Sunday, September 12, 2010


"Green" vs. "Red, White & Blue"
By Marita Noon
"Our civilization is not indestructible: it needs to be actively defended"--so said a recent Wall Street Journal article highlighting the "Huntingtonian model" as laid out in the classic work of late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington: Clash of Civilizations. In short, the idea is that "a civilization-based world order is emerging in which states that share cultural affinities will cooperate with each other and group themselves around the leading states of their civilization." The three main civilizations are Western, Muslim, and the Confucian-with the West declining in power.
The West includes America.
The article's author proposes a political incorrect idea: survival depends on groups with a shared civilization uniting to defend it against challenges.
Looking at the three-civilization model, The West is declining because we've become dependent on the other two. The Middle-eastern countries-Muslim civilization-for our oil. Asian countries-Confucian civilizations-for most everything else. We, in the Western civilization, manufacture very little. Our computers and cell phones, our furniture and clothes, our dog food and medicines are mostly manufactured in China. It is hard to find consumables without the "Made in China" label.
The Muslim or Confucian civilizations have not become super-powers. They cannot boast about housing any of the world's great institutions of learning. The major inventions do not come from these civilizations. No. Instead, much of the West's demise can be traced back to the emergence of a fourth civilization-a post- Huntingtonian civilization.
Though thought to be the salvation of America-and, in fact, the world, the Green movement has morphed into a civilization clashing with the Western world.
The environmental movement had not yet fully geared up at the time of the release of The Clash of Civilizations. They were viewed as a radical fringe in their beginning back in the sixties and moved into a worthwhile cause in the polluted seventies. However, as Patrick Moore, co-founder of GreenPeace (one of the first environmental groups) explained "the 80's ushered in the age of environmental extremism." The basic issues for which he and Greenpeace fought had largely been accomplished and the general public was in agreement with the primary message. In order for the environmentalists to stay counter-culture, they had to adopt ever more extreme positions. "What happened is environmental extremism. They've abandoned science and logic altogether."
Now, the Green civilization is largely responsible for America's dependence on foreign oil-which has become a security issue as well as an energy problem. We have vast supplies of oil and gas right here in America, but we are not allowed to access it. New legislation and regulation is constantly introduced, on both state and national levels, that either shuts off access to energy supplies or makes them more expensive or difficult to extract-making us ever more dependent of unfriendly governments for our energy resources. As a result, we send billions to Muslim civilizations and they are "exploding."
Likewise, the economic assent of the Confucian civilization can be traced, at least in part, to the Green civilization. The "extremism" with which they have pursued their agenda has moved beyond the pollutants of the seventies to the modern-day attempt to eliminate all carbon emissions. They've pushed policy that has determined that the CO2 that humans breathe out and that plants breathe in-a part of the natural cycle of life-is a "pollutant" that must be vanquished. As a part of this effort, energy has become more expensive and industry is viewed as "dirty." Therefore, manufacturing has moved to off-shore locations-specifically China. Then we import it-and think we are "clean." All this has done is shift the C02 emissions to China where they do not have the pollution controls that we have in America. Instead of America producing CO2 emissions, China is spewing so-called greenhouse gases and true pollutants into the air with such rapidity that the cloud of pollution can be seen creeping to America's shores via satellite photo.
If typical, the response to this "opinion piece" will spotlight the clash of civilizations. The "Green" will attack me with vigor. The "Red, White & Blue" will cheer. As an e-mail I received following a recent radio interview said, "Finally someone speaking out against the WACOS!!"
Huntington was right. There is a clash of civilizations. The question is, will we allow the destruction of the "Red, White & Blue" or will we actively defend it?

Monday, August 9, 2010


We would love to share with you an article that we just posted on our own blog! “50 Signs You are a Bad Neighbor” would be an interesting story for your readers to check out and discuss on your blog, so we hope you will consider sharing it!
Thanks so much for your time, and have a wonderful day!
Sheryl Owen

