Voting Obama Out of Office is not Enough

“Now, it came to me that the Constitution of the United States had been made under the dominion of the Newtonian Theory.”

“The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. —Woodrow Wilson, 1912.

Many people believe that by voting Barack Obama out of office this November most of our problems will be solved. Noting could be further from the truth. Yes, we must vote Obama out but we need to do much more over the coming years to return our nation to a true constitutional republic as our founder envisioned. We need to turn back the tide of ever creeping progressivism that has dominated our politics, education system, and media since the turn of the twentieth century.

Progressivism is the belief that America needs to move or “progress” beyond the principles of the American Founding. Organized politically more than a hundred years ago, Progressivism insists upon flexibility in political forms unbound by fixed and universal principles. Progressives hold that human nature is malleable and that society is perfectible. Affirming the inexorable, positive march of history, Progressives see the need for unelected experts or masterminds who would supervise a vast administration of government.

Progressivism is rooted in the philosophy of European thinkers, most notably the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. Progressivism takes its name from a faith in “historical progress.” According to the leading lights of Progressivism, including Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and John Dewey, human nature has evolved beyond the limitations that the Founders identified. Far from fearing man’s capacity for evil, Progressives held that properly enlightened human beings could be entrusted with power and not abuse it.

The Progressive idea of historical progress is tied to the idea of historical contingency, which means that each period of history is guided by different and unique values that change over time. The “self-evident truths” that the Founders upheld in the Declaration of Independence, including natural rights, are no longer applicable. Circumstances, not eternal principles, ultimately dictate justice.

If human nature is improving, and fixed principles do not exist, government must be updated according to the new reality. The Constitution’s arrangement of government, based upon the separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism, only impeded effective government, according to Progressives. The limited government of the Founding is rejected in favor of a “living Constitution.”

Progressivism began in the 1880’s with the German school of philosophy. At that time Americans wishing for high academic honors or positions went to Germany to study and return with advanced degrees. They then went on to take positions in American universities like Princeton and John Hopkins to advance their progressive ideas. This German influence created a sea change in American education. Thus over the years our university system has been the harbor for the progressive agenda that we suffer today.

The administrative state is built on the rejection of the principles of our founders. Progressives believe government must change based on the circumstances of the times. This is called “historical contingency.” As Madison believed when he wrote Federalist Paper No. 10 that the “latent cause of factionalism are sown in the nature of man.” The progressives believe that man is changing and as he evolves he can become perfected under the guidance of the masterminds.

Progressivism had its most influence from 1880 to the 1930’s they believed the Constitution had become outdated by the social and economic ills of the day. It was Woodrow Wilson who stated; “The laws of this country have not kept up with the change of economic circumstances in this country; they have not kept up with the change of political circumstances.”

Progressivism began seriously encroaching on our rights in 1912 when Woodrow Wilson was elected as the 28^th President of the United States. Wilson, a Democrat, succeeded the Republican William Howard Taft, and had served as the governor of New Jersey (1911-1913) and President of Princeton University (1902-1910). Wilson was a true intellectual elitist and internationalist who believed the Constitution was outdated and that government was the answer to all of society’s problems. He was also a staunch racist who believed Negros were persons of lesser intellectual ability. It was Wilson’s policies that dragged the United States into the First World War and ultimately to the founding of the League of Nations, a treaty the Senate rejected

In a speech, delivered during his successful campaign for president in 1912 and included in a collection of speeches called The New Freedom, Wilson puts forward the idea of an evolving, or “living” constitution Wilson stated:

“Now, it came to me… that the Constitution of the United States had been made under the dominion of the Newtonian Theory.”

“The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life.”

“All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

“Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.”

“Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776.” “The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day…”

Wilson went on state:

“One of the chief benefits I used to derive from being president of a university was that I had the pleasure of entertaining thoughtful men from all over the world. I cannot tell you how much has dropped into my granary by their presence. I had been casting around in my mind for something by which to draw several parts of my political thought together when it was my good fortune to entertain a very interesting Scotsman who had been devoting himself to the philosophical thought of the seventeenth century. His talk was so engaging that it was delightful to hear him speak of anything, and presently there came out of the unexpected region of his thought the thing I had been waiting for. He called my attention to the fact that in every generation all sorts of speculation and thinking tend to fall under the formula of the dominant thought of the age. For example, after the Newtonian Theory of the universe had been developed, almost all thinking tended to express itself in the analogies of the Newtonian Theory, and since the Darwinian Theory has reigned amongst us, everybody is likely to express whatever he wishes to expound in terms of development and accommodation to environment.

Now, it came to me, as this interesting man talked, that the Constitution of the United States had been made under the dominion of the Newtonian Theory. You have only to read the papers of The Federalist to see that fact written on every page. They speak of the “checks and balances” of the Constitution, and use to express their idea the simile of the organization of the universe, and particularly of the solar system,—how by the attraction of gravitation the various parts are held in their orbits; and then they proceed to represent Congress, the Judiciary, and the President as a sort of imitation of the solar system.

They were only following the English Whigs, who gave Great Britain its modern constitution. Not that those Englishmen analyzed the matter, or had any theory about it; Englishmen care little for theories. It was a Frenchman, Montesquieu, who pointed out to them how faithfully they had copied Newton’s description of the mechanism of the heavens.

The makers of our Federal Constitution read Montesquieu with true scientific enthusiasm. They were scientists in their way,—the best way of their age,—those fathers of the nation. Jefferson wrote of “the laws of Nature,”—and then by way of afterthought,—“and of Nature’s God.” And they constructed a government as they would have constructed an orrery,—to display the laws of nature. Politics in their thought was a variety of mechanics. The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.”

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick co-operation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive coordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.”

Progressive political science was based on the assumption that society could be organized in such a way that social ills would disappear. Frank Goodnow, president of Johns Hopkins University and the first president of the American Political Science Association, helped pioneer the idea that separating politics from administration was the key to progress. In his speech, given at Brown University, he addresses the need to move beyond the ideas of the Founders. He stated:

“The end of the eighteenth century was marked by the formulation and general acceptance by thinking men in Europe of a political philosophy which laid great emphasis on individual private rights. Man was by this philosophy conceived of as endowed at the time of his birth with certain inalienable rights. Thus, Rousseau in his “Social Contract” treated man as primarily an individual and only secondarily as a member of human society. Society itself was regarded as based upon a contract made between the individuals by whose union it was formed. At the time of making this contract these individuals were deemed to have reserved certain rights spoken of as “natural” rights. These rights could neither be taken away nor be limited without the consent of the individual affected.”

“At the end of the eighteenth century a great change was beginning in Western Europe. The enlargement of the field of commercial transactions, due to the discovery and colonization of America and to the contact of Europe with Asia, particularly with India, had opened new spheres of activity to those minded for adventure. The invention of the steam engine and its application to manufacturing were rapidly changing industrial conditions. The factory system was in process of establishment and had already begun to displace domestic industry.

