foundations

Fox News executives

• CEO Roger Ailes
• Senior vice president Michael Clemente
• Vice president of news Sean Smith
• Vice president of new editorial product Jay Wallace
• ·Fox Business Network executive vice president Kevin Magee

Fox personalities

• Glenn Beck
• Sean Hannity
• Bill O’Reilly

Fox senior production and corporation staff

• Hannity executive producer John Finley
• On the Record executive producer Meade Cooper
• O’Reilly Factor senior executive producer David Tabacoff
• Fox & Friends executive producer Lauren Petterson

Political figures

• Carly Fiorina
• David Vitter
• Eric Cantor
• John Boehner
• Mitch McConnell
• Michele Bachmann
• ·Steve King

“In all likelihood,” the memo concludes, “we will produce volumes of useful data week after week.”

The FBI Targets Constitutionalist

The FBI held a press conference last week on a terrorist alert bulletin, which it sent to every federal, state and local law enforcement agency across the country. Unfortunately, that bulletin continued a trend of "terrorist profiles" issued since Barack Hussein Obama has been in office. This particular alert identified such broad ideological characteristics that it can be construed to include the activities of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans.

The FBI counterterrorism division report concluded that those who believe that our government has exceeded its constitutional limits or are protesting for restoration of constitutional integrity might pose a threat. By that definition, anyone associated with the "Tea Party movement" is suspect, and that's the problem with this sweeping and politically motivated "bureaucrap."

Make no mistake: There are some deadly anti-government socialist and fascist radicals in America. For example, consider the man who launched someone's political career in 1994 -- Obama mentor William Ayers, who was previously the leader of the Weathermen, a murderous group of radical "useful idiots." They bombed the U.S. Capitol twice, the Pentagon, the Department of State, several federal courthouses, plus state and local government buildings -- with intent to kill. Unfortunately, the FBI never assembled sufficient evidence to convict Ayers. (Lucky break for Obama's career!)

Or how about Obama's radical, racist, hate-spewing pastor, Jeremiah Wright? This is the man who married the Obamas and baptized their children; the same man who regularly sermonized about "the US-KKK-A" with assertions that "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color;" the man who said that the U.S. government "gives [black people] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, g-d d--- America!"

Does that constitute a threat to the government?

The aforementioned FBI alert focused on the so-called "sovereign citizen" movement, which the FBI believes may have more than 500,000 members -- though it has no leaders, no membership roster, no organization at all. There is a "sovereign citizens" website which notes boldly, "We do NOT endorse non-payment of taxes or violence to achieve these changes. We do NOT endorse giving up a social security number and we do NOT endorse violence against the police or the government."

According to the FBI, some of those associated with this movement are engaged in crimes like underpaying taxes and other fraud, none of which should be classified as terrorism. According to a Reuters report on the press release, "Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 in 2011, FBI agents said."

I did the math, and that's an increase of eight convictions.

Meanwhile, more than 5,200 of Obama's Occupy movement radicals were arrested in 2011, many for violent offenses, and some of those directed at police.

This is not to say that the FBI didn't have reason to warn law enforcement agencies. In May of 2010, two sociopaths, one of whom had mentioned "sovereign citizen" on a website, murdered two Arkansas police officers. But there are much more significant threats to uniformed officers.

I can assure you that most federal, state and local law enforcement personnel abide by their oath to "support and defend the Constitution" and are steadfastly accountable to that oath. In other words, they understand that broadly labeling as "terrorists" those who support constitutional limits on government is offensive to that oath.

However, we now have an established Obama-era pattern of applying such broad labels, which began in 2009 when the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis issued a report on "Right-Wing Extremism." It claimed that those who use terms including "patriot" or "constitutionalist," and "link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution," are a threat. It even went so far as to identify returning war veterans as "potential threats."

That report was so repulsive that it received a prompt rebuke from liberal Democrat Bennie Thompson, then chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Republican Peter King, its ranking member. Thompson wrote, "This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans. Freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans.. I am disappointed that the Department would allow this report to be disseminated to its State and local partners. ... I am dumbfounded that I&A released this report."

Thompson protested that the DHS report "blurred the line" between legal and illegal activity.

At the time, DHS spokesperson Amy Kudwa claimed the report was not finished and had been recalled: "This product is not, nor was it ever, in operational use." That notwithstanding, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report and insisted, "We do not — nor will we ever — monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people." (Trust her, she's from the government!)

However, such monitoring is not the contiguous prerogative of DHS, but that of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. This is why the latest national alert issued by the FBI should raise many red flags with overseers in the House and Senate.

So, given the current FBI profile, if these "terrorists" are members of an organization with no leaders, no membership and, in fact, no organization, how exactly are they to be distinguished from law-abiding political activists who believe our government has exceeded its constitutional authority? How are they to be distinguished from patriotic Americans who advocate for the restoration of constitutional integrity and proper limits on the role of government? There are plenty of us who, in the course of our objections to the erosion of the Rule of Law, might make "references to the Bible, The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments."