50 Signs You are a Bad Neighbor
We all have neighbors that we could really do without, right? You know the people that I am talking about… It might however surprise you that to someone else YOU are one of those people that they just can’t stand to have as a neighbor. So, you might be wondering how you know if you are one such person. Funny you should ask as I find myself in the same predicament. So, after a bit of soul searching and digging in my memory I came up with the following 50 signs that you are a bad neighbor:
Pets – Nobody has an issue with you having a cat or dog, usually if something comes up it is more how you are taking care of the pet or not that becomes an issue like:
You let your dog out of the house late at night or early in the morning and they bark a lot (and loudly).
You let your dog out and don’t quickly let them back in so they scratch and scratch at your door (while barking loudly).
You let your dog go to the bathroom in your yard and don’t clean up (so your yard is a mine field).
You walk your pet but don’t keep them on a leash.
You let your dog or cat roam the neighborhood (because “everyone loves them”).
Your dog has a problem with biting yet you tie them up outside your home for extended time periods.
You let your dog dig holes in your yard making it less than attractive which reflects on the neighborhood.
Your dog is outside so much the grass is worn down from their chain dragging back and forth as they run and bark at people passing by.
You don’t clean up after your dog when they go to the bathroom in your neighbor’s yard.
You let your cat or dog fight with other pets in the neighborhood.
Kids – Who doesn’t love the sound of kids playing and having a good time in the neighborhood? Well you might be surprised… In general it’s not a problem but watch out if you allow one of the following:
You let your kids TP or “egg” other houses in the neighborhood (yes, even if it is one of their “friends”).
You let your kids run wild outside with no apparent adult supervision.
You buy your kids three wheelers, go carts, mini bikes, and other loud and annoying toys and then let them go wherever they please as long as they stay close to home.
You let your kids buy fireworks and allow every Saturday night to be the 4th of July.
You let your kids have lots of parties (even if it’s not on a school night).
If you buy your child all the best toys and then they run around the neighborhood bragging to other kids (usually resulting in those kids pestering their parents for the same type of gifts).
If you are constantly going to the neighbors asking them to support one of your child’s causes (brownies, cub scouts, school, band, sports teams, etc.). Your neighbors don’t need so many magazines and candybars, give them a break!
If your yard is the neighborhood football or baseball field…
If you let your kids play basketball in the driveway late at night or early in the morning (especially on the weekends).
If your kids leave toys in the neighbors yard all the time… eventually it gets old.
Yard – Everyone understands that working in the yard is not a lot of fun, but it is important to the overall look of the neighborhood. You could find yourself in trouble with the neighbors if you do one of the following:
You are always late mowing your yard so the grass is always long and always results in you needing to rake.
You always mow your lawn late at night or early in the morning (in case you don’t get it… that also goes for trimming).
In the Fall if you never rake your leaves because they will naturally decompose.
If you don’t take care of dead grass or yellowing grass in your yard.
If you let your bushes and trees die and never remove or replace them.
If you park 10 cars in your backyard and run a private car dealership or junkyard (whichever you prefer to call it).
If you let your yard get over-run by weeds (yes dandelions included they aren’t pretty yellow flowers).
If you always water your yard (even after weeks of rain).
If you feel that every inch of your yard must contain a pink flamingo or other “lawn ornament.”
If you build the largest monstrosity of a swingset/clubhouse in your yard.
House – Just like with your yard there are basic expectations that need to be met with your home as well to keep you in good standing with the neighbors. You could have issues if you…
NEVER, ever wash your windows and it’s clear that they are covered in dirt and other grime.
If you don’t keep your house paint looking decent (if it is chipping, repaint).
If you paint your house the brightest of colors to be “different” you probably will be… forever “different.”
If you never wash your house or if you don’t know what power washing your house is… you might have a problem.
If you leave your Christmas lights on your house all year long, people will NOT admire your holiday spirit.
If you in general always decorate for every single holiday and go “all out.”
If you start a lot of home improvement projects, but never finish them.
If you like to talk to neighbors about how much bigger/better your house is than their house (give us a break, we know you are awesome).
If you always have a sign in your yard from a contractor working in your home (okay maybe it’s their trucks and the workers always being around).
If your home alarm system goes off ALL THE TIME, you will eventually annoy your neighbors and they won’t come check on you.
Random – There are some other things that can make you a less-than-desirable neighbor that you may or may not appreciate knowing like:
If you park an RV, boat, and five cars in a driveway that is meant for a max of 3 cars.
If you ALWAYS park in the street right behind your neighbor’s driveway.
If you have tons of parties at your house and all your friends park in the street blocking the neighborhood.
If you have LOUD, I mean LOUD parties (even if they are rare).
If you argue a lot with your spouse or yell at your children a lot it tends to make you less popular with the neighbors.
If you like to pull pranks or practical jokes a lot on neighbors it could get old (flaming dog poo, etc.).
If you feel the need to have campaign posters/yard signs up all year long, you will probably get negative feedback.
If you burn leaves and or other things in your yard (who does that still, seriously…)
If you have a yard sale or garage sale every week (that’s considered a retail shop at that point)
If you sit outside and talk to EVERYONE that passes by, people may not find you as charming as you think they do.

Saturday, August 7, 2010


By Henry Lamb
America is not a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy. The founders worked hard to see that the new government they created was not a democracy, but a growing segment of the population seems hell-bent on transforming this great nation into a democracy in which the rights of the minority are systematically ignored.
The United States of America was quite deliberately designed to be a federal republic. The founders recognized the highest governing authority on earth to be the individual. They realized that they, as individuals, had the authority and the intelligence to create a new system of government, empowered by the consent of the governed to do only those specific chores that the people stipulated in a written Constitution.
They recognized that in such a government, there would need to be direct accountability to the electorate for every official empowered to make laws that restricted the freedom of individuals. This new federal republic had to recognize and honor the state governments that were already constructed, and the local governments within these states, if the new federal republic were to have any chance of succeeding.
The Constitution these men formulated contained two provisions to ensure that the new government would forever remain a federal republic: a Senate chosen by state governments; and a President chosen indirectly by what came to be known as the Electoral College. The 17th Amendment destroyed a major safeguard of the federal republic by allowing Senators to be chosen by the public, rather than by the states.
The 17th Amendment was a significant part of the wave of progressivism ushered in by the Wilson administration in 1913. Imposition of the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, began the attack by progressives on the federal republic the founders had so carefully constructed.
The Electoral College is the last and only element of the Constitution that keeps the United States of America from being formally transformed into a direct democracy. Now, the progressives have taken aim, and are attacking this last bastion of the federal republic.
Direct election of Senators came as the result of a Constitutional Amendment, which can be reversed as was the prohibition amendment - another progressive-era mistake. The war on the Electoral College is taking a different path: states are enacting legislation that authorizes all the state’s electors to be awarded to the national winner of the popular vote, regardless of the how the people voted in the state.
Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and now Massachusetts have all enacted legislation that pledges to assign their state’s electors to the winner of the national popular vote in the presidential election, regardless of how the voters in the state voted.
Prior to this new war on the Electoral College, in all states except Nebraska and Maine, all the state’s electors were assigned to the candidate who received the most votes in the state. This is the winner-take-all system. This system assures that small states have a say in the selection of the President.
Progressives argue that the winner-take-all system is not democratic. So be it. It was not designed to be democratic; it was designed to help balance the power between and among the states and the various branches of government. It was designed to make government function as a federal republic rather than a democracy.
Few people understand the importance of the Electoral College because schools have all but erased the subject from the curriculum. The Electoral College is cumbersome, it is confusing, it is frustrating for the supporters of Al Gore who saw the Electoral College bestow the presidency on George W. Bush who received fewer popular votes than did Al Gore.
Consider the effect of eliminating the Electoral College: direct democracy.
The president would be chosen by urban population centers. There would be no need to campaign in rural states. There would be no need to be concerned about the needs and cares of rural people. There would be no interest in the minority.
The genius of the American system of governance is the carefully developed balance of power between the states and the federal government, the various branches of government, and between conflicting philosophies of governance. When the minority is driven from the debate, or ignored, tyranny reins.
The first 18 months of the Democratic regime in Washington has demonstrated how the majority can ignore the minority and the Constitution. In the cycle of governance, democracy is the last phase before anarchy. The founders wanted no part of a democracy; they created a federal republic.
A democracy is often described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The wolves are at the door of our federal republic.