The new possibilities of reward for individual endeavor made men impatient of the restrictions on private initiative incident to an industrial and commercial system which was fast passing away. They therefore welcomed with eagerness a political philosophy which, owing to the emphasis it placed upon private rights, would if acted upon have the effect of freeing them from what they regarded as hampering limitations on individual initiative.”

In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”

The result was the adoption in this country of a doctrine of unadulterated individualism. Everyone had rights. Social duties were hardly recognized, or if recognized little emphasis was laid upon them. It was apparently thought that everyone was able and willing to protect his rights, and that as a result of the struggle between men for their rights and of the compromise of what appeared to be conflicting rights would arise an effective social organization.”

The progressives thought that Constitution was with its mechanics of government were an obstacle to implementing their agenda, and they were open and honest in these opinions. They made no effort to mask these beliefs. The progressive platform of 1913 was a platform featuring regulation of the American economy, promoting social justice and redistribution of property. This was the platform Theodore Roosevelt ran on.

The progressives, such as Wilson, understood the Constitution was a means to an end of preserving the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It was Wilson who stated: If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence does not repeat the preface.” This would turn the Declaration into nothing more than a list of grievances against King George. It would have no meaning whatsoever.

Our Founders believed the doctrine of “Natural Rights” was meant for everybody at all times — Progressives like Wilson and Dewey did not.

In his essay on Liberalism and Social Action John Dewey believed Jefferson was the problem. As a leading Progressive scholar from the 1880s onward, John Dewey, who taught mainly at Columbia University, devoted much of his life to redefining the idea of education. His thought was influenced by German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, and central to it was a denial of objective truth and an embrace of historicism and moral relativism. As such he was critical of the American founding.

In this 1935 easy Dewey stated:

“The whole temper of this philosophy is individualistic in the sense in which individualism is opposed to organized social action. It held to the primacy of the individual over the state not only in time but in moral authority. It defined the individual in terms of liberties of thought and action already possessed by him in some mysterious ready-made fashion, and which it was the sole business of the state to safeguard. Reason was also made an inherent endowment of the individual, expressed in men’s moral relations to one another, but not sustained and developed because of these relations. It followed that the great enemy of individual liberty was thought to be government because of its tendency to encroach upon the innate liberties of individuals. Later liberalism inherited this conception of a natural antagonism between ruler and ruled, interpreted as a natural opposition between the individual and organized society. There still lingers in the minds of some the notion that there are two different “spheres” of action and of rightful claims; that of political society and that of the individual, and that in the interest of the latter the former must be as contracted as possible. Not till the second half of the nineteenth century did the idea arise that government might and should be an instrument for securing and extending the liberties of individuals. This later aspect of liberalism is perhaps foreshadowed in the clauses of our Constitution that confer upon Congress power to provide for “public welfare” as well as for public safety.”

Dewy went on to say:

“The earlier liberals lacked historic sense and interest. For a while this lack had an immediate pragmatic value. It gave liberals a powerful weapon in their fight with reactionaries. For it enabled them to undercut the appeal to origin, precedent and past history by which the opponents of social change gave sacrosanct quality to existing inequities and abuses. But disregard of history took its revenge. It blinded the eyes of liberals to the fact that their own special interpretations of liberty, individuality and intelligence were themselves historically conditioned, and were relevant only to their own time. They put forward their ideas as immutable truths good at all times and places; they had no idea of historic relativity, either in general or in its application to themselves.”

“If the early liberals had put forth their special interpretation of liberty as something subject to historic relativity they would not have frozen it into a doctrine to be applied at all times under all social circumstances. Specifically, they would have recognized that effective liberty is a function of the social conditions existing at any time. If they had done this, they would have known that as economic relations became dominantly controlling forces in setting the pattern of human relations, the necessity of liberty for individuals which they proclaimed will require social control of economic forces in the interest of the great mass of individuals. Because the liberals failed to make a distinction between purely formal or legal liberty and effective liberty of thought and action, the history of the last one hundred years is the history of non-fulfillment of their predictions.”

So as you can see progressivism was rooted in the belief that man was not capable of self-government and therefore needed the intellectual masterminds of government and academia to rule over them for their own good. They also were setting the roots of class warfare that would be perfected by the communists of the 1930’s and the teachings of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory.

In Wilsons’ 1887 essay on Socialism and Democracy he advanced the idea that socialism was democracy. Wilson makes clear in this essay the consequences of rejecting the idea of inherent natural rights for the idea that rights are a positive grant from government. In his easy Wilson states:

“Roundly described, socialism is a proposition that every community, by means of whatever forms of organization may be most effective for the purpose, see to it for itself that each one of its members finds the employment for which he is best suited and is rewarded according to his diligence and merit, all proper surroundings of moral influence being secured to him by the public authority. ‘State socialism’ is willing to act through state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory. (Emphasis added)

Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremist logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

Wilson goes on the state:

“The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical difference—is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive. Democracy has not undertaken the tasks which socialists clamor to have undertaken; but it refrains from them, not for lack of adequate principles or suitable motives, but for lack of adequate organization and suitable hardihood: because it cannot see its way clear to accomplishing them with credit. Moreover it may be said that democrats of today hold off from such undertakings because they are of today, and not of the days, which history very well remembers, when government had the temerity to try everything. The best thought of modern time having recognized a difference between social and political questions, democratic government, like all other governments, seeks to confine itself to those political concerns which have, in the eyes of the judicious, approved themselves appropriate to the sphere and capacity of public authority.

The socialist does not disregard the obvious lessons of history concerning overwrought government: at least he thinks he does not. He denies that he is urging the resumption of tasks which have been repeatedly shown to be impossible. He points to the incontrovertible fact that the economic and social conditions of life in our century are not only superficially but radically different from those of any other time whatever. Many affairs of life which were once easily to be handled by individuals have now become so entangled amongst the complexities of international trade relations, so confused by the multiplicity of news-voices, or so hoisted into the winds of speculation that only powerful combinations of wealth and influence can compass them. Corporations grow on every hand, and on every hand not only swallow and overawe individuals but also compete with governments. The contest is no longer between government and individuals; it is now between government and dangerous combinations and individuals. Here is a monstrously changed aspect of the social world. In face of such circumstances, must not government lay aside all timid scruple and boldly make itself an agency for social reform as well as for political control?

‘Yes,’ says the democrat, ‘perhaps it must. You know it is my principle, no less than yours, that every man shall have an equal chance with every other man: if I saw my way to it as a practical politician, I should be willing to go farther and superintend every man’s use of his chance. But the means? The question with me is not whether the community has power to act as it may please in these matters, but how it can act with practical advantage—a question of policy.

A question of policy primarily, but also a question of organization, that is to say of administration.”