What purpose does this FBI memo really serve?

In October 2011, DHS attempted to make amends by publishing a training guide for "Countering Violent Extremism." In that directive, Section 2 notes, "Training should be sensitive to constitutional values," and it asserts, "training should support the protection of civil rights and civil liberties as part of national security. Don't use training that equates religious expression, protests, or other constitutionally protected activity with criminal activity."

Perhaps Obama's executive appointees to the FBI should adopt a similar policy and — unlike his appointees at DHS — abide by it. In the meantime, we are waiting for objections from oversight committee Republicans concerning Obama's latest attack on Bible-citing, Constitution-abiding Patriots.

Watch out the despot Obama is rising and he is using every power of the federal government to support his program of radical transformation.

Barack Obama, The Despot

"Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay." — Milton Friedman

How many times will the American people have to be hit over the head before they understand that Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history? That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?

This mindset has been on display since the beginning of Obama's term, as detailed by David Limbaugh in his book, Crimes Against Liberty. Yet so many seem to not care or are deliberately oblivious to the long-term implications of his actions, many of which mirror those of the despots that ran roughshod over the last century.

The recent ruling by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services forcing religious institutions to provide either directly or through private insurance not only contraceptives, but abortion pills and sterilization is not a matter of so-called women's rights, but a means of setting the precedent and foundation to force organized religion to be subservient to the state.

The passage of ObamaCare, from which this edict stems, has nothing to do with healthcare; rather, it is a vehicle to ultimately control the day-to-day activities of the American people through the dictates and mandates emanating from an overarching bureaucracy. Once fully implemented, individual liberty and freedom, the hallmarks of the nation's history, will be eradicated forever.

Further, the Obama regime has shown a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, as no administration in the nation's past has so aggressively promoted abortion, and, through the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the very real prospect of government-sponsored euthanasia.

In their isolated inside-the-Beltway arrogance, it appears the Obama administration did not anticipate the huge blowback resulting from Obama's decree that Catholic institutions provide birth control, abortion drugs, and other contraceptive services to their employees.

This latest attack on the unborn is simply more of the same from Obama. As an Illinois senator, Obama voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which authorized hospital staff to give medical assistance to babies who survived failed abortions. Before the Born-Alive Act, hospitals were legally forced to leave an unsuccessfully aborted baby to die. Some died quickly; some clung to life for several hours. Obama voted against Born-Alive Act three times.

But folks, Obama is not alone in his callousness towards the most innocent of human life.

Think of the secular-progressive movement as a pro-abortion patchwork quilt of various anti-America groups. These people hate everything about America, from the light bulbs we use to our consumption of beef to our love affair with the automobile. They believe that America is the greatest source of evil in the world; everyone else in the world has too little because America has too much.

Now get this, folks — a large number of these environmental zealots are mega-wealthy Hollywood people and Democratic politicians who live in mansions and travel everywhere in limos and private jets. They consume more fuel and resources per month than most of us will consume in our entire lifetimes.

Abortion is the thread which joins each wacko anti-America patch of the secular-progressive quilt. Why? Why is the left so fanatical about killing human babies? If it is about "choice," as they claim, why are they infuriated when a woman "chooses" to have her baby? Case in point: the left's hysterical outrage over the Super Bowl ad in which Tim Tebow thanked his mom for not aborting him.

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, a person Hillary Clinton praised a few years ago. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of America's aborted babies are black. Half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Is this an intentional genocide?

"The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," according to Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr. Blacks are the only minority in America experiencing a declining population.

So why would Obama, the NAACP, Rev. Sharpton, and other black leftists be passionate supporters of Planned Parenthood? Why did Al Sharpton threaten to protest a pro-life billboard which exposed the devastatingly high number of black abortions?

Why? Why are these leftist blacks more loyal to their Holy Grail of abortion than they are to their fellow blacks — all the while claiming that rich white Republicans and the Tea Party are the enemies of black America?

Why are so-called African-American activists, all Democrats, at odds with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece, Alveda King who is a committed Christian pro-life advocate?

What is up with these people on the left? Why do the same folks who passionately defend the life of a whale, a spotted owl, a baby seal, a toad, and a death-row serial killer get extremely angry at the mere suggestion that a woman consider not killing her baby? Why?

I can only conclude that it is a spiritual thing. I know what some of you are thinking: there you go again, Fred bringing God, good, and evil into the mix. Well, there is something extremely evil and godless about the left's obsession with killing babies.

Obama's obsession is so strong that he is willing to risk re-election. How else can you interpret Obama basically giving Catholics, of which a majority supported him last election, the finger?

I once thought Obama voted against the Born-Alive Act and passionately supported Planned Parenthood to secure the hardcore radical feminist vote. I was wrong. Obama's commitment to abortion goes far deeper. Limbaugh nailed it: "Abortion is the sacrament to the religion of liberalism" — a religion of which I believe that Obama is a zealot. Didn’t he say during the 2008 election campaign that he would not want to have his two daughters “punished” by having a baby?

