By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/28/2009

A seemingly accelerating trend with Americans is to look with skepticism and a jaundiced perspective at business, capitalism, and the profit motive. In spite of efforts by some to rewrite history, those of us who are students of history recognize the critical contribution of the profit motive in the emergence of America as an economic power. The fact is, capitalism and the profit motive created a global power out of a rag-tag collection of British colonies.

Business and the profit motive have turned us from an agrarian to a high-tech, producing and consuming nation. All of us are dependent upon business and the profit motive for everything we do every day. From the manufacturer of the bed we arise from and the alarm clock we wake up to, to the toothpaste, shampoo, and comb we use in the morning. The beverage we imbibe to give us a kick-start in the morning and the vehicle we drive to work are products of once small businesses that have grown sometimes to global proportions. If any of those products or services we depend on get too expensive, we start shopping for cheaper replacements.

Most of us even work for a small business driven by that evil profit motive; those firms across the fruited plain that market and sell products, provide advice and services, and fill the needs of people from all walks of life. They pay us to fill a specific function within the company to help them service their customers more efficiently and cost-effectively. And most of them pay another 30% of our salaries or wages in the form of benefits (which Congress also wants to tax) to help retain quality employees. And according to Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University an amazing 89 percent of us are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with our jobs with those evil profit-mongers.

As a matter of fact, according to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99% of all employer firms, employ half of all private sector employees, pay 45% of total U.S. private payroll, generate 80% of new jobs annually, create more than 50% of nonfarm private GDP, comprise 97% of all identified exporters, and produce 26% of the known export value to our GDP.

Yet every time new governmental regulation is written by which companies must abide, the costs increase. Whenever the government increases taxes on companies, the costs increase again. In order to stay in business, they must pass those costs on to their customers, or find other ways to reduce costs like eliminating jobs. That’s why it makes no sense to tax companies since we all end up individually paying their taxes for them via increased prices for their products and services.

And it’s not just small business that makes our quality of life what it is, but that evil big brother of small business; BIG business. What an evil concept, to sell things that people want and need at prices that most people can afford (after all, they want to sell as many of their “widgets” as possible). And they do so with a profit motive in order to share their success with those who ponied-up the capital (investors, silent partners, share-holders) facilitating their business ventures. Remember, if they over-price their widgets, they price themselves out of the market. If they under-price their widgets, they’re not going to remain viable, and will have to lay off all their employees and won’t be able to pay all those taxes the government is requiring of them. Then their employees will have to hope they can find another widget company to replace the job they lost.

The media, Hollywood, and even some of our fellow citizens bash “big pharma,” big oil, or big retailers like Wal-Mart. But in reality what do those “big” evil companies do? They provide needed products and services at reasonable prices, enabling our national economic engine, and our quality of life, to keep chugging along. They have limited control over much of their expenses, but to be able to continue doing what they do, they charge a modest profit to ensure their viability in future years, and allow us to have a job!

Right here in the Pocatello area, over 30,000 jobs are supported by these evil profit-motive-driven companies. That includes over 600 jobs at On Semiconductor, 350 at Simplot, 550 at Union Pacific Railroad, and over 400 at Wal-Mart. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates there are 2,346 employers in Pocatello. The Private Sector includes 2,233 firms, which make up 95.18% of companies hiring in Pocatello

Too many of us rely on fallacious typecasts and stereotypes of what business and the profit motive do. Rather than relying on our empirical observations of their contributions to our quality of life, we allow the media, Hollywood, or anti-business kvetching to taint our perceptions. The profit motive, capitalism, and the free-enterprise system (which frankly we haven’t truly had for nearly 70 years because of intense governmental regulation), are the backbone to our economic system, and as such, are the key to future growth and prosperity individually and collectively. Government encroachment and increased regulation stymie future potential growth, our quality of life, and our job security.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/21/2009

It was spring, 2007. The blossoms were budding on the plentiful cherry trees in Washington, D.C., belying the storm fomenting within the halls of Congress and in the national media newsrooms. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had just dismissed a handful of U.S. Attorney’s, and the media as well as the opposition in Congress, were calling for his head and denouncing the firings, even though the president and the Attorney General, were fully within their rights and the law to dismiss them.

Fast forward to 2009. A new President has rolled out a massive “stimulus” bill purportedly to stimulate the economy, although a closer reading reveals the primary beneficiary will be expanded government growth. An Inspector General, who does not serve at the leisure of the president, as the U.S. Attorneys do, discovers fraud in the disposition of government funds by one of the new President’s ardent supporters. The supporter, who is also Mayor of Sacramento, likely will not get any of the stimulus money because of his misuse of AmeriCorps funds. The White House promptly fires the Inspector General for doing his job.

