Any Volunteers For National Service - The New American Magazine - 2-2-09.pdf

Any Volunteers For nAtionAl serVice?

Obama: The Change That’s Not • Interview: Arthur Thompson • EU Déjà Vu in the Caribbean

$2.95

ThaT Freedom Shall NoT PeriShwww.TheNewAmerican.com

February 2, 2009

Order Subtotal$0-10.99

$11.00-19.99$20.00-49.99$50.00-99.99

$100.00-149.99$150.00+

Standard Shipping$4.95$7.75$9.95$13.75$15.95

call

Rush Shipping$9.95$12.75$14.95$18.75$20.95

call

Standard: 4-14 business days. Rush: 3-7 business days, no P.O. Boxes, HI/AK add $10.00

For shipments outside the U.S., please call for rates.

SUBTOTAL TOTALWI ReSIdenTS Add 5% SALeS TAx

SHIPPIng/HAndLIng(See CHART BeLOW)

090202

✁

Credit-card orders call toll-free now! 1-800-342-6491Order Online: www.shopjbs.org

Name ______________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________

City _____________________________ State __________ Zip ________________

Phone ____________________________ E-mail ______________________________

❑ Check ❑ ViSA ❑ Discover❑ Money Order ❑ MasterCard ❑ American Express

# _________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________

Signature ___________________________________________________________

Make checks payable to: ShopJBS

Mail completed form to:ShopJBS • P.O. BOX 8040

APPLETON, WI 54912

000 0000 000 000

0000 0000 0000 0000

0000

VISA/MC/DiscoverThree Digit V-Code

American ExpressFour Digit V-Code

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

QuAnTITy TITlE PrICE ToTAl PrICE

Featured ProdUctS The 5000 Year LeapIn The 5000 Year Leap, author W. Cleon Skousen explains the 28 principles that our Founding Fathers thought were essential to peace, prosperity, and freedom. Skousen shows how adherence to these principles has brought about more progress in the past two centuries since America’s birth than was made in the five millennia that came before.

Book (2008ed, 337pp, pb, $19.95) BKFTYL

CD/MP3 format (2007, over 8hrs, $9.95) CdFTYL

8-CD Audio Set (2007, over 8hrs, $19.95) CdFTYL8

Tragedy & Hope:A History of the World in Our TimeProfessor Carroll Quigley praises the efforts of an “international Anglophile network” whose goal is to rule the world. He boasts of having been permitted “to examine its papers and secret records,” confirms the existence of an overarching conspiracy, and details the origin and rise to power of the CFR and allied groups. (1997ed, 1348pp, hb, $39.95) TAH

The Great DeceptionThis book is the first to tell the inside story of the modern age’s most auda-cious political project: the unification of Europe under a supranational government that was falsely presented to Europeans as being merely a trade agreement. This meticulously documented account takes the story from the 1920s — when the EU blueprint was first conceived — right up to current moves to achieve the crowning dream of a single constitution for all of Europe.(2005ed, 643pp, pb, $19.95) BKgd

Overview of AmericaPublic Service EditionWhat makes freedom and prosperity possible? Find out in this newly revised public service edi-tion of Overview of America, designed for viewing in all venues. (2007, 29min, 1/$1.00; 25/$20.00; 50/$37.50; 100/$70.00) dVdOOAPS

The Road to Socialism and the New World Order Author Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. effectively presents potent quotes revealing the designs of the theoreti-cians, architects, and technocrats of one-worldism. (2008ed, 144pp, pb, $9.95) BKRTS

First Ten Amendments to the ConstitutionArticle I. Congress shall make no law respect-ing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article II. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Article III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirma-tion, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtain-ing witnesses in his favor, and to have the assis-tance of counsel for his defense.

Article VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respec-tively, or to the people.

We at Dean Sellers Ford believe freedom of mobility is as fundamental as our Bill of Rights. See Dean Sellers Ford for your new

freedom machine.

2600 Maple Rd., Troy, Michigan • (248) 643-7500• www.deansellersford.com

Vol. 25, No. 3 February 2, 2009

Cover Story

NatioNal SerVice

10 any Volunteers for National Service?by Patrick Krey — Barack Obama’s national-service plan purports to be voluntary, yet nonparticipating schools would lose funding, and uncooperative individuals would be denied tax credits.

15 at Uncle Sam’s Serviceby Patrick Krey — National service is often associated with patriotism, but the degree to which it becomes compulsory is the same degree to which it becomes involuntary servitude.

coVer Design by Joseph W. Kelly; photo: ©iStockphoto.com

FeatureS

tHe riGHt PerSPectiVe

19 obama: the change that’s Notby Charles Scaliger

iNterView

20 an americanist economic PerspectiveInterview of Arthur Thompson by Bill Hahn — The CEO of The John Birch Society offers a unique perspective on our economy.

atlaNtic UNioN

27 eU Déjà Vu in the caribbeanby John F. McManus — Just as EU rule was sold to Europeans as a trade benefit, now it is has been sold to the Caribbean islands.

HiStory — StrUGGle For FreeDoM

34 “three Fires, and you are Free!”by Becky Akers — Three shots from his inexperienced militia was exactly what Daniel Morgan needed to win the Battle of Cowpens.

tHe laSt worD

44 More Fright-peddling, More Bailoutsby William F. Jasper

15

20

19

27

34DepartmentS

5 letters to the editor

7 inside track

9 QuickQuotes

33 the Goodness of america

41 exercising the right

42 correction, Please!

10

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

es

Des

ign

by

Jose

ph

W. K

elly

; pho

to: ©

iSto

ckp

hoto

.com

Clark’s Nutritional Centers have the vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements you need to keep your health and fitness at

their highest level, plus all the latest information about them available through our extensive online catalog.

TM

TM

Mail Orders: (800) 251-8996

Locations Serving You:RIVERSIDE

4225 Market StreetRiverside, CA 92501

(951) 686-4757Fax (951) 686-5678Deli (951) 686-9970

RANCHO MIRAGE34175 Monterey Ave.

Rancho Mirage, CA 92270(760) 324-4626

Fax (760) 969-6730

LOMA LINDA11235 Mountain View Ave.Loma Linda, CA 92354

(909) 478-7714Fax (909) 478-0814

CANON’S LARGEST INDEPENDENTDEALER IN NEW ENGLAND

TOTAL OFFICE SOLUTIONSAUTHORIZED FULL-LINE

CANON DEALER

SALES • SERVICERENTALS • LEASE • SUPPLIES COST PER COPY PROGRAM

EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS • Analog & Digital Copiers • Printers • Facsimiles • Color Copiers • Scanners

NETWORK SOLUTIONS • Digital Network Equipment Printers • Fax • Scanners Multi-Function Machines • Certified Network Engineers (CNE) on Staff

SERVICE & SUPPORT SOLUTIONS • NECS, The Industry’s Benchmark Company for Excellence in Support & Maintenance Service

WOBURN • BOSTON617-935-4340 Toll Free 1-800-321-6327

New England Copy Specialist Inc.

The Product Is Canon, The Difference Is NECSOver 32 years in Business

where Did you Get that information?Your recent article on “Intelligent Design and Evolution” (December 8 issue) seems to have overlooked one of the strongest ar-guments against evolution, presented by the German physicist and information specialist, Dr. Werner Gitt, in his book In the Beginning Was Information.

Dr. Gitt considers such concepts as: What is information? How does information arise? What is the function of information? How is it encoded? How is it transmitted? What is its source as found in living organisms?

Gitt shows that information is a funda-mental entity on equal footing with, but dif-ferent from, matter and energy. Being a non-material entity, it can only be initiated by an intellect and must be coded and decoded and received by another intellect. Information is what makes possible books, radio programs, computers, and all living things. From whence comes the coding of your DNA, more complicated than the largest computer program, that informs your living cells how to grow every part of your body from a single fertilized egg?

Jim Sattler

Lafayette, Indiana

a christian who Doesn’t celebrate christmasJohn Eidsmoe’s article “The War on Christ-mas” (December 22 issue) should have been more focused on “The War on Christ” in-stead. I have been a Christian for over 30 years. Based on Bible study and my un-derstanding of historical events from other research, my family and I choose not to celebrate the holiday called Christmas. I be-lieve it is a holiday of pagan origin, on which the celebration of Jesus’ Earthly birth was merely a later addendum meant to appease those unwilling to forsake pagan traditions and holidays. The evidence and reasons for my non-observance are too numerous to detail here. The pilgrim Separatists and the Puritans didn’t celebrate it either.

I’m not personally offended when some-one wishes me a “Merry Christmas,” just as I hope others are not offended if I don’t return the same salutation, but say, “Have a nice holiday,” instead. Indeed, the choice of per-sonal greetings during the holiday period

should not be dictated by politically correct business policies, governmental dictates, or zealous defenders of the Christmas holiday.

The loss of Christian themes regarding Christmas is really a symptom of the fading spiritual condition of America. I don’t think atheists and secularists want to be rid of the holiday, so much as they want to be rid of any honorable public references to Jesus Christ and the Bible. The brouhaha over Christmas is a diversion from the real problem of the anti-Christ bias and prejudice in officialdom that Dr. Eidsmoe correctly exposes. Great care should be taken that the defense of the freedom to express the Christian lifestyle in public life doesn’t digress into simply a “war” for Christmas.

arnold lamb

Highland, Indiana

New Plan NeededIn your magazine of December 8, 2008, the cover story by John F. McManus states, “If a mere minority of the American popula-tion can be enlisted, educated, and let loose throughout America with honest facts and perspectives, the new world order will crash and be relegated to history’s dust bin.”

I, regretfully, view this as a “Pollyanna” wish at the end of an excellent article. Re-ality must recognize that, with some excep-tions, the individuals we citizens elect to both state and national government positions eventually take the course of actions in their own behalf rather than that of the citizens they are to represent.

Greed, personal power, and innate desire for public recognition become driving forces in their actions. Putting a “hand in the till” be-comes obsessive with a cornucopia of oppor-tunities legislated at the citizens’ expense.

Manufacturing “legal means” to accom-plish that end is — and has been — imple-mented too many times toward their objec-tives. Constitutional law is superseded by the egregious actions within our Supreme Court and federal court system, which “legislates law,” violating our basic Constitution.

JuliuS erickSon

Vancleave, Mississippi

Send your letters to: the new american, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912. Or e-mail: [email protected]. Due to vol-ume received, not all letters can be answered. Letters may be edited for space and clarity.

Publisher John F. McManus

Editor Gary Benoit

Senior Editor William F. Jasper

Associate Editor Kurt Williamsen

Contributors Dennis J. Behreandt

Christopher S. Bentley Steven J. DuBord

Selwyn Duke Jodie Gilmore

Gregory A. Hession, J.D. Ed Hiserodt

William P. Hoar R. Cort Kirkwood

Warren Mass Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Alan Scholl Ann Shibler

Liana Stanley Michael E. Telzrow

Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

Editorial Assistant Denise L. Behreandt

Art Director Joseph W. Kelly

Desktop Publishing Specialist Steven J. DuBord

Research Brian T. Farmer Bonnie M. Gillis Wayne Olson

Marketing Larry Greenley

Public Relations Bill Hahn

Advertising/Circulation Julie DuFrane

Printed in the U.S.A. • ISSN 0885-6540P.O. Box 8040 • Appleton, WI 54912920-749-3784 • 920-749-3785 (fax)

[email protected]

Rates are $39 per year (Hawaii and Canada, add $9; foreign, add $27) or $22 for six months (Hawaii and Canada, add $4.50; foreign, add $13.50). Copyright ©2009 by American Opin-ion Publishing, Inc. Periodicals postage paid at Appleton, WI and additional mailing offices. Post-master: Send any address changes to The New AmericAN, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912.

The New AmericAN is pub-lished biweekly by Ameri-can Opinion Publishing

Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society.

www.TheNewAmerican.com 5

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

I S A I A H 4 0 : 3 1

Retire Safe, Early and Happy... ©

© W. Neil Gallagher, Ph.D., 1989 All Rights Reserved

The Gallagher Financial Group is your personal partner. Every strategy, every portfolio is tailor-made for you, the individual client. Dr. Gallagher is a lifetime John Birch Society member and has helped Americans coast to coast.

• Lifetime Income• Legacy Planning• Long Term Care Issues• Tax Protected Strategies

... and Much Much More“ We loved your presentation to our company and we want you back!”

Zig Ziglar

For more information on The Gallagher Group, visit DocGallagher.com or call (800) 434-4362. Call for a free copy of : “Why America is New, Better & Different.” Principal offices in Dallas/Fort Worth.

According to Barack Obama’s presidential transition team, the new stimulus plan being prepared by the upcoming Obama ad-ministration can be expected to create between 3.3 million and 4.1 million jobs. This is according to the Washington Times, which also pointed out that “the president-elect wants [the plan] to total slightly less than $800 billion but … some Democratic leaders say [it] should near $1 trillion.”

Even considering that government statistics are notoriously unreliable and tend to err on the side of special interests, it’s worth considering what kind of bang for the buck the Obama plan, taken at face value, would deliver. If the plan creates the maximum number of jobs forecast (4.1 million) for the mini-mum projected expense ($770 billion is the most widely bruited amount), then the cost of the plan will be roughly $187,800 per job created. If the plan is minimally successful, then the sum of

$1 trillion dollars being proposed by Democrats in Congress will yield a mere 3.3 million jobs, or a cost per new job of $303,000. If government statisticians are to be given any credence at all, then the real figure will probably come out somewhere between these two extremes.

Even the optimal figure of $187,800 is an extraordinary sum of money, equaled or exceeded by the annual salaries of a very small number of elite professionals and very successful en-trepreneurs. Yet the jobs to be created by the Obama stimulus plan would likely be non-professional, entry-level or wage jobs whose annual pay would be only a small fraction of a six-figure income.

All of this supposes that the government can calculate with any accuracy the number of jobs a given allocation of funds can create. In point of fact, government cannot do this, any more than government planners can calculate the proper levels to fix prices, enact wage controls, or impose production quotas or other forms of economic controls without destroying economic productivity. This is because centralized economic planning is impossible to carry out successfully; central planners do not have the informa-tion to make calculations for the economy as a whole, or to evalu-ate the fluctuations in consumer demands and tastes that cause prices and wages to rise and fall. Only the unfettered free market can do this, as both economic theory and brute experience have proven again and again.

When government undertakes to “make work,” it is always done at a cost to taxpayers, with a net loss in what would have otherwise been productive private income. George W. Bush’s stimulus plan of last year certainly did not jump-start the econo-my. If Obama’s new plan, or any other like it, is allowed to pass, America will be the poorer for it.

obama’s Stimulus Plan will cost at least $187,800 Per New Job

China is finally being forced to curb her appetite for U.S. govern-ment debt, according to the New York Times. China, which last September overtook Japan as the largest international holder of U.S. Treasuries, now holds more than $1 trillion in U.S. govern-ment debt. Its willingness to buy IOUs from the U.S. government is the major reason that the Fed’s reckless creation of money out of thin air over the past several years has not resulted in hyperinflation at home. Newly printed money, in the form of government debt issues, can always be exported when there are willing purchasers overseas, and the removal of that money from circula-tion here at home helps buoy up the purchasing power of the dollar.

Now, however, China is struggling to deal with the global economic downturn. To stimulate its own econ-omy, the Chinese central bank is now

making more funds available for domestic loans instead of buying foreign debt. Moreover, multinationals, responding to the reces-sion, are scaling back investment in China. Chinese and inter-national investors alike are moving large amounts of money out of China and into safer financial havens after the collapse of the Chinese stock and real estate markets. Finally, the Chinese trade

surplus is falling as demand for Chi-nese-manufactured consumer goods falls worldwide.

All of these factors have conspired to create a money drain, leaving the Chinese government far less able and less inclined to continue buying enormous amounts of debt from the U.S. government. Should the Chinese market for Treasuries disappear alto-gether, the U.S. government will have few options left for borrowing money to stave off financial collapse.

china curbing its appetite for U.S. Debt

Barack Obama


Inside TrackA

P Im

ages

Inside Track

With just two weeks left in office, President Bush designated almost 200,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean as a national monument, using powers granted by the Antiquities Act of 1906. The new ma-rine “monument,” an area about the size of Spain, is the largest protected area of ocean ever established, breaking a previous record also set by Bush in mid-2006, when he decreed 140,000 square miles in Northwest Hawaii off-limits using the same authority.