Nothing reveals Obama's dictatorial mindset more than his relationship with Congress. His recent actions in unilaterally making appointments that are subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session are blatantly unconstitutional and done to marginalize Congress. His appointment of innumerable "czars" is a means of bypassing Congress and their oversight of the federal Cabinet departments. His Department of Justice has been transformed into an advocacy group to enforce the left-wing radical version of social justice while refusing to be accountable to Congress. Soon we will have to change the name from Department of Justice to Geheime Staatspolizei. Obama has resorted to utilizing executive orders and volumes of regulations from various agencies under his command in order to put in place his radical policies and sidestep Congress and thus the will of the people. Wasn’t it Hitler who issued racial policies by executive orders?

In furtherance of Obama's transformative goals, he and his minions are in the process of shackling the free market through unfettered government control and influence. It is the aim of the Obama presidency to create a so-called "government-business partnership" wherein the government chooses the winners and losers based upon their allegiance to and support of the regime.

The massive spending and debt incurred over the past three years are the byproduct of Obama's overarching objective to make certain that the overwhelming majority of the populace becomes, by necessity, dependent on the government, thus more subservient and easily controlled. Whether the country becomes insolvent or the middle class ceases to exist is immaterial.

In his public speeches and well-produced appearances, Barack Obama plays the fictional role of someone who cares for the "little guy" (as all despots do). He is the people's avenger against those he defines as the enemy, be it the wealthy, the corporations, deeply committed religious groups, conservatives and the Tea Party movement, or those intransigent ideologues in Congress who stand in the way of his nation-saving agenda. In this quest for power, there are no lies or obfuscations too egregious to tell or societal tensions too dangerous to create, as he alone can save the nation.

Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century. If given another term in office, he, along with his fellow-travelers in the administration, will be unencumbered in attempting to complete the transformation of the United States. However, they will not accomplish their quest — just as those they admire in the previous century did not. They will succeed only in initiating massive social upheaval and violence.

I had to survive a war that was precipitated by leaders in various European countries who were democratically elected. Yet once in power, these power-crazed ideologues began to systematically usurp and overthrow the rule of law with the ultimate goal of becoming the government themselves.

Their lust for power led them to shred any written constitution or traditions as they systematically imposed new regulations, laws, and executive orders geared primarily to centralize authority in the government as individual rights and liberties were extinguished. Legislatures were abolished or marginalized; organized religion was forced to be subservient to the state, and respect for the sanctity of life was extinguished. The owners and managers of business and industry were intimidated and compelled to be submissive and loyal to the state. By the time the populace became aware of what was happening to their respective countries, it was too late.

The citizens of Germany in the first four years of the 1930s would have found it impossible to imagine what became of their country by 1945 or to think it even remotely possible. Those in Italy in the 1920s, promised so much by the Mussolini regime, eagerly voted the Fascists into power only to end up with a society torn asunder and a nation lying in ruins. The same results were played out in Russia, China, and many countries in Eastern Europe.

The history of the United States and its traditions of liberty and individual freedom should be a bulwark against the successful emergence of someone like Barack Obama and his cronies. Yet the majority of the citizenry, the media, the opposition party, the members of Congress, and the judiciary are not shouting from the highest hilltop and taking action to stop the Obama regime's unconstitutional acts and power-grabs.

Has this country enjoyed peace and prosperity so long that everyone is jaded and preoccupied with themselves, or in a self-induced stupor, either ignoring the situation or telling themselves that these unconstitutional steps and power-grabs are minor? Is a pre-packaged television image all that matters? Is it because Obama happens to have black skin, and everyone is too intimidated by political correctness to speak out? Are we as a society unwilling to say in the bluntest of terms that a national leader is a liar and a fraud? Why are countless members of the Ruling Class unwilling to learn from history, or is it that their egos are such that they cannot admit a mistake, or do far too many have a vested interest in the current state of affairs?

Perhaps it is as it was in Germany, Italy, and Russia among many — a belief that the worst could never happen here.

For those who emigrated from those nations whose societies suffered not only overwhelming destruction, but a devastating loss of freedom and liberty, they can only warn our fellow citizens that the country is going down a road that is becoming eerily familiar. It is not hyperbole to say that we see someone in the White House whose character reflects the worst and most dangerous traits to be found in a national leader, and we are stunned that the majority of the American people do not understand what is happening to the most successful society in the history of mankind. We know that the only viable solution to avoid the storm clouds gathering over the horizon is to relegate Barack Obama and his regime to a footnote in the annals of American history.

Either the citizens, on the 6th of November 2012, will choose to reverse course and return to the basic tenets of freedom and liberty upon which the nation was founded, or the people will choose to blindly follow Barack Obama on a path which will eventuate in internal chaos and violence as well as subservience to those countries who wish to see the end of America's time on the world stage.

