The New American #2524 - Constitutional Candidates issue with Jake Towne

Mayhem, Money, & Morality • Constitutional Healthcare • Faith in the Face of Skepticism

$2.95

ThaT Freedom Shall NoT PeriShwww.TheNewAmerican.com

November 23, 2009

See Dean Sellers Ford for your new

Freedom Machine

2600 Maple W. RoadTroy, Michigan(248) 643-7500

www.deansellersford.com

Ordering information is on the next page.

Give the gift they'll openagain

and again

Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________

From ____________________________ ❑ Donor ❑ SubscriberSend renewal notice to:

Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip __________


Hurry! Offer expires December 4, 2009.Donor Name ___________________________________________________________ Total Subscriptions: Amount Enclosed:

Address _________________________________________________________________ __________________ $_________________

City _____________________________________ State _______ Zip ______________

Phone ____________________________ E-mail __________________________________

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

# _________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________Signature ___________________________________

P.O. Box 8040 • Appleton, WI 54912-8040 • Fax: (920) 749-3785 • www.TheNewAmerican.com Mail or fax this form to:

NAG09

000 0000 000 000

0000 0000 0000 0000

0000

VISA/MC/DiscoverThree Digit V-Code

American ExpressFour Digit V-Code

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

26 Gifts of Truth

Hawaii and Canada, add $9.00/yr. other foreign, add $27.00/yr.

Your first gift is $39.00. Additional gifts are just $29.00 each — more than 25% off!Please enter your one-year gift subscriptions on this form. Print your name on the “From” line for each gift as you’d like it to appear on the gift announcement.

26 Gifts of Truth

Cover Story

Politics

10 constitutional candidatesby Thomas R. Eddlem — The Ron Paul presidential campaign last year has inspired dozens of new congressional candidates.

15 “ chick” Heileson vs. Mike simpsonby Thomas R. Eddlem — Chick Heileson didn’t get involved in politics because of Ron Paul, but he believes the time is now.

coVER Design by Joseph W. Kelly

FeatureS

intERViEw

17 Mayhem, Money, & MoralityInterview of Allen Rutledge by Kelly Taylor Holt.

constitUtion coRnER

21 constitutional Healthcareby Jack Kenny — Is the federal government’s intervention into healthcare justified?

25 obamacare and the Demise of Federalismby Joe Wolverton II, J.D. — The federal government has responsibilities and limitations. Where do we stand?

Book REViEw

31 Erasing Racismby Patrick Krey — The federal government tries to promote racial justice, but are its measures just and effective?

HistoRy — Past anD PERsPEctiVE

36 Faith in the Face of skepticismby Joe Wolverton II, J.D. — The Pilgrims, the Indians, and the Truth About the First Thanksgiving.

tHE last woRD

44 From Rio to copenhagenby William F. Jasper

15

25

21

17

31

36

DepartmentS

5 letters to the Editor

7 inside track

9 QuickQuotes

35 the Goodness of america

41 Exercising the Right

42 correction, Please!

10

Vol. 25, no. 24 november 23, 2009

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

es

Des

ign

by

Jose

ph

W. K

elly

cause of terrorismI must respond to a letter to the editor printed in the October 26 issue of The New AmericAN, from George Eadeh, where he said, “The terrorist phenomenon of the Middle East did not occur in a vacuum. The cause and effect can be placed squarely on the creation and policies of the state of Is-rael.”

First, one must define the fact that today’s terrorists are Arabs. One must ask, “Why are Arabs attacking?” One explanation that could very well explain the “cause” driv-ing the Arabs comes from the Bible. The Bible passage in Genesis recounts God telling Abraham that he has been given the land now known as the State of Israel and that progeny of Abraham would inherit that same land. Understand that the Arabs could claim Ishmael, the first-born son of Abra-ham, as the rightful recipient of that land. But Abraham, wanting his son from Sarah, his wife, to be the rightful heir, sent Ishmael and Hagar away.

God told Hagar that a great nation would be made from the seed of Ishmael, but did not say that Ishmael would take the land promised Abraham.

Today’s Arabs are attempting to claim ownership of this land and are willing to de-stroy all who do not agree with their desire.

In addition, a reading of the Quran shows that Muslims are instructed to kill all non-be-lievers. These “infidels” include Christians, Jews, and all adherents of other religions, as well as those Arabs who do not completely obey their holy book. So the terrorists’ plans for destruction do not just include Israel, but everyone else on the planet who does not fol-low the message in the Quran.

Add to this desire of the Arabs the desire of Communist Russia and China to rule the world, and their willingness to fund and arm the terrorists and train them to perform the acts of terrorism, and we have exactly that which William Jasper wrote about in his ar-ticle of August 31 (“No State Sponsors, No Terror”).

DAviD eiseNberg

Tucson, Arizona

Don’t “Dis” lincolnI cannot let Jack Kenny’s attack on Abra-ham Lincoln go unrefuted (“Popular Presi-dents,” October 26). You need to study more deeply into why Lincoln had to suspend ha-

beas corpus and why, because the South had already been guilty of treason and rebellion and invasion, as specified in the Constitu-tion, he had to deal with enemies as he did. Please go to www.libertyparkusafd.org and study some articles out of the Lincoln section, for example, “The Speech That Changed the World” by Harry V. Jaffa or “Lincoln: America’s Greatest President” by Charles A. Morse. You will see that, as Lincoln said, he faced a crisis greater than George Washington had, namely from se-cret groups — conspiracies — both in the South (KGC) and in the North (Copper-heads). (I presume you are not criticizing Washington!) Lincoln also faced both Eng-land and France, which were poised on our borders with troops.

An editorial from the London Times also shows that international bankers were hys-terical about Lincoln’s refusal to borrow from them, instead planning to finance the war at home.

It is now politically correct to “dis” on Lincoln, as it has been on Jefferson, but I don’t understand you guys doing it. In his private and political life, Lincoln was a per-son of such personal meekness, charity, and dependence upon God that even his worst enemies (among whom was Secretary of War Stanton, whose words you mocked) later extolled his virtues and gave him cred-it for saving our Union, which, despite your maligning, was his only “grand agenda.” A comparison of Lincoln’s photos in that traumatic four-year period tells of his suf-fering. J. Reuben Clark, former Under Sec-retary of State and Ambassador, widely ac-claimed as our single greatest constitutional scholar, after much writing about Abraham Lincoln, defined him as our single great-est American. J. Reuben Clark, by the way, was almost single-handedly responsible for convincing the Senate to reject the League of Nations, so he was no dummy. Stick to your criticism of socialist, “progressive” Presidents and those who had ties to the elite of the conspiracies and leave this great American alone.

cATheriNe miller submitted via e-mail

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.

Art Director

Joseph W. Kelly

Research

Bonnie M. Gillis

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.

Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today! 5

LETTERS TO THE EDiTOR

Democrats narrowly won a plurality in New York’s 23rd Con-gressional District Tuesday, a District that hadn’t been held by a Democrat in more than 100 years.

Democrat Bill Owens narrowly defeated Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman by a 49-45 percent plurality, where Re-publican nominee Dede Scozzafava had withdrawn from the race and endorsed Democrat Owens days before the election.

The District had become a national lightning rod for conserva-tive unhappiness with the national Republican leadership for its persistence in picking liberal nominees that lose elections. Several nationally known Republicans had campaigned for Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman after Scozzafava’s positions in favor of abortion, same-sex marriage, and fiscal liberalism became more widely known. Scozzafava had also been endorsed by ACORN’s Working Families Party, the ultra-leftist founder of the DailyKos.com blog, NARAL, and the leftist teachers’ union NYSUT.

While the Conservative Party nominee Hoffman was hardly a traditional conservative noninterventionist on foreign policy issues, he had campaigned on a platform that pushed social con-servatism and small-government economics. As such, he drew the support of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Sarah Palin, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Though the election was nominally a defeat for the Republican Party and the conservatives in it, some conservatives drew com-fort from the election. Red State.com’s Erick Erickson explained on his blog that the election means “the GOP now must recog-nize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives.... In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.”

For its part, the national GOP leaders have charged to the head of the parade and are claiming to be leading it. “It sends a clear signal that voters have had enough of the president’s liberal agen-da,” GOP National Chairman Michael Steele told the press after a Republican emerged as the gubernatorial victor in Virginia. But Steele had been sent a similar message about his own party just a week earlier with Scozzafava. Despite Steele’s protest on CNN on the eve of the election that “this was a local decision.… I don’t pick candidates,” Erickson noted that “despite the Beltway spin, we know for certain based on statements from the local Republi-can parties, that they chose Scozzafava based on advice from the Washington crowd.”

Hoffman loses Plurality to Democrat owens in ny congressional Race

President Barack Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Autho-rization Act on October 28, simultaneously approving the attached extension of hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

In total, the Defense bill carries a $680 billion price tag. It authorizes $550 billion for the budgets of the Defense and En-ergy Departments, including a 3.4 percent increase in pay for uniformed military personnel. It also devotes $130 billion to the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The hate-crimes provision is known as the Matthew Shepard Act, named for the homosexual Wyoming college student mur-dered over 10 years ago. Democrats had attached this act and the Military Commissions Act to the defense bill over the pro-test of Republicans who saw the attachment ploy as an unfair way to avoid dealing with the acts separately.

Hate-crimes legislation does not provide equal justice for all, but rather treats some people as being more worthy of protection than others. Star Parker, the founder and president of the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education, also known as CURE, wrote a commentary about this that was published in the Dallas Morning News on October 30.

Parker happens to be a black woman who sees

the irony in America’s first black President supporting this legis-lation: “A society in which all life is not valued the same, where murder of one citizen is not the same as murder of another citizen, is a horror which black Americans have known too well. So it is a particular irony that this major expansion of the politicization of our law has been signed by our first black president.”

“What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of violence — for murder — may be different depending on what might be deemed to be the motivation?” Parker asks. “Can you imagine a football game where the penalty for roughing the passer is 20 yards rather than 15 if the referee concludes that the violence perpetrated was motivated because the quarterback was homosexual?”

obama signs Defense Bill with Hate-crimes Extension

Doug Hoffman

AP

Imag

es

Obama signing the National Defense Authorization Act

AP

Imag

es

www.TheNewAmerican.com 7

Inside Track

Under intense pressure from Eu-ropean Union leaders, other gov-ernments, and factions within his own country, Czech President Va-clav Klaus caved in on November 3 and signed the so-called Lisbon Treaty, a slightly altered version of the EU Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. The agreement, having cleared its final hurdle, is expected to go into force in De-cember or January.

The signature came after a rul-ing from the Czech Republic’s Constitutional Court earlier in the day that concluded the agreement was indeed constitutional, though Klaus did not concur. The signing was announced at a brief press conference, where the President expressed strong disagreement with the Court’s decision and claimed the ruling improperly forced him to sign the treaty “without delay.”

The Czech Republic became the last of 27 countries to ratify the treaty, following months of delays and sharp criticism from Klaus.

The Czech President, known for being a “Euro-skeptic,” has been a fierce opponent and perhaps the most prominent critic of the European super-state currently taking shape. He regu-larly compares it to the Soviet Union, and he has also blasted global-warming alarmism and other leftist and globalist politi-cal movements. But he recently conceded that it would likely be impossible to beat back the Lisbon Treaty, so observers were not surprised by the announcement.

There was talk of allowing the English to vote on the treaty if Gordon Brown’s government is defeated at the next election, as is widely expected. But it appears that with Klaus’ signature, it is now too late. “What has happened today means that it is no longer possible to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty,” said the Conservative Party’s foreign affairs spokesman William Hague. He said the treaty would now become law, calling it a bad day for democracy since the British people were not even consulted.

Holdout Vaclav klaus signs lisbon treaty creating EU super-state

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R. 1207), Congress-man Ron Paul’s landmark bill to audit the Federal Reserve, has been gutted in a House subcommittee as it works its way toward a vote in the full House. The bill, which has garnered an astonish-ing 308 cosponsors from both parties, has attracted the scalpel of North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt (whose district happens to include Charlotte, the home of Bank of America, America’s larg-est commercial bank). According to Congressman Paul, whose Campaign for Liberty posted a video on the bill at the end of October, Watt has cut out “just about everything” in prepping the bill for a full committee vote.

The bill in its original form required audits of Fed transactions with foreign banks, of its deliberations on monetary policy, and of the activities of the Open Market Committee, and disclosure of communications between the Federal Reserve Board and reserve banks. All of these provisions, according to Congressman Paul, have been removed. “There’s nothing left,” Paul told Bloomberg News in a telephone interview. “This is not a partisan issue. Peo-ple all over the country want to know what the Fed is up to, and this legislation was supposed to help them do that.”

Congressman Paul intends to try to reinstate the bill’s original language and provisions in full committee deliberations, and is hopeful that many of the bill’s hundreds of cosponsors will exert appropriate pressure on the committee to bring the bill in its pris-tinity to a full House vote sooner rather than later.

One of the bill’s most powerful sponsors, Congressman Barney Frank (chair of the House Financial Services Committee), intends that the bill in its final form require a lapse of time between Fed actions and their disclosure to auditors and Congressional over-seers. Frank believes that a delay would “lessen market impact”

while ensuring Fed accountability in the longer run. Congress-man Paul, however, is opposed to any such dilution of the bill’s language, believing that any mandated delays in holding the Fed accountable would allow the central bank too much room to evade responsibility.

Congressman Paul is still optimistic that the bill will pass in some form, given the magnitude of support it has received. He noted that the Federal Reserve and the interests that defend its so-called “independence” (read: “secrecy”) are very entrenched and unlikely to yield without a fight. n

House subcommittee Guts Ron Paul’s Bill to audit the Fed

Vaclav Klaus

AP

Imag

es

Ron Paul

New

scom

Inside Track

8 THE NEW AMERICAN • NovEMbER 23, 2009

9

Focus on the Family leader Resigns“One of the common errors of founder-presidents is to hold the reins of leadership too long. Though letting go is difficult after three decades of intensive labor, it is the wise thing to do.”Having earlier stepped away as president, Dr. James Dobson resigned as chairman of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian group after 30 years at its helm.

Blocking of oil Drilling continues“This troubling trend means less revenue to federal, state and local governments at a time when our nation is running a record deficit.”Commenting on a Department of Interior decision to curtail exploitation of known oil and gas resources, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard expressed frustration at this latest federal road-block placed in the way of domestic energy production.