Taken together, the new protected areas from American Samoa to the Mariana Islands to the Rose Atoll are larger than Texas. The new status of the area means it will be closed to commercial and most recreational fishing, mineral exploration, waste dumping, under-sea mining, oil drilling, and virtually all other uses, though snorkeling and a few other recreational activities may be permit-ted with a permit from the federal government.

“For sea birds and marine life, they will be sanctuaries to grow and thrive; for scientists, they will be places to expand the

frontiers of discovery; and for the American people they will be places that honor our duty to be good stewards of the Almighty’s creation,” Bush said before noting that the military will help keep a look-out for violators. “The new steps I’ve announced today are the capstone of an eight-year commitment to strong environmen-tal protection and conservation.”

Bush Designates New Marine Sanctuaries

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) announced on January 6 that the extremely controversial Trans Texas Corridor is “dead.” The corridor, which has been promoted as a series of highway expansions and improvements to ease traffic congestion in Texas, is in reality the initial U.S. section of a superhigh-way that leads from deep-water ports in Mexico through the United States and Canada. (See “Express Route to Poverty” in our October 15, 2007 issue.)

But the highway is not dead. Even as TxDOT proclaimed TTC’s death, it laid out a new highway plan called Innovative Connectivity in Texas/Vision 2009. The new plan looks like, smells like, sounds like, and probably even tastes like the old plan — only with a new name.

The speculation is that TxDOT has falsely proclaimed TTC’s defeat because TxDOT itself is up for reauthorization this year, and a flurry of complaints by Texans could lead the Texas legislature to put tight building restraints on TxDOT (and effectually defeat the TTC). n

When the House passed the resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” on January 9, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only five congressmen to vote against it.

In his statement on the resolution, Paul opined: “The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to be-come further involved in this conflict, promising ‘vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.’ Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress.”

Paul, who advocates the United States minding its own business in foreign affairs and staying clear of foreign entanglements, noted in an extension of his remarks on the House floor that the United States funds both Arab nations and Israel and that there has been “too much blowback.” He recalled that “Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel” as a counter to Yasser Arafat and that the United States was allied with Osama bin Laden when we contended with the Soviets.

No Stake in the Heart of the trans texas corridor

why ron Paul opposed the Gaza resolution

Ron Paul

8 THE NEW AMERICAN • FEbRuARy 2, 2009

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

es

More than identity Being Sacrificed as Slovakia adopts the euro“We’re saying goodbye to the Slovak currency that meant so much to us. Part of us, the Slovak identity, is leaving.”As of January 1, the Slovakian koruna is no more. Prime Minister Rob-ert Fico seemed merely nostalgic about the change while indicating little awareness that a loss of economic independence for his country of 5.4 million will lead to a loss of political independence.

czech President No Fan of european Union“A well functioning bureaucratic EU is not my goal. [The Czech Republic] is not an EU province.”As the Czech Republic assumes the rotating leadership of the European Union, President Vaclav Klaus repeated his disdain for the multi- national arrangement and for its Lisbon Treaty that his country has still not approved.

reporters Shifting coverage From iraq to afghanistan“Afghanistan was the forgotten war; that’s what they were calling it, actually. Now it’s swapping places with Iraq.”As U.S. news bureaus shrink their operations in Iraq, some are beefing up their coverage of events in Afghanistan, according to Michael Yon, an independent reporter who has covered both conflicts.

one Governor Says No to Bailouts“While many states and local governments are lining up for a bailout from Congress, I went to Washington recently to oppose such bailouts. I may be the only governor to do so.”Opposing bailouts for governments and auto companies, and recommend-ing against a new federal stimulus package, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford now leads the Republican Governors Association.

auto companies lose Heavily but executives aren’t replaced“General Motors lost more than $72 billion in the past four years, and yet you can count on one hand the number of executives who have been reassigned or lost their job.”One aspect of the implosion of our nation’s auto giants drew a sharp comment in Fortune.

toyota will Post First loss in 70 years“The tough times are hitting us far faster, wider and deeper than expected. This is an unprecedented crisis requiring ur-gent action.”Formed in 1938, the Toyota Motor Company has never suf-fered a loss. But it will in the fiscal year ending in March 2009 according to President Katsuaki Watanabe.

No Global warming in alaska“Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Ice Field witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.”Glaciologist Bruce Molina reported that 20 feet of new snow remained on the Taku Glacier in late July. And the Anchorage Daily News commented about the unusually large snow buildup near Alaska’s capital.

He Dares to label Social Security a Ponzi Scheme“The government itself runs a fraud much bigger than Madoff’s. Our Social Security system is the very definition of a Ponzi, or pyramid scheme. If the government truly had an interest in protecting people’s savings, they would allow people to opt out of Social Security altogether.”In his weekly Texas Straight Talk column, Congressman Ron Paul correctly hung the Ponzi label on the Social Security system. n

— compiled by John F. mcmanuS

Vaclav Klaus

Mark Sanford

Katsuaki Watanabe

www.TheNewAmerican.com

QuickQuotes

9

Robert Fico

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

es

NatioNal Service

Any Volunteers For nAtionAl serVice?

Barack obama’s national-service plan purports to be voluntary, yet nonparticipating schools would lose funding, and uncooperative

individuals would be denied tax credits.


by Patrick Krey

In 2007, Richard Stengel, former speechwriter for liberal senator/presi-dential candidate Bill Bradley and

managing editor for Time magazine, wrote an article entitled “A Time to Serve,” pro-moting “Universal National Service” for all Americans. Constitutionalists would find themselves irritated. Stengel book-ended his piece with quotes from the Founders and disingenuously implied that such na-tional service would have been warmly received by the promoters of laissez faire who fought for our independence. Stengel wrote, “The courageous souls who signed the Declaration of Independence pledged ‘our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.’ The least we can do to keep the Republic is to pledge a little time.” Stengel apparently missed the point that the Dec-laration of Independence was considered a treasonous act against the British Empire ruling the colonies at the time. Stengel’s proposals sound more along the lines of what the loyalists of the day believed, not the patriotic individuals who revolted against a tyrannical government.

In his effort to promote universal na-tional service, Stengel bemoaned the fact that “today the two central acts of democratic citizenship are voting and paying taxes. That’s basically it. The last time we de-manded anything else from people was when the draft ended in 1973.” According to Stengel, that’s appar-ently a bad thing. While he tiptoes around the use of the word “draft,” his article is filled with adulation for the notion that Americans owe more to the government than what has been asked since the end of the mandatory draft. Stengel feels that it is for this reason that today’s com-munities have grown disjointed, and the way to unify the people is through “universal national service” to government. “It is the simple but compelling idea that devoting a year or more to national service, whether military or civilian, should become a countrywide rite of passage, the common expectation and wide-

spread experience of virtually every young American.” (Emphasis added.)

Stengel’s plan involves a huge growth of government, including making a new cab-inet-level department to manage national service and drastically expanding Ameri-Corps and the National Senior Volunteer Corps. Stengel also proposes creating new “corps” with distinct “brands” for educa-tion (to work in troubled school districts), healthcare (which would mostly assist people in obtaining welfare benefits), a “Green Corps” (to somehow combat “cli-mate change” and most likely stifle any contrary debate on the subject), a “Rap-id-Response Reserve Corps” (for call-up in times of national emergencies), and a “National-Service Academy” (“to provide a focused education for people who will serve in the public sec-tor — either the federal, state or local government” — in order to create a new generation of bureaucrats).

establishment consensusStengel was not content to only push national service in the pages

of Time magazine. He had his magazine host the “Service Nation Summit” at Columbia University last September 11. Both John McCain and Barack Obama at-tended the summit and joined the chorus of establishment leaders supporting na-tional service. McCain said the following of Americans and their desire for national service: “They understand the challeng-es that we have in this world. They see the Russian invasion of the little country called Georgia. They see the problems in Afghanistan growing larger. They see a whole lot of things happening in the world that’s going to require us to serve, and that

At the college level, Obama says he will create a new tax credit that will reduce education costs by $4,000 for those who serve. One could opt out by simply paying $4,000 more than the person who doesn’t opt out. That is a high price to pay for something that is allegedly optional.

Patrick Krey, M.B.A., J.D., L.L.M. is a law-

yer and freelance writer from New York.

the future of america: Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, would institute boot camp for all American teens, as part of a national-service program.

Defense Link


opportunity has to be provided to them.” It’s no wonder this man performed terri-bly at the polls. McCain actually believed that Americans watched the violence in Georgia and Afghanistan unfolding and thought, “How can I get my kids involved in this?”

Obama acknowledged the fact that both he and McCain have very similar views on national service. He also invoked the tragedy of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to gain support for his policy proposals. “On 9/11, Americans across our great country came together to stand with the families of the victims, to donate blood, to give to char-ity, and to say a prayer for our country. Let us renew that spirit of service and that sense of common purpose.” Obama made

the repeated mistake of most progressives by failing to distin-guish between voluntary charity of individuals, which occurs in a free society, and government-directed actions of collectives, which have more in common with Marxist governments.

Barack Obama, like most politicians, does not invent the ideas for his initiatives but rath-er adopts others’ proposals and then promotes them as if they were his own. A brief review

of Obama’s “Blueprint for Change” on his website would appear as if he simply cut and pasted Stengel’s article. Stengel himself freely admitted that he was not the originator of these ideas, but rather that they came from a variety of sources. Isn’t it odd that so many different politi-cians and journalists seem to be converg-ing on a similar framework for national service? With a few minor differences in wording, the plans are virtually identical. Obama advocates expanding AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000, and establishing a “Classroom Corps,” a “Health Corps,” a “Clean Energy Corps,” and a “Homeland Security Corps.” Obama also wants to ex-pand national service beyond our nation’s border by doubling the Peace Corps, and

creating “America’s Voice Initiative” to send Americans fluent in other languages overseas as part of a new public diplomacy outreach.

Obama has set the goal of 50 hours per year for high-school students and 100 hours per year for college students. He claims he is not going to directly compel young people in high school to serve 50 hours per year, but instead would simply withhold educational funding from schools if they fail to comply with his programs. This means that for public schools to con-tinue to receive federal funds, they will have to implement Obama’s plans; other-wise, the funds will be denied. In order for the high-school students to graduate from these federally funded schools, they will have to participate. This is how the federal government works. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and federal funding always comes with strings attached and central-ized control for D.C.

At the college level, Obama says he will “require 100 hours of service” per year by creating a new “American Opportunity Tax Credit” that will reduce education costs by $4,000. So instead of it being mandatory, one could opt out by simply paying $4,000 more than the person who doesn’t opt out. That is a high price to pay for something that is allegedly optional.

In a July 2008 speech, Obama himself stated: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” (Emphasis added.)

One less hoop to jump through: These 2008 graduates of the University of Wyoming received their diplomas without having to do 100 hours per year of mandated minimum national service. Obama’s plan calls for all college students to do national service or lose $4,000 of federal monies. Other Democratic plans call for mandatory service as a prerequisite for entering college.

AP

Imag

es

12

NatioNal Service

Voluntary Service or compulsory Draft?Obama, like almost all other promoters of national service, assures us that this will not be mandatory or compulsory, but as they say, the devil is in the details. James Lindgren, professor of law at Northwestern University, explains that Obama’s plan is anything but voluntary. “Because Obama calls his plan voluntary, it’s important to understand exactly what he says and doesn’t say.... One hurdle that Obama’s plan must vault is the U.S. Constitution, which limits the federal government to enumerated powers. Lacking the power to mandate universal community service directly, Obama candidly discloses his strategy: making federal funds contingent on schools having service programs that meet federal standards.”

Lindgren continues: “Thus, it would be the public schools that would impose federal standards of coerced service on each child as part of their requirements for graduation. For students, service would be involuntary. Even for the public schools, their participation would be only nomi-nally voluntary — for how many public schools can survive without federal assis-tance?” It would appear that Obama’s plan is voluntary in name only.

Most of the talk regarding Obama’s na-tional-service program brings to mind peo-ple planting trees in town parks or helping old ladies with their groceries. But what about military service? Is that going to be a part of this national-service initiative? One has to wonder considering Obama’s military ambitions. President Obama is going to need troops to support missions ranging from an escalation in Afghanistan to intervening in the Sudan. The Center for National Policy (CNP), a bipartisan think tank, produced a policy report enti-tled Agility Across the Spectrum: A Future Force Blueprint for the military, recom-mending that the United States “embark upon a program of mandatory national ser-vice for high school graduates to include a spectrum of activities from community to military service.” (Emphasis added.) The report praised Obama’s plan but encour-aged him to officially make it mandatory in order to help fill the ranks required to meet the many U.S. military commitments around the world. Will Obama heed this advice?

Some information about the true nature

of Obama’s plans can be gleaned from his choice for chief of staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel. Israel is Rahm’s actual middle name and shows how close he and his family are to that nation. Rahm’s father, Benjamin Emanuel, was born in Jerusa-lem and was a member of the militant Zi-onist group Irgun, which had committed terrorist attacks against both Palestinian and British targets. Rahm Emanuel him-self actually volunteered to work for the Israeli military in 1991 during the first Gulf War.

Emanuel must have admired the Israeli program of mandatory military service: he himself has been a vocal supporter of something similar for Americans. Eman-uel coauthored a book entitled The Plan: Big Ideas for America, in which he called for “a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.”

So Obama’s chief of staff is on record advocating universal boot camp for all Americans. While constantly stressing that this is not a draft, Emanuel’s words reveal otherwise. In 2006, Emanuel spoke with the New York Daily News about his ideas for national service. In the interview, Emanuel stated: “Somewhere between the ages of 18 to 25, you will do three months of training.... There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint similar experience of … civil defense training or civil service … some sense of service to country in preparation, which will give people a sense of what it means to be an American.” Apparently, according to Emanuel, knowing what it means to be an American involves serving the federal government, which is ironic considering that Rahm only served the Israeli govern-ment. Perhaps this service is truly univer-sal? He continued and said, “If you’re wor-ried about going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is ‘yes.’ ”

Emanuel also stated that this training can be accomplished “through your State-National guard.” Of course, the National Guard was supposed to be a home guard

13www.TheNewAmerican.com

No national service for them? Barack Obama has proposed a national-service program, which will be imposed coercively on youth by making schools require service or lose federal funding. His daughters, however, go to private school, and private schools often don’t get federal funding.

AP

Imag

es

comprised of citizen-soldiers. The numer-ous National Guard troops serving over-seas shows how quickly the government expands roles beyond their initial pur-pose. It would be naïve to think the same cannot happen to these “civil defense” positions.

While giving a July 2008 speech about his plans to expand national-service programs, Obama himself stated: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” (Emphasis added.) That comment caused an online fer-vor among conservative and libertarian bloggers. Obama’s defenders claimed that there is nothing to worry about be-cause Obama was simply talking about his AmeriCorps and Peace Corps expansion. Therein lies the problem. The disturbing point of all this na-tional-service talk is how eas-ily Obama makes the transition from talking about volunteering within one’s own community (under federal direction) to the loaded term of “national secu-rity.” The constant word-twist-ing employed by government officials tends to blur the lines between what they are saying and what they actually intend. Much like how the U.S. gov-ernment changed the name of the War Department to the De-fense Department after WWII, despite the fact that the role of the military has been expanded beyond “defense.” Obama and

his wild-eyed supporters seem to be clamoring for national service that may, or may not, be employed to achieve “national secu-rity” objectives. Accord-ing to the Army Times, Obama even “said last summer that he thought national service could end up leading some people to serve in the military.”