Arrogant egomaniacs have a tendency to overreach. Who was the guy in Greek mythology who flew too close to the sun despite being cautioned not to do so? Oh, yeah — Icarus was his name. The wax which held his wings together melted, and Icarus fell to his death.

Mr. President, you may have flown a bit too close to the sun with your latest in-your-face attack against people of faith. Even the superglue of your race will not be able to hold your wings together this time. I pray that come November, your fall will be great.

How The Teachers Unions Are Ruining Our Schools

"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." — John Adams

The Los Angeles Unified School District paid Mark Berndt, the teacher at the center of the Miramonte Elementary child-abuse scandal, $40,000 to drop a challenge to his dismissal last year. The Los Angeles Times reported:

“The payout consisted of four months of back salary plus reimbursement for the cost of health benefits. Berndt was fired by the Board of Education in February 2011 after officials learned that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was investigating him for alleged lewd acts against students.

He was arrested last week. The firing took Berndt off the district payroll, but he fought to keep his job through an appeal process that lasted until he settled with the school system and resigned in June.

The settlement with Berndt came in the face of a dilemma, said L.A. Unified general counsel David Holmquist. A hearing on the dismissal was pending and the district didn't have evidence to justify the firing because the Sheriff's Department investigation was ongoing.

"We were told we could not do any investigation," to avoid interfering with a law enforcement probe, Holmquist said. "We didn't have any evidence, and we couldn't put on any witnesses. We didn't have anything to successfully defend a challenge."

Berndt was charged last week with 23 counts of lewd conduct against children; another teacher, Martin Springer, was charged this week with three counts of lewd conduct. Berndt is alleged to have taken photographs of blindfolded children being spoon-fed his semen. Springer is accused of fondling a girl in his class.”

Berndt had been carrying on these despicable acts against children for years and the school and the Los Angeles Unified School District had numerous complaints from parents about is actions. It was not until a photo technician at a CVS pharmacy looked at the photos he had processed and notified the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department of what he had seen. Once sheriff department detectives viewed the photos they pulled Berndt in for questioning and ultimately charged him.

The school and LAUSD did nothing for years due to their fear of the teachers union. They knew that they could not act on parent’s complaints for fear of dealing with the union. The fact is that unless a teacher is caught in a lewd against children it is impossible to terminate him or her due to tenure and union rules. They cannot be terminated for unacceptable performance.

For years we have heard of New York City’s “Rubber Rooms” where teachers facing disciplinary actions go and do nothing while awaiting a hearing and collecting their full pay and accumulating pension and benefit points. Some of these teachers have spent as long as eleven years doing nothing while drawing their full pay. A recent example of this travesty involves a typing teacher at a New York City middle school.

After collecting his paycheck for a decade without ever setting foot in the classroom, former teacher Alan Rosenfeld retired last week, city officials said Friday.

According to a report in the Daily News:

“Rosenfeld, who earned $100,049 a year and gained notoriety for holding onto his do-nothing position since 2001, is now eligible for a pension, which could be worth more than $90,000 a year.

Though the city closed the so-called rubber rooms where teachers like Rosenfeld waited — sometimes for years — for the outcome of disciplinary action, there are still half a dozen the city can’t fire but has deemed a risk to kids.

Instead, the problem teachers are permanently assigned to the agency’s central or field offices to do administrative work, officials said.

Rosenfeld, 66, who taught typing at Intermediate School 347 in Queens, was originally brought up on charges of making inappropriate comments to female students in 2001.

An administrative judge made the decision not to fire Rosenfeld after much of the case was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Rosenfeld was found guilty of having told a student that she loved him.

The student testified Rosenfeld told her “that I love him. That’s why I talk to him so much,” according to records.

Rosenfeld was also accused oggling students rear ends and exhibiting a pattern of inappropriate behavior, but the judge did not rule on those matters.

Then-Schools Chancellor Joel Klein decided not to send Rosenfeld back to the classroom and to exile him to the rubber room.

In the midst of the political fight over the future of teacher evaluations, Rosenfeld’s case has been held up as a prime example of the difficulty of firing tenured public servants.

His case, though, does not focus on an issue of incompetence.

Rosenfeld was given satisfactory ratings by his last principal and even commendations, records show.

The case has also been used to point out bureaucratic incompetence, since city officials failed to make its case when it had the chance.

At one point, Rosenfeld, who is also a lawyer, was investigated for working on his real estate business on city time while he was in the rubber room.

No new charges were ever brought against him after that investigation, officials said Friday.”

For ten years Rosenfeld collected his pay and benefits and will now draw his pension for doing nothing. A six-year old can be expelled from school for sexual harassment by hugging a fellow student, but a teacher can look up the girl’s skirts or take pornographic photos and not be fired or disciplined. They have the union on their side, the kid only has taxpaying parents.

According to the pro-education reform documentary Waiting for ‘Superman,’ one out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine.