While we wouldn’t expect Congressional leaders to question the firing or call for hearings as they did of Gonzales, certainly the media will be all over such obvious cronyism and duplicity. Right? Wrong! It seems the mainstream media is so enamored with Obama that they refuse to report anything that may reflect poorly on him. Perhaps they’re also trying to avoid being taken over like the auto industry, like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela. Hardly a word of suspicion has been uttered by the media that now will broadcast from the White House, and whose anchors participate on a strategy and propaganda call orchestrated by the White House daily.

Inspectors General are hired by the government to investigate waste and fraud. Obviously, Gerald Walpin, the IG for AmeriCorps, a government program which pays volunteers for community service, was doing his job. He filed two reports exposing gross misappropriation by Kevin Johnson, former NBA star, who is also the Mayor of Sacramento and an Obama supporter. Walpin found Johnson had failed to use their federal grant money for the purposes specified, and had used the funds for, among other things, “driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands.” Walpin reported that as much as $850,000 had been misappropriated. That’s a lot of car washes!

What makes this firing of Walpin even more egregious is the fact that Senator Barack Obama, in 2008, cosponsored legislation that was designed to assure the political independence of Inspectors General. According to that law (do you get the uneasy feeling that laws don’t seem to matter to our chief executive who is constitutionally the top law-enforcer?), the president must first send a letter to Congress declaring his intention to fire an Inspector General and provide the specific reasons why. It can’t be done as an afterthought as was attempted the next day by Obama. That letter is also designed to serve as a statutory 30 day notice to Congress of a dismissal. And yes, that 30 day statutory notice was required by the legislation that Obama cosponsored a mere two years ago. But that’s history, and one thing we’ve learned is that this president seems to have a hard time with history.

The law and constitutional limitations don’t seem to have much weight with this administration. Hillary Clinton was ineligible according to the Constitution, to be Secretary of State, having voted for a pay raise for that post. At last count, eight Obama appointees have a problem with paying taxes. Appointment of numerous “Tsars” within the administration is unconstitutional, even by Sen. Robert Byrd’s reckoning. The manner and details of the auto industry bailout and forced bankruptcy are illegal. The administration forced AIG to renege on contractual retention bonuses. President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law, breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them.

I don’t think any of us who think about our politics, versus “feel” about them, are surprised by this duplicity. You remember all that talk about a new openness and transparency in Washington with the new administration? It obviously was just a ruse. With each passing day it becomes increasingly obvious that while our President can give a good talk and say some good things, his words are illusory and mask what’s really being done behind closed doors. What was Chicago-style politics has now gone big-time. Welcome to Washington-style politics!

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/14/2009

It has been alarming to me how the landscape of the American economy has become so dramatically altered over the past few months. The lines have become increasingly blurred between government ownership and corporate control with what’s happened in the auto and banking industries, and it appears the administration is not going to stop there. Next stop is healthcare. Even more alarming, is the fact that so many of our fellow citizens fail to recognize in that blurring of the lines, the transition to a more socialist system where the government controls the means of production in the economy, even though that tenet is fundamental to socialistic dogma.

Sometimes it takes an outsider who has been there and done that, to point out how far we have slid down that slippery slope. Last month Pravda, the Russian news agency, ran a column by Stanislav Mishin that served that very purpose. But since not too many of us frequent the pages or the online postings of Pravda, I’m sure most of us missed his astute observations.

Mishin states at the outset, “It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless ‘sheeple,’ excuse me dear reader, I meant people.” Who better to recognize the symptoms of an economic and political system in transition, than one who has lived under it!

He continues, “The initial testing ground was our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.” Harsh words, no doubt, but stated with alarming clarity and perspicacity.

Describing how this descent has been made possible, he explains, “First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their ‘right’ to choke down a McDonalds burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our ‘democracy.’ Pride blind the foolish.

“Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different ‘branches and denominations’ were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses.

“The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.” No wonder Hugo Chavez declared that he and Fidel Castro are ideologically to the right of Obama!

Referring to the financial advisors of the administration, and their role in this transformation, he says of these financial “oligarchs,” that they “…are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress. Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.”

He reminds us, “Prime Minister Putin, less than two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our ‘wise’ Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.  

“Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper.” Remember the “Tea Parties” from April? At least a few of us are whimpering. And we should do much more!

Forcefully, and insightfully, he concludes, “The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.”