Civil liberties lawyer J.D. Tucille claims that Obama’s nation-al-service campaign is just a clever way to reintroduce the draft to the American people:

Under Barack Obama’s plan, a re-fusal to participate in a national-service program touted at the federal level will be punished by the with-holding of high school diplomas by the school district in your town. And without that diploma, few colleges or employers will even bother to look at your application. It’s a softer sort of authoritarianism which requires no draft boards, muddles the identity

of the ‘bad guy’ and produces no martyrs in handcuffs for the evening news. You just can’t get a job if you don’t do as you’re told.... But make no mistake: Barack Obama wants your kids. And he’s willing to draft them, in a plausibly deniable way.

Establishment leaders have long desired a universal national-service program, but the enthusiasm that Obama brings to the debate makes it a real option now. How would the Democrats and the liberal press have reacted had a President McCain or Bush tried to promote a similar national-service program? Justin Raimondo, of An-tiwar.com, concludes: “If George W. Bush and/or John McCain had called for the cre-ation of a domestic paramilitary force, the liberals and certainly the Left would have seen it as an ominous development, with the more excitable types raising the spec-ter of fascism.” President Obama doesn’t have to worry about any such opposition coming from the left, at least for the fore-seeable future. The establishment may get their wish if enough Americans are not made aware of the real danger posed by Obama’s plan. n

Establishment leaders have long desired a universal national-service program, but the enthusiasm that Obama brings to the debate makes it a real option now. How would the Democrats and the liberal press have reacted had a President McCain or Bush tried to promote a similar program?

Soldiers on the surface: In Israel, women are required to enter military service, but because they are not allowed in combat units, they often do nothing more purposeful than provide coffee during service. Similarly, the logistics behind finding meaningful work for all American teens, work they are capable of doing, would be close to insurmountable.

AP

Imag

es


NatioNal Service

by Patrick Krey

Proponents of universal national service claim that it will bring this nation together and teach younger

generations about what it means to be an American. Sadly, many Americans seem to believe those claims. Even with infor-mation that the program will be virtu-ally mandatory and might lead to a new version of the draft, some Americans might shrug their shoulders and say “so what?” Well, there is much more wrong with national service than is immediately apparent.

Nineteenth-century French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat famously wrote in his essay “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” that “a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.” What other effects could there be to this universal na-tional service?

another Big-government ProgramNational service is just another costly and wasteful big-government program. Like most federal government programs, it will be top-heavy, slow-reacting, expensive, in-effective, and administered from D.C. To get a good idea of what these new “corps” will be doing, one only has to review what AmeriCorps has been up to since its in-ception. Author James Bovard has docu-mented the almost comical “volunteerism” that AmeriCorps has produced:

In most areas of AmeriCorps activ-ity, its effect is negligible — at best: … An AmeriCorps member helped organize a “Pink Prom,” the first gay youth dance in Snohomish County, Washington. AmeriCorps mem-bers in Worcester, Massachusetts, presented lessons in half a dozen schools about “Super Bowl Surge” — the problems that occur when millions of people watching the big game use the bathroom during half-time.... Puppet shows are a favorite activity for AmeriCorps members.

In Springfield, Illinois, AmeriCorps members presented a puppet show to edify three-year-olds at the Little Angels Child Care Center by alert-ing them to the benefits of smoke detectors.

Bovard also explains that AmeriCorps is grossly mismanaged and has yet to pro-duce any serious, tangible results.

Though AmeriCorps abounds in ‘feel good’ projects, it has never provided credible evidence of benefit to the United States. The Office of Manage-ment and Budget concluded in 2003 that ‘AmeriCorps has not been able to demonstrate results. Its current focus is on the amount of time a person serves, as opposed to the impact on the community or participants.’ OMB noted in 2004, ‘AmeriCorps accom-plishments are difficult to measure, but its reported impact is small.’ The General Accounting Office noted in 2000 that AmeriCorps ‘generally re-ports the results of its programs and

what service may mean: To accomplish his military ambitions in Afghanistan, Sudan, and elsewhere, Barack Obama may need to include military duty (a draft) as a national-service requirement for many.

AP

Imag

es


NatioNal Service

National service is often associated with patriotism, but the degree to which it becomes compulsory is the same degree to which it becomes involuntary servitude.

At Uncle Sam’s Service

activities by quantifying the amount of services AmeriCorps participants perform.’ GAO criticized Ameri-Corps for failing to make any effort to measure the actual effect of its members’ actions.

More taxes and inflationWhat will happen when taxes are raised to pay for this increased spending? The money will have to come from some-where. It will either be raised by taxes or created by the Federal Reserve, thereby inflating the money supply. Either way, the American people will bear the brunt of the cost. How will this increased spending impact present levels of volunteerism and charitable giving? There is the real threat of crowding out private sector charity by having the federal government take such a large leap into bureaucratizing community service. Jim Grichar, a former economist for the federal government, wrote that “real volunteerism in this country still

exists, and if taxpayers were not being mulcted for every goofy and evil social welfare scheme, they would have the time and resources to devote to increased genuine charitable efforts.” Grichar, hav-ing witnessed AmeriCorps firsthand, also wrote that “the real horror is always the same — you as a taxpayer pay more and get less than you would have if the private sector — either for-profit businesses or non-government-funded private charities — handled the problem. The inefficiency, waste, fraud, other corruption and abuse inflicted on taxpayers by the federal gov-ernment — like all governments it has a territorial monopoly of power and the au-thority to tax citizens to pay for its activi-ties — appears endless, a price we have to pay for progress.”

Destroying Private charityResearch has shown that believers in big government do not put much stock in pri-vate charity. Syracuse University Profes-

sor Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares, did research to see who gives more to charity between liberals and conserva-tives. “When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 per-cent more. And incidentally, conserva-tive-headed families make slightly less money.... You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.” (Emphasis added.) If those trends continue, this huge national-service initiative could have a similar effect. Peo-ple who volunteer through government programs will forgo volunteering through private organizations. As more people be-lieve that charity is the responsibility of government, private charity and willful volunteerism will decline.

In addition, by mandating volunteerism at such an early age, universal national ser-vice might have the effect of discouraging future community service. According to a research article published in the journal of the American Psychological Society, “Stu-dents who are not willing or not ready to volunteer — but who are required to by their school — may be less likely to vol-unteer again in the future.”

The reality is that present government policies are obstacles to private volun-teerism. Former special assistant to the Reagan administration Doug Bandow, in testimony to Congress on national-service programs, said that while much “worthwhile service work remains to be done across the country … government often stands in the way of private indi-viduals and groups who want to help. Such barriers should be stripped away, yet [federal national-service programs] may divert attention from the ways the government hinders private provision of important social services.… Restrictions on paratransit operations limit private transportation for the disabled. Regula-tions also harm other forms of volunteer-ism. Health regulations prevent restau-rants in Los Angeles and elsewhere from donating food to the hungry, for instance. In short, in many cases important needs are unmet precisely because of perverse government policy.”

There is another danger posed by bu-reaucratizing roles typically run by private churches. Obama has vowed to continue George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives,

rally for service: These young people rally to restore full funding for the government-run AmeriCorps service programs, so they can “serve.” But the Office of Management and Budget said in 2004, “AmeriCorps’ accomplishments are difficult to measure, but its reported impact is small.”

AP

Imag

es


NatioNal Service

but he wants to put his own mark on it: “Make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deep-ly in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endan-ger that idea — so long as we follow a few basic principles.... First, if you get a fed-eral grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular pro-grams. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that ac-tually work.”

Basically, this is more of the “strings attached” federal funding approach. Obama will be all too willing to throw federal funds around for national-service programs, even ones that are involved with religious charities, but participat-ing religious charities will have to abide by the rules of the secular state. One can only imagine what will happen to volun-teer work for such controversial issues as abortion or sex education. If a church doesn’t follow Washington’s direction in controversial areas, they run the risk of being left behind in the national-service tidal wave of state-controlled “volunteers.”

indoctrinationFederally funded and directed programs would be a great way for establishment leaders to control the debate on the is-sues. Since the 1950s, the federal gov-ernment has become more and more in-volved in education. During this time, education policy has become more pro-pagandized and directed from Washing-ton. Jacob Hornberger, president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, writes that “public schooling has achieved suc-cess in one important area: the creation of a flock of good little citizens who be-lieve that the paternalistic welfare state constitutes freedom and free enterprise. Indeed, herein lies the power of public schooling — the power of government employees to indoctrinate children, year after year, with their officially ap-proved version of what it means to be free.” Could national-service programs be another method employed by the

government to “indoctrinate” our nation’s youth? The pos-sibility is certainly there.

The “Classroom Corps” could assist with teaching chil-dren the accepted progressive notions of the day. The “Health Corps” would immediately put to work a new coalition clamoring for socialized med-icine and further government intervention into healthcare. The “Clean Energy Corps” could spread the message of a “necessary” global solu-tion to the dire threat of “climate change” most likely administered through the UN. Finally, the “Homeland Security Corps” could help train a generation of citizens on how to implement the directives of the federal government at a moment’s notice. What starts out as voluntary soon becomes mandatory. This initiative would also assist with the continued centralization of power in Washington. In every way, national ser-vice would only serve to tie our nation’s youth more closely to government and in-doctrinate them in the mindless worship

of the all-powerful State as the solution to all of life’s problems. This new “service” generation would be more willing to ac-cept big-government solutions at both the national and global level.

Un-american and UnconstitutionalThe whole notion of universal national service runs counter to the founding prin-ciples of our nation. Alex Epstein, writing in the online Capitalism Magazine, ex-plains that “America was founded on the principle of individualism: the idea that each individual is a sovereign being with

Obama will be all too willing to throw federal funds around for national-service programs, even ones involving religious charities, but participating charities will have to abide by the rules of the state. One can only imagine what will happen to volunteer work for such issues as abortion.

National-service substitution: In U.S. society, when there is a need for charitable contributions, a private entity emerges to fill the void. Evidence shows that when people expect government to aid others, they cut back on private charity.

AP

Imag

es


the moral right to his own life and to the achievement of his own goals. This is the basis of the political idea, enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, that the indi-vidual possesses inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founders accordingly reconceived the pur-pose of government as being the servant of the individual, rather than his master.... This collectivist belief in the supremacy of the group over the individual is the foun-dation of the national-service ideology, which regards the individual as a servant to the nation. The notion that people are ‘nothing without the group’ and owe their lives — or any portion of them — to the state is antithetical to American individu-alism and freedom.”

Volunteerism as it exists in a free society has virtu-ally nothing in common with the vision of national service promoted by Obama. Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman, explains that “if people wish to perform service for others, they of course should be free to do so, with their own time and money. They should neither be forced nor use force in the name of service. A le-gally enforceable obligation to perform service clashes with the principles of the free society and proclaims that individuals are not self-owners but rather the prop-erty of society or the state. If there is no right to live for one’s own sake, there are no rights at all.” Richman also asks, “Where do people get

the idea that the Nation is something to be served?... This is a profoundly un-American concept. It’s far more consistent with the European despotism of the first half of the twentieth century. You don’t have to look hard to find quota-tions by Mussolini (dare I mention Hitler?) about the duty of the individual to serve the Nation.... This is not what most Americans

thought at the time of the founding.”The first thing that comes to a con-

stitutionalist’s mind after contemplating Obama’s proposal is that there is no au-thorization for it in the Constitution. It ap-pears that Obama hopes to do an end-run around the Constitution by employing the liberally interpreted “General Welfare” clause that is used to justify the taxing and spending powers of Congress. Even with this dubious rationale, the question remains whether universal national ser-vice violates the 13th Amendment’s pro-hibition on “involuntary servitude.” Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, certainly thinks so. “I think that the answer is pretty clearly ‘yes,’ at

least if you take the text of the Constitu-tion seriously.... Note that the Amendment forbids not only ‘slavery’ but also ‘invol-untary servitude,’ a provision deliberately inserted to prevent state governments from, in effect, reenslaving blacks by im-posing ‘temporary’ forced labor systems. Mandatory national service, which would require young people to do government-mandated work … is pretty clearly invol-untary servitude under any reasonable definition of the word.”

The truth of the matter is that any program of universal national service is unconstitutional and un-American. Con-gressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) put it best when he said, “Some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the federal government.... Both sides share the same belief that citizens should serve the needs of the state — a belief our founders clearly rejected in the Declara-tion of Independence. To many politicians, the American government is America.... Compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when really it represents collectivism and invol-untary servitude.” n

Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman, asks, “Where do people get the idea that the Nation is something to be served?... This is a profoundly un-American concept.... You don’t have to look hard to find quotations by Mussolini (dare I mention Hitler?) about the duty of the individual to serve the Nation.”

expectations and reality: The National Guard, whose main duty is to provide force protection for the United States, has been increasingly activated for combat overseas. How long will it be before Obama’s planned “civilian national security force” is co-opted into fighting abroad as well?

AP

Imag

es

NatioNal Service


President Bush has left office amid the great-est economic calamity

in several generations, per-haps ever. The federal budget deficit is poised to triple last year’s record $400 billion, rising to a projected $1.2 tril-lion. Trillions too have been added to the national debt by a desperate Bush administra-tion and craven Congress, most to bail out America’s corporate and financial oli-garchs. Meanwhile, the fed-eral government continues to prosecute its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and myriad other expensive military projects overseas, as well as preside over a vast array of welfare programs and subsidies. De-spite tens of trillions of dollars of debt, the federal government continues to borrow and spend as though money grows on trees — which, in the presto-chango economics of Federal Reserve printing presses, it does.

Enter Barack Obama, a fresh face, saddled with endless wars, a federal government drowning in debt, and a host of other in-tractable problems brought about by decades of federal cor-ruption and abuse. Throughout his campaign, Obama, exuding competence and confidence, promised change to a war- and recession-weary American public.

Were he Ron Paul, Obama might be expected to do the right thing — to end America’s debilitating overseas military activi-ties, scale back the federal government to within constitutionally authorized bounds (bounds that have not been observed since before the First World War), and return our money to a sound footing — a gold and silver standard.

But Obama is not Ron Paul, and intends none of these things. Instead, youth, freshness, and glib campaign slogans notwith-standing, Obama intends to continue the policies of his prede-cessors, and very likely will take full advantage of the global cri-sis to further reduce America to fiscal and political servitude.

President Obama believes only government — not the free market — can save us from economic ruin. “At this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost nec-essary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe,” Obama warned recently in a speech at George Mason University, add-ing that the ongoing recession could “linger for years” unless Congress spends unprecedented sums on bailouts and other faux stimuli. While details of what the Obama camp has been call-ing the American Recovery and Investment Plan have yet to be

made public, Obama’s aides have indicated the price tag may exceed $770 billion.

Regardless of how it’s designed, Obama’s stimu-lus package, like all federal government pork, will only further ratchet up the deficit while doing little to jump-start the economy — an echo of the Bush administration’s feeble economic stimulus package last year. The only possible effective stimulus would be to reduce drasti-cally the burden of taxes and regulations that Americans are saddled with, but Presi-dent Obama, as ideologically wedded to socialism as his predecessors, will, with the support of a willing Congress,

only seek to enlarge the federal welfare state. Handouts to the poor, unemployed, students, researchers, artists, farmers, and the countless companies still clamoring for bailouts will continue unabated, all of it tendered in money the federal government will have to borrow because it does not have the funds.

As for foreign policy, Obama has stated that he intends to “engage immediately” in the Middle East, including the Gaza situation over which he is “deeply concerned.” Obama has clar-ified that his interest in the Middle East is not “short term.” He instead has plans for “building a process whereby we can achieve a more lasting peace in the region.” What’s more, wrote Amie Parnes and Glenn Thrush in an article for Politico.com, “Obama quietly adopted many of his former rival’s [i.e., Hillary Clinton’s] more hawkish foreign policy positions by the end of the primaries.”

In other words Obama, like his predecessors, has no intention of reducing our profile as the world’s policeman, in the Middle East or presumably anywhere else. Look for ongoing wrangling with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs, con-tinued U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possible new military commitments in Syria, the Sudan, and elsewhere.