Of course in 1887 there was no Hitler with his National Socialists, no Lenin with his Communists, no Mussolini with his corporate socialist, and no Castro with his socialist state. Socialism has been responsible for the death, decline, and depravity of millions since Wilson’s proud advocacy it. It has been, and is today filled with “experts” such as Wilson, Dewey, Goodnow, and the rest of the Hegel inspired masterminds who are destroying the principles of Founders in favor of a utopian state.

Progressivism began retreating in the United States with the elections of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge as they began reducing the power of the federal government. But with the election of Herbert Hoover, a Republican, progressives once more began to grow the size and influence of government. With the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 progressivisms once again came to the forefront in tyrannical manner.

Roosevelt was the consument class warrior. A person born to wealth and privilege Roosevelt used class warfare to maintain his political power. During the depression he enacted draconian laws, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act Even though much of this act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court Roosevelt continued to push for more laws and regulations on business, farming, and citizens. Roosevelt believed that rights emanated from government, not from nature or nature’s God. In his 1944 address to Congress Roosevelt called for a new Bill of Rights. He stated:

“...It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

• The right of every family to a decent home;

• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

• The right to a good education

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis—recently emphasized the grave dangers of “rightist reaction” in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called “normalcy” of the 1920’s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights—for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.”

Most historians believe Franklin Roosevelt was the most progressive president in our history. After Roosevelt we had Truman (D), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nikon (R), Ford (R), Carter (D), Reagan (R), George H. W. Bush (R), Clinton (D), George Bush (R), and Barack Obama (D). Some have been more progressive than others with Reagan being he least progressive and Obama the most. Some have attempted to reduce the size and influence of the administrative state while others, like Johnson, George Bush and Obama, have fueled the administrative beast.

No matter whom we have occupying the White House the government bureaucrats, academic masterminds, and the well trained progressive media will remain and attempt to thwart any attempts at reducing their influence and power.

When Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 they wrote the following into the article III of the ordinance:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Our founders believed that religion, morality, and knowledge were the linchpins needed to preserve the Republic they had fought for. Progressives have replaced religion with conditional morality and morality with relativism. They have replaced knowledge with indoctrination to conformity. Our schools and colleges have replaced teaching the Constitution and writings of our founders with social justice and equality of results.

So even defeating Barack Obama at the polls this November we will still have a long way to go to return to a Constitutional Republic dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through the protection of our individual property as our founders envisioned, but it certainly is a beginning.

A Tribute to a Hero

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." — Thomas Jefferson

On Saturday I had the privilege of attending the 90^th birthday party for a World War II hero. Ed “Doc” Pepping turned ninety on July 4, 2012 and the party, hosted by his family, was to honor the longevity and accomplishments of this once paratrooper and medic for the 101^st Airborne.

Ed, a talented musician, was a member of the Pasadena Symphony Orchestra and an avid opera fan before the war. He enlisted in September, 1942 and like the other members of the 506^th he volunteered for the paratroopers. When I asked Ed why he volunteered for the paratroopers he said he did so because of the extra pay and the excitement. In 1942 a PFC was paid a grand total of $54 dollars per month ($760 in today’s dollars) and paratroopers received an additional $50 dollars per month.

After his basic training he was assigned to “Easy” Company, 2^nd Battalion, 506^th PIR of the 101^stAirborne Division at Camp Taccoa, Georgia. If read the book Band of Brothers or watched the HBO series of the same title you would have seen a true depiction of paratrooper training at Camp Taccoa and the rigorous training regime these troopers went through. They were the finest trained Army troops in World War II.

One of the exercises these troopers had to do war run up and down a Curahee Mountain, a 1,740 foot peak outside of the camp, touch the geodetic survey monument, and then run back to camp. This exercise was used to get the troopers in mental and physical condition for what they would encounter in the battles to come.

Ed liked to note that he ran up and down Curahee Mountain some 33 times amounting to a total of 198 miles. Even though Ed was the third best marksman in his Company he volunteered for a Medical Detachment where he became the company’s medic. Ed had doubts as to whether or not he would be able kill someone and believed he could serve his nation and his fellow troopers better by saving lives. Medics were important elements of a company as they were the ones who risked their lives to save the lives of their fellow troopers and were right in the middle of the fight.

After the 506^th completed their training in Georgia they boarded a ship and sailed to England where they went through more training in the English country side as they prepared for the invasion of France and their D-Day drop over Normandy. Of course they knew nothing of the mission at that time and were pretty sick and tired of all the training. They were ready to go and anxious to get into the fight.

On the night of June 5, 1944, after they had waited through two days of bad weather while in full gear, they boarded their C-47 transport planes in groups of 18. These groups were called “sticks” and each trooper was assigned a number for his position on the plane. They were loaded down with over 100 pounds of gear including a M1 Grand rifle or carbine, ammunition, mines, hand grenades, knives, ropes, and a cricket clicker for identification in the dark of night. One click was to be followed by two clicks by friendlies. These clickers were only minimally successful as a German Mauser rifle made two clicks when the bolt inserts a bullet in the chamber.

It was a dark night over Normandy in the early hours of June 6, 1944. As a defensive measure the Germans had flooded many of the low lying fields to thwart paratroopers and tanks. They wanted to keep the tanks on the narrow roads so their anti-tank guns could pick them off. Many of these fields had water deep enough for the troopers to drown in especially as they were loaded down with so much equipment. Many of the troopers did in fact succumb to the water in the fields.

When the C-47 carrying Ed and the other 17 troopers arrived over the Sainte Mére Eglise drop zone they should have been flying about 700 feet above the ground at a speed of 95 miles per hour. In fact, due to the German flak and the evasive maneuvers of the pilots, they were doing 160 MPH at just over 300 feet. When Ed jumped the force of the high speed air racing by the plane forced his medical gear off of his body and when he hit the ground his steel helmet cracked down on his neck cracking 3 vertebrae.

Ed continued to serve in the field administering to the needs of the wounded troopers for fifteen days until he finally collapsed during the assault on Carentan and was evacuated to England. During the time Ed received the Bronze Star for pulling a wounded officer from a burning tank turret where he had been shot and fallen on top of the tank commander. This had caused the tank to stop and halt the movement of the entire column subjecting them to German fire. Ed climbed up on the tank, and under fire, pulled the wounded man to safety allowing the column to proceed. This action took place at a crossroads nicknamed “Dead Mans Corner” just outside of Sainte Marie du Mont.

Finally Ed was evacuated back to England where, after his neck healed, he served as a medic in an Army hospital tending to the wounded soldiers that were being evacuated from France.

Ed returned to France after his wounds healed but he did not resume his duties as a Medic. Instead he was assigned to a communications unit where he served as a switchboard operator connecting calls with officers. He said he enjoyed disconnecting the calls when the officers were talking to their “sweeties.”