Five decades ago, then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson spoke of a visit he had with then Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. “He [Khrushchev] indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism…He arrogantly declared, ‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright. But we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’”

Prophetic? It appears to be. But the Russians learned. Apparently we will learn the hard way as well.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/07/2009

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor affirmed the important of a Supreme Court Justice being free from bias and committed to equal justice by declaring that “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has taken exception to this multiple times over the past fifteen years with this unambiguous statement: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” If Samuel Alito or John Roberts had made such a statement before their Supreme Court appointment hearings, you can be sure that they would never have been confirmed. And rightly so.

Even if we give Ms. Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt and allow her premise legitimacy, we might well consider whether life experience is the determinant of wise constitutional interpretation. If anything, it seems her predisposition would preclude the proper execution of her role on the Supreme Court. As one enters the Supreme Court Building in D.C., the words “Equal Justice Under Law,” emblazoned above the door, reaffirm the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which promises equal protection for all citizens under the law. Enacted on the heels of the Civil War during Reconstruction, this amendment was designed to ensure that all citizens, regardless of race or gender, would receive equal protection under the law, in ensuring constitutional rights of “life, liberty, and property.”

Consequently, when a Supreme Court nominee presupposes that her judgment would be superior to a “white man” without her life experiences, the logical conclusion is that she has no intention of upholding the Constitution and especially the 14th Amendment since they require equal treatment. She maintains that her decisions would be better. What, then, is her definition of better? More predisposed toward someone of her race? More predisposed toward someone of her sex? However her definition of “better” is construed, it becomes incongruous with the role of any judge applying equal treatment under law.

And just in case you had lingering questions about her disposition regarding race, perhaps this one will dispel them. “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Have a white male judge say anything remotely similar, and he’ll be removed from the Bench quicker than Trent Lott lost his Senate Majority Leader role for a much less objectionable statement.

Based on her statements, she would unlikely be able to survive the Voir Dire process to even become a juror because of her obvious biases. She has proven that she is desperately incapable of serving as a jurist, as her decisions have been overruled 60% of the time on appeal. And yet for some reason we suppose that she is somehow able to divest herself of her prejudices and serve as a judge in the highest court in the land? I think she was nominated by Obama because of her biases and the identity politics associated with her nomination, not in spite of them.

Consider this quote from CBS news last week. “The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s scant record on abortion rights, delivering strong but vague assurances that the Supreme Court nominee agrees with President Obama's belief in constitutional protections for a woman's right to the procedure.” In all honesty, what would have happened to Alito or Roberts if President Bush had acted that way to assure pro-life groups that they agree with the President on the abortion issue? Bush would have been excoriated, and their nominations would have been thrown out quicker than you could say “Harriet Miers.” Apparently it’s okay to have some biases, just as long as they aren’t based on strict constitutional constructionism, or pro life principles.

Just one final consideration. The role of a Supreme Court jurist is to interpret the law fairly and equitably. Laws and policy are made by the legislative branch, while the judicial ascertains constitutional and legal legitimacy. What are we to feel about a judge who says, “The Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

Not only is Sotomayor unsuitable to be a Supreme Court justice, I don’t think she’s qualified to be a judge. Her biases and her commitment to judicial activism and creating “policy” from the bench are wholly unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/31/2009

I remember several years ago standing on the banks of the Snake River watching helplessly as the heavy spring thaw threatened flooding near Blackfoot. At the time I remember how humorous it would be to see a bunch of us scooping water out with five-gallon cans to try to lower the water level and reduce the flood threat.

Our efforts to control the environment by reducing CO2 emissions are just as impotent. A new “cap and trade” bill is being sold to us as an environmental measure, and some aspects of the bill do make sense in promoting alternative energy development. But the heart of it is a sham.

HR 2454 cleared the House Energy and Commerce committee this week. Its primary purpose is to place a limit (cap) on companies that emit that horrible gas that we all exhale, CO2, and tax those companies that emit more than whatever arbitrary number they come up with. Those companies that fall under those new arbitrary limits will have the option to sell (trade) their credits to the others. The costs to buying companies will be levied as taxes in order to try to pay for everything congress is spending that they don’t have the cash for. While the avowed intention is to reduce carbon emissions in the name of saving the planet from global warming, the net result will be devastating to all of us.

If the bill passes congress in its current form, it would require that CO2 (what we exhale, and plants thrive on) emissions be reduced 20% from 2005 levels by 2020, and by 2050 they would have to be 83% lower.

Let’s put this in perspective. Of all the gases and elements composing our atmosphere, CO2 comprises .038%. Yes, you read that right. Less than one-half of one percent. Now get this. Of that .038% of CO2 in the atmosphere, man contributes less than 4%. Man’s carbon contributions amount to .00152% of the gases that comprise the atmosphere. Hence, my metaphoric reflection on the banks of the Snake River. Even if we were to revert to stone-age type subsistence, the effect on the environment would be negligible.