Those who voted for change in Barack Obama will soon be disappointed, as our new president charts a course from the very same road map his presidential predecessors have followed for nearly a century. Big government at home and abroad will con-tinue to expand, to the detriment of our fast-disappearing free-doms and our evaporating wealth. Before long, the lament will likely be, as a popular Clinton-era bumper sticker styled it, “I voted for change. Now that’s all I have left!” n

Obama: The Change That’s Not


by charleS Scaliger

AP

Imag

es

tHe riGHt PerSPectiVe

Interview of Arthur Thompson by Bill Hahn

Art Thompson, CEO of The John Birch Society, parent company to the new american, offers his

advice on what steps to take to solve the economic crisis.

The New AmericAN: With all the calls for bailouts, first for the financial sector and now for the auto industry, Americans are confused. We’ve been hearing that these bailouts are necessary to save the economy, but everyone understands that they will impose an enormous tax burden on future generations. Our political lead-ers want us to believe that there are no al-ternatives, that bailouts are a lesser evil to prevent greater ones down the road. How do you answer that?Art Thompson: Recently, I saw a pundit on a major television network discussing the 2008 panic and advocating as a solu-tion “a little socialism now to prevent a lot of socialism later.” Those were his exact words. This particu-lar commentator was more candid than most. The words used most often by the media in their “solutions” are “more regulation,” “better manage-ment,” and/or “more controls” by government. All of these amount to “a little socialism.” But “a little socialism” is just another term for fascism.

Whether it is fascism or full-blown socialism, the stated ob-jective is to control the econo-my. But when the government attempts to control the econo-

my, for whatever reason, what necessarily end up being controlled are the real actions of the honest, hardworking people whose economic decisions taken in sum comprise the economy as a whole.

But even the most thoroughgoing des-potism lacks the analytical and theoreti-cal tools necessary to direct the economic lives of all the people who make up the larger economy of a nation. The more tightly a government attempts to control economic behavior, the worse economic activity is hampered and distorted. This is particularly true in large, populous na-tions, which because of their size are more difficult to manipulate economically than small nations.

The more controls on an economy, the poorer the economy becomes. We need no better example than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR. The Soviets had very sophisticated state planning (if there can be such a thing), and quite pub-licly and solemnly pronounced their inten-tion to carry out each “five year plan” for

economic improvement of the nation. The planning bureaucracy, though, was never able to plan its way into economic growth and stability, and the Soviet economy col-lapsed after a long period of stagnation and decline.

In a socialist regime, those who con-trol the economy — political leaders and well-connected financial elites — tend to become, as Orwell once put it in Animal Farm, “more equal than others.” The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Those who would normally be the entrepreneurs in a free society realize that in a govern-ment-controlled economy the only way to get ahead is to become part of the system — the economic command structure, so to speak — and not rock the boat.

Whatever they call it — socialism, regulation, management, or controls — centralized economic planning will al-ways be detrimental to the people and the economy, although it will always be sold as a benefit for the people. The current re-gime of bailouts, if not discontinued, will

Art Thompson, the CEO of The John Birch Society, offers a uniquely Americanist perspective on how to resolve our current economic crisis.

An Americanist Economic Perspective

THE NEW AMERICAN • FEbRuARy 2, 200920

iNterview

Bill Hahn

Art Thompson

be catastrophic for our economy and our liberties in the long run.

Our bottom line is that economic solu-tions need to be based on liberty and per-missible under the U.S. Constitution.

TNA: What solutions is the JBS proposing?Thompson: We advocate backing our cur-rency with a precious-metal standard, be-coming energy-independent, stopping all government spending not authorized by the Constitution, halting foreign aid, blocking illegal immigration, growing the middle class, eliminating the income tax, and get-ting rid of our central banking system.

TNA: This magazine has reported on all of these topics over the years. Let’s take a look at each one. The first one you men-tioned was backing the dollar with a pre-cious metal. Are you calling for a return to the gold standard?Thompson: As long as it is a precious metal that meets the criteria for commod-ity money, it doesn’t have to be just gold. Sound money in the hands of the individ-ual is not simply a means of fair exchange for goods or services; it is a large part of being free. And this is why, in Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants the power to Congress to produce and protect the value of money. The exact wording is “to coin money,” implying gold or silver; not paper money with an arbitrary value established by government fiat.

Our Founding Fathers had experience with the hazards of printed money dur-ing the Revolutionary War. They knew that unbacked money was a recipe for inflation that would destroy the nation’s wealth, and they were adamant, both be-fore and after the adoption of the Consti-tution, that paper money was not to be issued by the federal government. They even stipulated, in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, that the states could only make gold or silver coin as a legal tender in the payment of debts.

If money is gold or silver, or backed by gold or silver, the value of money will remain more or less constant, and people’s money will be free from ma-nipulation by moneyed interests. In a

fiat-money system, by contrast, some controlling agency, usu-ally a central bank like the Fed-eral Reserve, manages the value of the currency. The value of the money in your pocket and in your savings accounts is not constant, but subject to the self-serving whims and policies of an elite few. That certainly is not conducive to freedom and inde-pendence for anyone other than the central bankers and well-con-nected special interests that benefit from their monetary policies.

Gold is a very good commodity to use for money because (among other reasons) it is very scarce, making it impossible for governments or central bankers to ma-nipulate its supply. And money backed by gold must be strictly limited in issue or the government will rob the people by means of inflation. For instance, the greenback, the Civil War issue, robbed the American citizens in the Union of 50 percent of their wealth in three years through inflation.

Because gold and silver is given coun-tenance by the U.S. Constitution, and be-cause such money would act as a check on

the power of the government and powerful special interests who will otherwise debase our money, the restoration of gold and silver as money should be the first logical step to-ward the restoration of sound economics.

TNA: Moving on to the second topic, how does the United States become energy-independent?Thompson: Each year billions of dollars

“ Centralized economic planning will always be detrimental to the people and the economy.... The current regime of bailouts, if not discontinued, will be catastrophic for our economy and our liberties in the long run.”

— Art Thompson


Safeguarding our money: To stop the government from plundering Americans’ savings — such as their retirement accounts — through inflation, the United States needs to return to a precious-metal monetary standard.

are sucked out of the American economy by the purchase of foreign oil and gas. Much of this money ends up in the hands of governments and people who are the enemies of our country. These dollars are then used to compete in many ways with our businesses, workers, military, etc.

Yet America has the ability to achieve energy independence by further harness-ing our own energy resources, from the oil along our Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska (much of which is now off-limits to drilling) to nuclear power.

So energy independence is a political issue, but it’s also an economic one. We

cannot establish our own future if we are sending money out of the country and are beholden to others for our energy needs.

TNA: Unfortunately the govern-ment didn’t listen to the voters when it decided to pass the bailout bill for Wall Street.Thompson: That brings me to the next step: stop government spend-ing, at least spending not sanctioned

by the very limited writ of authority in the Constitution (and that means most things the federal government spends money on these days!). One of the cruelest and most misguided ideas for stimulating an econo-my is to promote government spending as part of any stimulus plan. In reality, there are only two things that a government can do to stimulate an economy: cut govern-ment spending and reduce or eliminate government regulation.

A solid case can be made that we would not be in trouble economically if govern-ment would have stayed out of the busi-

ness of private business. Since the Civil War in particular, the federal govern-ment has taken unto itself more and more control over the free-enterprise system that has made this country economically great. As the government has accumulated power over private enterprise, the num-ber and severity of economic crises has grown and the rate of economic growth has decreased.

This has happened because, with more economic regimentation, the many vari-ables that stimulate economic growth, such as new inventions, new services, new allocations of capital, business startups, etc., did not occur at all or as frequently as they should have. Would-be inventors, risk takers, entrepreneurs, and investors decided that, because of regulatory bar-riers and other forms of government in-terference in the workings of the market, going ahead with an investment, innova-tion, or startup was not worth the effort. This is why economies in communist and socialist societies atrophy over time.

But economics aside, the federal gov-ernment must be brought back to within proper constitutional limits. That means relinquishing our far-flung empire and bringing our troops home. It means abol-ishing every unconstitutional department of the federal government. It means get-ting the government out of grant mak-ing and funding the arts and sciences. It means no more $700 billion bailouts. It means less regulation and many thou-sands fewer bureaucrats. It means putting a stop to federal foreign aid. When these things happen, then federal spending will decrease and the resulting distortions of the market will be radically diminished. We, the taxpayers, will have more money in our pockets, and more freedom to use that money.

Only then will we be back on the road to greater freedom and prosperity.

TNA: You also mentioned foreign aid earlier.Thompson: Since the United States is sustaining a deficit that increases daily, it makes no sense to send foreign aid to ap-proximately 150 countries, especially when far too much of this aid ends up in the bank accounts of the leaders of the countries that receive the aid.

“ As the government has accumulated power over private enterprise, the number and severity of economic crises has grown and the rate of economic growth has decreased.”

— Art Thompson


iNterview

energy independence: To become energy independent, the United States merely needs

to undo most restrictions on drilling for oil and natural gas — such as restrictions on

drilling in the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and cut or eliminate

corporate taxes on energy companies. Investors worldwide would rush to build our

energy infrastructure.

U.S

. Fis

h &

W

ildlif

e S

ervi

ce

Foreign aid, in any form, is a moral decision. If people need help, it should be done privately, through charitable organizations such as religious organizations, typically the largest and most effective char-ities — the Salvation Army, for example, and a multitude of other humanitarian groups. And when it is privately do-nated and managed, the aid gets to the individuals in need. If the need is there, American citizens always rise to the oc-casion. American citizens, by a large margin, are the most generous people on the planet, according to a recent report by the Hudson Institute.

If we allow government to get involved, as we have seen time after time, the aid always seems to benefit the few and can end up in private bank accounts. In some cases, foreign aid, including food aid, has been used to prop up petty dictators. This has not endeared us to their citizenries and has led some of these nations to rise up and embrace our enemies as a result.

It is not only unconstitutional, but also wrong in principle for our government to take money from our citizens and give it to other countries, with the possible excep-tion of during a war properly declared by Congress, and then only as direct assis-tance for our fighting forces.

There will always be well-meaning ar-guments for foreign aid, and many times they will tug at the heartstrings of good people, but we must remember that every cent of federally funded foreign aid was collected forcibly, through taxation, and that the Constitution does not authorize dispensing taxpayer monies to foreign countries. Foreign aid, like all govern-ment programs, is coercive, not voluntary. Private, voluntary charity will always cost less than foreign aid and will usually go to those who need it most.

TNA: So how does illegal immigration play a role in economic revival?Thompson: While it may not seem that il-

legal immigration has anything to do with economic recovery, it does in fact have several important effects on the economy.

First of all, illegal immigration itself on such a vast scale constitutes an invasion. Such events can overturn governments and societies alike. It happened after the Goths invaded the Roman Empire (technically, they were invited to immigrate en masse, and only turned hostile once inside Roman borders), and it is happening in modern-day America.

Subsidizing illegal immigrants’ medical care, schooling, and housing costs Ameri-can taxpayers billions of dollars per year.

The burdens on hospitals alone have been extraordinary and the costs stagger-ing. In California in 2004, for example, the cost for unreimbursed healthcare was estimated at $1.4 billion, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Many mortgage failures in the real es-tate crash occurred because lenders en-ticed illegals who did not understand the ensuing obligations to take out subprime home loans. Subprime lenders made a spe-cial effort to induce immigrants, legal or illegal, to take out such loans, as columnist Michelle Malkin has pointed out.

Such costs have become a significant

drag on the U.S. economy because they mean less money in the pockets of Ameri-can citizens.

Another very important aspect of ille-gal immigration is the economic and so-cial cost of increasing crime. While most illegal immigrants are workers displaced by internationalist economic policies like NAFTA and by misbegotten policies of their own governments, there is also a significant criminal element exploiting America’s open borders to commit crimes of every variety, from drug trafficking to murder. Additionally, large numbers of illegals drive illegally and irresponsibly; I had two friends that were killed in two separate incidents by errant aliens in car accidents. In both cases, the perpetrators fled the country to avoid vehicular man-slaughter charges.

None of this is to say that we should build a wall around the United States and prevent any and all immigration. It is only to recognize the fact that in the United States today, immigration is no longer under control. As a result, immigrants and American citizens alike suffer. The im-migration problem has grown so big that, unless dealt with, it will prove an impedi-ment to economic recovery and an obsta-cle to future economic growth.

Servitude: U.S. immigrants from Central and South America average less than 10 years of schooling. These immigrants often rely on welfare to get by. In 2004, the cost to taxpayers of immigrants who live in a household headed by an immigrant without a high-school degree was $89.1 billion.


AP

Imag

es

TNA: The poor and the middle class ap-pear to be bearing the brunt of this latest recession. Comment?Thompson: True enough, but it’s impor-tant to understand that the middle class is actually under deliberate attack, and has been for generations.

The middle class has always been a threat to those who covet absolute power, because of their ability to challenge both the economic and political status quo. Most of the American Founders were middle-class merchants, farmers, and craftsmen. The middle class creates vast amounts of new wealth, and because of sheer numbers, can make its voice heard loud and clear in politics, whether the oligarchs wish to hear them or not. The middle class, with its new money and education, has always been reflexively hostile to government. Serfdom is kept at bay wherever there is a strong and vibrant middle class, and the concentration of power in too few hands is usually kept in check. On the other hand, in authoritarian countries, the mid-dle class is weak and nonexistent. There is a huge concentration of wealth in the hands of a few at the top, and almost everyone else is poor.

The American middle class produces new products, provides new services, creates jobs, etc., but only insofar as they are free to do it. Yet now we are told that more regulation will solve our economic problems, that by regulating business (which really means putting controls on the actions of the middle class), government is doing the people a great service.

But if government continues to visit more and more regulations upon the middle class, soon there will be no middle class. And that is the point. The people who want to socialize high

finance and Wall Street also want to regulate all business on Main Street. They will destroy the middle class in the process. And this is precisely what some of them want to accomplish.

The reason that we need to stop government from regulat-ing and nationalizing business has as much to do with our fu-ture as a free country as it does with encouraging economic growth. When the middle class

grows and prospers, the country benefits both politically and economically.

TNA: Probably if asked what the greatest obstacle to personal prosperity is in this country, a lot of middle-class Americans would mention the income tax and the IRS. What’s your take on the income tax?Thompson: Well, if the income tax were eliminated, the economy would be stimu-lated to unprecedented levels.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Consti-tution so that the federal government could not impose direct taxes — like the income tax — on the people. Nevertheless, a fed-

eral income tax was imposed for the first time during the Civil War and attempted again later on, but each time was declared unconstitutional.

This all changed with the adoption of the16th Amendment, which made legal, if not legitimate, the heavy progressive in-come tax America is saddled with today.

The personal income tax is only a small portion of what the federal government takes monetarily from the people, but it can be very important as part of a stimulus package if it’s eliminated.

The cumulative cost of the income tax adds greatly to the cost of services and products. Imagine the tax on miners, truckers, manufacturing employees, man-agement, salesmen, and the clerks at the store where you purchase the end product, all factored into the cost at the checkout counter. Eliminate the income tax and prices will be reduced dramatically.

If we want to fix our economy, then we need to end the income tax.

TNA: You also advocate getting rid of the Federal Reserve. How can that possibly help the economy?

Thompson: Throughout history,

“ People don’t usually think of the U.S. Constitution as an economic document, but simply observing strict constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government would go a long way toward solving the current crisis.”

— Art Thompson

a real bailout: If U.S. government spending were reduced to the point that the income tax and the IRS were eliminated, Americans would have more wealth, guaranteed wealth versus the promised, illusory wealth of a “stimulus plan.”


iNterview

AP

Imag

es

and especially in modern times, inflation has taken a heavy toll on many civiliza-tions and countries. The over issuance of paper, particularly if it’s not redeemable in any intrinsic metal (what economists call “fiat money”), results in higher prices for products and services, and is marked by a general devaluation of the currency. As a result, a powerful, well-connected few get away with stealing from their own coun-trymen by printing money to finance gran-diose government-sponsored projects like wars — and then letting the little guy take the fall later on in the form of rising prices that erode the value of savings and cause the cost of living to rise.