He believed it was an honor to serve in a hospital extreme trauma ward where he could tend to the most seriously wounded. During his tenure with the 506^th he earned many decorations including a Bronze Star, Purple Heart, 2 Presidential Unit Citations and the French Croix de Guerre. He also received the Army's Legion of Merit medal and is a holder of the Combat Medic and Combat Infantry Badge.

In 2002 when Band of Brothers won an Emmy Award Ed was invited to attend the awards ceremony as a guest of Steven Spielberg. Here he was united with Col Dick Winters, his old company commander, and several of the troopers he served with the 506^th. Ed was driven to the ceremony by one of the reenactors of the 101^st, who he now refers to as his bodyguard.

Ed now resides in Whittier, California where he spends his time with his books and giving lectures to high school students on the values of honor, service, integrity, and patriotism. He is also active with the Boy Scouts serving as a mentor.

I met Ed in 2008 when I was acting as a photographer for the World War II Research and Preservation Society and the reenactors of the 506^th Parachute Infantry Regiment (PIR), Second Battalion of the 101^st Airborne Division. The WWII RPS is a California nonprofit corporation that has been active in historical research and Living History Reenacting for over a decade. Members come from all walks of life, ranging from active military duty & retired military personnel, law enforcement, doctors, lawyers, artists, students, and business executives all with a passion for World War II history and a common goal of preserving our nation's part in that war. Part of that preservation entails depicting not only U.S. soldiers from that era, but also their Allies as well as their opponents.

At that event I also meet other members of the 506^th including Bob Noody, Bob Janes, Don Malarkey, and Bill True. All of these men were heroes for what they did. You can view a gallery of photos from that event by clicking here.

It was a privilege to share Ed’s birthday with his family and close friends. It said that these WWII vets are passing away at a rate of 1,000 per day. I can say that while having a few physical problems Ed is a sharp as ever and a great person to spend some time with. He is beloved by his family and all who know him. I can only pray that Ed sees his 100^th birthday and that his contributions to this nation and our society are not forgotten. God bless Ed.

For a gallery of photos from Ed’s party please click Here.

Celebrating The Fourth Of July

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding generations, as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.” — John Adams in a letter to his wife Abigail after the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Tomorrow we will celebrate this Republic’s 236^th birthday. (I am writing this on the eve of the Fourth of July). No doubt many of you will partake in family get-togethers, BBQs, time at the beach or pool, lazing about and enjoying time off from work, and of course watching one of the numerous fireworks displays. All off this was recommended by John Adams, one of the authors of the Deceleration, to his wife Abigail after the Declaration was signed.

America’s Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said, was the product of “the American mind.” Our Constitution was made with the same purpose as the Declaration—to establish a regime where the people are sovereign, and the government protects the rights granted to them by their Creator.

The word “constitution” means “to ordain and establish something.” It also means “to set a firm thing strongly in place.” It is linked to two other words: statute and statue. All three words—constitution, statute, and statue—connote a similar idea of establishing something lasting and beautiful.

The Constitution, then, is a work of art. It gives America its form. To fully know the “cause,” or purpose, of America, one must know the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, its author, mentioned four thinkers for their contribution to molding “the American mind”: Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke.

It is important to recognize the profound influence Locke’s Second Treatise had on the Founders, especially Jefferson. Locke writes:

“The constitution of the legislative is the first and fundamental act of society, whereby provision is made for the continuation of their union, under the direction of persons, and bonds of laws, made by persons authorized thereunto, by the consent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them, can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws, whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without authority would impose any thing upon them.”

Locke is not only underscoring his earlier point about man’s right to resist the illegitimate, arbitrary power of government, particularly to his property rights; he is going further — that is, no government, including one established by the consent of the governed, has the authority to violate man’s inalienable rights.

Locke explains that he laws of nature exist above all else, and all men are required to obey it, including those who hold public office “Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own be comfortable to the law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.”

The first sentence of the Declaration encapsulates Locke’s view of the preeminence of natural law and the right to disobey and, indeed, throw off a government that abuses its power. It states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Celebrating the Fourth of July is one of the best parts about summer. You get to barbecue with your family, watch fireworks, go to a parade—take part in all the fun summer activities.

But another reason why July 4th is so special is because it’s Independence Day, a holiday celebrating the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, founding father and soon-to-be president, Thomas Jefferson wrote what is now the United States’ most famous and cherished document to give a list of grievances against King George III of England. It was written to justify the colonies breaking away from the mother country and becoming an independent nation. Revised by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, the Declaration of Independence was signed by our founding fathers and accepted by Congress on July 4, 1776.

But the spirit of Independence Day is not only about the United States officially becoming a country. It’s about celebrating the values that the country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence was written with the theory that every person has inherent rights, called “self-evident truths” in the official document. It reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Abraham Lincoln deemed the Deceleration as an “Apple of Gold set in the silver frame of the Constitution.” He believed the Declaration was the most important document ever written by the hand of man and the very foundation of this Republic.

The soul of the American founding is located in the universal political principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The meaning of equality and liberty in the Declaration is decisively different than the definition given to those principles by modern Progressivism.

Liberty is the right to be free from the coercive interference of other people. It is derived from nature itself, and is a natural right—something possessed simply because one is a human being,

Equality means no one is by nature the ruler of any other person. Each human being is equal in his right to life, liberty, and property, which the Declaration calls “the pursuit of happiness.”

Equality, liberty, and natural rights require a certain form of government: republicanism, based on consent of the governed. Legitimate government, based on the consent of the governed, must accomplish three things: the establishment of civil laws that protect man’s natural rights; the punishment of those who infringe on others’ natural rights; and the protection of natural rights through a strong national defense.

The people themselves also play a vital role in protecting their rights. They must be educated in “religion, morality, and knowledge, as expressed in the Northwest Ordinance passed enacted in by Congress on July 13, 1787. Article III of the Ordinance states:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty they never shall be invaded or disturbed unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall, from time to time, be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.”

Modern liberalism uses the same language of “liberty” and “equality” as the Declaration of Independence. Yet modern liberals mean something other than what the Founders meant by those words. For the Progressives, “equality” means equal access to resources and wealth, while “liberty” means the ability to utilize a right, rather than the right in itself. Both of these ideas necessitate government programs that help mankind liberate itself from its “natural limitations.”

The Declaration of Independence and modern Progressivism are fundamentally opposed to each other. The modern misunderstanding of “equality” and “liberty” threatens not just the Declaration of Independence, but the whole of the American constitutional and moral order.

In a letter to Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson wrote on May 8, 1825, a little more than a year before he died, answering a query about the Declaration of Independence, explaining that it drew upon a long political and philosophical tradition and reflected principles widely understood by Americans of the founding era. In the letter Jefferson said:

“....But with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc....”