Thursday, August 5, 2010


Obama complies with Agenda 21 and expands federal power
By Henry Lamb
President Obama’s Executive Order 13547 issued July 19, further extends federal power, embraces global governance, diminishes the rights and privileges of individuals, and brings the United States into compliance with Agenda 21, Chapter 17.6, which says:
“Each coastal State should consider establishing, or where necessary strengthening, appropriate coordinating mechanisms (such as a high-level policy planning body) for integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas….”
The National Ocean Council created by the Executive Order creates this mechanism - and much more.
The genius of the American system of governance created by the U.S. Constitution is the delicate balance of power between the federal government, state and local governments, and the people. The founders recognized the people as the source of power; the people came first. It was the people who organized states. The states created a federal government and through the Constitution, limited the power of the new government to those specific powers set forth in Article 1, Section 8. All unspecified powers were explicitly retained by the states or the people.
In the first 200 years, the United States of America produced greater wealth and prosperity than the rest of the world had produced in 2000 years. Why? Because individuals were free to pursue their own individual happiness.
Throughout its entire history, however, there have been those who believe that government is, or should be, the source of power; that the people are, or should be, subjects of the state. Since the 1970s, these people have used “environmental protection” as an excuse to expand the power of government. They argued that free people, in their pursuit of personal happiness, were polluting the environment. Therefore, government had to restrain free people in order to save the earth.
Their arguments prevailed in Congress, in the schools, and throughout society. The result has been ever- expanding government power that continually diminishes individual freedom, which results in less investment in the pursuit of individual happiness and a gradual slowdown in the growth of prosperity for everyone.
Once, Americans could do whatever they could conceive, restrained only by the possible consequences of infringing their neighbors’ right to do the same. Now, Americans must get permission from multiple layers of government to do anything that produces income, pay multiple taxes on whatever income is generated, and comply with expensive regulations that govern every activity that might be pursued. Consequently, the individual entrepreneurial spirit is steadily being replaced by the ever-expanding reach of government’s ambition to manage society.
President Obama’s most recent Executive Order is another example of government’s ever-expanding reach. First, Obama created an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force in June of 2009. This group worked a year to produce a report that recommends how government can better protect the environment relating to the oceans and the Great Lakes. The Executive Order essentially adopts the recommendations in the report as national policy, and creates a new bureaucracy called the National Ocean Council to implement all the recommendations in the report.
The two most egregious recommendations are: controlling activities on land that affects the ocean, and ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Before America became a nanny- state subject to the tyrannical decrees of the federal government, people were subject to laws that forced polluters to make whole anyone who was harmed. People who used their own property in the pursuit of their own individual happiness who inadvertently, through negligence, or deliberately polluted water that harmed a neighbor could be brought to court and forced to pay damages.
Now, the federal government ignores private property rights by requiring government approval of any proposed use of private property, payment of fees for the privilege, and payment of penalties for any infraction of a myriad of rules that govern the activities that government may allow.
The trampling of private property rights is not as bad, however, as the subjugation that would result from the ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This treaty was rejected by Ronald Reagan in 1982. Despite the so-called improvements to the treaty boasted by the Clinton administration, the U.S. Senate rejected it in 2000. President Bush tried to have it ratified, but the Senate rejected it again in 2004. Now Obama is trying again to force this horrible treaty down America’s throat.
This treaty would give the U.N. power to regulate activity within our territorial seas (Article 2, (3)); it would give the U.N. the power to levy taxes in the form of application fees ($250,000) and royalties; it provides no benefits that the United States does not already enjoy. Yet, the Obama administration has set up this new National Ocean Council to convince the Senate to ratify the treaty.
This treaty is another expansion of global governance, which is defined by the U.N. to be that “framework of rules, institutions, and practices that limits the behavior of individuals, organizations, and companies” (U.N. Development Report, 1999, p. 34).
Obama’s expansion of government is taking the nation in the wrong direction. The federal government should be reduced in size, scope, and function. The federal government should be pushed back inside the bottle of those limited powers defined in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. States and individuals should reclaim the power given to them by the Constitution and guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. No elected official – including President Obama – is immune to the power of the ballot box. Those in power who support Obama’s brand of foolishness should be forced to find a new career path next November.