Ponzi schemer Points to laxity in Discovering His crime“It would have been easy for them to see [if they were doing their job]. I wish they caught me six years ago, eight years ago.”Expressing amazement that his $65 billion crime wasn’t discovered earlier by federal regulators, jailed Ber-nard Madoff pointed to six separate bungled examinations by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Un climate chief worried about Failure at copenhagen conference“Time is running out. We do not have another year to sit on our hands. The deal must be done in Copenhagen.”The Secretary-General of the UN climate-change secretariat, Yvo de Boer, hopes at least for agreement on some political essentials that will lead to an eventual treaty to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.

another Product From china Found to Be Flawed“I simply don’t think the investigation is happening fast enough.”After finding elevated sulfur emissions in imported Chinese drywall that is linked to complaints from 1,900 homeowners who suffered headaches, asthma, and nose bleeds, Florida Senator Bill Nelson faulted the Consumer Product Safety Commission for not indicting the Chinese firms for their danger-ous material.

opposition to illegal immigration labeled terrorism“[Lou Dobbs and Sheriff Joe Arpaio] are the two most dangerous men to our community and because of them, our communities are being terrorized in a real way.”During an anti-Dobbs protest in Tucson that she organized, civil rights attorney Isabel Garcia didn’t couch her words while expressing her venom toward the CNN newsman and the Maricopa County (Arizona) sheriff.

an opponent of More U.s. Forces in afghanistan speaks out“The picture is clear: the more Western troops we have sent to Afghanistan, the more the local residents have viewed themselves as under foreign occupation, leading to a rise in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks.”University of Chicago professor of political science Robert Pape has also authored the book Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

in Russia, Journalists and Human Rights activists are Prime targets“The authorities are incapable of solving such crimes. Even the most honest investigator cannot solve the crimes because the government won’t let him.”At a rally in Moscow marking the third anniversary of the killing of journal-ist Anna Politkovskaya, Mikhail Kasyanov, a former Prime Minister and current leader of the opposition, pointed his finger at the government led by Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. n

— compileD by JohN F. mcmANus

Mikhail Kasyanov

Yvo de Boer

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

es

Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today!

QuickQuotes

James Dobson

AP

Imag

es

by Thomas R. Eddlem

As recently as two years ago, Con-gressman Ron Paul introduced a bill to audit the Federal Reserve

Bank that headed to oblivion. Year after year — beginning in 1983 — the bill never even won a committee hearing. Dr. Paul was ignored in Washington, and was a lonely voice for freedom back in his Texas congressional district.

Times have changed. Ron Paul is on a political roll. The bill Dr. Paul introduced in the current Congress to audit the Fed-eral Reserve Bank (H.R. 1207) has more than 300 cosponsors — including every House Republican and more than 100 Democrats — and the backing of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank. Frank has promised a com-mittee vote, and it has a better-than-aver-age chance of House passage this year. Dr. Paul’s new book End the Fed sailed

into the top twenty of Amazon.com’s sales figures more than a month before it was available. It debuted on both Amazon.com and New York Times bestseller lists, and sales remain strong even today. His old presidential campaign has rolled over into a “Campaign for Liberty” that has raised more than $4 million since its founding in February of this year.

More importantly, his presidential cam-paign evidently inspired dozens of candi-dates for congressional office across the na-tion who seek to reform Congress from a constitutionalist perspective. And several of them are both well funded and being taken seriously by the political establishment.

Rand PaulPrime among these constitutionalist “Ron Paul” candidates is the Congressman’s third child, Dr. Rand Paul. While the elder Dr. Paul was an obstetrician by trade before being elected to Congress, Dr. Rand Paul is an eye surgeon (ophthalmologist). The 46-year-old Dr. Rand Paul announced his candidacy for the open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky in August. Days before Dr. Paul’s

announcement, incumbent Republican Jim Bunning had bowed out of a reelection contest after Kentucky’s establishment Re-publican Senator Mitch McConnell (who is also the Senate Minority Leader) had made fundraising in Washington difficult for Bunning. “Over the past year,” Bunning said, “some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate have done everything in their power to dry up my fundraising. The simple fact is that I have not raised the funds necessary to run an effective campaign for the U.S. Senate.” Time magazine on July 29 explained that the “some leaders” Bun-ning was talking about was his fellow Ken-tucky Republican Mitch McConnell: “He quietly signaled to Republican moneymen that they ought to wait Bunning out. Party leaders in Washington met with a potential primary opponent.... McConnell’s strategy ultimately worked.”

Dr. Rand Paul is the founder of the conservative Kentucky Taxpayers United and has also campaigned for his father, so he isn’t a stranger to politics. But he hasn’t seen McConnell open the monetary floodgates from Washington on his behalf

Thomas R. Eddlem, a freelance writer, served as the

John Birch Society’s director of research from 1991-

2000.

Politics

THE NEW AMERICAN • NovEMbER 23, 200910

The Ron Paul presidential campaign last year has inspired dozens of new congressional candidates, some of whom are well funded and are being taken seriously by political analysts.

either. Politico.com has noted that “the GOP establishment has lined up behind Secretary of State Trey Grayson.” Perhaps Grayson is favored by the Washington Re-publican establishment because Grayson’s campaign website is bereft of mention of bringing the federal government back within the bounds of the U.S. Constitu-tion. By way of contrast, Rand Paul has made the Constitution a centerpiece of his campaign. “The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights,” the younger Dr. Paul says on his campaign website, in an echo of his father’s princi-ples. “America can prosper, preserve per-sonal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens.”

The fact that the establishment isn’t be-hind him hasn’t hurt Rand Paul in the cru-cial fundraising part of the race; he raised more than $1.1 million by the end of the third quarter of this year. Grayson’s Wash-ington fundraising, which included a $500 per plate fundraiser hosted by McConnell on September 23, has been matched by Dr. Paul’s vibrant Internet strategy dollar-for-dollar thus far. “We actually outraised both Democrats and our primary opponents this past quarter,” Dr. Paul told The New AmericAN.

Rand Paul is quick to say that his

first problem was “name recognition,” though he told The New AmericAN “we are now probably very close to being on a par with our primary opponent now.” Of the two, Grayson has been far better known in Kentucky; he’s been the Sec-retary of State for five years. Therefore, even though Grayson’s polling numbers were stronger back in August, 40 percent to Dr. Paul’s 25 percent according to an August poll, Rand Paul is being given a good chance of prevailing by professional political observers. Dr. Paul has numbers to back up his statement that he’s pulled up to a par with Grayson. An October Rasmussen poll put Paul’s and Gray-son’s “favorability” percentages within the poll’s margin of error, and a Novem-ber WHAS11/Survey USA poll put Paul ahead at 35 to 32 percent.

If the younger Dr. Paul survives the Republican pri-mary, he has a better-than-even chance of winning the GOP-leaning Kentucky gen-eral election. Democrats who face a Republican candidacy of Rand Paul would not only face a united conservative base but also significant crossover from some tradi-tionally Democratic voting groups, especially those op-

posing unnecessary wars and assaults on civil liberties under the guise of the “war on terror.” Dr. Paul told The New Ameri-cAN that he maintains a bipartisan appeal that criticizes both parties when they are at fault, “On the stump I promise that I will vote against any budget that is not balanced, either Republican or Democrat.” The crossover phenomenon may even im-pact the primaries, as many have changed from independents or Democratic registra-tion to vote for him in the primary. “We re-register people a lot of the time, and there is a lot of crossover.”

Dr. Paul told The New AmericAN that he maintains a bipartisan appeal that criticizes both parties when they are at fault, “On the stump I promise that I will vote against any budget that is not balanced, either Republican or Democrat.”


Rand Paul

Financial footsteps: Following Congressman Ron Paul’s lead, other constitutionalist candidates for office, including Ron’s son Rand (shown), are employing “money bombs” and other creative fundraising techniques to fund their campaigns in lieu of GOP aid.

Peter SchiffAnother well-funded Ron Paul presiden-tial campaign supporter is Connecticut-based Peter Schiff, who had been an economic adviser to the Ron Paul presi-dential campaign. Schiff has become an Internet sensation on his own as president of Euro-Pacific Capital, largely because he accurately predicted the current eco-

nomic recession with astonishing preci-sion on a variety of financial television talk shows. He not only predicted the cur-rent recession in 2006 and 2007, he also explained why it would happen to pun-dits who often laughed at him for predict-ing the housing boom would go bust. In 2008, some of his friends put together a

montage of his television clips called “Peter Schiff Was Right” and posted it on YouTube. The clips received several million views and dramati-cally increased demand for Schiff’s guest appearances on national tele-vision shows.

Schiff is an acolyte of the free-market “Austrian School” of eco-nomics, is for ending America’s military interventions abroad, and is emphatic about returning the federal government to the limits of the U.S. Constitution’s delegated powers.

Schiff announced in Septem-ber that he would run for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut against longtime incumbent Christopher

Dodd. Dodd would ordinarily be consid-ered a safe incumbent. On paper, Dodd is an entrenched Democrat in a Democratic-leaning state, but the 28-year incumbent is considered highly vulnerable this time around. As chairman of the Senate Bank-ing, Housing and Urban Affairs Commit-tee, he was the Senator who could have — and should have — raised the alarm about the housing bubble. But instead, Dodd built a cozy relationship with sub-prime lender Countrywide. Although technically cleared of ethics violations in a recent investigation concluded August 7, the Senate inquiry criticized Dodd’s efforts as less than cautious. “The com-mittee does believe that you should have exercised more vigilance in your dealings with Countrywide in order to avoid the appearance that you were receiving pref-erential treatment based on your status as a senator,” the Senate Ethics Committee concluded. Dodd also has personal health issues to deal with this time around. Last summer he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, so he may not be able to wage as vigorous a campaign as in the past.

As a result of Dodd’s recent missteps, Schiff will have to get in line to have a crack at him. The Republican Party smells blood, and a number of other Republicans have declared their candidacies as well. Among the better known are World Wres-tling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon and former Congressman Rob Simmons, who appears to be the early front-runner. Schiff’s greatest challenge may be win-ning the Republican primary. With his financial background and his accurate economic predictions, he’s the perfect constitutionalist foil for the leftist Dodd in a general election. But despite already having raised more than $1.1 million in In-ternet donations for his campaign, he bare-ly registers in polling data. That’s perhaps expected, since he’s a political novice in the Republican Party and outside his co-terie of YouTube followers he’s virtually unknown in Connecticut.

Schiff will definitely need that impres-sive $1.1 million he’s already raised, and more, in order to introduce himself to more Connecticut primary voters if he wants to win. He’ll also have to mobilize a local army of volunteers in Connecticut. If he can do that, Schiff could become the next Senator from Connecticut.


Politics

Peter Schiff

Adam KokeshAdam Kokesh is best known as an Iraq War veteran who returned opposed to the war and was a keynote speaker at Ron Paul’s “Rally for the Republic” that competed with the Republican National Convention in the summer of 2008. He volunteered for service in Iraq, where he witnessed the bureaucracy, waste, and corruption in the U.S. reconstruction of that country. According to his campaign website, he emerged from the military a strict noninterventionist in foreign policy and defender of Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war:

Inherent with the right to self-defense is the right to collective self-defense, and in the world that we live in, this is the most important function of the federal government. To ensure that this power is used responsibly, Con-gress, as the best representation of the people, was given the exclusive power to declare war.... The executive branch has set a dangerous precedent by taking powers that are supposed to be vested in the Congress. By not abiding by the Constitution and using the collective wisdom of the Con-gress to ensure judicious use of force, we find ourselves spending hundreds of billions more than is necessary for legitimate defense.

Kokesh has echoed Rep. Paul’s position on the Federal Reserve Bank, called for a smaller government role in the manage-ment of healthcare, and pronounced a nu-anced view about the immigration issue.

Kokesh has an uphill battle as a Re-publican in New Mexico’s heavily Dem-ocratic Third District against freshman Democrat Ben R. Luján. Luján hasn’t had much time to dig in as an incum-bent, but his northern New Mexico dis-trict hasn’t been won by a Republican since 1996. Kokesh, in his favor, was able to tell The New AmericAN that he has raised over $100,000 in donations in the first few months of his candidacy. “What was shocking for me was that for the third quarter we actually beat Luján,” he told The New AmericAN. That goes a long way toward making up for the $100,000 Washington, D.C., fundraiser Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer hosted earlier this year for Luján. Neither candidate is even close to the $1 million or so they’ll have to raise to wage win-ning a House campaign, but Kokesh’s early fundraising numbers suggest that he won’t be at a financial dis-advantage on this front.

Kokesh told The New AmericAN that the tradi-tional political wisdom in

New Mexico is that “if you want to play and you want to win, you’re going to run as a Democrat.” Yet, the state has elected conservative Republicans occasionally because “a lot of those people would be Republicans anywhere else.” Kokesh notes that the local Democratic Party still postures as pro-gun and as socially con-servative, and he sees a “great potential for a crossover vote, just because of those Democratic voters that have been sucked into the machine.”

And Kokesh’s anti-war, noninterven-tionist foreign policy, and pro-civil liber-ties positions just may have the decisive bipartisan appeal he’ll need. “People [are] calling to say they are changing their party registration so they can vote in the primary” for him, he told The New AmericAN. But if people can see through to the principles of the Constitution, the liberal media is still seeing things in terms of the phony left-right spectrum. The local weekly news magazine Santa Fe Reporter published an article on con-

Kokesh has echoed Rep. Paul’s position on the Federal Reserve Bank, called for a smaller government role in the management of healthcare, and pronounced a nuanced view about the immigration issue.

13Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today!

Adam Kokesh

winning hearts and minds: In the battle to rein in out-of-control government, Adam Kokesh (right) speaks to Congressmen, such as North Carolina’s Representative Walter Jones, about Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act.

gressional candidates called “The Early Birds” on July 29, labeling Kokesh a right-winger. “They gave me a 4.2 out of 5 for being true conservative,” Kokesh said, “then two or three months later, they wrote about how I had all of these liberal ideologies.” The Marine Corps veteran says, “To me … one of the biggest frus-trations and also one of the most reward-ing things about this race is taking on the left-right spectrum.”