As victory in the Second World War looked more and more likely, President Roosevelt turned his attention to postwar America. In this speech he proposes a “second Bill of Rights.” In his annual speech to Congress on January 11, 1944 Roosevelt proclaimed:

“As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

• The right of every family to a decent home;

• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

• · The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

Roosevelt’s proposal was antithetical to the thinking of Jefferson and our founders in 1776. His was an expression of the new progressive thinking that was sweeping the country, a thinking that would lead us down the path to the coercive government and the increasing class warfare we live with today.

On the other hand on Independence Day of 1986 Ronald Reagan gave a short address to the people of the United States from an aircraft carrier in New York Harbor. The video of that speech is shown below.

When you are enjoying your burgers and hot dogs, a day at the beach, and watching the fireworks displays take a few moments to reflect on the words of Ronaldo Reagan and the words of our Declaration of Independence adopted 236 years ago.

The Declaration of Independence

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

The Green Energy Agenda

“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.” — James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10, November 22, 1787.

When the New Constitution was being debated by members of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 three leading advocates for the adoption of a new constitution based on a federal form of government based on republican principles were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. To advance their arguments they published a series of essays, 85 in all, under the name of Publius. These Federalist Papers are used today, especially by the federal courts, to understand the intent of the framers of our Constitution. One of the most important of these Federalist Papers was Number 10 written by James Madison, considered by many to be one of the leading framers of our Constitution, decrying the dangers of factions that were existent in the Articles of Confederations.

In Federalist No. 10 Madison addresses the inherent dangers of “Factions.” He considered factions as a danger to a federalist form of republican government as they would be the basis of a tyranny of either the majority or minority depending how strong these factions were. In Federalist 10 Madison said:

“Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished, as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements and alarm for private rights which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administration.”

…….

“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well as speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government.”

To mitigate the effects of factions of a federal republic Madison advocated a bicameral legislature where the lower house (House of Representatives) was more responsive to local and factional issues while the upper house (Senate) would be more responsive to the inserts of the various states and national as a whole. This why the members of the lower house were elected by direct popular vote in their various districts and served for a two-year term while members of the upper house were chosen by state legislatures, conventions or governors and serve for a six-year term. Members of the Senate could be recalled by their states. This changed when the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1913. Now Senators are elected by direct popular vote in their respective states.

The Seventeenth Amendment states:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that this led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures, as well as an overextension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups (factions) to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures. In addition, concerns have been raised about the power of governors to appoint temporary replacements to fill vacant senate seats, both in terms of how this provision should be interpreted and whether it should be permitted at all. Accordingly, noted public figures have expressed a desire to reform or even repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. The following states did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment. It should be noted that Utah (explicitly rejected amendment). Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment due to the above stated reason.

You might consider that if we did not have the Seventeenth Amendment the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) might not have passed the Senate. Two borderline Senators were Mary Landau of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Both Senators were from states with Republican dominated legislatures with Republican governors opposed to the PPACA.

Today we are living in a nation controlled by factions. These factions, unlike in Madison’s day, are promulgated from the offices of lawyers, lobbyists, and political activists groups in Washington, D.C. with offices located on “K” Street. Some of the most influential and well financed of these factional groups are the environmentalists, pharmaceutical firms, manufactures, agribusiness, communications, and public service unions. These factions have brought us ObamaCare, Cable TV monopolies, the Environmental Protection Agency, Ethanol, and financial institutions to name a few. They supply the money and political muscle to elect politicians that will advance their cause to the detriment of the nation.

One of the most powerful of these groups is the environmentalist. Over the past 40 years, since the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, these groups have morphed from conservationists concerned with conserving our natural resources to radical left-wing groups bent on pushing an agenda that is more red than green. They have been able to ban DDT causing the deaths of millions of African children to the effects of Malaria and Dengue fever due to the inability to kill mosquitos, their primary carrier. They have destroyed the coal industry. They have even dictated the light bulbs you can use in your home.

One of the most egregious of their radical agenda is the “Green Energy” movement. We have all heard of scandalous boondoggles of Solyndra and their $500 billion dollar bankrupted solar panel facility. But how many of you have heard of the Ivanpah Solar Panel Facility and their $1.6 billion government investment from the Department of Energy or the brewing scandal over government financed wind farms?

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System will consist of three separate solar thermal power plants in south-eastern California. The facility will consist of fields of heliostat mirrors focusing sunlight on receivers located on centralized solar power towers. The receivers will generate steam to drive specially adapted steam turbines. For the first plant, the largest ever fully solar-powered steam turbine-generator set was ordered, using a 123 MW Siemens SST-900 dual-casing reheat turbine. Final approval was gained in October 2010. On October 27, 2010, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and other dignitaries gathered in the Mojave Desert to officially break ground on the project.[2] The first phase of the Ivanpah facility is scheduled to be finished in 2013.[8] The project has generated controversy because of BrightSource's decision to build it on ecologically intact desert habitat. Project construction was temporarily halted in the spring of 2011 due to the impacts on desert tortoises, although construction resumed.

The project will occupy about 4,000 acres near Interstate 15 near the California–Nevada border, north of Ivanpah, California, and will be visible from the adjacent Mojave National Preserve, Mesquite Wilderness, and Stateline Wilderness.

The project has received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. The total cost of the project is about $2,180 million. BrightSource has contracts to sell about two-thirds of the power generated at Ivanpah to PG&E, and the rest to SCE.

The largest investor in the project is NRG Energy, a generating company based in Princeton, N.J., that has put in $300 million. The project has also received an investment of $168 million from Google, but in November 2011, Google announced that they would no longer invest in CSP due to the rapid price decline of photovoltaics, and stopped its research on the project.

While solar generated energy may be a very good thing — in fact I have solar panels on my roof — I should be left up to the private sector and utilities to make the investment as they have done coal-fired and natural gas generating plants. Why should the people in Arkansas or Nebraska contribute to federal dollars to guarantee loans for the generation of expensive and perhaps unreliable electricity for California and Nevada? This is really no different that the people of California and Nevada putting their as tax monies into a highway trust fund that finances the building of bike trails in Virginia or Delaware. If the states of California and Nevada want to invest in solar power the people of those states should have a say in the matter.

Wind Farms are another brewing scandal. You may have heard about the controversial Cape Wind project, the country’s first planned offshore wind farm off of the coast of Massachusetts. There are a lot of interests involved — fishermen, environmentalists, residents, aviation, the wind lobby, etcetera — and while the project has been digging around for some federal funding for some time, they did recently get at least the full permitting go-ahead from the Obama administration.

Opponents of the project, however, claim to have evidence that the Obama administration applied undue political “pressure” to the Federal Aviation Administration to get the project green-lighted. Their complaints have garnered the notice of Rep. Cliff Stearns, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee of Solyndra-crackdown fame. Fox News reports:

“The emails that came from the FAA that I have seen obviously shows the White House is pushing the FAA for political reasons,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida.