By Michael Connelly

Almost one year ago I started by blog on Constitutional law by posting an article I had written on HR 3200 that was the original version of the health care bill pending in Congress. I pointed out that the bill was unconstitutional on its face because it involved the granting of powers to the Executive branch of government that Congress didn’t have to begin with. Specifically, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does not give Congress the right to regulate health care and certainly does not give it the power to allow the President of the United States to regulate health care. I also pointed out that since the states have always regulated health care on their own; such action by Congress violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Along with other opponents of the legislation I pointed out that the pending legislation would force the rationing of health care, particularly for senior citizens, would provide for taxpayer funding of abortions, provide health care to illegal immigrants, and would allow Federal bureaucrats to chose the doctors who would treat American citizens and determine what type of care people could receive.
I came under immediate attack by those on the left, including such groups as Media Matters; a George Soros funded group, as well as liberal newspapers for being a liar and a fear monger. They said that none of this would happen under the legislation. I continued to read and monitor the new versions of the bill that were proposed in the House and Senate including the one that was finally adopted. I talked in my blog about the massive tax increases that would take place under the legislation and how people could be subject to finds for refusing to buy federally mandated health care insurance.
In the meantime, the President of the United States and the leaders of Congress continued to repeatedly assure the citizens of the United States that there would be not health care rationing, no taxpayer funded abortions, and they could certainly keep being treated by the doctors of their choice.
Now it is time for a reality check. As the health care bill is being implemented the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland have been provided with assurances of Federal funds, i.e. taxpayer dollars for the funding of abortions. Insurance companies acting under government mandates are offering plans that allow the government to decide who will be treated by particular doctors. In other words, Americans will not be allowed to choose their own physicians. There is also nothing in the legislation that provides for documentation of who participates in the mandated health insurance programs. Therefore, it is wide open for illegal aliens to get Federally subsidized coverage.
As for the tax increases, they are numerous in the health care bill including provisions that allow the IRS to track and impose taxes on Americans who buy gold to protect themselves against an economic collapse. However, the most onerous tax is that on the use of artificial limbs that will directly impact the thousands of American military personnel who have lost arms or legs in combat while defending our freedom. They will now be forced to pay a tax in order to use the artificial limbs that should be provided to them by a grateful America.
And finally, we have the recess appointment by Obama of Dr. Donald Berwick to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid systems in the country. He is an admirer of the failing British system of universal health care and has stated that rationing of health care in the United States will occur. He and his group of Federal bureaucrats will decide who will get care and what kind of care. They will be making the life or death decisions for millions of American citizens. Death panels will be real.
The bottom line is that the American people were lied to by the President and the leaders of Congress. We are being stripped of our Constitutional rights by the Obama administration and this is just the beginning. Other legislation pending in Congress goes even further in attempts to abolish the Constitution. Americans need to wake up now and fight back or our Republic will soon be just a memory.
Michael Connelly


By Michael Connelly

The right to vote is perhaps the most cherished and important of the rights guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution. Without the right to vote we literally have no way to control the Federal government and keep it from taking away our other rights. Yet, it is precisely because of that fact that the so-called progressives in this country are now trying to severely limit the right to vote, and unfortunately the efforts are coming at us from all three branches of government. We can also expect them to intensify as the November elections grow closer.
First, we have the attack by the Congress on the 1st Amendment right of all businesses and groups to participate in the election process. This came in the form of the Disclose Act, which thanks to the efforts of my you and many other Americans has at least temporarily stalled in the Senate after passing the House of Representatives.
Then, we have the blatant actions of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in making a decision to drop the civil suits against members of the Black Panther Party who were videoed during the 2008 election intimidating white voters in Philadelphia. According to J. Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney, he and his colleagues were informed that the office would not prosecute any minorities for voter intimidation, but would only prosecute whites who intimidated minority voters.
Apparently, that was only the beginning. Historically, members of the military and their families have voted overwhelmingly for conservative political candidates who support the values that the troops are fighting for. This has always been an irritant to the left so there have been increasing efforts by the progressives in some states to derive ways to keep absentee votes from the military from being counted. These tactics have primarily involved waiting so late to send out the ballots to the troops that it would be virtually impossible for them to return them by the election deadline.
In October of 2009 President Obama signed into law a bill introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R. TX) that required the Secretaries of State in each state to mail out absentee ballots to military personnel no later than 45 days prior to the election. This could only be avoided by the Secretary of State getting a waiver because of something unforeseen happening that would prevent the ballots from going out on time.
It sounds great doesn’t it? A left wing controlled Congress passing such legislation and Obama actually signing it. Yet, now it has been learned by the few members of the media who will report on this that at a recent meeting between DOJ officials and the Secretaries of State of various state governments, the DOJ told them not to worry about getting waivers or complying with the law. They were told that the Department of Justice had no intention of enforcing it. In other words, the whole thing was a ruse. The Executive Branch of government has no interest in protecting the right to vote of the men and women fighting for and dying for us overseas.
So, as you can see there is two pronged attack on the right to vote coming from Congress and the White House. First, Congress will do everything it can to limit the free speech efforts by people who disagree with this administration from influencing the election. Secondly, the DOJ has virtually declared an open season during the 2010 election for groups supporting the left to do what is necessary to intimidate voters who might oppose the progressive agenda. At the same time, the DOJ will do its part to help eliminate from consideration votes coming from our heroes overseas in the war.
As unbelievable as all of this is, it gets worse when you look at what has being done by the third branch of government, the Judicial Branch. Certain far left Federal Judges who have their own political agendas have decided to adopt the approach that if you don’t vote for the things I support, you vote won’t count. This has clearly been the case in the recent rulings on the Arizona Immigration Law and the California Marriage Law.
In both of these cases we have the voters of a sovereign state passing legislation that applies only to their states. Yet, because the progressives don’t like these laws they are essentially telling the citizens of these states that you no longer have the right to vote. Do not let yourself be fooled by the decisions that these two pieces of legislation were unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States prohibits the State of Arizona from passing a law allowing its police officers to enforce an already existing Federal law.
In addition, there is nothing at all in the Constitution dealing with marriage whether heterosexual or otherwise. Therefore the states have this power under the specific provisions of the Tenth Amendment that says:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is very clear. Whether you agree or disagree with the prohibition of gay marriage by the people of the State of California the fact is that the decision is up to them and when a Federal judge takes that power away from the people, they are being denied their right to vote. That, by the way, is a right clearly granted to the people by the Constitution and can’t be legally taken away by any branch of the Federal Government.
Michael Connelly