Amazingly, more and more people are starting to question global-warming alarmists like Al Gore (who not coincidently, earned a “D” in natural sciences in college) who would have us believe we’re facing Armageddon if we don’t monitor and check our “carbon footprints.” The pollsters at Rasmussen earlier this month released their latest findings, and the gullible Al Gore disciples believing in man-made global warming are at a record low 34%, a reverse “hockey stick” chart from just two years ago.

Pew Research released results in January of top issues of concern to Americans. Of the 18 issues that showed up in responses, man-made global warming came in dead last at number 18. I have to admit, it gives me hope that people really can think for themselves on such issues, since the mainstream media and anti-capitalists have been shoving the concept down our throats for so long.

Since the science is clearly on the skeptical side of man’s impotence in controlling global temperatures by driving golf carts with doors instead of real cars, there must be another reason congress and the Obama administration is ramming this through the legislative docket. And here’s your reason: $$$$$!

Obama administration officials originally projected that they could raise over $600 billion in taxes levied against carbon emitters. Jason Furman, deputy director of the National Economic Council, recently revised that estimate to $1.2 to $1.9 trillion from 2012 to 2019. According to the Investor’s Business Daily, the impact on the economy would be devastating, and put us in a perpetual state of recession by reducing our GDP by $7.4 to $9.6 trillion. Remember, companies don’t pay taxes, people do. Anything that uses energy, or is produced with energy, will have costs skyrocket. IBD says, “As energy prices rise, income and employment will fall, and families will spend larger portions of their incomes on energy.” Projections are that net job losses will exceed 2.5 million, even accounting for new “green jobs.” The bottom line to each of us would be an additional $1,600 to $2,200 in lost yearly income to energy costs, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

I know a lot of people like to think they’re “saving the planet” by driving a hybrid or driving a dangerous go-cart with doors instead of an SUV. If that makes you feel important or worthwhile, by all means, believe what you want. However, the science just doesn’t support your cause. And while Washington may try to sell cap-and-trade with the same feel-good rationale, it’s imperative that we know it’s all about money and control, not the environment. I’m just grateful that we aren’t as dependent upon coal as West Virginia, since Obama promised he was going to “bankrupt the coal industry” last year. This is how he’s going to do it.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/17/2009

While Thanksgiving is a time to pause and give thanks to God for the things that we have, Memorial Day is a time to pause and give thanks to God for the people who have fought for the things we have, the most important of which are intangible. That was the way my parents inculcated into me the important role of Memorial Day in our holiday observance. The picnics, family weekend getaways, and outdoor excursions are fine, but the reason for the day should never be lost to us.

Having just finished perusing “House to House: A Soldier’s Memoir,” by David Bellavia, my immense gratitude and respect for those who wear the nation’s military uniforms is reaffirmed. Bellavia was in an infantry unit involved in the battle for Fallujah in 2005. Not for the squeamish or the fainthearted, the account is riveting, poignant, and awe-inspiring for the heroism, gallantry, and humanity of our service personnel.

His perspective on his job there was clear. Regardless of the reasons that brought them to Iraq, there are “bad guys” (the way he describes the enemy to his young son back home in New York) trying to kill innocent people and his fellow soldiers. His job, which he and the others volunteered for, was to eradicate the threat to the innocents, which by default was mitigating the threat to America. As he says it, with his brothers in uniform, his rifle, and the American flag on his sleeve, there’s nothing he can’t do.

Undoubtedly many of our returning champions of freedom wonder why they made it back and some of their fellow soldiers did not. Bellavia writes, “I know that there are families out there right now, mourning the empty chair. I am guilty for having lived when my brothers did not. I mourn them, and do not feel worthy to live on without them.”

Bellavia describes a sobering experience after his two tours in Iraq. He returned to Fallujah as a civilian, walking the streets, observing the normal daily routines of those who had returned to their homes. He was on another type of mission on this trip, however. He was going to the streets, fields, and houses where he had lost some of his closest brothers. On one street he placed a carnation for his fallen captain whom he had held in such high regard. He muttered a prayer, and then was startled by an Iraqi woman watching him. He started to leave, and after several steps stopped, and turned back to watch the woman. In his words, “She was kneeling in front of my flower. Tenderly she placed her own weeds alongside my cheap carnation. She touched her heart, then the ground, and uttered a prayer. She kissed her hand and touched her heart again. My mouth fell open. She looked over at me, and as our eyes met again, my heart broke. All the emotions suddenly broke free. Tears rushed down my cheeks and I began to sob uncontrollably. She regarded me sadly, then left without knowing the gift she’d given me.