Audra Parker, the president of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, an organization that’s working to prevent the wind farm’s development, said her organization has obtained documents she believes are proof the Federal Aviation Administration fast-tracked the project despite safety concerns for local aviation.

A PowerPoint presentation given in 2010 states: “The Secretary of the Interior has approved this project. The Administration is under pressure to promote green energy production. It would be very difficult politically to refuse approval of this project.”

“I think the Cape Wind project is something similar to Solyndra in the sense there’s a lot of pressure from the White House,” the congressman said.

The Fox report continues:

“The White House dismissed Stearns' latest accusations. And Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said that despite the concerns raised by opponents, the project has been heavily vetted.

"Cape Wind has been through the most comprehensive review of any power facility in the history of the Northeast U.S., and so if we're on any kind of fast track I'd hate to see the slow track," said Rodgers.

In fact, the FAA is again reviewing the project after a federal appeals court overturned the agency's ruling that 130 proposed turbines posed "no hazard" to aviation. Rodgers believes the FAA will once more rule in Cape Wind's favor despite political pressure from opponents.

"We know in the early years there was a lot of political pressure by project opponents to try to prevent the FAA from ever approving Cape Wind. But despite that negative political pressure the FAA has approved this three times after reviewing the full record -- twice during the Bush years, once now in the Obama years, and we're confident when they have this one more decision to make that we'll be approved again," Rodgers said.

Despite the latest efforts to fight the project, Cape Wind hopes to begin building next year. But they are facing multiple lawsuits and the possibility of further delays as both sides -- for and against the development -- charge that politics is playing a role in the battle.”

If you have ever driven across the country, especially in the Mohave Desert near Palm Springs, California you will see thousands of electric-generating wind farms with many of the wind mill blades not turning. In fact Palm Springs generates much of its electrical power from these wind farms. They stand like silent sentinels to a new age of environmentalism. Most of them were built by private investors who revived tax breaks for the construction. They were considered a capital investment — like any other investment in capital equipment and allowed accelerated depreciation. This is fine as the money was put up by investors that have since bailed out after their depreciation allowance ended and they became a maintenance burden with a negative return on the original investment and were sold to utilities and cities such a Palm Springs.

A few years ago T. Bone Pickens touted the advantages of wind farms across the central plains of Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado – the “Wind Belt” where once duct storms raved the landscape. Since then Pickens has bailed out of the wind farm technology for energy generation due to the lack of capital investment and the problems in obtaining rights of way for the construction of hundreds of miles of power lines. Pickens has now thrown his financial resources behind natural gas

On July 8, 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported that T. Boone Pickens has postponed plans to build his Texas wind farm. He said the project was stopped partly because existing transmission line capacity wasn't available. His company had planned to build new lines, but couldn't get financing. On the same date, The New York Times, reported that Pickens is committed to purchasing 667 wind turbines and will develop wind projects for them. On his Mesa Power Group website, Pickens said he expected to continue development of the Pampa project, but not at the pace originally expected.

On December 15, 2010, Nathanael Baker, in an article for www.theenergycollective.com, wrote that Pickens has scrapped plans for wind farms and will instead focus exclusively on natural gas. According to the article, on December 10, 2010, MSNBC reported that "Pickens said low natural gas prices have made utility companies view wind power as too expensive." There are thousands of miles of existing natural gas pipelines across the nation and it is less expensive to build new ones than wind farms and their needed transmission lines. Also natural gas pipelines are underground and do clutter the landscape with thousands of giant windmills. Natural gas is also a clean, plentiful, and cheap fuel to fire electrical generating plants. The environmentalists should love this, but for some reason they do not.

I often bemoan the federal government’s green-energy agenda, not because I take any umbrage with the idea of non-conventional sources of energy, but because the federal government should not be in the business of choosing what those new forms of energy are going to be. The free market is perfectly capable of coming up with viable, affordable, efficient substitutes on its own, thank you very much (think about it — the car was initially an alternative to the horse, you know, and cars are a heck of a lot more environmentally friendly than horses).

The government is not a dispassionate bystander, but rather an entity with both political ambitions and ‘unlimited’ cash at its disposal — it’s too risky that they’ll just waste our money while aiding and abetting a form of energy that doesn’t hold real promise, or isn’t ready for mass production. Which, as we’ve seen with the Obama administration, they frequently do.

What’s worse, going full-on big-government to accomplish your political green agenda only sets up an environment for rent-seeking and crony capitalism, messing with market signals and leading to lord only knows what kinds of corruption. Given that the pro-wind movement has a notoriously powerful lobby, I wouldn’t say no to Rep. Stearns’ suggestion of a federal investigation.

How Your Tax Dollars are Indoctrinating Our Children

“The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal government? Have the Pavlovian appeals to radical egalitarianism and the fomenting of jealousy and faction through class warfare and collectivism conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous? Is is accepted as legitimate and routine that the government has sufficient license to act whenever it claims to do so for the good of the people and against the selfishness of the individual?” — Marl Levine, Ameritopia

Are we so far down the road to Ameritopia that there is no turning back? Sometimes I wonder if this is not true. For the past 40 years or so we have been educating generations of young American children in a public school system that is so corrupt with radical liberal indoctrination that we are lost as a free Constitutional Republic.

If you pay attention to national polls you constantly see a trend where so-called “young voters” are leaning more and more to the left and have definite belief that the government knows best and that it can meet all of needs. Social justice and fairness has replaced individuality, entrepreneurship, and freedom.

As a society dependent on government as we live our daily lives, and get our news and information from a media so biased to the left it no longer denies this fact, we blithely live our lives paying little heed to what is going on around us. Most people over the age of fifty tend to believe things are much as they were when they were young while those under that age believe things the way they always were. This is the product of our K-12 and college education systems.

We, the older folks, have allowed the radical left to kidnap our K-12 education and have gleefully paid the bill for it.

The latest expose of this fact is reported in a comprehensive article from Accuracy in Media detailing how PBS is Re-Educating America’s Schoolchildren, Thanks to Your Contributions by Mary Grabar and Tina Trent.

The opening paragraphs of the report state:

“When most people think of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s education programs, they remember the gentle Mr. Rogers welcoming children to his home, or documentaries offering exciting encounters with whales and other exotic creatures.

These shows still exist. But CPB today produces lessons that glorify the Black Panthers and riots and protests of the 1960s, present rocker Patti Smith as a “patriot” for singing songs that condemn President George W. Bush, vilify Wal-Mart, and sanctify environmentalist Rachel Carson. Although their educational materials claim to be objective, the truth is that their unrelenting ideological slant that promotes the politics of protest and civil disobedience is aimed at re-educating children into becoming far-left activists.