One out of every 97 lawyers loses their license to practice law.

In many major cities, only one out of 1000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons. Why? Tenure.

Tenure is the practice of guaranteeing a teacher their job. Originally, this was a due process guarantee, something intended to work as a check against administrators capriciously firing teachers and replacing them with friends or family members. It was also designed to protect teachers who took political stands the community might disagree with. Tenure as we understand it today was first seen at the university level, where professors would work for years and publish many pieces of inspired academic work before being awarded what amounted to a job for life.

At the elementary and high school level, tenure has evolved from the original understanding of “due process” to the university-style “job for life.” In most states, teachers are awarded tenure after only a few years, at which time they become almost impossible to fire. The main function of these laws is to help bad teachers keep their jobs.

Consider New York City. The New York Daily News reports that “over the past three years [2007-2010], just 88 out of some 80,000 city schoolteachers have lost their jobs for poor performance.”

Things are no better in New York as a whole. The Albany Times Union looked at what was going on outside New York City and discovered some shocking data: Of 132,000 teachers, only 32 were fired for any reason between 2006 and 2011.

Or look at Chicago. In a school district that has by any measure failed its students — only 28.5 percent of 11th graders met or exceeded expectations on that state’s standardized tests — Newsweek reported that only 0.1 percent of teachers were dismissed for performance-related reasons between 2005 and 2008. When barely one in four students nearing graduation can read and do math, how is it possible that only one in one thousand teachers is worthy of dismissal?

In 2003, one Los Angeles union representative said: “If I’m representing them, it’s impossible to get them out. It’s impossible. Unless they commit a lewd act.” Unfortunately for the students who have to learn from these educators, virtually every teacher who works for the Los Angeles Unified School District receives tenure: In 2009, The Los Angeles Times reported that fewer than two percent of teachers are denied tenure during the two year probationary period after being hired. And once they have tenure, there’s no getting rid of them. Between 1995 and 2005, only 112 Los Angeles tenured teachers faced termination — eleven per year — out of 43,000. And that’s in a school district where the graduation rate in 2003 was just 51 percent.

One New Jersey union representative was even blunter about the work his organization does to keep bad teachers in the classroom, saying: “I’ve gone in and defended teachers who shouldn’t even be pumping gas.”

In ten years, only about 47 out of 100,000 teachers were actually terminated from New Jersey’s schools. Original research conducted by the Center for Union Facts (CUF) confirms that almost no one ever gets fired in Newark, New Jersey’s largest school district, no matter how bad. Over four recent years, CUF discovered, Newark’s school district successfully fired about one out of every 3,000 tenured teachers annually. Graduation statistics indicate that the district needs much stronger medicine: Between the 2001-2002 and the 2004-2005 school years, Newark’s graduation rate (not counting the diplomas “earned” through New Jersey’s laughable remedial exam) was a mere 30.6 percent.

The evidence that tenure laws keep bad teachers in schools is overwhelming. In New York State, outside of New York City, only about 17 tenured teachers are terminated annually. New York City’s Chancellor has revealed that in that city, only ten out of 55,000 tenured teachers were terminated in the 2006-2007 school year. In any given year in Florida, scholar Richard Kahlenberg wrote, the involuntary dismissal rate for teachers was an abysmally low 0.05 percent, “compared with 7.9 percent in the Florida workforce as a whole.” In Dallas, even when unofficial pressures to resign are factored in, only 0.78 percent of tenured teachers are terminated. Out of Tucson, Arizona’s 2,300 tenured teachers, only seven have been fired for classroom behavior in the past five years. Des Moines, Iowa a school district with almost 3,000 teachers, has fired just two for poor performance in five years.

So why don’t districts try to terminate more of their poor performers? The sad answer is that their chance of prevailing is very small. Teachers unions have ensured that even with a victory, the process is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. In the 2006-2007 school year, for example, New York City fired only 10 of its 55,000 tenured teachers. The cost to eliminate those employees averages out to $163,142, according to Education Week. According to the Albany Times Union, the average process for firing a teacher in New York state outside of New York City proper lasts 502 days and costs more than $216,000. In Illinois, Scott Reeder of the Small Newspaper Group found it costs an average of $219,504 in legal fees alone to get a termination case past all the union-supported hurdles. Columbus, Ohio’s own teachers union president admitted to the Associated Press that firing a tenured teacher can cost as much as $50,000. A spokesman for Idaho school administrators told local press that districts have been known to spend “$100,000 or $200,000” in litigation costs just to get rid of a bad teacher.

It’s difficult even to entice the unions to give up tenure for more money. In Washington, D.C., school chancellor Michelle Rhee proposed a voluntary two-tier track for teachers. On one tier teachers could simply do nothing: Maintain regular raises and keep their tenure. On the other track, teachers could give up tenure and be paid according to how well they and their students performed with the potential to earn as much as $140,000 per year. The union wouldn’t even let that proposal come up for a vote, however, stubbornly blocking efforts to ratify a new contract for more than three years. When it finally did come up for ratification by the rank-and-file, the two-tier plan wasn’t even an option.