Also in Kokesh’s favor is the expecta-tion that most analysts believe 2010 will be a Republican year, just as 1994 and 1996 were. Count Kokesh as an under-dog, but he may have a shot.

Other CandidatesThese are only three of the better known among more than a dozen candidates nationwide who have been inspired by Ron Paul’s 2008 candidacy to run for the House or Senate. It has almost taken on the form of a slate in some quarters, as Internet fundraisers

like ThisNovember5th.com are seeking to raise funds for more than a dozen candi-dates on the same day as Ron Paul’s 2007 “money bomb” when he raised a then-record $4 million in a single day. The idea of Internet “money bombs” has proliferated among the constitutional-ist movement, often result-

ing in more frequent but smaller one-day fundraising numbers for candidates. This year’s money bomblets have netted from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand dollars on a single day for the better-known candidates. And while this article will be at press on November 5, tens of thousand dollars were pledged two weeks in advance of the day. But This-November5th.com is only one of many independent efforts to raise funds for con-stitutionalist candidates and enable them to become independent of the Washing-ton, D.C., fundraisers and not beholden to power-brokers in the same quarters.

Among the ThisNovember5th.com can-didates is Marine Corps veteran David W. Hedrick, who is running against five-term liberal Democratic Congressman Brian Baird of Washington’s Third Congressio-nal District. Before announcing his can-didacy, Hedrick confronted Baird at an August 18 town hall, telling him: “I also heard you say that you were going to let

us keep our health insurance. Well thank you! It’s not your right to decide whether I keep my current plan or not. That’s my decision.” But that’s not all. Directly con-fronting the claim made by some leading Democrats that attempts to “disrupt” town hall meetings display a fascist tendency, he also told Baird:

A little history lesson. The Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They were leftists. They took over fi-nance. They took over the car indus-try. They took over the health care in that country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm.

Meanwhile, R.J. Harris is opposing three-term incumbent Republican Tom Cole in Oklahoma’s Fourth Congressional Dis-trict. A veteran commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch In-ternet show on Fox News’ website, Harris encapsulates his decision to run against a fellow Republican in a video advertise-ment: “How can we Republicans demand to replace the Democrat bailout voters without doing anything about our own? If we don’t clean our own house, we can expect the Democrats to do it for us.” Cole voted for the Bush bailout bill, the TARP legislation. Harris calls himself a “constitutional conservative Republican” and says, “I will never vote for bailouts,

“How can we Republicans demand to replace the Democrat bailout voters without doing anything about our own? If we don’t clean our own house, we can expect the Democrats to do it for us.”

— R.J. Harris

R.J. Harris


Politics

R.J. Harris with wife and children

required servitude, taxation without representation or give your money to foreign gov-ernments. However, Tom Cole has voted for all of these things.”

Jake Towne of Pennsylvania’s 15th District will also try to make Republicans honest by running against liberal Republican incum-bent Charlie Dent (The New Amer-icAN’s Freedom Index rating: 40 percent).

Minuteman founder Chris Sim-cox, though not a newcomer to poli-tics as a result of the Ron Paul 2008 presidential bid, has announced a challenge against John McCain’s Senate seat in Arizona and has been put on the ThisNovember5th.com fundraising list.

Dr. Mike Vasovski in South Caro-lina’s Third District will run in a crowded Republican primary for an open congression al seat.

Other House of Representatives candidates ThisNovemer5th.com will be raising funds for include John Dennis (California), Jaynee Germond (Oregon), David Ratow-itz (Illinois), Bob Parker (Missouri), and both Collins Baily and Robert Broadus of Maryland.

* * *Ron Paul and his dedicated fol-

lowers were the tail of the GOP dog during the 2008 campaign, but a pro-liferation of “Paulite” constitutional candidates in 2010 may find the tail wagging the dog. n

by Thomas R. Eddlem

Even his parents never called him Marvin. To all but his mother and a few other close rela-

tives, he is “Chick.” (His parents called him “Chuck,” after his middle name Charles.) Chick Heileson is one of a growing number of Constitution-orient-ed citizens who have not only decided to run for Congress, but are also being taken seriously by political pundits. Heileson is running against the liberal Republican Mike Simpson of Idaho’s Second Congressional District. Simp-son is serving his fifth term and is fac-ing a serious challenge from within his own party.

“The biggest thing that everyone is very upset about is that he voted for the first bailout under Bush,” Heileson told The New AmericAN. Simpson voted for the initial Bush TARP bailout pack-age, a serious repudiation of free-market principles that has undercut Simpson’s reelection chances. Simpson, who earned a meager 50 percent on The New Ameri-cAN’s “Freedom Index” earlier this year, also voted to triple spending on national service, for $1.8 billion in federal aid to (i.e., control over) local police through the COPS program, and for the supplemental “emergency” appropriations bill that allo-cated an additional $96.7 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The liberal Boise Weekly noted back in October 22, 2008 that Simpson “is gen-erally liked across the district and even by his opponent, Boise Democrat Debbie Holmes. Holmes often agrees with Simp-son’s point of view, despite her conten-tion that ‘he is part of the problem’ in Washington, D.C.” But that was last

year, before news of Simpson’s vote for the TARP bailout made its way through the district.

Although Idaho is one of the most Re-publican states in the nation, last fall Dem-ocrats were able to unseat Bill Sali, Ida-ho’s other congressional Republican who had strong political and financial backing from the Bush administration. Sali had garnered several hundred thousand dollars in donations from Washington’s political establishment, to no avail.

The political lesson being slowly learned in congressional districts across the country is that the Washington GOP establishment has been backing liberal Republicans who are mere echoes of the Democrats, and conservative voters are sniffing out the phonies and sending them down to defeat. The principle was perhaps best summarized by Massachu-setts Republican State Senator Robert


Chick Heileson didn’t get involved in politics because of Ron Paul, but he believes the time is now to mount a congressional campaign on a constitutional foundation.

“ Chick” Heileson vs. Mike Simpson

Politics

Marvin “Chick” Heileson

Jake Towne

Hedlund, who told a local magazine in 2003, “When voters are given a choice between a socialist and someone who comes off as a cheap imitation, they will choose the real thing every time.” In po-litical parlance, the Republican National Committee has found conservative votes “non-transferable” to its cheap imitations through two consecutive congressional election cycles.

As a result, Democrats may soon smell political blood in the water with Simpson after his TARP bailout vote. “It was one of the toughest votes I have ever cast,” Simpson explained to the press after fol-lowing the Bush administration’s lead. Simpson said after voting for a bill that he hadn’t read (and was rushed through with virtually no debate), “I voted yes on the bill because I sincerely believe the greater risk for taxpayers is in not acting.” He added: “No one is happy about this legislation, but I am con-vinced that action is a necessary evil in order to keep small businesses afloat, keep retirees from losing their life sav-ings and help end the growing credit crisis we now face.”

But Simpson’s willingness to engage in socialist bailouts is apparently determined by the party proposing them in Washing-ton. He was okay with the Republican bail-out, but has balked at Obama’s bailouts, saying in February of this year regarding the economic stimulus package: “While I support a number of programs and ideas that are reflected in the package we voted on today, I can not support the astronomi-cal amount of money that is being thrown at this problem with very little thought and no debate.”

“There’s no such word as conservative anymore,” is how Heileson responds to self-described “conservative” Simpson’s explanation of his TARP vote. As a result, Heileson has been raking in political dona-tions from within the district. “I’ve raised more in my first quarter than anyone who has ever run against him, and almost as much as he himself has raised.” Simpson raised $53,805 in the third quarter, while Heileson’s FEC filing noted third quarter donations of $40,705.

More importantly, Heileson is getting almost all of his donations from inside his Idaho district. “I think he raised $67,000 total in his last go around inside the state of

Idaho and I’ve raised $50,000,” Heileson said of his three-month-old can-didacy. According to the Federal Election Commission, more than three-quarters of Simpson’s donations have come from out-of-state political action committees. Thus, it’s not surprising that the liberal Boise Weekly has noted Simpson is spending most of his campaign time in Washington, D.C., with “28 party invites on file. He ap-pears to have fortnightly fundraisers at the ‘refined and elegant’ Capitol Hill Club, a Republican gentleman’s club two blocks from Capitol Hill.”

Meanwhile, Heileson told The New AmericAN he has more “cottage” and “town hall” meeting invitations than he can attend in the district. “About 160 people want to hold them,” he says, which would keep him busy until the May 25 pri-mary. “You kind of get scared when things are going so well,” the Vietnam vet-eran says. “All I’ve been speaking to is the choir. Even the press has been good to me.” But he notes that he still has some work to do to win

more name recognition. Heileson entered the race after serving

as a John Birch Society coordinator in the district for 15 years. The John Birch Society is a non-partisan educational or-ganization focusing upon the Constitution and the principles of limited government. “Working for the Birch Society for the last 15 years has been quite an advantage,” he told The New AmericAN. As a coordina-tor, he met thousands of Simpson’s con-stituents and forged many friendships. He also became comfortable with public speaking, and has an affable, personal manner. “The constitutionalist movement is what inspired me to do it,” Heileson says of his candidacy. While not directly inspired to run as a result of Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential race, Heileson stresses that “what he’s done is inspiring.” n

EXtRa coPiEs aVailaBlEAdditional copies of this issue of The

New AmericAN are available at quantity-discount prices. To place your order, visit www.shopjbs.org or see the card between pages 34-35.

➧


Politics

Interview of Allen Rutledge by Kelly Taylor Holt

A nyone trying to figure out what in the world is going on in today’s economy might remember Ag-

atha Christie’s classic, Murder on the Ori-ent Express. When master sleuth Hercule Poirot boarded that train, he’d no idea that before the night ended he’d face the most perplexing murder case ever. A carful of passengers, all of whom had motive and opportunity, maneuvered around so skill-fully that even Christie’s brilliant Belgian couldn’t figure out whodunit. The best he could do was point a perfectly manicured finger at the most likely culprits — in the end, everybody walked away, except the luckless victim.

When considering the train wreck of our economy, Poirot would have the same problem. Allen Rutledge (Capital Plan-ning and Investments, Atlanta-based) has plenty to say about the collection of fiends who have all but murdered our individual portfolios.

The New American: You’ve said that rules the government has been imposing on the financial sector have actually been hindering our country’s economic recov-ery, not helping it. Could you explain that?Allen Rutledge: When you play tennis, and a serve lands inside the line, but it is called out of bounds, you’d ask why.

In today’s market, financiers get pe-nalized like in our tennis example — for following the rules. If you ask why you were penalized in today’s market, the an-swer you get might be, “Oh, we changed the boundary line yesterday. What... you didn’t get the memo?”

Every government intervention distorts the market, and those distortions represent changes in the rules. There’s little predict-ability in the market because you don’t know when the next government interven-tion is going to happen. Even seasoned investors are afraid to play. Two questions we have are, “How come we don’t know the rules?” and “What do we do about it?”

FASB Rule 157, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, changed the way banks value assets, forcing them to assign current liq-uid values to illiquid assets. Next thing you know, bank after bank found itself in-solvent. One minute everything is hunky

dory, the next moment a rule change makes everything appear insolvent. President Bill Clinton’s team instituted more rule chang-es. Larry Summers, then-Clinton adviser and now adviser to Obama, responded to pressure from the banking lobby, which reportedly spent $5 billion to implement these changes. The result was that a small number of banks controlled the issuance of derivatives. Summers also was involved in the Commodity Futures Moderniza-tion Act of 2000, which freed derivatives of government regulation and oversight. While as free-market advocates we oppose unconstitutional regulation, those running our government don’t mind its selective reintroduction with the understanding that the taxpayers are “on the hook” after the wild ride is over.

Concurrently, the SEC changed the net capitalization rule to allow broker deal-ers with over $5 billion to expand their debt equity ratio from 12 to 30 times to look more like the European model. That means they could now have 30 times as much debt as equity. An even bigger ques-tion arises, “Why do we need to emulate the European model?” Financial firms now took on more risk with higher degrees of leverage.

Kelly Taylor Holt is an Austin-based writer and film-

maker, and the producer of a politically based TV

talk show.


interview

the near collapse of our financial system has been many years in the making, yet few people correctly diagnose the reasons behind the failure.

Mayhem, Money, & Morality

Allen Rutledge

We also have the problem of govern-ment intervention from the past that causes problems, such as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This Depression-era law was designed to separate commercial and investment banks.

It was monetary intervention combined with regulation and re-regulation, in my opinion, that led to the massive confu-sion that rules the marketplace today. You can’t plan when you don’t know what the rules are.

Now that we’ve addressed some rule changes and their effects, we see Presi-dent Obama asking we repeal them yet again, and add to another credit expan-sion. Just look at his recent initiative to revamp the lending criteria that was just corrected. We have gone from 125 per-cent loan to value, back to 80 percent, then back to 125 percent. There is no sta-bility. Here we go again.

TNA: You credit your association with Representative Larry McDonald (Geor-gia’s 7th Congressional District) as the beginning of your real education. How did McDonald change your outlook?Rutledge: I used to be a liberal — then one night I met Larry in my parents’ home, and he challenged me in a way that made me mad! But I got a book, then an-other, then another, and began to under-stand that something is really wrong in our country. Larry had a way of reducing economic lessons to terms even an aver-age Joe could understand, and I learned that from him.

In short, I came to believe that govern-ment has been the happy conductor of a concert that induced greedy profit-takers to take monetary risks to benefit from the Federal Reserve’s credit expansionist policies. None of this economic calamity would have been possible without the gov-ernment lead. If business owners are left alone in making decisions, the risk capi-tal is their own — they quit doing stupid things if they want to stay in business.

Our dismal economy leads to legitimate questions about the unpredictability of the

things that are happening, and how we make sound decisions.

TNA: I know you have said you see a basic lack

of understanding about how a free-enter-prise system should work. Is that where the questions on the economy should lead?Rutledge: The real issue in understand-ing the economy is understanding philos-ophy and morality. And that’s where the answers lie, too! Our traditional morality presumes each person to be responsible for their decisions. The freedom we want to enjoy must be coupled with self-restraint (like subjecting ourselves to the Ten Com-mandments of God). It implies the return to caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) for both businessmen and consumers. In-stead, most decision makers today practice Keynesian [socialist] economics, which has a flawed premise — that government should intervene in, and control, markets and protect us from ourselves. It presumes the legitimacy of central banking and asks, “How can we tweak the economy to make it better?”