But whenever there are attempts to cut federal funding to CPB, the corporation points to its “educational programming” as proof that the approximately $450 million it receives annually from federal taxpayers is being put to good use. Big Bird and other members of the cast of Sesame Street show up in Congress to tell members of the educational value of CPB-funded programs.”

The PBS Teachers website touts its “high-quality pre-K–12 educational resources…classroom materials suitable for a wide range of subjects and grade levels…thousands of lesson plans, teaching activities, on-demand video assets, and interactive games and simulations.” Education is big business for CPB.

Their teacher training and certification are also big business. PBS Teacherline boasts it is “the premiere provider of high-quality online professional development.” Their “collection of more than 130 top quality, graduate level courses for educators spans the entire curriculum.” PBS offers peer assistance, instructional coaches, and other “productive communications and collaboration,” to K–12 teachers.

For the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, providing course syllabi, teacher certification, and other materials to schools serves a dual purpose: it justifies the continuation of taxpayer subsidies for Public Broadcasting while inculcating millions of schoolchildren—a captive audience—with their programming and ideological messages.”

As a person well over the age of 50 I watched as my children grew up in the 60’s to Sesame Street and the gentle Mr. Rodgers. As a busy parent building a business and career I did not give much thought to PBS and even provided financial support for their numerous and on-going requests for money. I also enjoyed their documentaries and reports on historical issues and nature. I also enjoyed the fact that there were no commercials, with the exception of the numerous pledge drives.

Over the years, until recently, I gave little thought to PBS and with the advent of cable and satellite radio I changed my viewing and listening habits and rarely watched public television or listened to public radio.

Recently for the past two or three years I began reading articles and learning how radically left PBS has become. It is loaded with leftist and anti-American propaganda, and this is paid for with our tax dollars. Here are a few snippets from the AIM report that I found very disturbing.

“For foundations that donate to CPB, PBS, NPR, or state affiliates, PBS Teachers provides a ready-made platform for advancing their ideas and agendas to those same captive student audiences. George Soros’ combined Open Society Foundations (OSF) has supported National Public Radio and independent projects throughout the CPB universe, including underwriting documentaries used in classrooms to “educate” students on various causes. In 2010, Soros made an additional grant of $1.8 million to NPR’s state government reporting initiative. Other large donors include the Joan B. Kroc estate ($230 million after Kroc’s 2003 death), the U.S. Department of Education, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

By creating primary materials through programming and reporting and then producing syllabi packaged by age group based on those primary materials, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has evolved into perhaps the single most influential voice in the nation’s classrooms, while defending their own taxpayer funding streams by doing so.”

As you see there are some powerful and left-leaning and radical organizations financing and controlling PBS. It is even worse when you consider that the U.S. Department of Education is putting your tax dollars into PBS’ radical agenda.

What types of lessons do students get for this money? An analysis of the thousands of lessons available would fill volumes. At first glance, PBS Teachers curricular materials reflect the skill Public Broadcasting has achieved in putting a veneer of objectivity on their radio and television news programs. But a closer look at the courses offered reveals two overriding tendencies: first, a decidedly leftist ideological slant promoting a “social justice” agenda, and second, relentless emotional manipulation of students, the aim of which is to make them into activists for far-left causes.

“The leftist ideological slant is evident in a variety of ways: the quantity of lesson plans focusing on multiculturalism, or identity politics, versus traditional learning; an emphasis on leftist causes and social movements; partisan political material disguised as “media analysis” of elected officials or government policies, and criticism of capitalism and the idea of American exceptionalism. In addition, there is an overemphasis on pop culture, that isn’t necessarily leftist, but is of questionable educational value.

For example:

• There are approximately equal numbers of courses about George Washington and “hip-hop” music.

• Nearly 100 lessons are dedicated to protest movements, several of which are large, interdisciplinary projects designed to occupy substantial portions of the school day or school semester.

• The number of courses dedicated to the theme of environmentalism dwarfs other subjects.

• Health and Fitness, Economics, and Current Events curricula routinely feature highly ideological themes, such as the negative effects of a Wal-Mart moving into town (Store Wars: When Wal-Mart Comes to Town), or the dangers of genetically modified foods.

Even traditional subjects are presented with an ideological bent. Lessons on periods of history such as World War II or major literary works focus on oppression. Short shrift is given to universal themes, major literary developments, or a sense of historical progression.”

How Are Subjects Being Taught? (The Emotion Revolution)

According to the AIM report subjects are taught focusing on emotion rather than fact. This is a proven tactic of the left to play on emotions to indoctrinate rather than allow the child to learn and be influenced by their parents. In fact many parents do not even know what is being taught in the K-12 system and by the time their child graduated from high school they wonder why he or she has such radical leftist and anti-American views.

The AIM report continues:

“PBS Teachers is leading the shift in education from objective to “emotional” learning. This increasing reliance in classrooms on emotion-based encounters is revolutionary, affecting both what is taught and how it is taught. PBS lessons across the curriculum de-emphasize facts and ideas in favor of eliciting subjective responses and personal opinions from students, or even leading students through exercises designed to make them imagine the emotions of various individuals involved in historical events. Students are evaluated not so much on what they know as on the attitudes they hold.

Consequences of the Emotion Revolution:

• PBS lessons vigorously promote an extreme, trans-historical version of identity politics, dividing all people into groups of “victims” and “victimizers.”

• Lessons and assignments are designed to force students to express political beliefs and engage in coercive, emotion-based exercises in reaction to controversial issues.

• Students are forced to engage in a variety of staged traumas in the classroom and with each other, ostensibly to “experience” historical events.

• Students are subjected to obsessive exhortations to “oppose bullying” and “teach tolerance.” They are made to play-act instances of bullying and are instructed to discover intolerance and prejudice in their own families, communities, and peers.

By imposing political bias and forcing students to participate in scripted explorations of “appropriate” emotional responses to selective historical events, PBS Teachers is transforming education into re-education. A closer look at individual lesson plans will demonstrate how PBS curricula turn classrooms into recruitment sites for leftist causes.

Any benefits once derived from allowing your children watch Big Bird, Mr. Rogers, or learning their ABC by watching PBS have been far overshadowed by their leftist ideology in their programing. If you allow your children to watch PBS in an unsupervised manner, as many parents do as the go about their business while PBS takes care of the kids, it’s tantamount to allowing Regan MacNeil play with an Ouija board in her basement as portrayed in the 1973 horror file The Exorcist.

Protest Lessons: Pigs in the Street

“Public Broadcasting has become bolder in casting an ideological lens over history, and this is reflected in the classroom materials they produce. Some of the most egregious examples of this ideological bias appear in syllabi covering the protest movements of the 1960’s. One such lesson was derived from an episode of the PBS show, History Detectives. The show examines a protest poster from the 1968 Democratic Convention featuring a picture of a thuggish street cop and an upraised “black-power” fist, with the words: “Hot Town—Pigs in the Streets…But the streets belong to the people! Dig it?”