Most teachers absolutely deserve to keep their jobs and some have begun to speak out about the absurdity of teacher tenure, but it’s impossible to pretend that the number of firings actually reflects the number of bad teachers protected by tenure. As long as union leaders possess the legal ability to drag out termination proceedings for months or even years — during which time districts must continue paying teachers, substitute teachers to replace them, and lawyers to arbitrate the proceedings — the situation for students will not improve.

Even Al Shanker, the legendary former president of the American Federation of Teachers, admitted, “a lot of people who have been hired as teachers are basically not competent.”

No business or organization can survive with the rules and regulations the teachers unions impose on our local school districts. These unions are ripping off the taxpayers for the benefit of the union and its members. They don’t give a damn about the students they are supposed to teach. They collect dues from their members, dues that come from taxpayer money, and contribute to politicians (usually Democrats) that will increase their power.

The Dumbing Down Of America

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." — Benjamin Franklin

How many times have we seen those “man-on-the street” interviews when the interviewer will select people at random and ask them questions about history, civics or current events? Each time we see them we get a good belly laugh at the ignorance expressed by some of those interviewed. They can’t answer simple questions about our government or history. These interviews are always good for a laugh or two. I have written about this issue in my blogs several times as it this same phenomenon applies to college entrance and graduating students. Click here and here for those blogs.

The main reason these students entering college have such a poor base of knowledge of our history and government is the dumbing down of our government education system. Before continuing reading this blog please watch the video shown below.

This video was made at a middle-class Seattle high school and is no doubt a comprehensive report on the status of or high school student’s knowledge of history and government. However, it does reflect the claim of the 2008 study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

I am sure had the interviewer asked these students questions about the latest pop song or entertainment idol they would have done much better. But when it comes to history, math, geography, civics or our Constitution they fail miserably. I am also sure that students in private schools or home schooled would do much better.

The educational philosophy, curriculum and testing is dumbed down to a point of realizing our children, who are bright and eager to learn, are being "numbed-down" intellectually. Why? I believe for two reasons. First, educators are required to teach to the level of the least prepared and least capable student in the classroom and, second, the curriculum has been rewritten to satisfy those who seek control and despise the history of this nation and what it truly stands for, i.e., the only true bastion of freedom in the world.

There are school districts where 50% of the girls are pregnant and have 1 to 3 children before they graduate (if they do). These same students come from mostly, one parent households and look for the welfare money to support their children and their habits. Most of them have less than a 4th grade reading level, as verified by counselors in that district. They have been "Socialized" to the point that they no longer have any desire or thought of urgency to make something of themselves; contributors to society. Their main goal is to get the welfare check from a governmental society corrupt with socialism for the past 50 to 100 years.

These same students are now 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients. It doesn't take more than the sense of a soda cracker to know which political philosophy engenders dependency on the Federal, State and Local Governments.

Counselors have broken down and weep because they have little if anything to turn to, to change the system. They spend most of their days disciplining, where allowed to, the students for whom they have stewardship. Teachers Have left school systems in New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and other metropolitan areas because they weren't allowed to discipline students and who feared for their lives.

Most of the teachers who remain are union dregs ridding out their tenure until their cushy retirement. They really don’t care about education or the future of the nation. They just care about their union protected job and their retirement. Oh yes, there are those few who try to swim upstream and do what they were trained to do – educate. But, they are thwarted at every turn by union rules, government regulations, non-supportive administrations and school boards, students and parents who cannot read, write or speak English and above all parents who don’t give a damn.

After all these government schools are free. The books are free, the breakfast and lunches are free and there is no accountability for results. Many of these students come from homes where they do not pay property taxes and therefor have no stake in the education system. I am sure if they had to pony up a few bucks their attitude would change when they realized they were getting ripped off.

I own a home and my children have grown and entered the workplace. When they did attend school they went to a private parochial school so I paid double. I paid for my children’s education and I also paid for the government schools, as did many other parents who chose the same course, because we were forced to. We were not even allowed to use the public school buses because of the ACLU, but we paid for them. We were really ripped off, but could do nothing about it.

Each morning I watch children in my neighborhood trundle off to middle and high school looking like street urchins. They dress like they are off to an Occupy Wall Street meeting or rock concert. Baggy pants hanging to the ground, girls in shorts and skirts that would embarrass a pole dancer. How can children learn if they do not have the discipline to be cognizant of their personal appearance and dignity? What are their parents thinking?

Study after study have found that students attending private schools (and some public schools) where there a strict dress codes do much better academically then their slovenly cousins in who come to school as they please.

Our schools are becoming a training ground for indolence, stupidity, and governmental dependency for daily sustenance and anti-intellectual breeding. I could write a book on what I've heard and experienced for the past 45 years while supporting government schools with tip of a government spear in my butt; but, most of it would be negative. My limited association with educators for the most part, has been positive. However, these same people feel absolutely helpless because they are not allowed to teach the truth about history, science, language arts or any other discipline.