For instance, if the currency in cir-culation were doubled, the value of the currency would be cut in half and goods and services would cost twice as much. In a declining economy, where goods are produced in less quantity, the situation is exacerbated.

For the politician and the totalitarian-leaning bureaucrat, printing fiat money (which is what inflation really is; rising prices are the effect of inflation, not infla-tion per se) is attractive because it allows government to spend money without rais-ing taxes overtly. Inflation is a form of tax, but a particularly dishonest one because it isn’t advertised as such and because very few people understand how the process works. Politicians and those in control of the money supply understand that the citi-zenry will resist heavy direct taxes, so they often turn to inflation to finance projects that the public would not be willing to pay for any other way. Also, because the way that central banks like the Federal Reserve introduce new money into circulation is by the creation of more debt, inflation causes national debts and deficits to soar.

In the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress gave the power to issue fiat paper currency to a new, quasi-private en-tity called the Federal Reserve. Since then we have experienced constant inflation, such that the dollar’s value has depreciated by more than 90 percent. We’ve also ex-perienced unprecedented boom-and-bust cycles, like the Roaring Twenties followed by the Great Depression, all of which were engineered by the Federal Reserve, with

some help from the Treasury Department and other central banks overseas.

The financial and economic crisis of 2008 did not come as a surprise to those who keep an eye on the activities of the Federal Reserve. The writing was on the wall, as we pointed out in the new american years ago. Other analysts like-wise saw that the radical inflation of the money supply that accelerated in the last decade would lead to terrible economic turmoil. And now that the inevitable re-cession is well underway, taking correct measures will be very difficult because of widespread ignorance of how our financial system works.

We cannot allow a system of fiat money to operate and expect to stay a free people. This is because, as we are seeing now, each new contrived financial crisis is used as a pretext for more government controls — government proposing to solve problems it created in the first place, and by the only means that government has at its disposal: more government. The reckless inflationary policies of Germa-ny during World War I led to complete destruction of the German mark in the early ’20s, wiping out German financial markets and personal savings alike. In the turmoil that followed, Germany eventu-ally succumbed to the Nazi dictatorship. Allowing central bankers and politicians to play games with the money supply is like playing with fire. Sooner or later, when the crisis arrives, people are easily

stampeded into serfdom. It happened in Germany and it can happen here, if the Federal Reserve System isn’t abolished and the dollar returned to a gold or some other precious-metal standard.

One final thought: people don’t usu-ally think of the U.S. Constitution as an economic document, but simply observing strict constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government would go a long way toward solving the current crisis. We’d have to return to a precious-metal standard and abolish the Federal Reserve; abolish most of the federal regulatory ap-paratus; cease giving handouts to illegal aliens; repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the federal income tax and the IRS; and only get involved in wars and other military activity overseas authorized by a congressional declaration. And that’s just for starters. If the Constitution were strictly observed, the size (and therefore the cost as well) of the federal government would shrink to a fraction of what it is now. Americans would have a lot more money in their pockets and, free from alphabet-soup agencies regulating and watching their every move, would be much more willing to launch businesses and other wealth-creating enterprises. Also, preda-tory special interests would evaporate with the end of the spoils system now in place. This isn’t to say that things would be perfect, but returning to constitutional government would be a tremendous step in the right direction. n


SVCHJanitorial Services •NightlyJanitorial •FloorRefinishing

William C. Hemenway

N15 W22294 Watertown Rd.Waukesha , WI 53186

(262) 542-7756

P.O. Box 73445 • Metairie, LA 70033Fax: (504) 466-2181• [email protected]

The M & M Company of the South LLC

Distributors of fine hand cleaners & related products since 1942

offers you a free SaMpLe of the finest hand cleaner you’ll ever use!

Sno White Hand CleanerSold nationwide for personal, professional and industrial use.

Call us at (800) 344-9927 for your free sample. (No charge of any kind)

5810 Obata Way, Suite 1 • Gilroy, California 95020(408) 847-9738 • fax (408) 847-9743

Brian adams, DDSpresident/CeO

SVCHSouth Valley

Care Homes, Inc.

Cleveland Ave.(Rt. 41)

Ft. Myers, Florida

Stamra Inc.

TRAILWINDS PLAZA

by John F. McManus

Many Europeans are now dis-covering that their nations have been deceitfully lured

into membership in a multi-national trade bloc, once known as the Common Market, that is now controlling them politically. Known in its current manifestation as the European Union, this bloc now numbers 27 formerly independent nations.

That the Common Market was intended from the beginning to become a supranational government has been meticulously exposed in a superb 600-page book, The Great Deception, authored by British news-paper columnist Christopher Booker and political analyst Richard North. These two researchers point out that what has become the EU was promoted in their nation and others as a mere trade agreement. But they document that the EU is now a political force controlling their laws and traditions, and the claim at its beginning that it was a mere economic association was a lie.

Booker and North actually refer to the EU as “the most spectacular coup d’etat in all history.” Other Europeans have begun to realize that their nations have succumbed to the same false claims and are now equally trapped. Roman Herzog served as president of Germany from 1994

to 1999. He stated in 2007 that “84 percent of the legal acts in Germany” stem from EU headquarters in Brussels, not from the German legislature. He wonders if it’s re-alistic to continue referring to his country as a “parliamentary democracy.” Czech President Vaclav Klaus warned in 2003 that the steady immersion of Europe’s na-tions into the EU would lead eventually to a situation where “only one state will remain.” He calls what is being built “the European superstate.” And Britain’s Mike Nattrass, one of the leaders of a splinter political party in his country, lamented, “The EU was sold to the British people as a trading agreement and has turned into a political union which is changing our basic laws and traditions.” Throughout the EU’s formerly independent nations, many have awakened to their plight. But reversing what has been done will be very difficult.

The EU’s own documents, such as the 2003 EU Draft Constitution, show that the EU schemers envision not just regional governance but global governance, with the United Nations very much a part of their global designs. The Draft Constitu-tion indicated subservience to the UN in such expressions as “strict observance for,” “in accordance with,” “respect for,” “in conformity with,” “without prejudice to,” and “establishing all appropriate forms of cooperation with” — always referring to the UN Charter.

In the United States, the 1994 North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — likewise sold to Congress and the Amer-ican people as a way to spur trade among the United States, Canada and Mexico — has been discovered to have judicial teeth and other restrictions on sovereignty in its 900 pages. But it only affected three na-tions. When the newer and more compre-hensive Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was proposed in 2003 as a benefi-cial economic agreement among 34 West-ern Hemisphere nations, citizen objections in the United States blocked it from even being brought before Congress.

Then another attempt to entangle the three North American nations emerged in the form of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The intent is to create, step by step, a North American Union mod-eled after the EU, a not-so-hidden scheme that has stimulated another round of citi-zen objections. the new american has repeatedly warned about this threat, with much of the information assembled in our special “North American Union” issue of October 15, 2007.

The ruse promising mere trade arrange-ments that has compromised Europe’s once-independent nations continues to be employed. Now, its major proponent has become the European Union itself.

working the Plan in the caribbeanOn October 15, 2008, leaders of 13 Eng-lish-speaking Caribbean nations signed

Research for this article was supplied by Trinidad

resident Janet Doon.


atlaNtic UNioN

Just as the eU was sold to europeans as a trade agreement even though it was actually a political union, so it has been sold again, this time to the islands of the caribbean.

eU Déjà vu

caribbeanin the

a complex Economic Partnership Agree-ment (EPA) with the executive arm of the European Union known as the European Commission. As a result of that action, they are now linked in an economic union with the 27-member EU. These nations are Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, St. Kitts & St. Nevis, Su-riname, and Trinidad & Tobago. This new arrangement replaces previous agreements that were merely trade-only pacts between Europe and the region. It promises to do to the Caribbean nations what the EU has already done to Europe.

Guyana’s President Bharrat Jagdeo ini-tially refused to agree with the EPA, want-ing a “goods only” pact for his nation. Im-mediately threatened with punitive tariffs by EU officials, he appealed to the United Nations pointing out that the EU had em-ployed bullying tactics. He pleaded in vain for a renegotiation of the arrangement. Eventually obtaining the EU’s pledge to “take into account” his concerns (but without any substantive commitment), he reluctantly directed his ambassador to the EU, Dr. Patrick Gomes, to include Guyana as the 14th nation to agree to the pact on October 21. Among the 15 English-speak-ing Caribbean nations, only Haiti has not signed the EPA, mainly because a series

of devastating 2008 hurricanes ravaged the country and all attention has been given to rebuilding what was destroyed. Haiti has until 2010 to join, and likely will do so by then.

Additionally reaching out with its tenta-cles to other parts of the world, the EU has identified six geographical regions where its trade agreements are being negotiated. These include four areas in Africa, one in the Pacific, and the aforementioned pact in the Caribbean. Undoubtedly, the EU commissioners will point to what they have accomplished in the Caribbean to promote similar entanglements in these other areas.

The chief EU negotiator for the Carib-bean arrangement was British citizen Peter Mandelson, once labeled by British media as a “prince of darkness” because of his ruthlessness and youthful commu-nist background. It was he who browbeat the Caribbean leaders into signing the 2,000-page EPA document. Now legally binding, it will require each participat-ing country to begin removing tariffs by 2011. But tariffs constitute the major source of revenue for these small nations and will leave each dependent on other sources for funds to operate. (Mandelson unexpectedly left his post just prior to the formal signing of the EPA. He immedi-ately returned to England where he now

serves in the government of Prime Min-ister Gordon Brown.)

A full year before the formal signing of this EPA, Portugal’s José Manuel Bar-roso — who has been president of the Eu-ropean Commission since 2004 — sent a letter to prime ministers Bruce Golding of Jamaica and Owen Arthur of Barbados. It threatened them in no uncertain terms with “dire consequences” if their countries did not accept the EPA. Obviously, it was very important to EU leaders to entangle these small nations in their web.

All during 2008, various influential West Indies leaders sounded the alarm about the EPA. Havelock Brewster, former ambassador of Guyana to the EU, warned that the document contained “non-binding, declaratory, general statements on the part of EC” but “specific, time-bound, binding, and subject to sanctions” requirements for the various small nations. He added, “We should avoid entering into open-ended commitments.”

Also concerned about what was being proposed was Professor Norman Girvan of the West Indies Institute of International Relations. A former secretary-general of the Association of Caribbean States, he pointed out, “The final stages of the EPA were rushed to conclusion with little op-portunity for the public to become famil-iar with its provisions and to deliberate


atlaNtic UNioN

its implications.... The region will have to live with the consequences indefinitely, consequences that may prove difficult to reverse.” He concluded, “The EPA sets up an elaborate institutional structure of government … endowed with a degree of supra-nationality that [our existing] gover-nance does not possess.”

Economics professor Dr. Clive Thomas of Guyana stated in an article published by Caribbean Media Sphere that “through a mixture of blatant bullyism, bribery, cajol-ery, deception, intellectual dishonesty and plain bluff, the EU has worked a monu-mental deception on the region.” And for-mer Caribbean ambassador to the World Trade Organization Sir Ronald Sanders said that the EPA “may well return Ca-ribbean nations to the state of plantation economies where the commanding heights are owned by foreign companies run by expatriate managers and the Caribbean people are merely workers.” He warned that in any dispute arising over the agree-ment “individual countries will be up against the full force and resources of the EU as a whole. The potential for disaster is glaring.”

The September 14, 2008 issue of Trini-dad Guardian carried a commentary by Dennis Partin that summed up what was about to transpire: “Europe is, no doubt, laughing and congratulating itself on how easy it once again divided, conquered and ruled the Caribbean.”

But it is not just the Caribbean nations that will lose their autonomy. Awareness about what was occurring in the Western Hemisphere has arisen in Uganda, one of the nations next in line for EU pressure to sign an EPA. An article published in Uganda’s Monitor Online stated: “While some countries believe that signing the EPA would bring to an end their problems of accessing European markets ..., others believe that the agreement would worsen the difficulties their economies are facing, thereby subduing them into being servants to the developed world.”

Only weeks before the fateful EPA sign-ing in October, British-based Christian Aid, a charitable group working among the poor in 50 Latin American countries, urged the Caribbean leaders not to accept the EPA. Leaders of this privately run or-ganization stated that the EU was pursuing its own mercantile interests, that the so-

called partnership between the EU and the small Carib-bean countries was really “between the bully and the bullied,” and that European producers would “flood the region and force local com-petitors out of business.”

Another red flag about these plans was raised by Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and the former chief econ-omist for the World Bank. Speaking in Ghana in July 2008, where he was urg-ing that small nation to avoid losing its identity, the MIT professor pointed out that the EU’s $12 trillion economy is “88 times larger” than all of the Caribbean na-tions being pressured into an EPA. Stiglitz, who resigned (or got fired) from the World Bank in 1999 has campaigned for years against “extremely managed trade agree-ments” that undergird the world trading system. In previous comments, he has characterized the World Bank, the Inter-national Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization as “interchangeable

masks of a single governance system.”These various warnings went unheeded

and the EPA was signed as noted above. The small nations of the Caribbean will now be dominated economically by the EU preparatory to being further dominated politically in the near future. The process that has entangled the 27 nations of the EU has been successfully imposed on the small Caribbean nations.

Noteworthy among those promoting regionalization and all that it entails was Trinidad Prime Minister Patrick Manning. On August 14, 2008, he quietly arranged flights to his capital for three other prime

Economics professor Dr. Clive Thomas stated in an article published by Caribbean Media Sphere that “through a mixture of blatant bullyism, bribery, cajolery, deception, intellectual dishonesty and plain bluff, the EU has worked a monumental deception on the region.”

AP

Imag

es

this much independence: President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso gestures during a press conference held in Prague on January 7, 2009. A year before the Caribbean Economic Partnership Agreement was finalized, Barroso sent a letter to the prime ministers of Jamaica and Barbados threatening their countries with “dire consequences” if they did not accept the agreement.


ministers (those of Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent & the Grenadines). Each of these national leaders then signed a memorandum of understanding commit-ting them to the formation of an area-wide single economy by 2011, and full political integration by 2013. Manning then traveled to five other countries in the region cajol-ing their government leaders to accept this same memorandum of understanding.

all of latin america targetedLast August, the website grain.org pub-lished a “briefing” on the EU’s continuing designs on all of Latin America. Entitled “Latin America’s Free Trade Agreements With the European Union — An Agenda for Domination,” the 16-page report states that the region “will be incorporated into an expanded version of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), except that

now it will be linked to the European Union rather than the USA (as was envisaged under the FTAA).”

The report notes that all ne-gotiations with the EU “have been conducted largely in secret, which prevents par-liaments, citizens and social movements from obtaining any relevant information.” Secrecy is needed, the report continues, “to prevent the kind

of social mobilisation that helped scupper the FTAA.” This is an acknowledgement of the successful effort waged by the new american and the John Birch Society to block U.S. entry into the FTAA and the planned North American Union.

The following statements taken verba-tim from this report demonstrate the im-pact of free-trade agreements in general and their results following the EU’s vig-orous luring of nations into them, either individually or in blocs of nations.

• “In order to put pressure on countries that take a more independent position or are more willing to defend their national interest, the EU has negotiated with re-gional blocs.”

• “The agreements with the European Union are notable for their scope and for covering much more than strictly econom-ic matters.”

• “A fundamental characteristic of trea-ties with the EU is that they are not only broad in scope but also designed to be extended.... The EU does not therefore need to sign the same agreement with all countries because it can achieve in future reviews anything that it does not achieve in the first round.”

• “Parliaments and social movements are denied a chance to reject the changes.... This means that countries are giving up … the right to exercise national sovereignty.”

• “If the EU considers that a country has not complied with an agreement, it can take that country to a private tribunal whose decisions are binding. If the coun-try in question does not then comply, the EU can take reprisal measures such as unilaterally increasing tariffs or banning imports from that country.”

• “[Because of free trade agreements] Chile has lost control over a significant quantity of resources: 70 per cent of its mining exports are today handled by for-eign companies.”

• “In Mexico, the economic damage is even clearer. Its overall trade deficit in-creased from a little over US$9 billion in 2002, when the country signed an agree-ment with Europe, to almost US$19 bil-lion in 2006.”