The Hot Town lesson plan requires students to contemplate the radical street protests and riots of the late 1960s almost exclusively from the perspective of the protesters. The videotaped segments taken from the History Detectives show are narrated by an academic who speaks of having been enrolled in a “Black Panther Party breakfast program” and having “heard a lot of their educational speeches.” The violence of the Black Panthers, including murders and armed bank robberies, goes unmentioned as the Panthers are romanticized as mere social workers. The poster crudely depicting policemen as “pigs” becomes the object of a “mystery” hunt to discover its origins.

The Hot Town lesson is typical of many PBS syllabi that deliver radical content from a biased perspective while claiming to be teaching students useful interpretive skills: in this case, the skill is “researching an historical artifact.” The lesson enables sympathetic-appearing radicals to reminisce about screaming epithets at the police and rioting in the streets. “Police brutality” is discussed at length, while the Black Panthers’ murderous campaign against real police officers and fellow activists is not mentioned. The Hot Town video ends with the poster creator’s happy memory of knocking over a police van. He is described as an activist who went from rioting to serving health food to poor people and who now works as a Chicago Ward president for the Democratic Party.

A related “protest” lesson that whitewashes protester violence is the multi-part curriculum, Chicago 10. It uses an animated version of the 1968 Chicago riots depicting violent protesters as victims of police brutality to “encourage people to take a more active role in protest.” The lesson also describes the arrest of protesters planning to bomb the 2008 Republican Convention as mere police over-reach that was exposed by courageous activists with cell phones. Revolution in Newark teaches students that the Newark Riots were a principled “uprising.” A Civil Disobedience exercise featuring Code Pink activist Cindy Sheehan directs students to imagine “a situation in which they might use civil disobedience” and then write a journal “reflect[ing] on” their imaginary protest and law-breaking.

PBS protest-based curricula are deployed throughout the disciplines with the justification that the lessons are not only about the protest itself but also are intended to teach “critical thinking” (a means of leftist indoctrination introduced by the Frankfurt School in the 1920’s) or historical research, or music, or art. Thus, more of the school day may be dedicated to romanticizing protesters, demonizing those trying to maintain social order, and training children to become activists.”

Even their coverage of World War II has been couched in an emotional and leftist biased view. As AIM reports:

“It is not only in lessons on current hot-button issues that students are directed toward activism, but also in regular history lessons. Even when dealing with major world events, like World War II, students are required to engage emotionally, play out roles as if their actions and attitudes had decisive effects, and respond on the spot under group pressure—all in a virtual knowledge vacuum.

For the search term, “World War II,” 59 lesson plans among 162 total items (including videos) show up. Most of these lessons take the focus off the world stage to the domestic. Large political questions are skirted in favor of the personal. This has the effect of leveling all players, ally and foe.

The largest number, 13, of these lessons use the PBS series The War directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. Many focus on the domestic and personal: in Combat and War, students study soldiers’ testimonies about psychological and physical effects of war; Letters from the Front Line asks students to examine letters of a soldier and “imagine that you are a soldier fighting on the front lines…and create a letter to your family”; On the Home Front asks students to “Consider life in America prior to its entry into World War II and explore changes brought on by wartime industry.” There are units on Art and Propaganda and Censorship, and one on The War through the Eyes of Al McIntosh, who reported on the local impact of the war. Other lessons focus on The Hispanic Experience in World War II, the Double V program to gain access for African-Americans, and two dealing with the Japanese-American Internment. Even the lesson on the Battle of the Bulge asks students to examine the battle “from both American and German points of view.” The unit on Just War directs the teacher to another unit on pacifists and suggests bringing up the possibility of ulterior motives that might not be evident at the beginning of war. The lesson, D-Day: June 6, 1944, asks students to put together multimedia presentations on their specific battle plans for Operation Overlord.

A disproportionate number of lessons related to World War II focus on the relocation to camps of 110,000 American citizens and aliens of Japanese descent from 1942 to 1944. This regrettable wartime event has taken on monumental proportions, and in the PBS universe, it dwarfs major battles, worldwide suffering and death, and Allied victory.

As in the earlier lessons described, emotional engagement is elicited at every turn. History Detectives appears again to offer artifacts for contemplation, including Japanese internment camp materials. “Webisodes” and documentary clips are available as prompts. Students are imaginatively catapulted into various traumatic scenarios, like being asked to pack for a trip to an internment camp. Comparisons are made to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis, with any buried feelings of animosity presented as potentially erupting into “hatred” of the same order.

Students are then asked to apply lessons from World War II to other, more recent, events like the 9/11 attacks. The internment camps become launching points for discussions about racist feelings harbored in the hearts of Americans. Students are asked to scour their consciences as they “reflect” on situations in current events or in their own environments. Such lessons are often, ironically, tagged as addressing “Mental/Emotional Health” and other pedagogically suspect areas like “Historical Perspective” and “Critical Thinking.”

There are many more disturbing examples including racism, social justice, Islamophobia, the evils of Wal-Mart, and radical environmentalism of how your tax dollars are being used to indoctrinate K-12 students in our public schools. (I am sure no mention was made of the millions of African children died from malaria and dunge fever due to the fallacious banning of DDT).  was I imagine lazy and uneducated teachers, especially in the lower grades, love these PBS programs as they relieve them of the burden of doing their own research and learning the facts. I suggest you read the complete AIM report to see how your tax dollars are being used to turn our K-12 students into burgeoning radical, anti-American leftists and recruits for the Occupying Wall Street Movement or any other socialist movement that comes along.

No student should be subjected to the unsettling and coercive teaching techniques evident throughout the PBS Teachers lesson plans. Merely increasing political “balance” by adding more viewpoints and resources from across the political spectrum will not do enough to address underlying problems involving teaching techniques, techniques that replace knowledge, logic, and the acquisition of real critical thinking skills with emotional manipulation and the production of guilt and shame.

Nor should taxpayers be asked to support the dissemination of biased educational materials. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s ace in the hole in demanding taxpayer support has long been their argument that they deserve to be funded because they contribute to the education of America’s schoolchildren. But should taxpayers continue to fund what is in reality the re-education of America’s schoolchildren? We think not.

Adolph Hitler and other totalitarian dictators such as Lenin and Mao said that if you gave then the children until they were seven they were theirs. Is this what we are allowing with our tax supported Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I think so.

Note:

Mary Grabar teaches in the English department at Emory University and writes frequently about education, and cultural and political issues, for the Weekly Standard, Minding the Campus, Townhall, PJ Media, Roll Call, Big Government, America's Survival and many others. In 2011 she founded Dissident Prof Education Project, Inc., a nonprofit education reform initiative intended to “resist the re-education of America.” Tina Trent, PhD. writes about crime policy and the media, academia, and political radicalism. She is a researcher for The Soros Files and blogs at TinaTrent.com.