They, to keep employed, teach the "numb-them-down" philosophy as dictated by the Feds and too many state and local governments and; above all the NEA and other such organizations. Teachers unions have had nothing but a corruptible almost contemptible affect both financially and morally upon those for whom they are supposed to serve. May God help us, but he won't unless we help ourselves first!

Tyranny vs. Religion

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”. — John 3:16

Mark Levine writes in in latest bestselling book Ameritopia:

“Tyranny, broadly defined, is the use of power to dehumanize the individual and delegitimize his nature. Political utopianism is tyranny disguised as a desirable, workable, and even paradisiacal governing ideology.”

Plato’s Republic, More’s Utopia, Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Marx’s workers’ paradise are utopias that are anti-individual and anti-individualism. For the utopians, modern and olden, the individual is one-dimensional—selfish. On his own, he has little moral value. Contrarily, authoritarianism is defended as altruistic and masterminds as socially conscious. Thus endless interventions in the individual’s life and manipulation of his conditions are justified as not only necessary and desirable but noble governmental pursuits. This false dialectic is at the heart of the problem we face today.

In truth, man is naturally independent and self-reliant, which are attributes that contribute to his own well-being and survival, and the well-being and survival of a civil society. He is also a social being who is charitable and compassionate. History abounds with examples, as do the daily lives of individuals. To condemn individualism as the utopians do is to condemn the very foundation of the civil society and the American founding and endorse, wittingly or unwittingly, oppression. Karl Popper saw it as an attack on Western civilization. “The emancipation of the individual was indeed the great spiritual revolution which had led to the breakdown of tribalism and to the rise of democracy.” Moreover, Judaism and Christianity, among other religions, teach the altruism of the individual.”

For years the left through its political leaders and constant court cases has been attacking all forms of religion in the United States, especially Christianity in their push to create an egalitarian, secular utopia where the state is all powerful. This constant attack has numbed the American people to the fact that the left-wing progressive statist have slowly eroded our religious freedoms as granted in the First Amendment of the Constitution. They have claimed a “wall of separation” between church and state and have beaten us over the head with this argument on a daily basis.

They tell us we can’t have a nativity scene in the public square or a cross on the hill. They claim singing a Christmas song in school violates the rights of non-Christians. They spout off their anti-religious, anti-God whenever they get a chance and even go so far as to demand we trash the nation’s motto, “In God We Trust.”

Nowhere was this anti-Christian push demonstrated as forcibly as this week in Rhode Island, a state based on Roger William’s belief in religious freedom, this week when a group of Occupy Wall Street protesters disrupted a Right to Life rally and threw condoms on Catholic school girls inside the Rhode Island state capitol building.

Todd Starnes writes in a Fox News report:

“Barth Bracy, executive director of Rhode Island Right to Life, said their rally had to be cut short after the Occupiers began screaming and refused to allow a Catholic priest to deliver a prayer.

“This is their idea of civil speech but we believe it’s an outrage,” Bracy told Fox News & Commentary “They started heckling, chanting and blowing whistles. They shouted down a priest.”

Last week’s rally was held inside the rotunda of the state capitol in Providence. Bracy said the Occupiers, along with some pro-choice demonstrators, infiltrated the crowd of some 150 pro-lifers. He said the pro-life crowd was made up of senior citizens, mothers with young children, Cub Scouts, and school kids.

Bracy said one of the most egregious incidents occurred when an Occupier climbed to the third floor balcony and dumped a box of condoms on girls from a Catholic school.

“What kind of individual throw condoms at Catholic school girls,” Bracy asked.

Bracy said capitol police were outnumbered and overwhelmed by the protesters. At one point they even attacked State. Rep. Doreen Costa.

“This was one of the most disturbing sights I’ve ever seen,” Costa told Fox News & Commentary. “It was horrendous. “

Costa said a female Occupier hit her on the head with a sign and shoved her “moppy” hair in the lawmaker’s face.

“I told her that she really stunk bad and needed to take a bath,” Costa said.

Costa said she was “speechless” when they showered the young girls with condoms. So was Father Bernard Healey, the executive director of the Rhode Island Catholic Conference.

“It’s disgraceful behavior,” Healey said. “The week before, the pro-abortion people had their rally and no one bothered them. Apparently freedom of speech only applies to those who agree with you”

I’ll tell you the kind of people who do this. They are people who have been raised in a society where religious tolerance and acceptance is foreign to them. They have been brought up to believe that they are the masterminds and should not allow others with opposing views to exist in their utopia. They are the product of a state controlled society that will not accept an opposing view and have a deep hatred for those who challenge their conscience. They believe in their freedom, yet will not allow others to exercise their freedom.