• “The biggest myth about free trade agreements is that they will bring eco-nomic benefits.”

• “‘Free trade treaties are instru-ments of colonisation and domination.’ [Quoting] President Evo Morales [Bo-livia], in response to the request from presidents Alan García [Peru] and Ál-varo Uribe [Colombia] to accelerate negotiations between the EU and the Andean Community of Nations.”

The EU’s designs on the Caribbean and on all of Latin America make per-fect sense when it is understood that the architects behind what is euphe-mistically called a “new world order” intend to use the EU and other regional blocs to build, step by step and piece by piece, global government controlled by themselves.* This grand design, exam-ined many times by this magazine, also makes sense of the EU-United Nations connection alluded to earlier, since the UN would serve as the umbrella for the developing instruments of global gov-ernance including the EU.

Luring the world’s nations into the UN’s web with trade pacts has been the modus operandi. While the plotters knew what they were doing, few national leaders realized that economic union precedes political union and will eventually mean loss of independence.

AP

Imag

es

Hitching their wagons to the wrong star: Then-European Union Commissioner for Trade Peter Mandelson addresses a media conference on July 17, 2008 in Brussels. Mandelson was the chief EU negotiator responsible for the Caribbean partnership that has bound to the EU the island nations’ economic fate — and their potential political destiny as well.


atlaNtic UNioN

the Big PictureAfter surveying the evidence, no one can honestly dispute that the United Nations was created for the purpose of world gov-ernment.† While too many Americans still believe the UN to be benign, or that rule by it would somehow be beneficial, or that the organization is a ridiculous failure worthy of no one’s concern, progress toward it becoming the ruler of all nations and all peoples continues steadily. A mere glance at the UN’s organizational chart confirms the long-range goal. Should the UN ever achieve ultimate power, be assured there will be world tyranny. Placing all power in any repository — the UN certainly in-cluded — would be catastrophic.

The world body came into being in 1945 at its San Francisco founding con-ference. Some attendees openly stated their desire to create what the League of Nations had attempted to construct in the aftermath of World War I. But the League never amounted to very much because the United States wouldn’t join. Disappointed but not defeated by America’s refusal to participate, the world planners of that era immediately went to work to ensure that a second try at world rule would succeed. Part of their effort included formation of England’s Royal Institute of International Affairs and America’s Council on Foreign Relations, two significant promoters of world control.

The top official at the UN’s 1945 found-ing conference, the individual named as its secretary-general, was Alger Hiss, an American citizen who was later discov-ered to be a secret communist loyal to the

USSR. That he sought to deliver our na-tion and the rest of mankind to world rule cannot be denied. Also, the U.S. delega-tion at the UN’s founding conference con-tained 43 individuals who held member-ship in the Council on Foreign Relations. Through its members and its publications, the CFR has spurred acceptance of global-ism while issuing voluminous propaganda about the need for such a concentration of power. It helped persuade the U.S. Senate to approve the United Nations Charter by the lopsided vote of 89 to 2. The delega-tion from Moscow happily went along, knowing full well that the Charter was a blueprint for the kind of dictatorial world government already existing in Moscow.

Today, 192 nations hold membership in the UN. These include China with a popu-lation of 1.3 billion, India with one billion, the United States with 305 million, numer-ous other countries with tens of millions, and a score or more of island republics with small, even tiny, populations. Those who have long championed the UN even-tually realized the difficulty of luring each of these nations one by one into control by the UN. So an increasingly obvious alternative plan arose whereby forma-tion of economic blocs of nations would be undertaken so that watered-down indi-viduality accomplished by these linkages would set the stage for complete loss of sovereignty.

What is also obvious after scrutinizing the activity of the EU in bringing nations into the world-government web is that a major engine for world government con-trol has shifted from the United States to

the European Union. Citizen awareness of the fraudulent nature of free-trade agree-ments in the United States has brought this about, although U.S. leaders can still be counted on to pursue the same nefarious goal. Similar awareness elsewhere will “scupper” the plans of the world-govern-ment advocates, and could reverse already lost sovereignty in so many once-indepen-dent nations.

Luring the world’s many independent nations into the UN’s web with trade pacts sold as economic bonanzas has been the modus operandi. While the plotters knew what they were doing, few national lead-ers realized that economic union precedes political union and will eventually mean loss of independence. If all nations can be made submissive to several economic unions, and those unions are led by in-dividuals who gradually and deceptively convert them into political unions, the path to world government will have been forged. n

* See “The World Government Two-Step” by Thomas

R. Eddlem in our July 11, 2005 issue.† See “Framework for World Government” by Dennis

Behreandt in our July 11, 2005 issue.

reaching beyond the caribbean: Latin American and Caribbean leaders pose for a group photo on December 17, 2008 during a summit in Costa do Sauipe, Brazil. The EU’s designs reach beyond the Caribbean to Latin America. The title of a briefing by the website grain.org is telling: “Latin America’s Free Trade Agreements With the European Union — An Agenda for Domination.”

AP

Imag

es


1024 VENTURA STREETFILLMORE, CA 93015

805-524-0333

1024 VENTURA STREETFILLMORE, CA 93015

805-524-0333

Celebrating Over 75 Years

of Service

ExHaust systEMs sErviCEs inC.

“If you can keep your head while those

around you are losing theirs, then perhaps

you don't understand the seriousness of

the situation.”

P.O. Box 18225Pensacola, FL 32523

Ron Paul’s“Texas Straight Talk”

(888) 322-1414

PrestigeProPerty management, inc.

Serving Tucson Since 1979

Single Family Home

SpecialistsHouses • Townhomes

Free Rental Analysis Property Inspections Every 90 Days!

www.prestigepropertymgmt.com

3205 E. Grant RoadTucson, AZ 85716-2809

Tel: (520) 881-0930Fax: (520) 881-7702

Personal attention and Professional service — always

the wages of GenerosityWhat would you do if you got a pay raise? Spend it on necessities, such as groceries, utilities, clothing? What if your after-tax raise came to $74,440?

Well, if you were James Drake, you would give it all away. According to a press release on orlandosentinel.com, Drake, the president of Brevard Commu-nity College in Cocoa, Florida, made the donation as an example of generosity “in stark contrast to the greed of leaders na-tionally.” Drake’s gift will provide $300 scholarships to 248 full-time students in need. This could cover up to 85 percent of textbook costs for a semester, which just might make the difference between attend-ing school or not for some.

Jim Ross, the college’s vice president for advancement and public affairs, told the December 2, 2008 Arizona Republic, “At least two times in the past the trust-ees have wanted to raise his salary and Dr. Drake has told them no. He’s not a wealthy man, but he says that he loves his job and that he’s comfortable in his life.” In 2008, though, the trustees insisted upon the pay raise to make Drake’s salary competitive with other college presidents’. As soon as the raise was in effect, Drake announced that he would contribute the entire amount to the textbook scholarships.

In a college press release, the president said that he doesn’t “define my quality of life by my salary,” and hopes that his ac-tion “stimulates others to do something.”

“I suppose we’ve come to understand and take for granted what a committed, generous and unique individual he is,” said Ross. “To us, what Dr. Drake did was not unusual, at least for him.”

all it’s cracked Up to BeCrackers. Annie’s Homegrown Sour Cream & Onion Cheddar Bunnies. Yum yum. What could be better? How about an envelope containing $10,000? That’s what Debra Rogoff found when she cracked open her recently bought bunny box, according to a December 27, 2008 AP story.

Never even considering keeping the money, Rogoff and her family promptly

turned it in to the local police, who at first suspected that it was related to a drug drop. However, they soon cracked the case and learned that the money had been put there by an elderly woman. Apparently the woman had lost faith in the banking sys-tem, decided that her life savings would be safer at home, stashed it in the cracker box, and re-glued the top. But she acciden-tally returned the box to the store where she purchased it, Whole Foods in Tustin, California. Fortunately, the box was mis-takenly returned to the shelf instead of being composted. It’s lucky for her that the box didn’t fall through the cracks, and was instead purchased by Rogoff. The police returned the money to the woman.

When Annie’s Homegrown heard about the Rogoffs’ honesty in returning the money, they generously donated $10,000 to a food bank chosen by the Rogoffs, the Second Harvest Food Bank in Orange County, California. Debra Rogoff told the December 30 Orange County Register that she’s very happy with the company’s ges-ture, noting that the food bank has expe-rienced increased demand and decreased donations with the current recession.

Rogoff and her family are surprised by all the publicity the event has garnered. “We are sure others would do the same thing. We believe what has resonated with people is that, deep down, we all know how we should be treating each other, even in turbulent times.”

Indeed, honesty is all it’s cracked up to be.

a Full Quiver“Behold, children are a gift of the Lord.... How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” (Psalm 127:3-5). This biblical quote concluded an article that appeared in our October 29, 2007 issue, which told the story of the Duggar family of Spring-dale, Arkansas. At that time, the Duggars had 17 children; on December 18, 2008, Jordyn-Grace Makiya Duggar joined the family, making a total of 18 children!

According to the family’s website, www.duggarfamily.com, Jim Bob and Michelle were married on July 21, 1984. At that time they followed the current

trend and “planned” how many children they would have, and when they’d have them. When after several years Michelle suffered a miscarriage due to conceiving while using birth control, the couple con-cluded that “their selfish actions had taken the life of their child.”

It was then that they “prayed and asked God to forgive them, and to teach them to love children like He loves children. They asked God to bless them with as many children as He saw fit in His tim-ing.” And the rest, as they say, is history, with the 18 children ranging in age from 20 to newborn.

The family’s entrance into the limelight began in 2002, when Jim Bob ran for the state Senate in Arkansas. The whole fami-ly was present at the polling place on elec-tion night, and they caught the attention of a media photographer, who snapped a picture. That photo was printed in the New York Times, and inspired an article in Parents Magazine, which inspired a documentary on Discovery Health Chan-nel. The family is currently busy filming the second season of their reality show for TLC, “17 Kids and Counting.” (TLC has announced they will change the show’s title to reflect the 18th child, but has not revealed the name yet.)

Regarding all this publicity, Michelle says, “We prayed about it and felt this would be an opportunity to share with the world that children are a blessing from God. We said the only way we would do it is if they did not edit out our faith, because that is the core of our lives.”

The economic aspect of raising such a large family can be challenging. Jim Bob and Michelle are both licensed real-estate agents. The family lives in a 7,000-square-foot home, which the Duggars built them-selves as a family project and own debt free. Michelle relates, “We have lived very frugally, and our family motto is to ‘Buy used and save the difference!’ We shop at thrift stores and garage sales.”

The Duggars believe that they are “or-dinary people with our individual weak-nesses and imperfections, but we serve an extraordinary God who delights in demon-strating His great power!” n

— liana Stanley


THE GOODNESS OF AMERICA

by Becky Akers

I t usually pastures cattle on their way to market. But on a frigid January morning in 1781, this “open woods”

near the Carolinas’ border fields a ragtag band of Patriots. These friends of freedom are about to defy some of the world’s most professional soldiers. Defeat seems almost certain for them. In fact, some of them had ignominiously fled the field five months before. But not this time. Thanks to ingenu-ity, pluck, and the blessing of Providence, they will win one of the most heartening battles of the American Revolution. Some are veterans; many are inexperienced mi-litia. Led by a brilliant but untrained com-mander, they will thrash skilled Redcoats fighting under a previously unbeaten of-ficer. No wonder the improbably named

Cowpens encourages modern patriots.War had raged up and down the Atlan-

tic seaboard for almost six weary years by now. At first, the British government con-centrated on quashing the rebellion in New England — specifically Boston. But Patri-ots there won a surprising victory, one so overwhelming that the Redcoats boarded ship and sailed away in March 1776.

Meanwhile, King George III and his cabinet eyed the South with plans for a beachhead at Charles Town, South Caro-lina. From there, troops would spread through the countryside to secure it for the Crown. But the Patriots won another surprising victory that June when they bombarded incoming British transports so furiously soldiers could not disembark.

Repulsed from Boston and Charles Town, His Majesty’s forces converged on the mid-Atlantic colonies instead. The Patriots’ suc-cesses skidded into reverse as the British

Army once again proved itself the world’s most efficient enforcer. The British lost an occasional battle during the next couple of campaigns, but the Patriots paid dearly for their victories as they shivered and starved at Valley Forge and Morristown.

tide turns against independenceThe war was slowly, ponderously grind-ing away, boring to death those it hadn’t yet killed, when the British decided to try the South again. George Germain, the king’s secretary of state for the American department, explained why: “Should the success we may reasonably hope for at-tend these enterprises, it might not be too much to expect that all America … south of the Susquehanna would return to their allegiance and … the northern provinces might be left to their own feelings and distress to bring them back to their duty.” This time, the beachhead succeeded, and Becky Akers is an expert on the American Revolution.

Battle of camden: Since the American Revolution, historians have debated the value of the militia. Those favoring a strong government and professional army usually denigrate these amateurs.


— StrUGGle For FreeDoMHiStorYHiStorY

“Three Fires, and You Are Free!”

Three shots from his inexperienced militia — followed by their hasty retreat — was exactly what Daniel Morgan needed to win the day at the fateful Battle of Cowpens.

troops landed in Savannah, Georgia on December 29, 1778.

More conquests followed, including Augusta and then, after a second attempt, proud Charles Town. Capping these was the hopelessly lopsided rout at Camden, South Carolina, in August 1780. Three thousand Americans vied with 2,000 of the enemy, yet one Patriot was killed, cap-tured, or wounded for every soldier fight-ing for the king. Multiplying the mortifica-tion was the furious flight of the American commander, 53-year-old Horatio “Gran-ny” Gates. He galloped from the debacle so fast that he covered “one hundred and eighty miles in three days and a half,” as Alexander Hamilton acidly marveled. Not only did he outrun his “whole army,” his speed did “admirable credit to the activity of a man at his time of life.” Gates’ few surviving soldiers eventually caught up with him, but it took them three days.

On Camden’s heels came electrifying news that shocked both America and Eng-land. One of the Patriots’ most talented generals had switched sides, trying to take one of the Patriots’ most valuable forts with him. Benedict Arnold’s defection would surely boost the Redcoats to victory.

Things seemed black as a tyrant’s heart as the year of 1780 limped toward its end. Only a few sparks flickered here and there to brighten the gloom. Nine hundred Pa-triot militiamen at King’s Mountain killed or captured almost a thousand Loyal-ists marching to reinforce British Gen-eral Charles Cornwallis. And Nathanael Greene replaced “Granny” Gates as the American commander in the South.

Greene was one of the Continental Army’s self-taught geniuses while Gates, formerly a British officer, relied on tradi-tional tactics rather than innate brilliance. Neither Gates nor any officer schooled in military strategy would have divided the few thousand troops mustering that De-cember morning when Greene assumed command, especially with Cornwallis boasting more than double his numbers. Yet the adaptable Greene realized that he was “obliged to put everything to the haz-ard … to make detachments that nothing but absolute necessity could authorize.” So he split his little army to “[make] the most of my inferior force” while “compel[ling] my adversary to divide his, and hold him in doubt as to his line of conduct,” i.e., wheth-

er to chase Greene or his de-tachment. Greene assigned that detachment of 600 men to another of the Continental Army’s untrained geniuses, Daniel Morgan.

lashed into a FuryBorn in New Jersey in 1736, Dan Morgan left home early and wended his way to Vir-ginia’s backcountry. He grew into a giant of a frontiersman with the breed’s legendary stamina: he once survived an Indian ambush that sent a bul-let through his neck and out his cheek, tak-ing some teeth with it. He cleared land for a while, supervised a sawmill, and hauled supplies over the mountains to settlers — and for the British Army during the French and Indian War. But the deference and

obedience the British expected from him didn’t mix with Morgan’s independence. Accounts vary as to what provoked him, but he wound up punching a British officer. For this he was sentenced to 500 lashes, a common punishment that often crippled or killed the victim. Morgan not only sur-vived, he later claimed that the Redcoats

Thanks to ingenuity, pluck, and the blessing of Providence, a ragtag band of Patriots — many of whom were inexperienced militia — will thrash skilled Redcoats fighting under a previously unbeaten officer. No wonder the Battle of Cowpens encourages modern patriots.

an unlikely soldier: Nathanael Greene was a Quaker who taught himself military theory and whose bad knee spoiled his marching. But he believed in forcefully resisting tyranny.


still owed him one blow — imply-ing that he lost neither conscious-ness nor the rationality to count.