Keynes proposed “spending our way to prosperity,” a belief system that will never work! Individuals cannot make their budgets work by incurring debt, and a government shouldn’t be able to do col-lectively what we cannot do individually.

The government should take a meat axe to the budget. With Keynesian policy, credit expansion by a central bank, such as our Federal Reserve, becomes a game of musical chairs. What I mean is that with each credit expansion there is an implied contraction due to the collective “malin-vestments” made by entrepreneurs. When the contractions occur people lose money because of the bad judgment in investing when the demands for goods were mis-read. The answer according to the Fed is not to stop causing malinvestment by ma-nipulating credit, but is to keep the music going. I’m a student of the Austrian [free-market] school of economics; it’s sound and conservative, recognizes hard assets and holding no debt.

TNA: So are you saying that all the you’re-to-blame finger-pointing is directed at the wrong targets: the greedy private-sector hedge-fund managers, mortgage bro-kers, bad loans, homeowners, the greedy Madoffs of this world, etc.?Rutledge: No one questions the govern-ment’s role in the process, which is where they should be looking. For example, Fan-nie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in the marketplace as government-sponsored is-suers of loans. Why should they determine who gets loans and who doesn’t? It results in a distortion of the market by allowing “political correctness” to override the

None of this economic calamity would have been possible without the government lead.


interview

lender’s judgment of cred-itworthiness. That’s how to break the free market.

Fingers should be point-ed at the Fed and govern-ment intervention in hous-ing. The government is responsible, but blame has been focused on the private sector, like the criminal behavior of Madoff — it has deflected attention away from the government, which is guilty of the same behavior through Social Se-curity! Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme taking “late inves-tors’” money to pay the “early investors.” Social Security takes the younger generation’s money to pay the older generation of re-tirees. Madoff stole an esti-mated $55 billion, but Social Security may be in the red as much as $55 trillion.

By keeping interest rates artificially low, the Fed created a gigantic expansion of credit, regardless of ability to pay. Low-interest credit was given to those who were very likely to default on their loans. High-risk loans are supposed to be charged high interest rates so that banks have enough money not to fail if the loans default. But this became a political decision, not an economic one.

TNA: So what are Americans to do?Rutledge: We no longer have truly free markets. Our whole philosophy must be rethought. For instance, if we believe that intervention is bad in the marketplace, why have we allowed bailouts, corporate takeovers, and the defrauding of people’s property rights (such as what recently hap-pened to GM bondholders)? Would we have had this meltdown if we had gold-backed currency, thus restricting what the Fed can do to our credit system?

How do we correct what’s happened? It looks impossible. The ultimate way to recapitalize America, individually and col-lectively, is through savings. Lack of per-sonal savings leads to decapitalization by dependence on government. The ultimate protection is savings, hard assets, and mo-rality. The only way to recover is for peo-ple to return to individual responsibility.

Government growth resulted from lowered responsibility! Start with your own house. Even this thought is biblical.

In fixing your own house, start with living within your means, be responsible for those who depend on you. If you have to borrow, do it prudently, for short peri-ods of time. True capital formation comes only from savings. One failure is that of a true philosophical understanding of our responsibilities, and that is religion gov-erns morality, which governs responsibil-ity, which governs behavior and political choices. The two things we’re told never to discuss, religion and politics, are the only things that matter.

Do a good inventory of assets and of your value system, governed by your phi-losophy of responsibility and morality. If we’re going on a debt diet, we need to get on the scales every day. The circula-tory system of your economy is cash flow. Your balance sheet is a measure of your height and weight. Take your assessment to a financial adviser; in seeking one, ask, “Will he respond to my needs?” Find one you can trust. Practice caveat emptor — without it, the consumer is less responsible and more vulnerable with an adviser. Ask, “Where do I not want to be?” Interview your adviser. Build integrity and unify mo-rality to all aspects of your life.

Once your personal house is in order, demand as far as possible that your neigh-

bor does the same by not depending on government interference to fix problems. We live today under a tyranny of tolerance. We should demand less of government, wean off the system one step at a time.

It’s simple: Less individual responsibil-ity means more rules. If people are self-governing, with law written in their hearts, we need fewer rules. Order starts with God, then in the family. The task at hand is just being good people. To the extent that we all ignore God in our own moral codes, we’re inviting government intervention. While doing our own housecleaning, we should demand that government return to its constitutional jurisdiction and put it on a fiscal diet with strict curtailment of its present unauthorized functions. Abolish-ing the Fed would be a great place to start so that we can have integrity behind our money. n

This report is the opinion of the author. It is not

intended as and should not be used to provide

investment advice, and does not address or ac-

count for individual investor circumstances. In-

vestment decisions should always be made based

on the client’s specific financial needs and ob-

jectives, goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance.

Asset classes described in this report may not be

suitable for all investors. Past performance is no

guarantee of future results. No forecast should

be considered a guarantee. Consult your financial

advisor or call for more information.

19www.TheNewAmerican.com

Allen Rutledge with Kelly Taylor Holt

Name ______________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________

City _____________________________ State __________ Zip ________________

Phone ____________________________ E-mail ______________________________

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

# _________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________

Signature ____________________________________________________



091123

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

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

sUBtotal TOTALWI ReSIDeNTS ADD 5% SALeS TAx

SHIPPINg/HANDLINg(See CHART BeLOW)

QuAnTITy TITlE PrICE ToTAl PrICE

FeaturedPRoduCTs

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution(2007ed, 48pp, pb, 1/$2.00ea, 10-49/$1.75ea, 50+/$1.50ea) DOIAC

A Nation of Sheep (2007, 256pp, pb, $25.95) BKNOS

Dollars & $ense (2008, 42min, sleeved DVD, 1/$1.00; 25/$20.00; 50/$37.50; 100/$70.00) DVDDAS

(2008, 42min, cased DVD, 1/$5.95; 10/$49.50; 25/$98.75; 100/$225.00) DVDDASC

A Foreign Policy of Freedom

(2007, 372pp, pb, $17.95) BKFPF

Restoring the Rights of the States and the People

(2009, 40pp, pb, 1/$2.95; 10/$2.00ea; 25/$1.50ea; 50/$1.00ea; 100+/$0.75ea) BKLTRRSP

Dollars & $ense(2009, 40pp, pb, 1/$2.95; 10/$2.00ea; 25/$1.50ea; 50/$1.00ea; 100+/$0.75ea) BKLTDAS

How the Monetary Mayhem Began(1/$0.50; 25/$10.00; 100/$35.00; 1000/$300) RPMM

The Revolution: A Manifesto

(2008, 173pp, hb, $19.95) BKTRAM

Meltdown(2009, 194pp, hb, $25.95) BKMD

End the Fed(2009, 212pp, hb, $21.95) BKeTF

000 0000 000 000

0000 0000 0000 0000

0000

For shipments outside the u.s., please call for rates.

✁

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

Make checks payable to: ShopJBS

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

APPLETON, WI 54912

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

by Jack Kenny

The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was apparently dumbfounded recently when a re-porter asked about the constitutional authority for

requiring people to buy health insurance, as mandated in the healthcare reform bills before Congress.

As reported on CNSNews.com, the exchange between the reporter and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was as follows:

“Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitu-tion grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

“Are you serious? Are you serious?” came the Speaker’s inscrutable reply.

“Yes, yes I am,” the CNSNews.com reporter answered. Pelosi then simply shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Pelosi’s press secretary, Nadeam Elshami, later said that asking the Speaker where the Con-stitution authorized the mandate in the health bills was not “a serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” the news organization quotes Elshami as saying. “That is not a serious question.

That is not a serious question.” The spokesperson later re-sponded to written follow-up questions, CNSNews.com re-ported, with an e-mailed press release on the “Constitution-ality of Health Insurance Reform,” claiming congressional authority for the mandate may be found in its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

A “Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster” press release, originally issued from Pelosi’s office on Septem-ber 16, claims one of the “myths” about the House bill called “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” is what Pelosi called “the nonsensical claim that the federal gov-ernment has no constitutionally valid role in reforming our health care system — apparently ignoring the validity of Medicare and other popular federal health care reforms.” The Speaker acknowledged that under the House bill “in-dividuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers) — or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health care costs onto other Americans — but it allows them to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitu-tional problem with these provisions,” she concluded.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has claimed that the federal government’s intervention into healthcare is justified by the interstate commerce clause.

Constitutional HealthcareconstitUtion corner

AP

Imag

es

Nancy Pelosi


Parrying PelosiPelosi categorized as “myth” the argument that the health-insur-ance legislation violates the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or to the people those powers not delegated to the national government. “But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce,” Pelosi argued. “Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the health care sys-tem has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

Pelosi cited a pair of Supreme Court decisions that upheld the power of Congress under the commerce clause to ban racial discrimination (Katzenbach v. McClung) and to forbid the grow-ing and sale of marijuana for medical use where state laws allow it (Gonzales v. Raich).

But a 1994 Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bud-getary impact of healthcare legislation then before Congress included a finding that an act of Congress requiring individu-als and employers to purchase health insurance or pay a fine would be unprecedented. In the words of the CBO memo: “The imposition of an individual mandate, or a combination of an in-dividual and an employer mandate, would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The appropriate budgetary treatment of such a policy therefore has not been addressed.”

The healthcare reform efforts of the early nineties were never enacted by Congress, and popular resentment of what was seen as excessively intrusive regulation, promoted by the Clinton admin-istration, contributed to a Republican landslide and takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections. But the breadth of the regulatory authority given Congress under the commerce clause has been the subject of debate and litigation from the early days of the republic.

Under the first national charter produced by the former colo-nies, the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no authority to regulate commerce among the states or with other nations. As a result, states attempted to shield businesses within their respective borders from outside competition by erecting tolls and tariffs on products of other states, as well as imports from foreign lands. To eliminate such barriers and promote the growth of commerce across state lines, the framers of the Constitution gave Congress power to establish laws governing the free trade of goods and services. Article I, Section 8 delegates to Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes.” As Pelosi noted, that power has often been broadly interpreted to mean regulation not only of commerce itself, but anything that may, as the Speaker says, “have an effect on interstate commerce.” And since virtually everything may in some way, shape, or form “have an effect on interstate commerce,” the regulatory power of Congress under such a broad construction is, as Pelosi says, “essentially unlimited.”

Yet the Constitution is in its entirety a charter of limited, delegated powers. Even before the Tenth or any of the other amendments were drafted, James Madison in The Federalist, No. 45, assured his countrymen: “The powers delegated by the pro-posed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefi-nite.” Later he wrote that the commerce clause “grew out of the abuse of power by the import-ing States in taxing the non-importing and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.” Thomas Jefferson likewise wrote in 1791 that the com-merce clause “does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citi-zen) … but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations or with Indian tribes.”

“New”Commerce ClauseIn the heyday of the New Deal, however, a to-tally different view prevailed in the executive branch of the federal government. President

constitUtion corner


Franklin D. Roosevelt viewed the commerce clause, as written, as a relic of the “horse and buggy age” and proclaimed that since that time, “we have developed an entirely different philosophy.” The nation as a whole had become more interdependent, he said. “It has been our hope that under the interstate commerce clause we could recognize by legislation and by judicial decision that a harmful practice in one section of the country could be pre-vented on the theory that it was doing harm to another section of the country. That was why the Congress for a good many years, and most lawyers, have had the thought that in drafting legisla-tion we could depend on an interpretation that would enlarge the constitutional meaning of interstate commerce to include not only matters of direct interstate commerce, but also those matters that indirectly affect interstate commerce.”

In other words, an improved, 20th-century “interpretation” of the commerce clause would empower the federal govern-ment to regulate not only commerce among the states, but all manner of things that are neither interstate nor commerce. Ma-jorities in Congress readily enacted the regulatory schemes of the popular President, but the Supreme Court for several years refused to go along with the revised understanding of interstate commerce that Roosevelt divined from the “entirely different philosophy” he had discovered in the Congress and among “most lawyers.” The justices chose instead to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution as written. But eventually, with his public relations campaign against the “horse and buggy” court, his effort, though unsuccessful, to “pack the court” with addi-

tional justices, and his opportunities to replace retiring judges, Roosevelt was able to prevail upon the Supreme Court to join the President and the Congress in expanding the power of the federal government to manage and even micromanage eco-nomic activity within, as well as commerce among, the several states.

The most famous case, still frequently cited in legal debate over the commerce clause, is the 1942 decision of the U.S. Su-preme Court in Wickard v. Filburn. The case arose from the New Deal Agricultural Adjustment Act, an effort to maintain artificially high prices of agricultural products by limiting pro-duction and supply. Under a Department of Agriculture direc-tive establishing production quotas, Roscoe Filburn, a farmer in southern Ohio, was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres. When it was discovered that he planted and harvested wheat on 23 acres, nearly 12 acres over his allotment, Filburn was ordered to destroy the excess crop and pay a fine for ex-ceeding his quota. Filburn sued in U.S. District Court, naming Secretary of Agriculture Claude R. Wickard as the principal de-fendant. The district court issued a permanent injunction against Wickard, and the U.S. government appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Filburn’s suit contended that the wheat grown on the extra acreage was used to feed livestock on his own farm and thus never entered interstate commerce. The penalty assessed against him, therefore, was a penalty on the production, not on the inter-state sale of the wheat, and thus exceeded the regulatory power of Congress under the Constitution. But in the opinion of the Supreme Court, Filburn, by growing the additional wheat and consuming it on his own farm, was “affecting” prices in the interstate market.

“But if we assume that (the wheat) is never marketed, it sup-plies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market,” wrote Justice Robert Jackson, a Roosevelt appointee. “Home grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.” In language that brings to mind the nearly $800 billion “economic stimulus” bill passed by Congress early this year, Justice Jackson wrote: “The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory func-tion quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the commerce clause “does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) … but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations or with Indian tribes.”


This record leaves no doubt that Congress may properly have considered wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.”

In his 1960 bestseller The Conscience of a Conservative, U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater wrote that the Wickard ruling left the government’s regulatory powers under the commerce clause as “wide as the world,” since virtually any activity may be said to have “a substantial effect” on interstate commerce. It is worth remembering that the wording in the Constitution gives Con-gress the power to regulate “commerce,” not anything that might affect commerce.