Monday, July 19, 2010

$8 GAS - If You Can Find It

By Henry Lamb
Following Rahm Emanuel’s advice, the Obama administration is certainly not letting the Gulf oil crisis go to waste. The BP catastrophe is just what Obama needed to justify pushing his irresponsible energy policy on a weary nation. Obama wants to stop using fossil fuel in favor of more exotic alternative energy sources. He doesn’t seem to know, or care, that there is no alternative energy technology that can meet the current energy demand.His actions suggest that if enough tax-generated government subsidies are applied, the technology will emerge.
His recent visit to Smith Electric Vehicles in Kansas City proved to be a dog and pony show to try to convince the nation that his $32 million grant to the firm to produce 500 trucks was well spent. This is a direct subsidy from taxpayers of $64,000 per truck, which, when offered in the marketplace will still cost twice as much as a comparable non-electric vehicle. This comes on the heels of a $2 billion grant to subsidize two solar plants.
So strong is his desire to wean Americans off fossil fuel that he immediately issued a six-month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The order was issued as a safety precaution even though the 50,000 well holes drilled in the Gulf since 1947 have
leaked far less oil than has been released through natural seepage. As tragic and expensive as the BP spill may be, its impact on the economy can’t be compared to the loss of oil production from the Gulf.
Obama was only 12 when OPEC decided to turn off the oil faucet to the United States in 1973. At the time, OPEC supplied only about seven percent of our oil. Nevertheless, gasoline prices more than doubled, and supplies were sporadic, at best. Long lines formed at every gas station; cars with license plates that ended with odd numbers were allowed to purchase gas on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Cars with plates ending in even numbers could buy only on the other days of the week.
Oil from the Gulf supplies nearly ten percent of our petroleum requirement. By turning off this faucet, the price of gasoline will skyrocket, perhaps doubling, as it did in the 1970s.
Despite two court rulings against Obama’s moratorium, he continues to insist that no drilling will be allowed. By refusing to issue permits, the Obama administration has effectively stopped Gulf oil production regardless of the courts’ rejection of his moratoria.
The first wave of economic impact is already spreading across the 35,000 families that are directly employed by the Gulf oil industry. Each oil rig worker provides employment for three additional people who work in supporting industries. These jobs, too, are evaporating. The deepwater rigs cannot simply sit and wait in hopes that Obama might change his mind. The daily cost for a rig to sit and wait is about $600,000. Diamond Offshore has already announced that its Endeavor rig is moving to Egyptian waters. More will surely follow. Once these rigs are out of the Gulf, they will not soon return.
The second wave of economic impact will begin when prices at the pump begin to rise. Remember the spike in gas prices when hurricane Katrina shut down a few rigs for a few weeks. Now, imagine what the effect will be when there are no rigs in the Gulf, for the foreseeable future.
Currently, more than 60 percent of our oil is imported. With no oil from the Gulf, nearly 75 percent of our oil will have to come from abroad. Canada and Mexico now supply only about 15 percent of our oil. This means that most of our oil will have to come from countries that really want to do us harm. It makes no sense at all to deliberately become dependent upon our enemies for our energy needs.
A responsible administration and Congressional leadership would do whatever is required to fix the BP problem in the Gulf without shutting down domestic oil supplies. Next, they would open domestic reserves, on land and in the oceans, to environmentally safe development. A president who is more interested in his citizens’ well being than in advancing his own agenda, would not try to force his citizens to use exotic alternative energy that costs much more than petroleum. It is apparent, of course, that Obama’s first concern is his own agenda, regardless of what the people or the courts may say.
If America is to survive as the land of the free, it is imperative that the current leadership in Washington be removed and replaced with people who believe in the principles of limited government, free markets, private property, and individual freedom. Two years of leadership by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi trinity demonstrates contempt for these principles. The only reward worthy of their service is early and absolute retirement.
Henry Lamb is the author of “The Rise of Global Governance,” Chairman of Sovereignty International , and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21, Inc..