“She wasn’t the reason I came to fight in Iraq. But she reminded me of the importance of why we fight. The soil in Fallujah and all of Iraq has been consecrated with the blood of our dead. And her reverence reminded me of that. This old woman showed me that my time in Fallujah was a life-altering privilege. It was here that we fought for hope. It was here that we fought to end the reign of terror that had descended on the innocents of a city.

“Through it all, I witnessed the best of human condition – the loyalty, the self-sacrifice, the love that the brotherhood of arms evokes. I realized then that I am complete for having experienced that. Those who died gave their lives for their brothers. They gave their lives for a noble ideal: that freedom from tyranny and oppression is a basic human right. We were the force to do that, and my brothers paid the price.

Regardless of the reasons for entering the Iraq conflict, and the Bush administration offered several, those who objected to it have focused on the most questionable of them, the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. The weakness of that one argument does not negate the others, and most importantly, does nothing to diminish the immense contributions of Bellavia, his brothers in arms, and our own local heroes who have served there, including Blake Stephens and Nick Gummersall, who consecrated that barren Iraqi soil for freedom, with their own blood.

There is nothing glorious in war. Would to God that it would never be necessary. However, as long as there are evil men in the world who tyrannically seek unrighteous dominion over others, war will necessarily be a part of the human experience. Regrettably, contrary to the naïveté expressed in bumper stickers, sometimes war is the answer. And we should be ever grateful for those who through the years, whether willingly or unwillingly, sacrificed for us. America and all who love freedom thank you and your families for your sacrifices in our behalf.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/17/2009

It has been entertaining to witness the unsolicited counsel pontificated from the left telling the Republican Party what’s wrong with it. Not just nationally, but locally, with a liberal high school teacher and a liberal physics instructor lecturing Republicans on what they’re doing wrong. Since many liberals don’t view Republicans as different-minded Americans, but as enemies to be vanquished, isn’t that a bit like the U.S. accepting counsel from Iran or North Korea on what we’re doing wrong? Theirs is the last counsel I would give credence to on the issue.

How about a little counsel to the Republican Party from one who considers himself a conservative? After all, I have a vested interest in its success, unlike the querulous ones barking from the left’s sidelines who cheer the current transformation of America, and would just as soon see an American uni-party system continue control in perpetuity.

The problem with the Republican Party is that it has allowed the liberal wing of the Democrat Party to dictate the discussion. Rather than leading on Constitutional and founding principles upon which this nation was based, those seeking to transform the country into something it was never intended to be have set the political dialogue. As a result, the discussion is not whether we should have a deficit at all, it’s, “How much is too much of a deficit?” Rather than all human life is sacred and should be protected, it’s, “How many innocents’ lives are too many to abort?” And instead of government should not be bailing out any businesses, it’s, “How big is too big to fail?”

Democrats do an excellent job of making promises to niche political groups, and then not fulfilling them. But they’re judged not on results, but on their intent, and their expressed fealty to them. The “Great Society” has redistributed trillions of dollars over the past four decades, and poverty levels remain, as a percentage of the population, about what they were when the “war on poverty” was declared. Promises to political niches are no more than efforts to buy votes, with someone else’s money. If Republicans want to win elections again, commit to doing what’s best for the country, and all people, and don’t try to outbid for their votes, or dissect the electorate based on clichéd parsing of issues or catering to special interest groups.

Return to the basic Constitutional premise that government is to “promote” the general welfare of the nation, not “provide” it. In our republic, government was intentionally created to maintain law and order, ensure our national security, protect life, facilitate interstate commerce, and preserve freedom. Our republic was never intended to be a panacea or balm for all the ills and travails of society. It was intended to provide a legal structure for the protection of liberty and rights that would allow individuals to get out of life what they were willing to invest personally into it. If you want to succeed as a party, distinguish yourselves from the other one, don’t be content to be “Democrat Lite.”

A great barometer by which to gauge the potential efficacy of a national leader who espouses basic conservative principles, is observing the ferocity with which the whiners from the left and the mainstream media attack them. Even today, long after the 2008 election, mainstream media are doing all they can to not just demean and belittle, but destroy Sarah Palin. Since conservatives were not energized behind McCain until after Palin came on the national political stage, and the media continue to attack her, it’s a safe bet that they fear her, or someone like her. There’s your political barometer at work.

Moving to the left will not save the Republican Party, moving to the right will. Republicans had arguably the most liberal presidential candidate ever this last cycle as he tried to stake out the moderate ground, and he lost. He was also the mainstream media’s darling since he frequently bashed conservatives, until they had their own horse in the race, their own “anointed one.”