Morgan avenged himself by fight-ing furiously and ingeniously against his torturers throughout the Revolution. He recruited a company of riflemen as the war began and marched them 600 miles in three weeks from Virginia to the rudimen-tary Continental Army assembling around Boston in 1775. That fall, he and his rifle-men headed north with Benedict Arnold on an ill-fated expedition to liberate Canada. Morgan’s stunning stamina helped him en-dure the starvation and exposure that killed some of the column while driving almost half of it to turn back in mutiny. He led the assault on walled Quebec after Arnold fell with a bullet in his leg, but his valor was

in vain: he and all his men were captured. After his release, he rejoined the Conti-nentals. He fought with Arnold again — and Gates as well — at Saratoga in the fall of 1777. There he famously “collect[ed] his dispersed troops” with a “turkey call” rather than the fife and drums that usually signaled maneuvers during battle.

Like Arnold, Morgan was a proud man of action who disdained to curry congres-

sional favor. Congress duly forgot to promote both officers. Morgan re-treated to Virginia, sitting out the war until the disaster at Camden brought him roaring out of retire-ment; he’d witnessed Gates’ ti-midity at Saratoga and knew the cause was lost were “Granny” left on his own. Congress belat-edly commissioned Morgan a brigadier general. Whatever pay went with that promotion didn’t

reach Morgan in time: he took a horse to sell so he could pay his ex-

penses as he hurried to join Gates.The 1,700 troops Gates ceded to

Greene included the remnants of the force that fled Camden. Its poverty was

sobering, especially as it must defend the South from Cornwallis’ 4,000. “We are living upon charity,” Greene wrote after fruitlessly begging supplies from politi-cians in Maryland and Virginia, “and sub-sist by daily collections. Indian meal and beef is our common diet, and not a drop of spirits have we had with us since I came to the army. An army naked and subsisted in this manner, and not more than one-third equal to the enemy in numbers [after Greene divided his forces], will make but a poor fight.”

Sharing those meager rations with Cam-den’s veterans was the militia. And as any regular army man would testify, militia could be worse than no troops at all. General George Washington dismissed these volunteers as “a broken reed” that would betray any officer foolish enough to lean on them. He also lamented the militia’s tendency to con-sume rations while lounging about camp and avoiding battle.

Militiamen are defensive rather than offensive, and they were crucial to colonies hoping to survive an ocean away from the British Army on land al-

Morgan grew into a giant of a frontiersman with the breed’s legendary stamina: he once survived an Indian ambush that sent a bullet through his neck and out his cheek.

in the nick of time: At the Battle of Cowpens, an unnamed black soldier (left) fires his pistol and saves the life of Colonel William Washington (on white horse in center and a distant relative of General George Washington).



Daniel Morgan

ready claimed by Indian tribes. That’s why colonial legislatures passed laws requir-ing able-bodied men from 16 to 64 years old to report for “muster days” with their weapons. These sessions were supposed to teach the “art” of war; more often, they taught the arts of drinking and swapping stories. But every household was theoreti-cally able to defend itself when the Revo-lution began.

As the war progressed, Continental officers came to despise these amateurs. Sometimes that was due to the militia’s performance under fire — though blam-ing farmers and shopkeepers because they can’t execute maneuvers and withstand ar-tillery with the aplomb of trained troops is like blaming a loaf of bread because it can’t lock and load. Yet armed citizens defend-ing their families and homes from direct threats often fight more ferociously than hired soldiers; commanders like Bene-dict Arnold and his friend Daniel Morgan understood that and prized the militia for it. Their genius lay in capitalizing on this strength, as Morgan would at Cowpens.

Learning of the rebels’ unorthodox division, General Cornwallis responded with his own, just as Greene had fore-seen. Cornwallis sent 750 troops and a couple of cannon after Morgan. In com-mand he put the ruthless, 27-year-old Col. Banastre Tarleton.

“Boys, Get Up! Benny is coming!”Tarleton was Morgan’s physical opposite. He was a dandy, small and slight, whose portrait the chic Sir Joshua Reynolds would paint in 1782. But like Morgan, Tarleton had fought from the war’s ear-liest days and racked up a string of con-quests. He captured the eccentric Ameri-can General Charles Lee in December 1776, helped take Charles Town in 1780, and a fortnight after that battle defeated — some said butchered — 350 Virginians at the Battle of the Waxhaws. None of this kept him too busy to plunder and terror-ize civilians. By the time he collided with Morgan at Cowpens, Tarleton seemed in-vulnerable. Even his commanding officer lavished praise on him: “I wish,” Cornwal-lis wrote him, “you would get three Le-gions, and divide yourself in three parts. We can do no good without you” — as if this vicious bully ever did good.

The chase was on. Morgan marched

his detachment 58 miles in a cold rain to the Pacolet River, attracting more militia along the way. South Carolina’s abundant waters would slow his pursuers; still, Tar-leton’s better-fed and mounted men would eventually catch up. “Colonel Tarleton is said to be on his way to pay you a visit,” Greene wrote Morgan on January 13, 1781. “I doubt not but he will have a de-cent reception and proper dismission.”

In addition to rivers, the country was rife with marshes. They sheltered Patriot irregulars like Francis “Swamp Fox” Mar-ion and Thomas Sumter as their handfuls of guerillas battled the superior British numbers. Many commanders in Morgan’s situation would have melted into those bogs and chastised the enemy with raids, not a battle. Instead, Morgan decided to make a stand. He chose a field known as Hannah’s Cow Pens.

Just as no orthodox commander would have divided his forces, so he would never have selected such a battleground. Rivers swollen with winter storms almost com-pletely enclosed it; if things went badly, Morgan’s troops could not escape. But the general saw his militia realistically. They were used to slaughtering hogs, not other men, and if he offered them

the chance to run, they would. “As to re-treat,” he explained, “it was the very thing I wished to cut off all hope of. I would have thanked Tarleton had he surrounded me with his cavalry. It would have been better than placing my own men in the rear to shoot down those who broke from the ranks.” On the other hand, if he gave the militia a chance to shine, it would: “When men are forced to fight they sell their lives dearly.”

Morgan’s strategy was as unconvention-al as his battlefield — but it transformed the militia’s weakness into strength. The general laid out three lines. The hindermost at the top of a ridge consisted of his regu-lar Continentals. Two lines stood between those soldiers and the British: the middle one was militia, and in front of it, compris-ing the first line, stood 150 riflemen. The militia and riflemen received the same or-ders, which were to fire three shots (some participants remembered it as two shots) at the advancing British and then do what militia does best: bolt for the rear. If neces-sary, they could rejoin the fighting later.

Major Thomas Young of Morgan’s cav-alry recalled how the huge frontiersman “went among the volunteers” the night before the battle, “helped them with their


the Battle of cowpens on January 17, 1781, like the victory at Saratoga 31⁄2 years earlier, proved the militia’s mettle.

swords, joked with them about their sweethearts, told them to keep in good spirits, and the day would be ours. And long after I laid down, he was going among the soldiers, en-couraging them, and tell-ing them, that the old wag-oner would crack his whip over Ban [Tarleton] in the morning as sure as they live. ‘Just hold up your heads, boys, three fires,’ he would say, ‘and you are free, and then when you return to your homes, how the old folks will bless you, and the girls kiss you for your gallant conduct!’ I don’t believe he slept a wink that night.”

January 17 dawned “bit-terly cold” in Young’s es-timation. Morgan’s pickets reported that Tarleton was on his way, prompting the giant to ride around camp, yelling, “Boys, get up! Benny is coming!”

Morgan’s MasterpieceTarleton’s advent brought exactly the action — and reaction — that Morgan had planned. Young remembered that “the militia fired first. It was for a time, pop — pop — pop, and then a whole volley; but when the regu-lars fired, it seemed like one sheet of flame from right to left. Oh! it was beautiful!”

As if his strategy weren’t clever enough, Morgan also turned his adver-sary’s strength against him. Tarleton was a ferocious warrior who waded into melees headfirst. Indeed, when he learned that Morgan was awaiting him at Cowpens, Tarleton gloated in the third person that the ground was “certainly as good a place for action as Lieutenant Colonel Tarleton could desire. America does not produce any more suitable to the nature of the troops under his command.”

Morgan bet that such an eager beaver wouldn’t stop to analyze the action before advancing; rather, he would assume that when the militia ran for the rear, it was fleeing as usual; that the raging river would

trap it as he believed it had the entire army; and that he could pick off rebels at his lei-sure. Sure enough, Tarleton rushed into battle before his lines had enough time to form, as though Morgan had supplied him with a script — and ran headlong into the Continental regulars. “Our advance … fell back,” a British officer recalled, “and communicated a panic to others … a total rout ensued. Two hundred and fifty horse … fled though the woods with the utmost precipitation, bearing down such officers as opposed their flight.” Major Young ex-ulted that the Redcoats “did the prettiest sort of running!”

Tarleton finally followed his men, with Morgan in hot pursuit for 24 miles. “But,” Morgan explained, “owing to our having taken a wrong trail at first, we never could overtake him.” Tarleton’s humiliation was complete when he eventually returned to camp and discovered Loyalist supporters looting it. Talk about a bad day!

The fighting lasted only an hour, from around 8 a.m. until 9. And mid-way through, some of the Continental line mistak-enly wheeled for a retreat, thinking Morgan had or-dered that until he himself rallied them. Yet Cowpens was one of the Patriots’ most stellar victories, pro-portionally speaking, as devastating to the British as Bunker’s Hill or Trenton. Morgan’s men destroyed almost 90 percent of Tar-leton’s detachment — 100 dead, 229 wounded, and 600 captured — while los-ing only 12 killed and 60 wounded themselves. The triumph also tarnished Tar-leton’s luster.

The Continentals’ coup at Cowpens reverberated through the country. At Ramsour’s Mill, where the British Army camped a week after the battle, a shaken Cornwallis or-dered his 3,000 troops to burn anything they couldn’t conveniently carry, the better to fly after

Morgan. And when the Patriots and Red-coats clashed at Guilford Court House on March 15, Greene recycled Morgan’s strategy. Technically, Greene lost the battle, but he exacted such heavy casu-alties that Charles James Fox cautioned Parliament, “Another such victory would destroy the British army.”

Greene repeated the ploy at Eutaw Springs on September 8, 1781; the Brit-ish again defeated him. Yet, as Fox had warned, Greene somehow regained South Carolina despite his losses on the battle-field. The enemy held only Charles Town when they surrendered at Yorktown six weeks later.

After Morgan’s victory, a praying Pa-triot thanked the “Good Lord, our God that art in Heaven” for the “ever-memorable and glorious battle of the Coopens, where we made the proud Gineral Tarleton run doon the road helter-skelter.” Amen! And sic semper tyrannis! n



Portrait of Banastre Tarleton by Joshua Reynolds, 1782

Virtue • the moral excellence evident in my life as I consistently do what is right

Virtue is a choice.Make it a habit.

Putting Character First!®

Sponsored by

7877 Raytheon Road • San Diego, CA 92111

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT RENTALS

(858) 278-1030

AMERICANMUFFLER

AMERICANMUFFLER

(858) 277-0276(858) 277-0276

QUALITY AUTOMACHINE

(858) 565-7467

QUALITY AUTOMACHINE

(858) 565-7467

SAN DIEGOSAN DIEGO

(858) 278-9675(858) 278-9675

Sound CheckSound Check

PGR (858) 424-0997PGR (858) 424-0997

JC HONDAIndependent Service

(858) 292-8042

JC HONDAIndependent Service

Toyota/LexusToyota/LexusCareCare

(858) 541-0852(858) 541-0852(858) 560-5455(858) 560-5455

(858) 292-8042

CHASSISMASTERSCHASSISMASTERS

HELP PREVENTAMERICA FROM GOING

DOWN THE DRAIN!

(818) 837-1310 453 Jessie Street

San Fernando, CA 91340www.neptuneplumbing.com

• Residential• Apartments• Commercial• Industrial

• Perfectforopinionmolderssuchasclergy,newspaperwritersandothers

• An effective educational tool to informothersaboutnationalandworldevents

• Recipientisremindedofyourgenerositythroughouttheyear

Just $39 per gift subscription

wounded Jeweler Fights BackNancy Uptain, the wife of the owner of Christopher Jewelry, told reporters two days after armed robbers hit the store: “This is a small family business and we had two men come in here trying to com-pletely destroy this family’s lives — they were going to take their [other family members’] lives.” The endangered family members included Rusty Uptain of Chan-dler, Arizona, his wife, and his adult son Chris, according to accounts in the Ari-zona Republic.

Nancy also said about the December 20 robbery: “Rusty doesn’t want some-one like that to come in and take away his dreams. He’s just not going to let that hap-pen. It’s because of our freedom to have protection for ourselves that this family is still alive.”

According to Nancy, one of the thieves, upon entering the store, immediately shot pepper spray in Chris’s face, and then chased Chris to the back of the store. She said one of the men lifted his gun to shoot at Chris, but before he could, “Rusty tack-led the guy with a gun in his hand, and (the robber) was shooting as he tackled him.” Rusty then grabbed his own gun, and the two shot each other.

Detective David Ramer, a police spokes-man, confirmed her account. Police re-ported that after the exchange of gunshots, the two robbers fled, one on foot and the other, who was shot, in a stolen truck. Police chased the truck until the robber, Kevin William Murray, 46, of El Mirage, pulled over. He was rushed to a hospital where he died.

The suspect who fled on foot, Kenneth Wayne Simpson, Jr., 27, of Phoenix, ran into a nearby neighborhood with a handful of solitaire diamonds and was tracked by a police dog. Simpson was captured less than an hour and a half after the robbery, according to Ramer.

Though a bullet struck Rusty Uptain’s nose close to his eye, a plastic surgeon and an eye surgeon were able to work to save his eye and likely his vision. He has been released from the hospital.

According to police, Simpson was

booked into Maricopa County Jail for pos-sessing a firearm as a prohibited possessor, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, and murder in the first de-gree during a crime, based on a law that holds someone legally liable for a death that occurs during the commission of a felony crime.

Bystander Defends Purse-snatch VictimAfter an unidentified woman exited a bus near the Fashion Square Mall and paused at an ATM to check her account balance, she was accosted by would-be purse-snatchers, who likely expected some easy cash from a woman doing some December 23 pre-Christmas shopping. According to WESH TV in Orlando, Florida, one of the men ended up hospitalized and arrested instead, while his accomplices are on the run from the police.

“She felt people come up to her, maybe one, maybe two,” Sgt. Barb Jones of the Orlando police department said. “They tried to grab her purse.... She resisted. She started yelling, that’s when everything started unfolding.” Another shopper saw the men with guns, and he retrieved his own firearm. “You had a citizen engage the suspects,” Jones said. “There were some rounds fired.” The suspects ran.

Police found one man hiding behind a dumpster. The man had been shot in the leg, though he didn’t know it. The man, later identified by police as Willie Keys-Fairclough, 29, is charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault with a gun. Keys-Fairclough is hospitalized with minor injuries. Two other suspects remain on the loose.

Police said there were no plans to file any charges against the armed bystander.

Uniform and Holstered Gun Didn’t Deter criminalNear Nashville, Tennessee, security guard Eric Gordon was buying gasoline at a Murfreesboro Pike service station early on November 30 when he was confronted

by a would-be armed robber. The 22-year-old Gordon was wearing his uniform and 9-millimeter pistol when Jamie Sullivan, 37, pointed a pistol at his head and threat-ened to kill him.

The Nashville Tennessean reported that Sullivan entered the service station wear-ing a mask and carrying what appeared to be a pistol, and told Gordon to surrender his gun. Instead, a struggle ensued. During the struggle, Gordon drew his own weapon and shot Sullivan once in the face. Sullivan died at the scene.