In Katzenbach v. McClung, one of the Supreme Court rul-ings cited in Pelosi’s “Mythbuster” press release, the High Court held unanimously that racial discrimination in restaurants posed significant burdens on “the interstate flow of food and upon the movement of products generally.” One may find segregation in restaurants and other public accommodations morally repugnant and still wonder how it affects the “interstate flow of food” and other products.

Conscience on the CourtMore recently, the Rehnquist Court found some assertions by Congress of its regulatory power to be unconstitutional. In a 1995 case, United States v. Lopez, the High Court held that Con-gress exceeded its authority by passing a law forbidding the possession of a firearm in an area designated as a school zone. Lawyers for the government argued both that guns contribute to violent crime, which has a harmful effect on interstate com-merce, and that guns in a school zone pose a threat to the learn-ing environment, resulting in a less productive citizenry. Writing the opinion of the court in the 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Wil-liam Rehnquist observed that under the government’s reasoning:

Congress could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce.... Under the theories that the Government presents in support of (the Act), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government’s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.

Indeed, under Speaker Pelosi’s reasoning, we may be hard pressed to posit any commodity that Congress may not require citizens to purchase. If Congress has power under the com-merce clause to compel us to purchase health insurance or pay

a penalty for not doing so, then why need it even have bothered to bribe us with a cash rebate under the “Cash for Clunk-ers” program to turn in our old cars and buy new ones? Why not simply pass a law requiring every motorist to buy a new car every few years or pay a fine for noncom-pliance? That would “stimulate” interstate commerce.

And it is, to say the least, disingenu-ous of the Speaker to suggest that a law requiring a fine of anyone who fails to buy a certain product is offering people a choice — that, in her words, “it allows them to pay their way out of that obliga-tion.” In organized crime an offer of that kind is commonly referred to as “selling protection.”

By now generations of school children have been taught that the interstate com-merce clause is one of the “elastic claus-es” in the Constitution, capable of being stretched to accommodate an expanding role for the federal government. The same

Under Speaker Pelosi’s reasoning, we may be hard pressed to posit any commodity that Congress may not require citizens to purchase.

AP

Imag

es

constitUtion corner

Political justification: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the right to control healthcare, but for that to be true, the interstate commerce clause must apply to every transaction made in the USA.


has been said of the power given Con-gress in Article I, Section 8 to “pro-vide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” and the power to “make all Laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forego-ing, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any De-partment or Officer thereof.” But those general phrases sum up and reference specific powers “vested by this Constitution in the Government,” not whatever powers the President or Congress may divine or devise at any given time. Otherwise, there would have been no point in enumerating and delegating those powers of the federal government, which, Madison insisted, are “few and defined.”

Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution” for the leading role he played in the writing and passage of the document, said of the general Welfare clause: “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

In his first term as President (1801-1805), Jefferson warned that “our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by Construc-tion.” Yet those whom we have el-evated to high office have made and continue to make it “a blank paper by construction,” speaking and act-ing as though, with a few “particular exceptions,” the Constitution they have sworn to uphold consists of but a single sentence of their own imag-ining: “Congress shall have Power to do Whatever seemeth Good to the Congress to do.”

No doubt to Speaker Pelosi, Sen-ate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and a majority of their colleagues, that sounds about right. n

by Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

B y the time of the founding, the definition of federalism was already so firmly settled and so deeply imbedded in the Ameri-can understanding of good government that James Madison, in

his defense of the proposed constitution, felt it necessary to assuage worries of some Americans that the state would surrender sovereignty under the new federal system. “Each State, in ratifying the Constitu-tion, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act,” he wrote in The Federalist, No. 39.

If one values the written words of the framers of our Constitution, then, he believes that there are few principles of good government as inviolable and fundamental to the preservation and protection of republican government as that of federalism. In the United States this division is additionally enhanced by the fact that the states are not mere confederate subordinates to the central authority. They are his-torically, perpetually, and unalterably self-governing and empowered specifically to promulgate and execute laws according to their own wisdom and volition. It is no exaggeration to say that federalism is the

The Constitution and the 10th Amendment delineate the responsibilities and limitations of the federal government. Where do we stand?

constitUtion corner

Obamacare and the Demise of Federalism

No worries: To try to show overwhelming support for his version of healthcare reform, President Obama invited doctors to the Rose Garden for a speech. But even if Obama had the support of a majority of doctors and constituents — or even all doctors and constituents — his plan has no legal basis.

Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today! 25

AP

Imag

es

sine qua non of the stability and balance that infuse American liberty with the vitality and flexibility that have made it the envy and example of freedom to the world for over 200 years.

The uniquely American expression of federalism is crystal-lized in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro-hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

And to understand that principle, one must read it in tandem with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that delegates to the Congress its specific powers. When placed side by side as com-plementary lenses through which all bills and other proposals of the national government must be viewed, these two sections of the Constitution clarify whether or not acts of the Congress con-form to the powers delegated to it by our founding document.

The Obamacratic OathIn the reasoned evaluation of President Obama’s healthcare proposals or any other “federal” scheme potentially to be ham-fistedly foisted onto the states, the first and most important consideration is that if we are to be governed by the Constitu-tion as written in 1787 then we must steadfastly adhere to its four corners, whether it be in the granting or the restricting of power. In the present case, the primary concern must be with the systematic, bipartisan, and unrepentant disdain and disregard for that sacred document manifested daily by those elected to represent us in Congress. We, the people, have the duty to pro-

tect the states from constant encroachment from Washington, D.C. Fortunately, there are those state legislatures that are aware of the assault and are prone to fight back. Heroically, several states recently have stiffened themselves against the attack from the national government: Alabama, Tennessee, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Louisiana, for example. Specifically, Ala-bama’s legislature has passed legislation declaring that it will not enforce any federal scheme to foist upon the states a “cap and trade” global-warming tax. Additionally, Arizona, Florida, and Texas are among the states safeguarding their sovereignty by informing Congress that categorically and without exception they will refuse to implement any federal healthcare scheme.

The New Deal, the Great Society, and the War on Poverty were all euphemisms for the planned and purposeful demolition of the barricades erected by our Founders for the defense of the constitutional boundaries of state sovereignty. The healthcare “crisis” and the “necessary” reforms proposed to address it are but the latest attempt to weaken the states and make them depen-dent on the largesse of the national government. The members of the band may change, but the tune remains the same. There are some groups and individuals, however, that have recognized this power play and have called attention to it.

Gutting State AuthorityThe Heritage Foundation, in a Fact Sheet released October 16, 2009, identified several ways in which “Obamacare” and all its attendant dictates, requirements, and regimes will burden states to the point of absolute and irretrievable annihilation of the critical bright-line borders of the distinct spheres of state and national influence and jurisdiction. The report specifically cataloged three broad arenas of attack on the principles of fed-eralism: “More Medicaid”; “Gutting State Authority”; and “A Better Approach to Health Care Reform.” Under each of these large points are smaller, related subheadings all chronicling the dismantling of their constitutional prerogative to govern their citizens according to their will as manifested by the republican election of representatives.

Every bill under the noxious rubric of “Obamacare” would oblige the states to encompass a greater percentage (ranging from an additional 30 to 50 percent) of their populations within their respective Medicaid coverage areas. This would overbur-den 50 systems whose bureaucratic budgets are already strained in terms of both fiscal and human resources.

With regard to the costs associated with this realignment, the Heritage Foundation’s analysis reports that all additional fund-ing needed to sustain a nationalized healthcare system would come from state coffers, regardless of hollow promises of reim-bursement and economic incentives and stimuli made by Presi-dent Obama and leaders in Congress. In fact, Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee worries that the cost to his state alone would top $3 billion!

Furthermore, apart from forcing states to enroll and treat thousands of additional Medicaid recipients, the bills now under


Under Obamacare, really just a catch-all term for the versions of healthcare reform that Democrats are floating as of now, states would be forced to cover 30 to 50 percent more people under Medicaid. Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen estimates the cost to his state at over $3 billion.

AP

Imag

es

constitUtion corner

consideration by Congress would impede the states by restrict-ing their power to administer and regulate their own schemes. Without exception, all of the currently proposed healthcare “fixes” disregard our Constitution’s explicit federal scheme of separated and sovereign powers, and they improvidently rele-gate the statehouses to the role of mere far-flung outposts of the centralized national government. This is precisely the arrange-ment our Founding Fathers sought to obviate in their framing of our Constitution.

These unconstitutional healthcare bills would empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact and execute rules and regulations to be followed by local administrators. The White House and the Congress would sponsor this usurpation, and given that support, it seems unlikely any state would be powerful enough to resist. This sort of centrifugal assumption of power will put another bullet in the gun the national govern-ment has aimed right at the heart of federalism and the Tenth Amendment. If one shot misses the mark, there’s always another in the chamber.

In what is perhaps the ultimate act of disrespect, the enactment of any of the proposed bills would put the states in their place and serve as a resounding estimation of the states’ ability to de-velop and institute their own solutions to problems of uninsured citizens (assuming they even accept the premise). States will be commanded and reprimanded as a child by a stern nanny. There will be no accommodations allowed for the unique political and social differences that exist from one state to the next. Congress will insist that one size fits all, and if it happens not to, then his-tory indicates that without delay or precision it will amputate any part of the local body politic not covered by the federal blanket.

A Better Approach to Healthcare ReformIn addressing the foregoing issues, the Heritage Foundation proffers three solutions to the problem of the national government’s destruction of states’ sovereignty through the implementation of a national healthcare scheme.

First, they suggest that the national government “embrace the principles of federalism and allow states to develop innovative ways to address their unique challenges to health care reform.” There are several red flags in that statement. To start off with, the na-tional government is not constitutionally placed in a position to “allow” the states to do anything or forbid them from it. The states are sovereign and with the exception of a few enumerated areas of national ju-risdiction, the federal government is not empowered to meddle in state or local affairs. Second, as stated

above, it is up to the citizens of the several states as manifested through their elected representatives to decide whether or not there is a healthcare challenge. That is to say, a healthcare crisis in New York or California should not be transformed through some sort of socialist alchemy into a crisis in Texas or Maine. The states do not need to be permitted by the national govern-ment to address or ignore any situation that falls outside of the explicitly and narrowly defined realm of national interests. Fur-thermore, each state has its own healthcare program that must pass state-constitutional muster.

The second solution proposed by the Heritage Foundation suffers from the same malady as the first. In this point, the au-thor of the report suggests that the federal government allow the states “greater flexibility” in the management of healthcare programs such as Medicaid. As stated above, first, the national government is nowhere authorized by the Constitution to create a healthcare system, neither for the states nor for the country as a whole. Second, the state governments do not need permission or “flexibility” granted to them by the national government in order to handle their own local affairs. The Tenth Amendment is clear, and when read together with Article I, it is clear that this proposal is a solution to a problem that does not legally exist.

These unconstitutional healthcare bills would empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact and execute rules and regulations to be followed by local administrators.

Czarina: Under proposed healthcare plans, the Secretary of Health and Human Relations, presently Kathleen Sebelius, would be empowered to enact healthcare rules and regulations. A

P Im

ages


The final piece of advice offered by the Heritage Founda-tion in its report is to “reform Medicaid.” The only reformation valid according to the Constitution is the complete dismantling of any federal mandates regarding healthcare for citizens of the states. If one or more of the individual states decide to address healthcare issues of its citizens, then the debate will center on the legitimacy of such a plan according to the respective state constitution. There is no delegation of authority in such an arena to the federal government in the Constitution, and that is the standard, finally, by which all such proposals must be measured.

All of these offers of compromise must be put away, and consti-tutionalists must remember that arguments over a “public option” or any other such considerations are but misdirection by profes-sional magicians determined to make our constitutional republic disappear. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted by these red herrings. The only salient issue in this debate is whether or not the national government is empowered to create a healthcare system. To put a finer point on it, we will either steadfastly guard the metes and bounds of the Constitution or we will continue to dance a jig of compromise and complacency to a tune being played by those who, for their own narrow self-interest and the equally repugnant interest of globalism, prefer to see the Constitu-tion once and for all disposed of on the rubbish heap of history.

The AlternativeIf Americans and the several states do not oppose this unpar-alleled assumption of power and diminution of states’ rights, then we will become, as Alexis de Tocqueville warned, mere “minions of an omnipotent government.” This is not the federal system established by our Founding Fathers. Those men were wise and well schooled in the lessons of history specifically in the rise and fall of so many republics, and they sought to inoculate our new experiment from contracting the fatal disease of too weak or too strong a national government by wisely di-viding political power between the central government and the state governments. In the words of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 32:

I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they [the states] would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the

national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution. An entire consoli-dation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and what-ever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the con-vention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

The entirety of this letter written by Hamilton in defense of the Constitution is a condemnation of the attempts being made pres-ently to subordinate the states to the will of the national govern-ment. This time the vehicle carrying the banner of consolidation is healthcare reform, but it is the same strategy that has been in place since the New Deal.

This article is meant to re-illuminate a part of the Constitu-tion that is growing darker and darker under the imposing and ever-lengthening penumbra of the national government. The time has come for We, the people, to reassert our sovereignty in this mighty republic and ride to its defense armed with the double-edged sword of the sacred Constitution in our hands. We need to cut through all the superfluous flank debates designed to distract us from the frontal charge on our liberties. One edge of the sword is Article I that enumerates congressional power, and we will use this weapon to disarm the legislative power grab; the other edge of the sword is the Tenth Amendment, which we will use in defense of the inviolable rights of states to handle all matters of government that are not specifically granted to Congress by Article I. n

As the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

— Alexander Hamilton

constitUtion corner


alexander Hamilton

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

Virtue is a choice.Make it a habit.

Putting Character First!®

Sponsored by

JBS CEO Arthur R. Thompson reveals and documents the players who back, boost, and drive terrorism. Attend to learn more, including the vital role you play.

Sept 22 Boise, Idaho

Sept 23 Idaho Falls, Idaho

Sept 24 Spokane, Washington

Sept 29 Seattle, Washington

Sept 30 Portland, Oregon

Oct 8 Phoenix, Arizona

Oct 9 Salt Lake City, Utah

Oct 20 Riverdale, New Jersey

Oct 21 Carle Place, New York

Oct 24 Columbus, Ohio

Nov 6 St. Louis, Missouri

Nov 9 Houston, Texas

Nov 10 Midland, Texas

Nov 11 Dallas, Texas

Nov 12 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Nov 17 Gainesville, Florida

Dec 4 Los Angeles, California

Dec 5 Sacramento, California

Tour Dates

Visit ExposingTerrorism.com for details.