Question D3 on the bipartisan Battleground Poll provides the evidence. It reads, “When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be… Very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, very liberal, unsure/refused.” In the August 2008 results, 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; 40% somewhat conservative; 2% moderate; 27% somewhat liberal, and 9% very liberal; and 3% didn’t know for sure. Those results have varied only slightly over the past 10 years. Do the math, and 60% of the American electorate considers itself to be at least somewhat conservative. Maybe the reason you Republicans are losing elections is because you’re abandoning the core conservative principles that the Republican Party was founded on.

Does that mean that the Republican Party must be a monolithic entity that only accepts for membership those who completely agree? Of course not. Ronald Reagan, our last truly conservative national leader, once said that someone who agrees with him 80% of the time is not his enemy.

Reagan won two landslides based on fundamental conservatism, or classical liberalism, if you will. You Republican leaders should not listen to the pundits who continually harp that the “era of Reagan is dead,” while to them the era of FDR will never expire. Return to your roots, genuinely, steadfastly, and faithfully, and you may be able to come out of the political wasteland you now find yourselves in.

By Richard Larsen

Part of Obama’s transformation of America seems to be conversion of the Executive Branch of government from a law enforcer into a Machiavellian mafia. Notorious for extending “an offer you can’t refuse,” mafias infamously force people to do things they wouldn’t normally do to achieve their ends. This week the presidents’ team did just that to Chrysler creditors.

The President had arranged a salvific “marriage” between the struggling American car maker and Fiat by executive fiat, without so much as legislative authorization. Part of the deal was to give 55% ownership to the United Auto Workers. But to make it work, current Chrysler creditors had to agree to the deal.

Most of Chrysler’s creditors agreed to the President’s terms. They also were extended “an offer they can’t refuse,” as they were recipients of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds from the government. But about 20 creditors, bond holders, were castigated by the President for holding out. In now customary Obama fashion, he demonized the investors, and those representing them, for trying to only lose 50% of their principal, rather than 75% of it.

Said Obama, “A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.” For being such a smart guy and a lawyer, he doesn’t seem to understand investing, creditor obligations, and the world of business very well. But apparently that doesn’t matter as he continues to transform the world of American business where contracts don’t matter. The bond (debt) holders and equity owners of Chrysler get literally pennies on the dollar, while the UAW, who had no ownership stake in the company, come out like bandits.

A group of Chrysler lenders said in a statement earlier this week that they’d been treated worse than junior creditors during the negotiation process with the White House, in violation of “long-recognized legal and business principles.” Well, folks, welcome to the transformative business world of the Obama administration, where legal contracts are subjugated to the “rights” of loyal political supporters who are “entitled” to paybacks.

The other aspect of this tragedy that is so troubling is the threats made by the White House against those Chrysler lenders who were exercising their legal rights to recover more of their principle. According to Thomas Lauria, legal counsel for the non-TARP participant lenders, he and his clients were “directly threatened by the White House and compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.” Lauria made the statements in a live radio interview on a Detroit radio show, and I saw him recount the experience again on CNBC on Wednesday.

Lauria told ABC News that his clients “are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt” with Chrysler. He’s also referred to as a “big time Democratic contributor,” who would ostensibly have no other reason to make such a claim.

This shatters the notion of the press being an objective, independent reporting entity with no agenda. That the White House could threaten investors by promising that “the White House press corps would destroy [their] reputation if [they] continued to fight,” is not only shocking, but reprehensible! Has the mainstream media become such a puppet that they will simply do his bidding in destroying the reputations of anyone he asks them to? And is the White House so convinced of their control of the media that they can really make such a promise? Apparently so. If you’ve never felt you had sufficient cause to be wary of media “objectivity,” your security blanket has just been yanked away. The naked truth is laid bare for all to see.

Jim Carney of Business Insider validated Lauria’s recapitulation of the threat with testimony from two other participants. They refused to let Carney identify them, however, for they feared political repercussions as well. Gee, I wonder why? By the way, both of the participants were reported by Carney as being Obama supporters.

These mafia-like strong-arm tactics of the White House bode ill for GM investors. The precedent has been set, and the President will get his way, regardless of who he has to demonize or destroy in the process, and more political favors will be doled out at tax-payer expense. And Ford, who has been able to survive without government meddling thus far, may well become a target of the President will who will likely use any means possible to give them to the UAW as well. Welcome to the transformational business world of Obama.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/03/2009

The inimitable Mark Twain once quipped, “No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the congress is in session.” In few areas is that more self-evident than in the attempt to criminalize what is in one’s heart. For some in congress, it’s not enough to put someone in jail for harming another, but if they have “hate” or a prejudice in their heart they should be incarcerated even longer and prosecuted by federal prosecutors. Not only does this tread dangerously on the ground of law enforcement essentially serving as “thought police” but it is also unconstitutional.