Monday, May 31, 2010


by Beverly K. Eakman
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 07:12

Several states have begun exercising their prerogatives lately in a decision to face up, finally, to K-12 education failures. For example, according to a report by Deborah Simmons in the May 24th issue of the Washington Times, DC school Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee is working to do away with seniority-based lay-off methods and has begun tying both teacher retention and tenure to pupil performance. So are a number of other states — among them, New York, Colorado, Connecticut and Arizona.
“Part of the impetus for this change,” writes Simmons, “is the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program, which promises billions in federal funds to school systems that institute a wide range of reforms, including improved classroom instruction and tougher teacher evaluations.” In some cases, schools are making use of “longitudinal studies,” in which teachers’ names can be linked to pupils over the entire course of a student’s K-12 class records.
Longitudinal measures of that sort come with a significant downside — tidbits of psychological information divulged by clueless children, who are subsequently incorporated into standardized “tests” and surveys. These morsels range from the seemingly benign to the blatantly political, including personal family data — all of which becomes the domain of behavioral analysts (individuals with dual advanced degrees in behavioral science and statistics). These “experts” come to conclusions about the pupil, some of which are way off base, yet never completely disappear from the computer system.
On the plus side, the various attempts to link teachers to student performance (dare we call it “merit”?), and to base teacher tenure and layoff policies on something besides being their students’ best buddies represent a welcome rejection of policies all-but-codified by the two teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Their seniority-based rationale, originally, was that it was wrong to throw out experienced educators with advanced degrees for cheaper new, college grads — a justifiable position.
The problem is, merely linking meritorious teaching to student knowledge levels doesn’t mean improved standards overall, especially given the number of decades student knowledge has been allowed to fall.
There are only nine reasons why a child doesn’t learn: visual and auditory memory, visual identification, spatial and abstract reasoning, mental stamina (i.e., concentration), perceptual speed, hand-eye coordination, and thought-expression synchronization. But how many education majors specialize in any of these?
None — except for graduate-level educators, who are siphoned off for high-priced learning centers and elite private schools, which gratefully make use of legitimate scientific research, recognizing that before their staffs can remediate anything, they have to diagnose the child’s real weaknesses — not just buy into a bunch of psychobabble. That’s how these centers and schools stay in business.
What is interesting is that nearly all of us are weak in at least one of the nine areas listed above. Yet, all nine are correctible — without drugs. The earlier, the better, of course.
For example: If a child thinks ¼ is bigger than ½ based on the logic that 4 is bigger than 2, then he probably has an abstract reasoning and/or a spatial reasoning weakness. The pupil will try to memorize his or her way through math. By fifth grade, the student will crash. As an adult, the same graduate will struggle with tax and budget issues and never even look into the complexities of global warming theory. This is because memory, no matter how spectacular, can take a person only so far.
Another example combines reading and spelling. Suppose a child has a significant deficiency in auditory memory? The pupils can’t seem to recall sound combinations and transfer these to unfamiliar words. Systematic, intensive phonics is the correct remedy for such a child, as only 15 percent of English words are truly non-phonetic.
So what is the average public (and even most private) school’s response? First, they are busy trying to diagnose non-germane, psychological phenomena instead of any of the above; secondly they are applying an eclectic mix of phonics and “whole language” (a.k.a. “look-say”) to the task of reading, technically called “psycholinguistics,” which only the brightest children can surmount. The idea behind psycholinguistics is that context clues are the keys to a full-functioning reading capability, but that is not true for young children who don’t yet comprehend many double meanings — for example, the difference between “deer,” the animal and “dear,” the fond greeting.
So, the young pupil guesses at words — and is encouraged by teachers to do so. Here’s what comes of such foolishness:
Instead of (taken from an actual textbook):
As the Spirit of St. Louis touched down on the turf, the crowds surged toward it.
The student will read the sentence like this:
As the Sprite of St. Louis turned down the surf, the cowards splurged toward it.
Couple this to the fact that youngsters are no longer taught proper enunciation, out of some misguided notion that doing so somehow demeans certain cultural populations —such as southerners (i.e., the Texas “drawl”); blacks (“ebonics” or “black English”); or northeastern accents (the famous Brooklyn, Jewish and Yankee cadences). All of this is nonsense, as proved by the New York Conservatory for the Dramatic Arts, whose students and graduates are prominently shown in televised performances ranging from the Macy Thanksgiving Day Parade to Broadway. None of the kids, black, white or polka-dot has accents unless they are supposed to in a particular role.
Maybe a student’s problem is that eye movements are slow, left-to-right, thereby impairing the visual speed needed to read easily and fluently. Some students may even skip to another line right in the middle of a sentence, through no fault their own, owing to what is called a “lazy-eye syndrome,” which is easily corrected either using prisms in a set of eyeglasses and/or a thin colored plastic sheaf over the page that causes the background color to appear in something other than the usual black-on-white. A machine then can literally train the eye to move increasingly faster in small increments so that the student eventually performs the task smoothly.
Another possibility, currently being researched, involves the early overuse of computerized lessons. Colette Silvestri, a former early-childhood computer enthusiast, earned great respect for her groundbreaking efforts with gifted children via her self-styled WIREWorks program in Enola and Hershey, Pennsylvania. In an interview she indicated that such immersion into the automated, programmed world may be “closing a window” on brain functions that cannot be recaptured after the primary-school years. This affects things like creativity and the kind of meticulous, hand-eye coordination necessary for penmanship and playing exacting musical instruments, such as a violin. Some of her European counterparts seem to have come to a similar conclusion — that an elementary-school brain on computer-generated overdrive, is actually developing differently than it would have otherwise, and not all for the better.
Whatever the final assessment of the computer’s usefulness in elementary education, the key to educational success remains to locate every first-grader’s “weakest link.” By the end of the second week of the first year, every child should be matched with a teacher (maybe two) whose methodology incorporates one of the nine elements on the list of possible weaknesses. Between mere months and two years, a child matched in this calculated setting will rarely demonstrate the weakness(es) in question. As a bonus, neither the student nor his classmates will know why Johnny or Susie spent a year with a particular instructor, unless some idiot counselor tells him. Thus, no stigma.
Moreover, the way to reform education and improve standards lies in large part with the colleges and universities that train prospective educators. As it is, most university-level education courses revolve around psychology: “child psychology,” “educational psychology,” “adolescent psychology,” etc. No wonder, then, that “history” has been replaced with “social studies,” spelling with “psycholinguistics,” and “health” with sex education. These, and other, courses are fueled by psychology, not scholarship or academics, much less excellence. In fact, “excellence” as an educational ideal was traded for “functional literacy” in a 1981 paper published by the National Institute of Education (then an agency of the U.S. Dept. of Education).
This move proved highly “dysfunctional” as a federal education policy. But it satisfied the teachers unions, especially the NEA, whose annual Legislative Agenda over the past 20 years has focused mainly on political, not academic, concerns.
“Competition” (except in sports) was deemed damaging to a student’s self-esteem, as was any sort of criticism. Yet, “gotcha” offenses, like “sexual harassment” for a 6-year-old caught pecking a little girl on the cheek, or “terrorist” levied at a little boy aiming a half-eaten chicken wing at a classmate in jest across a cafeteria table, sent mixed messages that were very damaging to self-esteem. The ridiculous fabrications became replacements for what today’s grandparent generation remembers as discipline, such as dress codes and polite language. Misbehavior now is confined to the fickle dictates of political correctness — which, again, are rooted in psychology: “psychopolitics,” in this instance — turning the schools into the epitomes of a “hostile environment.”
That many school systems, and even state policies, are at long last rebuffing both the teachers unions and federal carrots for ill-conceived education policies is a positive sign, if late in the game. But it is clear that even earnest reformers have no handle on how to strengthen their schools or improve performance. They should ask: Performance at what, exactly? Then they would be on the right track.
Beverly K. Eakman is a former educator and retired federal employee who served as speechwriter for the heads of three government agencies as well as editor-in-chief of NASA’s newspaper (Johnson Space Center). Today, she is a Washington, DC-based freelance writer and columnist, the author of five books, and a frequent keynote speaker on the lecture circuit. Her most recent book is Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks (Midnight Whistler Publishers).