... Serving the Chicagoland area for over 90 years

744 East 113th St. • Chicago, IL 60628 • (773) 785-3055 • www.raffinconstruction.com

by Patrick Krey

Race & Liberty in America: The Essen-tial Reader, edited by Jonathan Bean, Lex-ington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky, 2009, 331 pages, paperback.

F or far too long, those who op-pose big-government solutions to racism have been slandered as

racists. Though this slander is entirely inaccurate, it has been effective in si-lencing dissent on the subject of race and government. So when it comes to the average history books that deal with the controversial subject in America, readers are typically led to believe that the only voices interested in combating govern-ment-sponsored racism were liberals or progressives and their even bigger gov-ernment solutions. Not so, says Jonathan Bean, Research Fellow at the Indepen-dent Institute and professor of history at Southern Illinois University.

In Race & Liberty in America: The Es-sential Reader, Bean argues that it was classical liberals who were at the forefront of fighting for equal rights for America’s oppressed minorities, and he backs it up by featuring some very compelling writ-ings and speeches from prominent histori-cal figures.

an intellectual JourneySo, what is a classical liberal? Bean writes, “Classical liberals espoused val-ues shared by many other Americans: ‘unalienable rights from God,’ individual freedom from government control, the Constitution as a guarantor of freedom, color-blind law, and capitalism.” Many modern-day libertarians and traditional

conservatives also have a lot in common with classical liberals. Bean ex-plains that the book is an effort to draw attention to “the invis-ible men and women of the long civil rights movement” who “rejected government meddling in race relations.”

Bean takes the reader on a historical journey from the time of our nation’s founding period up to present day by exploring origi-nal writings from important liberty-minded individuals. By writing a brief introduction to each document, Bean explains the historical setting as well as where the piece fits within the overall con-text of the book.

The featured writings also delve into America’s foreign policy. Such writings are incredibly timely considering mod-ern U.S. foreign policy. William Graham Sumner, a leading advocate of laissez-faire economics and fervent opponent of social-ism, warned Americans to avoid Empire-building in 1899 after our war with Spain. His writings could very well speak to what the Obama administration is currently doing in Afghanistan and the greater Is-lamic world:

We assume that what we like and practice, and what we think better must come as a welcome blessing to Spanish-Americans and Philippinos. This is grossly and obviously untrue. They hate our ways. They are hostile

to our ideas. Our religion, language, in-

stitutions and manners offend them. They like their own ways, and if we appear amongst them as rulers, then there will be social dis-cord.… The reason why liberty, of which Americans talk so much, is a good thing, is that it means leav-ing people to live out their own lives in their own ways, while we do the same…. I submit that it is a strange incongruity to utter grand platitudes about the blessings of liberty, etc., etc. which we are going to impart to these people, and to begin by refus-ing to extend the Constitution over them, and still more, by throwing the Constitution into the gutter here at home. If you take away the Con-stitution, what is American liberty and all the rest? Nothing but a lot of phrases.

The federal government made schools integrate and it passed affirmative-action laws to promote racial justice, but are such measures just and effective?

Erasing RacismBook review


laissez Faire as a solution to RacismRace & Liberty also includes inspiring writings from prominent black figures throughout history who touted effective methods to combat racism that didn’t re-quire the accumulation of more power in the state. These giants among men advo-cated a two-pronged approach involving self-help and a color-blind application of the law. Men like Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington “promoted the no-tion that markets were color-blind and capitalism was their best hope.”

Race & Liberty directly attacks the ar-gument that capitalism is inherently racist. Highlighting how businesses opposed state-mandated segregation policies on economic grounds, Bean features a letter from the owner of a streetcar company to a local mu-nicipality complaining that their racial seg-regation laws were bad for business because it resulted in them having disproportion-ately filled street cars, increased wait times, and congestion. Indeed, Bean argues that the free market often worked in the favor of blacks. To back up his contention, Bean includes writings and interviews with S.B. Fuller, a self-made African-American entre-preneur, who explained that discrimination is a universal trait not expressly limited to white people, but that it is forgotten when it becomes unprofitable. Fuller’s advice to minorities seeking equal rights was through achieving economic independence: “If he wants integration, he must hire white people just as he wants white people to hire him.”

Race & Liberty also passionately makes the case that big-government “solutions” to racism such as mandated quotas like affirmative action and urban renewal are not only contrary to the classical liberal principles of color-blind law and limited government, but also detrimental toward truly helping minorities. Again, Bean uti-lizes writings and speeches from African-American intellectuals who go against the grain. Black economist Walter Williams is quoted as saying that “the immorality of numbers-based privileges and benefits is readily realized when we recognize that government cannot give a special advan-tage to one person without simultaneously giving a special disadvantage to another.”

Another quote, from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, cuts right through the heart of the diversity-at-all-costs goal of affirmative action:

The Law School is not looking for those students who, despite a lower LSAT score or undergraduate grade point average, will succeed in the study of law. The Law School seeks only a façade — it is sufficient that the class looks right, even if it does not perform right.

two Faults: centralizing “constitutionalism” and open BordersThe only two areas where this reviewer could find fault with the book are its ques-tionable constitutionalism and its pro-im-migration stance. In the book’s defense, Bean does acknowledge the opposing viewpoints on these issues and defends his decision to include the perspectives he did.

In the first area, the book includes writ-ings of Lysander Spooner, who dabbled in some dubious constitutional arguments, which coincidentally made whatever he liked constitutional and whatever he dis-liked unconstitutional. Spooner, while a brilliant mind and staunch advocate for liberty, incorrectly argued that the Con-stitution itself prohibited slavery years before the ratification of the 13th Amend-ment. Such a conclusion would surely have been a shock to both the drafters and ratifiers of the Founding period. Spooner, along with other great minds, espoused the libertarian interpretation of a living, breathing Constitution, which ignores any originalist constitutional understanding. It also rests on the dangerous no-tion that the central gov-ernment has much more power than what was authorized at the ratification. As history has borne out, empowering the federal government with more power than it constitution-ally has is detrimental to individual freedom over the long term. Instead, the book could have explored the writ-ings of constitutionalists who used proper means to resist and fight slavery. For starters, many antislavery states nullified the Fugitive Slave Act that compelled the return of runaway slaves.

Secondly, the book repeatedly trumpets the classical liberal belief in a natural right

to migration while dismissing opposing viewpoints as immigration-restrictionist and/or nativist. While such notions sound good on paper or worked when govern-ment was much smaller, current events in both America and Western Europe show the perils of open borders combined with mas-sive government entitlement programs and group-identity politics. An open-borders ar-gument made sense in the late 1800s when America was truly the land of opportunity, but today such a position will only acceler-ate America’s decline. Today’s immigrants flooding into our nation consistently advo-cate for more government intervention at both the federal and state level.

ahead of their time Overall, Race & Liberty is an enlightening read that will leave the reader feeling both inspired and optimistic about the future. Many of today’s proponents of individual rights and freedom find themselves scorned and mocked as fringe fanatics by “main-stream” voices. The writers featured in this book faced similar ridicule in their time for stating opinions not favored by the politi-cal elite, but now are widely recognized as enlightened visionaries. If those who are so active in today’s freedom movement con-tinue to passionately advocate for liberty, perhaps they will also someday be remem-bered as being ahead of their time. n

Book review


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.

SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS

ORDER BY 6 PM FOR SAME DAY SHIPPING

CALL FOR YOUR FREE 452-PAGE CATALOG

CHICAGO • ATLANTA • DALLAS • LOS ANGELES • MINNEAPOLIS • NYC/PHILA

1-800-295-5510 uline.com

• CORRUGATED BOXES • STRETCH WRAP • LABELS

• CARTON SEALING TAPE • BUBBLE CUSHIONING • MATERIAL HANDLING

OVER 950 BOX SIZESALWAYS IN STOCK

Cleveland Ave.(Rt. 41)

Ft. Myers, Florida

Stamra Inc.

TRAILWINDS PLAZA

Janitorial Services •NightlyJanitorial •FloorRefinishing

William C. Hemenway

N15 W22294 Watertown Rd.Waukesha , WI 53186

(262) 542-7756

SAV-MORAUTO CLINIC INC.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to

do nothing”— Attributed to Edmund Burke

780 North 400 WestOrem, Utah 84057

(801) 224-2221

QUALITY INSTALLER

Hope RestoredWhen Michelle Lewis ran out of gas on October 15, it wasn’t a major crisis. She wasn’t stranded in the middle of nowhere, and she had a cellphone with which to call someone for help. However, she had had a “rough couple of weeks” and this was just the icing on the cake.

While she was on her phone trying to locate a friend who could come and help her, a man pulled up behind her and of-fered to help. She accepted his assistance to push the car off the road into a parking lot, but told him that was all she needed as she had a friend who could bring her some gas. She sincerely thanked him and he went on his way.

Shortly thereafter, as she was waiting for her friend, the man once again pulled up behind her — this time with a gas can. He emptied the gas into her tank, told her to keep the gas can, and offered her $20. With tears of thankfulness, she refused the cash, expressing her gratitude for what the stranger had already done for her. He insisted, though, pushed the $20 up her sleeve, and drove off.

In a letter in the October 24, 2009 To-peka Capital-Journal, Lewis was able to publicly thank her anonymous benefac-tor. “We are all blessed for having a man like you in the world,” she wrote. “I don’t know if he realizes just how much I need-ed some kindness.... He showed me that there are wonderful, goodhearted people and restored my hope for men.”

the Marathon ManFour countries. Thirty cities. More than 60,000 miles. Almost 50 different flights. Around the world — from Chicago to Chi-cago — in just 30 days. It was a whirl-wind flying marathon for 39-year-old Greg Krause, as he trotted the globe from September 8 through October 8 to raise awareness and funds for a mission school for orphans in Zambia.

The Macha Innovative Community School, started by Krause’s parents four years ago, houses and educates 75 or-phaned and abandoned children. It is completely supported by donations, and does not take any government handouts.

Thoroughly dedicated to this worthy cause, Greg has been involved for years with creative fundraising from his home in the United States while attending medical school. In 2008, he auctioned himself off to run the New York Marathon in “adver-tising” pajamas; California-based Green Pharmaceuticals, maker of SnoreStop, placed the winning bid of $9,000, all of which went directly to the school.

After graduating this year, Krause was looking for a new way to help before be-ginning his family-practice residency. “I was just looking for something different, something no one else has done before,” he told MSNBC in September. That’s when JetBlue’s “All You Can Jet Pass” caught his eye.

The pass was the airline’s promotion-al offer of 30 days of unlimited flights for $599. Orphan’s Promise, part of the Christian Broadcasting Network, offered to sponsor Krause on his jet-setting mis-sion, and Greg was off and flying. He did all the work on his own, frequently able to spend only a few hours at each desti-nation, walking the streets and handing out informational flyers, explaining the mission, and pointing people to his blog, http://30daysonjetblue.com/, or to the Or-phan’s Promise website, http://my.cbn.com/gregsgreatrace, if they wished to get involved.

Krause returned from his exhausting 30-day tour on October 8, ready for a long rest ... right? Wrong! He continued his fundraising efforts by running the Chica-go Marathon for donations just three days later. As of October 29, the total raised by the Chicago race and world tour stood at a little over $13,000. Not bad, Marathon Man!

Good People are out thereWilma Black, of Marianna, Florida, had been shopping at a local grocery store on October 23 when she inadvertently left her purse in the grocery cart. She didn’t real-ize she had done so until she was com-pletely across town. She rushed back to the store, hoping but not really believing that her purse would still be there.

What little hope she had rapidly dwin-

dled as she looked in the cart-holding area and questioned all the employees she could find. The purse contained personal items, two checkbooks, credit cards, Black’s driver’s license — and almost $400 in cash. When she had exhausted her investigative capabilities, she went to the local police department to report the loss.

After explaining the incident, Black could barely believe her ears when the police receptionist informed her that a woman had just turned in the purse a few minutes earlier. Black checked the contents, and everything was there; noth-ing had been taken. Though Black would have been happy to reward the finder, the woman who turned in the bag obviously had no such expectations, as she refused to leave her name. It just goes to show that people are still willing to do the right thing, simply for the sake of doing the right thing. “What a blessing,” Black told the Jackson County Times for October 25. “It is wonderful to know good people are out there.”

Disqualified?While running in a cross-country race in early October, 17-year-old Dominique Lincoln collapsed due to dehydration. With less than a mile to go, most of the runners raced past her toward the finish line. However, when competitor Helena Page saw Lincoln fall, she raced to help.

The Philadelphia Daily News reported on October 21 that Page, a high-school senior already licensed as an EMT and training to be a firefighter, quickly evalu-ated Lincoln’s condition. She then elevat-ed her feet, protected her from the cold, and constantly questioned her to keep her conscious as much as possible until help arrived.

Page doesn’t believe her actions were extraordinary or heroic. “I didn’t think it was a big deal. I saw her in distress and I wanted to help. I was trained to do this,” she told the Daily News. Although Page was disqualified for not finishing the race, Lincoln and others present that day insist she was qualified — as a hero. n

— liANA sTANley

THE GOODNESS OF AMERiCA


by Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

B etsy Ross didn’t sew the first flag. Jesus wasn’t really born on Decem-ber 25. Columbus didn’t discover

America. We hear these statements all the time, for we live in an era where the foundational stories that define our na-tional identity and bind us together as a people are being constantly deconstructed. We are told that the heroic stories of the founding of Christianity and the founding of our great republic are mere myths, fac-tually inaccurate, and no more important or meaningful than the fanciful fairy tales told to amuse children.

We live in a skeptical age. Even the most optimistic and far-sighted among us must at times trudge blindly through a dis-

orienting swirl of attacks on our faith, our families, and our country. While there is no sure tonic to ease the nauseous vertigo that often accompanies this struggle, there is a salve to be found in the tales we have been taught and in the truth and moral en-richment to be found therein. Whether for our own retrenchment or for that of our children, we can, we must, turn again to the record of our noble and brave ances-tors to remind ourselves of the otherwise insurmountable odds they overcame to bequeath us with such a rich legacy of lib-erty. One of the most impressive stories from our history is that of the small band of brethren who fled their homes seeking a place where they could worship freely. This courageous congregation is known as the Pilgrims.