Detectives discovered that Sullivan’s gun was a BB pistol that looked like a real gun. Sullivan was a career criminal — by anyone’s standards. Metro police had charged Sullivan with 146 offenses since June 1989. His last arrest was just 10 days earlier. Metro detectives are rul-ing the death of Sullivan a justifiable homicide.

Burglar Gets it in the endRegardless of the fact that Donnie Murphy is listed on an Oconee County sheriff’s de-partment incident report as the victim in a recent crime, it appears that the criminal in the case, the suspect arrested for the burglary of Murphy’s house, might have gotten the worst end of the deal.

The report referenced in the UpstateTo-day.com account states that Murphy told officers he was in the bathroom when he heard a noise near his kitchen. He then walked out of the bathroom, retrieved his .22 pistol from his closet, and discovered a man standing in front of his fireplace. After telling the burglar to stop, the subject allegedly reached into his pocket as if to get a gun or weapon and began walking toward the kitchen. It was at this point that Murphy shot him — in the buttocks.

Sheriff’s deputies responded to the De-cember 21 burglary attempt in Walhalla, South Carolina, and located the burglar, identified as Kirby Alan Ridley, and called an ambulance. Police followed the ambu-lance to the Oconee Medical Center, where Ridley was arrested and charged with his crime. No charges have been filed against Murphy. n

— alan Scholl


“... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” EXERCISING THE RIGHT

Uncle Sam Grabs the wheeliTem: Reuters reported on December 30: “The Bush administration on Monday ex-panded its bailout of the U.S. auto indus-try, saying it was buying $5 billion in equi-ty in auto and mortgage finance company GMAC and increasing a loan to General Motors by $1 billion. The action was the latest in a lengthy series of emergency gov-ernment moves aimed at easing the worst credit crisis since the 1930s and limiting the severity of a year-long recession.”

Earlier in December, continued the wire service, the government agreed “to rescue GM and Chrysler LLC with up to $17.4 billion in loans to stave off a collapse that would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and dealt a severe blow to an economy already in recession.... President George W. Bush said at the time that it would be irresponsible to let the automakers die. The White House moved on its own after Republicans in the Democratic-controlled Congress blocked a deal to provide emer-gency funds.”iTem: In an interview with Business Week for December 10, Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was asked about the proposal to name a federal “car czar” for the auto industry, an idea support-ed by Frank. “How,” asked the interviewer, “do you make sure the government doesn’t meddle too deeply in day-to-day operations and bring politics — like a push for green cars — into the equation?” To which Frank responded: “Oh, well, a push for green cars is very much a part of what we’re involved in. We don’t think that’s politics.”correcTioN: Statists have long wanted to be able to force Americans to buy small, light, and ecologically green cars, wheth-er they wished to or not. Now that GM is being transformed into “Government Mo-tors,” it is more in their power to do so. This is certainly “politics.” After all, it is being done with our money. There will be more to come as the government keeps setting precedents for bailouts.

Elsewhere in the Business Week inter-view, when asked if GM should acquire

Chrysler, Frank feigns modesty and says, “I’m not competent to say.” Yet, he and many of his big-government cronies feel skilled enough to substitute for the deci-sions of millions by telling carmakers what to build and consumers what to buy.

The Massachusetts congressman, who was neck-deep in promoting the policies and regulations that spawned the hous-ing and credit bubble that led to much of our current economic crisis, also has tried to shift the blame for those problems on “right-wing Republicans who took the position that regulation was always bad, the market was self-correcting, and you should not have any restrictions on the free flow of capital.” (It is bizarre to claim that the blundering of the officially “govern-ment-sponsored enterprises” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, underwritten by their congressional supporters with tax dollars, was a failure of the free market. For details see, for example, “Correction, Please!” for October 13, 2008.)

A spokesman for the group called 40MPG.org insists that the government should be serving a consumer market that doesn’t exist: “Congress should insist that every penny of the $25 billion in new loan guarantees that Detroit is seeking be tar-geted to building the cars of tomorrow (hybrids, clean diesels and other highly fuel-efficient vehicles), not the gas-guz-zling dinosaurs of yesterday.”

In promoting the auto bailout, others fall back on specious reasoning, arguing that the fleecing of the taxpayers is necessary because this industry is “too big to fail,” and maintain that to declare bankruptcy means virtual death. In fact, bankruptcy is a way for operations to be streamlined and costs cut under court supervision, not the whims of a green-leaning politician or bureaucrat.

Economist Walter Williams explains:

What happens when a company goes bankrupt? One thing that does not happen is their productive assets go poof and disappear into thin air. In other words, if GM goes bankrupt, the assembly lines, robots, buildings and other tools don’t evaporate. What bankruptcy means is the title to those assets change. People who think they can manage those assets better pur-chase them.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bank-ruptcy Code, where the control of its business operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court, gives companies a chance to reorganize. The court can permit complete or partial relief from the company’s debts and its labor union contracts.

A large part of the problem is the Big Three’s cozy relation-

cradle-to-grave benefits: In the past, United Auto Workers fought for pensions from Chrysler, Ford, and GM, but now the pensions they fought for are making the auto companies uncompetitive.

AP

Imag

es


ship with the United Auto Workers union (UAW). GM has a $73 hourly wage cost including benefits and overtime. Toyota has five major as-sembly plants in the U.S. Its hourly wage cost plus benefits is $48. It doesn’t take rocket science to fig-ure out which company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Then there’s the “jobs bank” feature of the UAW contract where workers who are laid off workers get 95 percent of their base pay and all their benefits. Right now there’s a two-year limit, but in the past workers could stay in the “jobs bank” forever unless they turned down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. At one time job bank membership exceed-ed 7,000 “workers.” GM, Ford and Chrysler face other problems that range from poor corporate manage-ment and marketing, not to mention costly government regulations.

There is plenty to reorganize without put-ting the government in the driver’s seat. The Big Three’s management and labor structure are based on a model from dec-ades ago; legacy auto costs (cradle-to-grave benefits for unionized workers) are so high the companies are losing money when they sell cars; and the car dealership network of the Big Three is much larger

and less efficient than their competitors’. The bailout doesn’t fix these problems; it subsidizes them.

Meanwhile, the too-big-to-fail argu-ment doesn’t hold water either. As colum-nist Mark Steyn has written:

General Motors now has a market valuation about a third of Bed, Bath and Beyond, and no one says your Swash 700 Elongated Biscuit Toilet Seat Bidet is too big to fail. GM has a market capitalization of just over $2 billion. For purposes of comparison, Toyota’s market cap is $100 billion and change (the change being bigger than the whole of GM). General Mo-tors, like the other two geezers of the Old Three, is a vast retirement home with a small loss-making auto subsid-iary. The UAW is AARP in an Edsel: It has 3 times as many retirees and widows as “workers” (I use the term loosely). GM has 96,000 employees but provides health benefits to a mil-lion people.

How do you make that math add up? Not by selling cars: Honda and Nissan make a pre-tax operating profit per vehicle of around $1,600; Ford, Chrysler and GM make a loss of between $500 and $1,500. That’s to say, they lose money on every ve-hicle they sell.

Yet, we have been told that bankruptcies would mean immediate ruination and liquidation, three million lost jobs, and a slashing of personal income in this coun-try of some $150 million. These claims don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The bankruptcy claim is based, notes National Review Online, “on surveys pur-porting to show that 80 percent of Ameri-cans would not buy a car from a bankrupt auto company, because that company might not be around to service the warranty or to provide parts.” The flawed claims about jobs and income, points out NRO, “come from a Center for Automotive Research study on the economic impact of letting the Big Three fail. The study assumes a major wave of supplier bankruptcies and therefore that ‘not only does domestic pro-duction by the Detroit companies fall to zero in the first year, but that domestic pro-duction (in the U.S.) by the international producers also falls to zero.’ ”

Assuming that all automobile produc-tion in the United States “will fall to zero is plainly preposterous,” says NRO. “The Big Three will not cease to function if they enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They currently supply nearly half of the U.S. auto market, meaning that, as a practical matter, 80 percent of Americans couldn’t stop buying from the Big Three even if they wanted to — the ‘transplants’ (for-eign companies making cars in the U.S.) simply don’t make enough cars.”

But the bailouts are continuing. The Treasury is using monies from the Trou-bled Assets Relief Program for the auto bailout because the Senate refused to go along with the latter bailout plan. The Bush administration decided to ignore the congressional action and found an extra-legal way to hand those funds to automak-ers. Then, as we write, the Treasury has given itself even more leeway, with the vague language of its “guidelines” said to be enough to bail out, as needed, auto parts suppliers and finance companies.

If one wants to know what happens when you reward imprudence and irresponsibil-ity, one needs look no further than the auto bailout that is careening out of control. n

— william p. hoar

Vote of no confidence: Shares of General Motors plunged to their lowest price since WWII as investors sold off. But if any of the Big Three go bankrupt, the chances are good that the company’s assets will be purchased and cars will again roll off production lines.

AP

Imag

es


Round two of the eco-nomic crime of the century has begun. On

January 12, Lawrence Sum-mers, President-elect Obama’s designee to become director of his National Economic Coun-cil, sent a letter to congressio-nal majority and minority lead-ers seeking the second half of the $750 billion approved by Congress last October.

Citing Obama’s economic speech of January 8, Summers wrote: “As the President-elect recently stated, ‘we start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any other we have seen in our lifetime.’” As you no doubt re-call, last September Congress, fearing the wrath of constituents, rejected a bailout scheme put together by the Bush administra-tion and bipartisan leaders in Congress. Refusing to take “no” for an answer, the White House-Capitol Hill bailout gang (aided mightily by media collaborators) began a crescendo of frighten-ing predictions of impending economic calamity, if Congress did not reverse itself and vote for the bailout. Economic apoca-lypse was upon us! Failure to act would mean global financial meltdown. Governments would fall. Global chaos would ensue. We were facing “the end of the world as we know it.”

The ploy worked. Senators and congressmen who had reso-lutely opposed (or had pretended to oppose) the bailouts caved before the orchestrated chorus of fear mongers. Claiming they did not want to be responsible for a financial Armageddon, they flip-flopped and voted overwhelmingly for one of the biggest thefts in history.

Senator Obama voted for that plan. Now Lawrence Summers and the chorus of fear are invoking the same specter of looming catastrophe to effect another huge raid on the American tax-payers, savers, and producers. “We must work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system,” Summers declares in his letter. “It was that concern that led the President-elect to support the financial rescue plan back in September. If we had not acted together — Democrats and Re-publicans — this economic crisis would have already become an economic catastrophe.”

According to Summers, President Obama “shares the frustra-tion of the American people” and “believes the American people are right to be angry with the way this plan has been imple-mented.” Obama “believes there has been too little transparency and accountability.” But, Summers promises: “That will change when President-elect Obama takes office. Today, he is asking for the authority to implement the rest of the financial rescue plan

because the American people need to know that going for-ward our government has the resources to do whatever is necessary to stabilize our fi-nancial system and protect our economy from potential catastrophe. With the first half of the rescue package now committed, President-elect Obama believes the need is imminent and urgent. We can-not afford to wait.”

Summers concludes his earnest appeal by noting: “President-elect Obama be-lieves it is not too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic ac-

tion as soon as possible … [to] help our nation pass through this economic storm.”

Crisis, catastrophe, catastrophic, imminent, urgent, rescue, dramatic, storm, etc. We will be hearing much more of this fear-engendering rhetoric in the days ahead, coupled with promises that the implementation of this new bailout round will be a pris-tine example of “transparency and accountability.” Those gul-lible enough to fall for this “trust me” line would also fall for the always ravenous (and ever impecunious) Wimpy’s perennial line to Popeye and other suckers: “I’ll have a hamburger today, for which I will gladly pay you on Tuesday.”

Next to Lawrence Summers, Wimpy appears a paragon of fiscal and monetary virtue — and a trustworthy credit risk. This is the same Lawrence Summers, remember, who, as deputy trea-sury secretary under Robert Rubin in the Clinton administra-tion, designed the policies that drove Mexico’s economy into the ground in 1995 with interest rates of 50-90 percent, and then bailed out the Mexican peso (and the Wall Street firms, like Rubin’s partners at Goldman Sachs) to the tune of $50 billion. Since Congress refused to go along with that raid on the Ameri-can taxpayers, Summers, Rubin, Clinton & Co. simply raided $20 billion from the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabili-zation Fund. The rest they got from the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements. There never was any transparency or accountability for that deal. Ditto for Summers’ 1998 U.S. Treasury-IMF bailout of the “Asian Tiger” economies and their Wall Street investors.

Summers’ protégé and Obama’s nominee to head the Treasury Department, New York Federal Reserve chief Timothy Geithner, is a key architect of the current bailout fiasco. Obama’s choice of Summers and Geithner signals that the corruption and de-spoliation will continue — unless the American people force Congress to stop it. n

More Fright-peddling, More Bailouts


tHe laSt worDby william F. JaSper

Stay HealthyThe Democrats’ proposed “healthcare reform” is focused on expanding the present failing system. It should instead address the causes behind the present health system failures. (January 19, 2009, 48pp) TNA0901116

National ServiceCompulsory national service sounds like a good way to make Americans help each other, but it has a host of problems: high cost, burgeoning bureaucracy, the sheer unlikelihood of success, and much more. (February 2, 2009, 48pp) TNA090202

Bailout Mania!The size of the bailout has very quietly and surreptitiously gone from hundreds of billions to many trillions of dollars, and there is no end in sight — despite the fact that the newly created money will cause massive inflation. (January 5, 2009, 48pp) TNA090105

In a Free Market, Money Doesn’t Grow on TreesSocialistic bailouts have been flying through Congress with hardly a hitch because, we are told, the free market is failing and needs saving. But the free market works — when it is actually allowed to work. (November 24, 2008, 48pp) TNA081124

Mix

or Match

for Special

Quantity

Discounts

✁

ENTEr MIx or MaTcH QuaNTITIES aND SuBToTal

Mix or Match ❏ 1 copy $2.95❏ 10 copies $12.50 ❏ 25 copies $22.50 100+ copies*

Make checks payable to: ShopJBS

order Subtotal$0-10.99

$11.00-19.99$20.00-49.99

Standard Shipping$4.95$7.75$9.95

rush Shipping$9.95$12.75$14.95

Standard: 4-14 business days. rush: 3-7 business days, no P.o. Boxes, HI/aK add $10.00

000 0000 000 000

0000 0000 0000 0000

0000

VISA/MC/DiscoverThree Digit V-Code

American ExpressFour Digit V-Code

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

QuAnTITy TITlE/DESCrIpTIon ToTAl prICE

SUBTOTAL ToTalWI rESIDENTS aDD 5% SalES Tax

SHIPPING(SEE cHarT BEloW)

For shipments outside the U.S., please call for rates.

* Buy case lots of 100 at a special rate of $75.00. See case-lot shipping rates on card tab between pages 38 and 39.

order online: www.shopjbs.orgCredit-card orders call toll-free now! 1-800-342-6491 090202

MaIl coMPlETED ForM To:ShopJBS • P.O. BOX 8040

APPLETON, WI 54912

Name ______________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________

City _____________________________ State __________ Zip ________________

Phone ____________________________ E-mail ______________________________

❑ Check ❑ ViSA ❑ Discover❑ Money Order ❑ MasterCard ❑ American Express

# _________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________

Signature ___________________________________________________________

National Service

Money Doesn’t Grow on Trees

Bailout Mania!

Stay Healthy

Consultants and administratorsSpecializing in Tax Deductions for Dental Practices

Post Office Box 7007 • Porter Ranch, CA 91327

PRISMMANAGEMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED

PRISM: Any medium that resolves a seeminglysimple matter into its elements

“’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world....”

– George Washington (1796)

“Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” – Thomas Jefferson (1799)

“I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none....”

– Thomas Jefferson (1801)

Any Volunteers For National Service - The New American Magazine - 2-2-09.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Any Volunteers For National Service - The New American Magazine - 2-2-09.pdf