Tuesday, April 13, 2010


Michael Connelly
Personal website and Blog
Author of "The Mortarmen" a book about my father's unit in WWII; "Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends of Philmont Scout Ranch" ; and my just released novel "Amayehli: A Story of America".
I also teach law courses via the Internet through colleges and universities worldwide. To find a college or university near you, go to Education To Go's website at
New: Check out my radio talk show every week called "Our Constitution" at this link:

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


Following is the newest opinion editorial from Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy.
On February 16 of this year, three corporate giants suddenly pulled out of a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups known as the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Their participation was heralded by some as proof of their belief in manmade global warming-when it could have merely been acquiescence to the inevitable and a chance to participate in the potential profits. This past Tuesday's announcement by ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar that that the bills now in Congress are unfair to American industry shows that the motive was more profit than protection. They knew all along that cap and trade was a scheme not a solution, but the way the rules are set, they'd come out ahead by playing along.
Using an existing government program--Medicaid--as a parallel, Marita's newest opinion editorial shows how given the direction government was heading, cap and trade was their better option. We can hope, now, that other companies will follow suit by speaking up regarding the damage these polices will do to the American economy.
We hope you distribute/publish this material as soon as possible!
Eric McInteer -Research Fellow, CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy)
February 24, 2010
The Intersection of Healthcare and Cap and Trade
By Marita Noon