Poor Wayfaring Strangers The congregation of pious Christians known to history as Pilgrims was in their own time called Separatists for their schism with the greater Church of England. Dissension from the Church of England was illegal during the reign of King James the First, and the King was determined to brook no effrontery to his royal highness. He would sooner purge his country of disloyal subjects than allow those subjects to effect a purge of the state religion of which the king was the titular head. To enforce his egotisti-cal and tyrannical will, James sent agents far and wide into the country to round up those Separatists reportedly meeting in secret in small groups to avoid detection by the king’s sycophantic spies.

Fearing imprisonment or worse at the hands of the royal agents, 400 English Separatists fled their beloved England. They sailed surreptitiously to Holland (leaving England without permission was a crime), where the atmosphere was more accommodating to those given to alterna-tive (read: unofficial) interpretations of the word of God. The Dutch were historically more tolerant of religious dissidents and would permit, within limits, pilgrims of many religious creeds to assemble without fear of reprisal or persecution.

Although the Pilgrims found a wel-coming harbor in Holland, it proved to be a brief respite, as political situations al-tered as crucial peace treaties with Spain and France expired, leaving Holland po-litically unallied and therefore exposed to the avarice of other less-progressive states. As the climate in Holland became decreasingly hospitable, the Pilgrims met to formulate a new plan and consider the options open to them. It was decided that, despite the possible implications, they would return to England, and they immediately set about acquiring inves-tors to fund their ultimate journey: to America. The Pilgrim pastors believed unwaveringly that God’s will was mani-fest in their wanderings and privations, just as it had been with the Children of Israel in Egypt. After 40 years, the Isra-elites crossed over the Jordan and entered into the Holy Land, a land promised to them by their God and his prophets. Like the chosen people of the Old Testament, the Pilgrims had faith that they would be


Faith in the Face of Skepticism

the Pilgrims, the indians, and the truth About the First thanksgiving

— PAst And PersPectiveHistorYHistorY

the Mayflower

Lib

rary

of C

ong

ress

led to a land of milk and honey on the western shore of their own River Jordan — the Atlantic Ocean.

Plymouth RockThe Pilgrims passed through trials of tur-bulent seas, uncharted courses, scurvy, and vile sickness that decimated their already small community, as well as intrigue, trea-son, and treachery. As a reward God de-livered His faithful flock to the promised land, a land where they would at last be absolutely free from religious persecution and would live under laws framed and ex-ecuted fairly and justly.

Upon reaching the shores of their new home, the Pilgrims dropped to their knees with an outpouring of gratitude toward the Almighty. Rising from their knees, the Pilgrims would have noticed an enormous rock. Yes, Plymouth Rock. We’ll never know whether or not any of our Pilgrim Fathers stepped foot on it or climbed over it before going farther inland. What is known is that this small band of believ-ers, bound together by sacred covenant and civil compact, overcame insuperable odds that would scuttle most other, less devout and determined settlers. These Pil-grims, for so they were, were a stout albeit peripatetic lot that had nowhere left to go

and therefore carved, liter-ally, a new home, a New England, for themselves. Separated by thousands of miles from the religious in-tolerance and oppression of King James, these Separat-ists were now free to wor-ship as they chose. The Pil-grims, looking up at a rock that history would call Plymouth Rock in their honor, recalled that their Lord com-manded them to build upon such a strong immovable foundation, and thus they were wanderers no more.

Mayflower Compact Before being allowed to debark, the lead-ers of the Pilgrim colony required all male members to enter into an agreement set-ting out the metes and bounds of rights and responsibilities in the new world. Nor-mally, these sorts of issues would be pre-determined within the patent granted by the crown. In the Pilgrims’ case, however, they had dropped anchor in a land outside the region assigned them in the patent. They were essentially operating outside of the law, so they needed new guidelines to direct both the Pilgrims and the others who accompanied them to America (over

half of the passengers on board the May-flower were not Pilgrims). Before leav-ing Holland, one of the Pilgrims’ pastors who was to stay behind and prepare the second wave of travelers, John Robinson, instructed his followers to form a secular civil government, so to begin the colony in the manner in which they intended to go on, that is to say, in an orderly and tolerant fashion. As he rightly reckoned, making a secular compact with the nonbelievers demonstrated good faith and sound reason on the part of those whom many believe to be overzealous religious reactionaries.

The document signed by 41 of the 50 male adults on board the Mayflower (the other nine were either too ill or were headed straight back to England) has been described as an example of “crystalline brevity.” The text is worthy of repetition in its entirety.

The Pilgrims passed through trials of turbulent seas, uncharted courses, scurvy, and vile sickness that decimated their already small community, as well as intrigue, treason, and treachery.


the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock

Lib

rary

of C

ong

ress

We whose names are underwrit-ten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, ect., having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voy-age to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutu-ally in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

Although in many ways unremarkable and certainly not revolutionary, this brief contract is one of our repub-lic’s foundational documents and was an example of Puri-

tan pragmatism. These men and women, faced with a silent coast with nothing to anticipate but hardship and fresh despair, bound themselves together into a community of far-flung Englishmen committed to prospering and preserving their natural-born right of self-determination.

The First Thanksgiving Now for the part of the story familiar to second graders with paper belted hats and multi-colored feather headbands and all those who have attended the annual plays acted out in gyms and cultural halls throughout the country. The Pilgrims had much to be thankful for and they knew it. The steadying Hand of Providence led them safely across the ocean, and they had been blessed with strength to build hous-es and common buildings (the first was erected on Christmas Day, 1620). Next, they had to plant crops so that they might fulfill the measure of their divine commis-sion and perpetuate their colony here in the New Canaan. This forested land with abundant flora and fauna was promised,

indeed, but the soil was strange and suc-cessful horticulture was a conundrum. Enter the Indians.

It is true, as we all remember from lessons that were once taught in school, that the Pilgrims and the Indians sat down together and partook of the fruits of their labors, ate turkey and venison, and benefited from mutual instruction and genuine fellowship. This assembly was remarkable for many reasons; chief among them, perhaps, was the sensation-al account of Indian atrocities told to the Pilgrims while they tarried in Holland. The Indians, they were told, “delight to torment men in the most bloody manner that may be; flaying some alive with the shells of fishes, cutting off the members and joints of others by piecemeal and broiling on the coals.” With this image seared into the front of their minds, as soon as they arrived in America the Pil-grims were quick to erect barricades and post sentries to protect them from the natives they believed to be bloodthirsty savages.

In truth, in the beginning the Pilgrims and Indians did clash, sometimes vio-lently. The fault, however, was never one-sided and the peace was always quickly re-

It is true, as we all remember from lessons that were once taught in school, that the Pilgrims and the Indians sat down together and partook of the fruits of their labors, ate turkey and venison, and benefited from mutual instruction and genuine fellowship.


— PAst And PersPectiveHistorYHistorY

signing of the Mayflower compact

Lib

rary

of C

ong

ress

stored. By the time of the harvest of 1620, several peaceful months had passed since the Pilgrims had any scrapes with the na-tive inhabitants of the land, and they were feeling safe and secure and had redirected their minds and efforts toward harvesting their crops and building all the necessary infrastructure to support the thriving colo-ny they designed and were determined to establish.

It was in this atmosphere of progress, peace, and planned prosperity that made possible one of the momentous greet-ings in American history. One Friday afternoon, a Pokanoket Indian calling himself Samoset walked up to a Pilgrim and announced, “Welcome, Englishmen!” Hardly the senseless savagery described in such vivid, gory detail by teachers in Dutch schools. As a matter of fact, the In-dians genuinely welcomed the newcomers and demonstrated their goodwill by teach-ing the eager though ignorant European farmers a little something about American agriculture.

Samoset taught the Pilgrims that be-cause of the unique chemical composi-tion of the local Massachusetts soil, it was essential that the ground be fertil-ized to balance the soil and make it more nourishing to the corn and other crops planted by the Pilgrims. The fertilizer preferred by the Indians after years of experimenting was dead herring. The Pil-grims trusted the advice of Samoset, and

the autumn of 1620 saw a bumper crop of corn, squash, beans, barley, and peas. It was a harvest worthy of giving thanks — thanks to God and thanks to the Indians who shared valuable information.

The precise date was not recorded, but sometime in late October or early Novem-ber, about 100 Indians walked into the Pil-grim settlement (now occupied by several common buildings and log homes) carry-ing deer hunted specially for this harvest feast. The Pilgrims, about 50 in number, provided turkey (turkey from the New World was being eaten in England for about 40 years and was already a staple of English Christmas dinner), other fowl, deer, and beer. The meat was cooked on spits over open fires. The weather that season was crisp, but not cold, and the Pilgrims no doubt were fascinated by the bright fall foliage, a palette of colors not seen in England because of the perpetual dampness and lack of sunlight.

The congregation, Indians and Pil-grims, sat down in small groups on the ground and around small round tables and ate their dinner. The scene would not seem so foreign to us, their descendants, except for the fact that there were no forks (not in use in Massachusetts for an-other 70 years), no cranberry sauce, and no pumpkin pie. The food that was eaten was washed down with beer, the beverage of choice for saint and sinner in England because of the notoriously contaminated

water available throughout the country. Thankfully, the bountiful barley crop in their new home made brewing easy.

Lessons Our Fathers LearnedAs the foregoing demonstrates, there is much truth in the stories we have been taught regarding our Pilgrim Fathers and the First Thanksgiving they celebrated with the Indians that shared that small plot of earth with them. The fact that the Pilgrims succeeded where so many other erstwhile colonists had failed was due in large measure to the kindness, generosity, and trust shown to the Pilgrims by Mas-sasoit and his small tribe. These men and women, believed to be savages but proven to be “very trustworthy, quick with ap-prehension, ripe witted, and just,” reached out to their neighbors and extended a hand of fellowship. So often, this hand was slapped away by frightened Europeans. The Pilgrims, themselves frequent vic-tims of treachery and sabotage, took the hand of the Indians and shook it. They sat together, ate together, and grew together.

Even in light of the timely and invalu-able aid proffered by the Indians, more than any other consideration it was the tireless and firm faith of our Pilgrim Fa-thers that kept them alive and animated their steadfast resolve to bloom where the Hand of the Almighty God had planted them, no matter how rocky, unknown, and hostile the soil. n


the first thanksgiving

Lib

rary

of C

ong

ress

Is a deed to an Indiana

farm in your “pouch”?

Have you positioned yourself to take advantage of the security, income, and diversification offered through the ownership of Indiana farmland?

Maybe you should!

Specialists in farm management and farm real estate since 1930

Hugh B. Pence1420 Adams St. • Lafayette, IN 47905

Ph: (765) 742-4269Fax: (765) 742-6667

E-mail: [email protected]

• We Help Investors Buy Farms • • We Manage Farms for Investors •

HalDERMan REal EstatE sERVicEs,

incoRPoRatED

If interested, we can help.Please Contact Us!

ONLINE & SOCIAL NETWORKINGNetwork with like-minded people to preserve freedom

T.R.F. INVESTMENT CO. INC.2100 N KOLB ROAD • TUCSON, AZ 85715

(520) 298-2391

FOR THE FINEST IN GROCERIES, MEATS, AND PRODUCE

a Baggie for BurglarsKLTV out of East Texas reports that on October 19 a senior citizen who had been retired for 23 years sent an alleged burglar to the emergency room with one shot. The 19-year-old assailant broke in to the se-nior’s screened-in porch. The homeowner, who has been burglarized before, says he is always prepared for such a scenario. He has every window nailed shut and keeps a “baggie full of ammo for his 4-10 single-shot shotgun” nearby.

The 78-year-old homeowner explained what happened: “Just ... put the gun up to the window, and he was standing there and I pulled the trigger…. Everything I worked hard for all my life ... no one’s just going to come in here and take it if I can help it…. I’m sorry that it happened, but he shouldn’t be trying to break in and trying to steal other people’s property…. Protect what’s mine, you know?” Authorities say the alleged home invader was found across the street, inside his brother’s car with a gunshot wound to the left shoulder.

God and GunsPastor Ken Pagano gained national media attention by hosting an open-carry cele-bration at his New Bethel Church in Lou-isville, Kentucky, earlier this year. Pagano told ABCNews.com, “As a Christian pas-tor I believe that without a deep-seeded be-lief in God and firearms that this country would not be here…. I’m not ashamed of that fact. I’m proud of it…. We’re promot-ing responsible and safe gun ownership.”

The event raised Pagano’s profile among both admirers and detractors, but now the pastor who has spent nearly 30 years in the ministry is resigning to focus on gun-rights and church-security is-sues. Pagano told the Washington Times, “Thirty years was a good, long run, but it’s time for a change…. If I can write my own ticket, I want to get involved more in Second Amendment issues as they affect the church, and I can do more from outside the pulpit than from behind it.”

Pagano explains that he was thinking about moving in this direction long be-fore he hosted his successful open-carry event, but the “ripple effect” from all the

attention led him to meet Rabbi Gary Mos-kowitz of New York. Rabbi Moskowitz has spent many years working to protect syna-gogues from terrorist threats. Pagano and Moskowitz have now joined together to form the International Security Coalition of Clergy, an organization dedicated to “making the vulnerable less vulnerable.”