This week the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 was passed by the House and will undoubtedly be signed by the President. It identifies crimes which may have been perpetrated due to potential prejudice as federal criminal offenses, with the possibility of life imprisonment. According to the legislation, crimes motivated by the “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person” will be prosecuted at the federal level.

Legally, legislation like this is unnecessary. Under the 14th Amendment all citizens are treated equally under the law. If one is assaulted, it legally makes no difference whether the perpetrator was motivated by animosity, prejudice, or abject hatred. And ideally it makes no difference what color, sex, or sexual orientation the victim is. Most states already have hate crime legislation on the books, but by federalizing it, it takes us dangerously one step closer to “hate speech” regulation like Canada has.

Since this legislation is not legally necessary, the most likely motive behind it is the enforcement of political correctness or PC. PC is perhaps the greatest culprit leading to a degeneration of our culture and diluting our freedom of speech. Initially intended to make us more sensitive to issues of ethnicity and sexual orientation, which in and of itself is not only desirable but necessary in a society such as ours, it has advanced to an illogical extreme and elevates those protected by PC protocol to a level disallowed for the population at large. Such extremism can lead to the restriction of pastors from preaching publicly against homosexuality using verses from the Bible, as has occurred in Canada. It is one more example of the fact that those claiming to be “tolerant” are the most intolerant of all.

The Family Research Council has said of the legislation, that “…it would be used against individuals and churches who speak out on issues such as defending marriage and religious liberty.” That would mean that in any future efforts to legalize same-sex marriage as California experienced last year, any individual or organization, including churches, supporting traditional marriage, could be prosecuted under broad interpretation of the statute, even though verbiage in the bill ostensibly disallows it.

Anyone with a semblance of intellectual integrity should see this as one more step in enforcing PC. It’s just one more step toward stifling dissent and curtailing freedom of speech. Radical leftists already presuppose that the reason many of us support traditional marriage is because of “hate,” even though our reasons have nothing to do with it. This type of legislation affords statutory cover for officials to quell dissent and silence traditionalists. With everything else that is being done to “transform” America, nothing strikes so fatally at the heart of America’s freedoms then enforced political correctness does.

It is increasingly obvious that officials in the federal government have no idea what the Constitution says. And as a dear friend of mine, a high school history teacher reminded me recently, Niemoller said of the Nazis, “First they came for the Communists…” Then they came for everyone else. It appears the tactic is now being employed right here in America.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/26/2009

Saul Alinsky would be proud of what one of his disciples is doing to transform America. Alinsky, you’ll recall, is widely considered the founder of “community organizing.” He maintained that the way to facilitate “change,” was by “capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society.” He advocated “a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this was through peoples organizations.”

John Perazzo of FrontPage, in his insightful examination of the Alinsky methodology, said last year, “In the Alinsky model, ‘organizing’ is a euphemism for ‘revolution’ -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure.”

One of Alinsky’s key strategies was to specifically identify and name “enemies;” those who stand in the way of “change.” As he said in his book, “Rules for Radicals,” “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Well, his disciple in the White House who studied Alinsky’s methodology and trained others with it, has put a face on the perceived enemy. And not surprisingly, it isn’t Islamo-fascist terrorists. It’s people like you and I!

In an Agency Assessment from Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” the “enemy” to Obama’s transformation agenda is identified. According to the document which has the phrase, “For Official Use Only” on every page, the issues that motivate his enemies of the state, as identified in the communiqué are opposition to gun control, government infringement on civil liberties, abortion, hate crime legislation, anti-illegal immigration, and opposition to same-sex marriage. In a footnote, the document states, “[Rightwing extremism] may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” In other words, everyone who is not a left-wing radical is now officially an enemy to the Obama Administration and accused of being a potential domestic terrorist! By their own admission, however, they have no evidence of potential threats, so the assessment is nothing but a political hatchet-job against those who don’t agree with them.

If that alone is not sufficiently disturbing to you, the most insidious portions of the report single out veterans who have served our nation bravely and proudly in combating those who seek our destruction. Veterans could be “recruited” to join “right-wing radical groups” and become “lone wolves” in attacks on the nation.

And for those of you who think your Second Amendment right to own guns is sacred, you’d better be sitting down for this one. The document states, “Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.” Did you note that wording? “Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans…” In case you doubted Obama’s intentions toward the Second Amendment, it should be clear to you now.