The basis of their disdain of religion lays in their interpretation of the First Amendment which states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Last week the Obama administration spit in the eye of the First Amendment, as it did Article 2, Section 2 and Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution with their so-called recess appointment to appoint Richard Cordray as head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) without securing the Senate confirmation that is required by the U.S. Constitution.

This latest defilement of the Constitution is Obama’s Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.

Ed Henry of Fox News writes:

“Catholics are fired up over new rules implementing Obama's health care reform law forcing Catholic universities, hospitals, and charities to provide insurance for their employees covering contraception -- even though that violates church teachings.

"When you push people of faith and you tell them the government is going to knock down the wall of separation of church and state and overreach like the Obama administration, you've got a war on your hands," Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told Fox News.

In an extraordinary move this past weekend, New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan and other archbishops throughout the nation had their priests read letters denouncing the Obama administration policy from the pulpit at Sunday Mass.

"Never before has the government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience," Dolan said in a web video that takes the battle online. "This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights. How about letting our elected leaders know that we want religious liberty and rights of consciences restored and the administration's mandate rescinded? We can't afford to strike out on this one."

Pressed on the matter at his daily briefing Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated several times the administration believes it struck an "appropriate balance" in crafting the policy.

"The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services," said Carney. "We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns."

Even some Catholic Democrats are not buying that claim, however, with liberal columnist E.J. Dionne ripping the policy in a Washington Post column. Dionne charged Monday that the president "utterly botched" the issue and "threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus."

This past Sunday, January 29, Roman Catholic congregations were read letters opposing the Obama administration's demand that all Catholic universities and Catholic-based charities make sure they provide all employees access to health insurance providing artificial contraception, including abortifacients and sterilization services such as vasectomies and tubal ligations. The "morning after" pill is also included.

The clerics' fiery rebukes follow Pope Benedict XVI's January 19 speech in which he warned the Catholic Church of the increasing threats of radical secularism's intrusion into politics and culture. The Holy Father specifically mentioned the U.S. church's need to be afforded conscientious objection to the administration's demand for compliance within one year.

No serious observer can believe that the administration's real goal is to ensure the acceptance or availability of contraception.

Everyone knows that anyone who wants contraceptives has easy access to such measures even if he or she does not have a health plan that provides for them. The local friendly drugstore has aisles stacked to the ceiling with condoms and other "family planning" measures, while clinics such as Planned Parenthood hand out birth control pills and abortions with abandon — sometimes even to underage girls, as damning videos taken by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have shown.

No, the real issue is not birth control or the provision of it.

The central issue is government intimidation of and control over religious institutions. It is government's overriding of the consciences of Catholics and members of other denominations who oppose abortifacients and sterilization.

The 2013 deadline for Catholic institutions to conform to the health care mandate is the proverbial governmental foot in the door for controlling religious institutions — actually, for controlling all people of faith who disagree with the administration's stance toward abortion.

For the truth of the matter is that the U.S. government's intrusion into religious organizations, if not halted at this stage, will continue to press even harder for even more sacrifices of conscience. The next step on the part of the government will almost certainly force all religious institutions to provide access to health care insurance that provides coverage of surgical abortions. The administration's demands are only the first salvo in what is bound to be a continuing battle between the federal government and churches if ObamaCare continues its trajectory and is not dismantled.

But there are even worse consequences if the government continues to try to coerce the church against its conscience and doctrines of faith and practice. If the push to force the churches into positions compromising its rules of faith and practice succeeds, and the church capitulates, there is absolutely no church or church institution the government will not seek to control completely.

By insisting that the state override matters of conscience and faith established by the Church, the U.S. federal government will have followed the examples of tyrannous regimes which have sought to seek to establish government power over the Church. It will essentially be requiring what totalitarian regimes everywhere require of the Church — namely, no separation of Church and state. There will be only the State.

The present pope, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany, has fully understood from the experiences of his youth while in Nazi Germany — and from the experiences of his good friend and predecessor Pope John Paul II while under Nazi rule in Poland during WWII and under Soviet Communism during the Cold War — just what happens when the state dictates its policies to the Church. Both popes knew what it was like to live under a regime which reversed the roles of Church and state. Both saw the Church crushed under oppression.

The Christian view of the Church is that it must act in freedom. It must be free to stand apart from the government and act as the conscience of the state and its citizens. The state is never to act as the arbiter of the conscience of the church. The Church renders to Caesar what is Caesar's, and nothing more, as all else is rendered to God. The Church remains transcendent as God's kingdom, above all earthly powers.

Otherwise, when Caesar controls the Church and its entire hierarchy of bishops, cardinals, and even popes, all are forced to salute and to submit to the state, as this famous photo of Catholic clergy offering Nazi stiff armed salute to Hitler illustrates.

If they do not rise up in civil rebellion against this administration's demands, what will become of the Catholic Church and other denominations in America?

The answer to that question is as follows: they will cease to be the Church in any significant way.

And without the Church and people of good faith everywhere in all denominations acting as the conscience of our nation, our constitutional Republic will also cease to exist.