Pagano’s beliefs about our nation’s founding are shared by many in this coun-try, including actor Chuck Norris. Norris, in his regular column for World Net Daily, wrote: “God and guns are what our coun-try was founded upon. Any new student of the Revolutionary period quickly learns that. They are what keep us strong, or what should keep us strong. They are there for our defense. God and guns were so impor-tant to our founders that they established our protection to exercise them in the first two amendments to our Constitution — the uninhibited and unrestricted freedom to choose our own religion and bear our own firearms.”

alert and armedThe ABC affiliate from Polk County, Flor-ida, reports that on October 12 a diligent gun owner aborted an attempted robbery and even shot one of the shotgun-wielding attackers. Johnny Preston was in the front yard of his home getting his van ready for work when he observed two men driving by slowly and staring at him. The strange behavior of the passersby alarmed Pres-ton, and he immediately retrieved his .38 caliber revolver from inside the van. He also recorded the license-plate number of the vehicle. Within moments, Preston looked up to see two men, wearing t-shirts over their faces, pointing a shotgun at him. The would-be robbers demanded his wallet. Without hesitation, Preston re-sponded by pushing the barrel of the shot-gun away with one hand while simultane-ously firing his handgun with the other. His shot found its target, hitting the thug in the torso. Terrified, the injured criminal ran back to his car and drove to the nearest hospital where he was treated and arrest-ed. The other assailant fled on foot, only to be found a short distance away hiding under a parked car.

old sure-shot?The Columbus Dispatch out of Central Ohio reports that on October 21 a 70-year-old woman used her .357 magnum pistol to stop an armed robber. This took place at the Continent Inn motel where the armed criminal barged in on a family staying on the first floor. The family consisted of the great-grandmother, her son, and the son’s wife, daughter, son-in-law, and friend. The family had kept the door to the room slightly open so they could keep tabs on their young friends staying nearby when the door suddenly flew open around 9 p.m. The thug burst into the room and waved a black handgun at them, saying, “Every-body here knows what the game is.”

The attacker demanded all six people inside get down on the floor. The robber would soon regret that decision because by ordering the great-grandmother to the floor, he actually put her closer to her handgun. She reached into her purse on the floor, pulled out her magnum pistol, and fired one shot at the robber. The shot would prove to be fatal. The alleged robber Wayne Winston, 25, lumbered away, only to collapse in the parking lot and die.

Winston, a native of St. Louis, had a criminal record, according to stltoday.com, and was a parolee wanted on an arrest warrant. According to Jacqueline Lapine, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Depart-ment of Corrections, Winston’s probation came after a December 2008 arrest for first-degree tampering with a vehicle after being released from prison three months before. Lapine also stated that Winston served seven years for crimes that “includ-ed burglary, stealing a firearm and three counts of stealing a motor vehicle.”

The heroic great-grandmother’s son was bewildered by her deadly accurate aim. “It’s a wonder she didn’t shoot us all,” her son told the news. “She’s the worst shot in the world…. She said to me, ‘God was with me tonight. You know I couldn’t have done that myself.’” The son also told the news that his mother has a permit to carry a concealed gun and carries the gun she inherited from her late husband. When asked by the media to describe his mother, the son said, “Reli-gious. She’s always been my hero.” n

— pATrick krey


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

Having never Heard of Global warmingItem: Honolulu (KHNL), October 25, 2009 — “Protestors staged a worldwide rally against climate change, and Hawaii joined in on the call for action to stop global warming. It’s an effort to literally draw the line on climate change. Thou-sands of Hawaii students across the state, including a group at Stadium Park in Ho-nolulu, took part in the ‘Blue Line Proj-ect’ on Saturday. Its purpose is to indicate the risk of flooding if the sea level rises one meter. The project also tries to high-light Hawaii’s and other island nations’ vulnerability to climate change, while countries negotiate a new international agreement.” Item: Aberdeen News columnist Alan Guebert, October 25, 2009 — “For its part, the Pentagon, in two reports (one issued in April, 2007, the other this past May), calls climate change ‘a threat mul-tiplier for instability in some of the world’s most volatile regions, worsening terrorism and likely dragging the United States into conflicts over water and other critical re-source shortages.’” Guebert continues, “‘Not only will global warming disrupt the environment,’ testified Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.) to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee July 21, ‘but its effects will shift the world’s balance of power and money.’”Item: The Canadian Press, October 25, 2009 — “Thousands of people in cities across Canada and around the world took part in a global day of action yesterday to encourage world leaders to help stop climate change.” The article continues, “The events are organized by 350.org, a group dedicated to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in air to 350 parts per million. The events kicked off in Australia, where thousands of people formed a large ‘350’ number with their bodies in front of the famous Sydney opera house and dis-played placards with the number on the hotspot Bondi Beach.” CorreCtIon: Oh, Global Warming, the things that are done in thy name. Every actual or potential disaster, every drought,

every hurricane, dead polar bear, discol-ored coral reef, or thirsty sequoia tree are all due to humans attempting to live com-fortable and productive lives. Really?

But how about analyzing the global-warming situation from a fresh perspec-tive? Specifically, how would one react if he had never even heard of global warm-ing, let alone been subjected to many years of environmental alarmism? Recognizing the difficulty of finding such an untainted observer on our own planet Earth, imag-ine, if you will, a visiting spaceman from Alpha Centauri. So here we go:

Mr. Centauri, what would you like to know in order to help us analyze our situ-ation here on Earth?

First, I need to know if the planet Earth is warming.

Well, sir, yes and no. It depends en-tirely on your frame of reference. We’ve warmed greatly since our last Ice Age, but that was 12,000 years ago. More recently — about 1,000 years ago — there was a period known as the Medieval Warm Period when wine grapes were commer-cially grown in Northern England and the island of Greenland was cultivated by Vikings. Unfortunately, this respite from generally colder weather ended about 500 years ago when the tempera-

tures fell drastically. Instead of growing grapes, the English were having Ice Fairs on the Thames, and as late as 1814, there was ice some 11 inches thick supporting wagons, tents, and even an elephant. In Greenland, once-cultivated fields became bound by permafrost.

In America one could walk a frozen harbor from Manhattan to Staten Island. Even in the South as late as the Civil War, the Arkansas River at Little Rock would freeze over for weeks at a time allowing both foot and wagon traffic. No one alive today has seen this occur.

Since then we have observed the av-erage global temperature rise about 1oC (1.8oF) during the 20th century, setting record-high temperatures. Most of this in-crease (0.6oC) occurred before 1940, with the decade of the 1930s being the hottest recorded in the United States. In 1940, a sharp decline occurred and scientists — including many of those now at the fore-front of global-warming alarmism — were warning of a coming Ice Age. In the early ’80s, the temperature again warmed until 1998, when it peaked.

By the way, since 1979 temperatures have been available from satellite mea-surements with a great degree of accuracy (+/- 0.01oC). They cover the entire lower


troposphere over both land and oceans. Temperature data from thermometers in populated areas have been found to suffer from the “urban heat island” effect. (We Earthlings know it is much hotter standing in a parking lot rather than a field, and cities are meteorologically just big parking lots.)

In summary, the Earth has been gener-ally warming, with intermittent pauses and regressions, since the mid 1800s.

I see. And what evidence do the “alarm-ists,” as you call them, have to show that CO2 is causing the temperature increase?

The only evidence they have is a weak correlation (correlation strength = 0.43) between the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the rise in global temperatures. The rest of their “evidence” consists of 22 computer models. Most of the persuasion they wield rests on examples (many fictitious) of the catastrophic effects that result from global warming. For example, polar bears are por-trayed as a starving, threatened species — usually pictured sitting in a forlorn-looking pose, floating on a chunk of ice — devas-tated from hunger brought about by limited

hunting opportunities that are the result of thin and reduced Arctic ice, when in reality polar bear numbers are increasing, and may in fact be at record levels.

Are the alarmists’ computer models compelling?

Skeptics of human-caused warming would first point out that the rapid rise in CO2 didn’t occur until after 1940, after most of the increase in global temperature had occurred. Ironically, in that very year, the temperature began to decline rapidly.

Second, we note that the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change uses 22 different computer models in what seems to be a way to always have one that is cor-rect. (If the science is settled, shouldn’t there be only one computer model?) Out of the 22, none of these models predicted the decrease that has taken place over the last decade in the Earth’s temperature — which is now at the same level as when satellite measurements began in 1979. Now alarm-ists are having to come up with excuses as to why their data are off track. So far the best they can do is to blame their problem

on “climate variability.” Gee, that’s what we skeptics have been saying all along.

One aspect of the computer models that is agreed upon by skeptics and alarmists alike is a method developed by the alarm-ist camp to verify whether increases in CO2 cause the Earth to warm, known as the “fingerprint method.” This method compares the pattern of warming that is observed to the pattern of warming that is calculated. Every computer model pre-dicts an increase in the Earth’s warming trend that is maximized in the tropical zone between 30N and 30S at an altitude of about 10 kilometers (6 miles). Again, all 22 models used predict a hot spot. This is to be the fingerprint of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. No hot spot, no effect by greenhouse gases. Yet thousands of measurements, both satellite and radio-sondes (balloons), have never found even a trace of such a hot spot anywhere in the troposphere.

But there is more evidence in a recently released report by MIT meteorologist Rich-ard Lindzen based on a 20-year experiment in measuring the outgoing radiation from the Earth by a satellite specifically designed for that purpose. All computer models as-sume that as the Earth becomes hotter, owing to an increased concentration of CO2, more thermal energy that otherwise would escape into space would be blocked by the CO2, making the Earth hotter still — a condition known as positive feedback. But the satellite shows otherwise. The warmer the Earth, the more radiation escapes into space. Warming from greenhouse gases is not happening. No reason to throttle CO2, no increase in the rate of sea-level rise, no need to saddle the American economy with huge taxes and bureaucracies, no reason to send jobs overseas.

Do you mean that Earthlings are will-ing to give up their standard of living, pay more taxes, and have energy come under government control with no real evidence of a problem existing?

Yes sir, I’m afraid that’s the case.Well, I think I’ll hang around for a

while. You see, I have some great beach-front property on Neptune for sale.… n

— eD hiseroDT

A global-warming alarmism group that recently garnered much international press — 350.org — wants the upper limit for carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to be 350 parts per million. That’s much less than the approximate 387 parts per million now in the atmosphere.

AP

Imag

es


Seventeen and a half years ago, in May-June 1992, this cor-

respondent was jammed cheek to jowl with 30,000 greenies in a global mosh pit known as the United Nations Earth Summit. From that initial event in Rio de Janeiro — and its successors — has flowed a deluge of treaties, con-ventions, and proposed regimes to regulate (i.e., to control) all human life and activity on our planet.

Mikhail Gorbachev was there, celebrated as a rock star. The New York Times had praised his call for a “global code of environmental conduct” because it “would have an aspect of world government” and lead to “global po-licing” and “international law,” which, according to the Times’ perspective, is obviously a good thing. Fidel Castro was there, perhaps the only celebrity to receive a wilder, more enthu-siastic reception than Gorbachev. A wooden, young Senator from Tennessee was also there. Al Gore, basking in the glow of media acclaim for his new book, Earth in the Balance, a Malthusian end-of-the-world lamentation, led a U.S. Senate delegation that pushed for greater UN controls over all things and a “Global Marshall Plan” for the environment — to be paid for largely by U.S. taxpayers.

No remembrance of Rio should leave unmentioned one of its prime movers and shakers, Maurice Strong, the Canadian billionaire “environmentalist” who served as Secretary-General of the Rio Earth Summit. The jet-setting Strong harshly con-demned Americans as “clearly the greatest risk” to planet Earth, and declared “the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world.” “It is clear,” Strong wrote, “that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … are not sustainable.”

Now, all these years later, following nearly two decades of intense media fright-peddling and an endless stream of UN conferences and propaganda, comes Copenhagen. The UN Cli-mate Change Conference to be held there December 7-18 could change your world — permanently. The treaty to be presented there will have no effect whatsoever on the Earth’s weather or climate cycles, but it will represent an attempt to foist one of the most far-reaching and revolutionary political, social, and economic arrangements on the entire planet. Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, made these scathing comments about the upcoming UN confab in an October 14 speech:

At Copenhagen this De-cember, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your President will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, be-cause they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the Euro-pean Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actu-

ally appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the coun-tries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” — because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

Monckton says the communists “piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement.” “They are about to im-pose a communist world government on the world. You have a President who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.”

However, the U.S. Senate is going to be hard pressed, espe-cially in our current economic decline, to justify ratification of this scheme. They are already well aware that they face huge op-position from voters to the House (Waxman-Markey H.R. 2454) and the Senate (Kerry-Boxer, S.1733) cap-and-trade climate bills. Even the die-hard supporters of Copenhagen in the Senate know that the fake “scientific consensus” on global warming has been melting faster than the proverbial snowball in Hades. The BBC has been notorious for retailing climate-alarmist drivel masquerading as science. Nevertheless, BBC climate correspon-dent Paul Hudson, in an October 9 report entitled “What hap-pened to global warming?” reported that many people would be surprised to learn “the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.”

More than 31,000 U.S. scientists have signed a petition chal-lenging the climate alarmists’ claims (www.petitionproject.org) and more than 700 distinguished international scientists from dozens of countries (http://epw.senate.gov) have issued state-ments contesting major theses of the climate alarmists. Now your Senators need to hear from you. n

From Rio to Copenhagen


tHE last woRDby williAm F. JAsper

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

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

✁

Historical Art Prints (Set of 5) ($39.95) HISPRINTS

50th Lapel Pin ($6.95) JPIN50

The New American Binder ($9.95) TNABINDER

TNA Mug ($11.95) MUGTNA

JBS Mug ($11.95) MUGJBS50

TNA Pen ($2.99) PENTNA

JBS Pen ($2.99) PENJBS

For the Love of Country(2007, 303min, $39.95 per set, $9.95 per

individual CD) CDSFLC

Name ______________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________

City _____________________________ State __________ Zip ________________

Phone ____________________________ E-mail ______________________________

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

# _________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________

Signature ____________________________________________________



091123

SUBTOTAL TOTALWI RESIDENTS ADD 5% SALES TAx

SHIPPING/HANDLING(SEE CHART BELOW)

QuAnTITy TITlE PrICE ToTAl PrICE

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

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

Make checks payable to: ShopJBS

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

APPLETON, WI 54912

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

The 5000 Year Leap Book (2008ed, 337pp, pb, $19.95) BKFTYLCD/MP3 Format (2007, over 8hrs, $9.95) CDFTYL8-CD Audio Set (2007, over 8hrs, $19.95) CDFTYL8

Holiday Gifts

The Robert Welch Presentations (2009ed, 553 total minutes, 6-DVD set, $39.95) DVDRWP

NEW

000 0000 000 000

0000 0000 0000 0000

0000

Consultants and administratorsSpecializing in Tax Deductions for Dental Practices • Post Office Box 7007 • Porter Ranch, CA 91327

PRISM: Any medium that resolves a seemingly simple matter into its elements

The New American #2524 - Constitutional Candidates issue with Jake Towne

Documents

Transcript of The New American #2524 - Constitutional Candidates issue with Jake Towne