"I can't wait until we get government healthcare. I hate working with these insurance companies," said a healthcare worker tasked with getting his hospital reimbursed for the services they provide to Medicaid patients.
What he didn't realize is that the United Behavioral Health subsidiary with whom he is dealing is "government healthcare."
Privatizing the delivery of services to Medicaid recipients has been a trend long before healthcare "overhaul" became a priority. Companies such as United Behavioral Health-the specific company being vilified in the aforementioned conversation-simply respond when the government puts out a Request for Proposal (RFP). Basically the lowest bidder gets the contract. The ability to offer such services for the price quoted is not taken into consideration, just how cheaply can the obligations be met. The contractor does what the government outlines for them. And, ideally, they make money from the services they provide-allowing them to stay in business and offer job security.
Those responsible for getting the hospitals paid for the services acknowledge that getting money from the private insurance companies is much easier than from the companies getting funded through government.
How does this connect to cap and trade?
First, understand that cap and trade is a government plan to deal with so-called man-made global warming. While the entire climate change issue is challenged due to the acknowledged data forgeries, and plummeting public concern over climate, governments are still moving forward with cap and trade plans. President Obama's appointee as Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, is ready to regulate CO2 as a pollutant in case Congress does the right thing and doesn't pass cap and trade legislation. Here, in New Mexico, Governor Richardson is pushing for a statewide cap and trade program using an Environmental Improvement Board stacked with conflicts of interest.
Cap and trade supporters have touted the fact that many energy companies signed on to a cap and trade plan as proof that climate change is a real issue. Here is where healthcare and cap and trade intersect.
I am in the camp that believes that climate change is not a crisis, and if it is, there is nothing humans can do to change what has been going on for millions of years-long before human emissions were an issue. From this mindset, I have been speaking out against cap and trade. However, if we are going to have some type of climate change legislation, a carbon tax is a much more honest approach.
Like the privatization of Medicaid services, the unwary consumer will not realize that the energy price increases are as a result of a government program. Like an insurance company being blamed for the difficulty, the energy company will bear the brunt of the consumers' wrath. Like an insurance company's bid to get the government contract hoping to make a profit, the energy companies have signed on to what they (prior to climategate and the collapse of the theory) once viewed as inevitable. They expected to profit from cap and trade, while, the citizens are burdened with the higher energy costs.
Instead of cap and trade, a climate tax is more transparent. Citizens know that a "tax" is a government action. We know that the government collects the tax. It, too, will up our energy costs, but like the taxes on our phone bills, it will have a line on the bill stating exactly how many dollars of the bill are due to the carbon tax. Instead of being mad at the energy provider, the anger gets directed toward the government-and the energy companies have no chance to profit from the action.
When you hear conversations about cap and trade-especially those who support it as a way to stop so-called manmade global warming, suggest transparency; support the idea of a carbon tax. It is more honest. And, no one wants more taxes.
Better yet, now that the forged data has been exposed and more revelations are taking place on an almost daily basis, encourage your elected officials to block any climate change legislation. Support companies like ConocoPhillips, BP American and Caterpillar who have jumped ship before it sinks America. With public outcry, maybe more companies will see the light and pull out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy) is the nonprofit, member-based organization advocating for citizens' right to energy that is affordable, abundant and available. Based in Albuquerque, CARE addresses energy issues statewide, region-wide and nationwide. For more information visit

Sunday, February 21, 2010


by Korry D. Lewis

Abraham Lincoln once said, “I do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep on doing so until the end.” That is a quote I live by. My mom always told me that in everything I do, to give it all I have and to not hold back. That way, if it is a success I can be honestly proud of my accomplishment, but if it fails I will still walk away knowing I gave it my best effort. Performing at the best of my abilities has helped me achieve high honors and accomplishments in academics and athletics throughout high school and college. It has also helped me to be a leader in numerous organizations and within my community. Most importantly, it gives me the confidence to move forward in my life and career, and continually pushes me to be a better person. Hence, I am pursuing a legal education to fulfill my ambitions of being an agricultural law and water rights attorney. I am confident that I will achieve this aspiration and will perform well in law school because I am extremely dedicated, self-motivated, and I have strong work ethic and leadership skills.
Growing up on my family’s working cattle ranch in southeastern Colorado, I learned the value and meaning of hard work at a young age. The life lessons I have learned and the wisdom I have gained from my rural background has instilled in me the cowgirl virtues of independence, endurance and grit. My work ethic combined with these virtues has been the cornerstone of my success personally, athletically, and academically in my collegiate career and will continue to benefit me in law school and throughout life. Nine years ago my dad passed away from leukemia and left a huge void in our family. My mom continued to get up every day and work hard in order to make debt payments so that she would not lose the ranch, and I admire her for that. Being that I am the youngest of six children and knowing that mom would not be able to help me pay for college, I stayed very dedicated to my education, sports, and community service so that I could receive scholarships. In order to cover the rest of my college expenses, I have kept many jobs; all the while actively volunteering in numerous organizations. I have gained many leadership skills from being the captain of my volleyball and basketball teams and running meetings, to representing my college at the state capitol. Amidst my busy schedule, I was determined to maintain a 4.0 GPA while in college and have achieved that thus far.
My work ethic, dedication, and leadership skills will prove to be valuable in the future, and I look forward to law school as an opportunity to develop and maintain these characteristics among many others. In my legal career, I wish to represent and defend the rights and interests of the American rural landowner and private property rights organizations. Increasingly, water rights and private property rights are becoming more important and sacred. I want to help the American rancher and farmer in their fight to keep land that has been in their families for many generations, as well as the grazing and water rights to these properties. They are the true stewards of the land, and their success is due to their proven ability to care for and sustain the land they live off of. Rural America is where my heart is and I have a true passion for the land. I feel it is my duty to give back to my community and fellow rural Americans as they have given so much to me. I hope to be able to use my legal education to help ranchers and farmers keep such a blessed way of life.
I wish to acquire my legal education at the U________of ______ because of your natural resource law curriculum and since I recognize the value of small classes. At______ I will feel at home and what better place to champion the rights of agriculturists than with a degree from a rural university. I am ready to take on the challenges that I will face during law school, and I am confident in the qualities that I bring to the table. Notably, I will bring my drive, my passion for agriculture, and my determination to be the best I can be.
Editors note: GNL shares Korry's personal essay so you, the reader, can see what a Good Neighbor looks like.