Will this lead to curtailed free speech? Officially, perhaps not. But it can’t help but stifle it if everyone thinks they’re going to show up on a “domestic terrorist watch list” for speaking out against abortion, illegal immigration (which according to Janet Napolitano, DHS Secretary, is no longer a crime!), homosexual marriage, or in favor of gun ownership. What they have done is essentially criminalized all conservatives, for those tenets are fundamental. Nixon reportedly maintained an “enemies list,” which made the media and the left apoplectic. Essentially Obama has made public his list, and it was painted with a broad brush inclusive of everyone who doesn’t agree with him.

A notice was sent out in February by the FBI and DHS with essentially the same warnings. It went out to national, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

Now, for those of you who think this is no big deal, imagine if George Bush’s DHS had issued a similar warning about those who protest the Iraq War, were in favor of abortion, illegal-immigration, or same-sex marriage. If Bush had done this against those who opposed him, you’d be crying for impeachment. This is not just un-American, it’s unconstitutional, and threatens free speech for all.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/19/2009

There was a certain sense of empowerment and cohesiveness at the Pocatello TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party held at the Pocatello City Hall parking lot on Wednesday. For many, it seemed comforting to know that they weren’t alone in feeling like our country is being steam-rolled to a socialistic state where those of us who work hard to provide for our families are shouldering the costs of an out-of-control spending machine in Washington. Participants were unified against expansion of government, encroachment into the private sector, restriction of freedom, and against the massive taxes that will have to be eventually levied to pay for all the spending being done in Washington.

Our nations’ founders intended for there to be a check and balance system where the power and authority of one branch of government could not be expanded at the expense of the others. This check and balance system was designed to prevent governmental excess and oppression of the people. But when the legislative and executive branches function in lock-step usurping not only constitutional power granted to the people and the states, but the people’s capital, a sense of helplessness and disenfranchisement ensues.

The event Wednesday seemed to assuage some of that feeling of helplessness, and seemed to be an eclectic gathering of common people who are not revolutionaries or extremists. They’re just American citizens fed up with the bailouts, the spending, and taxes. It truly was a nonpartisan group, as we have seen all too clearly through the years that no political party has a monopoly on fiscal responsibility and restraint. The government spent more during George Bush’s eight years in office than any other administration in history, and the current administration is well on its way to dwarfing that. Many of us thought spending under Bush was unrestrained, but what we see now is out-of-control spending on steroids.

Rather than being unified by party, those at the rally were unified by a common sense of fiscal responsibility and frustration at the perceived anti-American actions of the federal government. The spirit of the gatherings nationwide could well be captured by one very young protestors sign, “My future is being mortgaged,” and another, “Why do I feel like a ship passing by Somalia?” an obvious metaphoric comparison of current government actions to piracy,” and another “Tell the politicians to cut their budgets; we’re already cutting ours.”

In February, I watched the live CNBC report by Rick Santelli from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade in amazement as he launched into a diatribe against Congress and the President for their plan to reward bad behavior by having fiscally responsible citizens help pay the mortgages of those who have been less responsible. Santelli said maybe it was time to consider another Tea Party symbolizing our collective disapprobation of the tax-and-spend mentality dominating Washington. Traders on the floor cheered him on (mind you, the CBOT is based in Chicago, not exactly the heartland of conservative political values). as he pled to the camera, “President Obama, are you listening?” From that heartfelt plea by a single citizen, a nationwide grassroots movement was spawned.

While polls still show significant support for our new president, he has become the most divisive president in modern history. According to Pew Research, Obama has a 61 point partisan gap between Republicans and Democrats. George Bush, by comparison, was at 51 points, and Bill Clinton was at 45 points, three months into their terms.

It’s hard to say whether the Tea Parties represent an actual movement or were simply a flash in the political pan. If they were a one-time event, the affects will prove ephemeral, as Washington seems impervious to pleas of restraint and discretion in spending and taxation.

But if it was the start of a grassroots movement of concerned citizens for the future of the country, the affects could be monumental. It took just two-and-a-half years from the symbolic Boston Tea Party of 1773 to the Declaration of Independence. If the participants of the 2009 Tea Parties want to have a real impact, they need to keep that spirit alive and growing for the next year-and-a-half to alter the composition of Congress, much like disaffected voters did in 1994. If the rallies didn’t catch the attention of decision makers in the nations’ capitol, you can bet that a realignment of congress in 2010 will.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/12/2009

There is a common malady that afflicts many of our American comrades, known as the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), where everything wrong with the world is blamed on our former president. A corollary to that is BAS, or the “Blame America Syndrome.” Regrettably our president seems to have contracted both.

Less than three months into a new administration and America’s role as a world leader is capitulated and subservience shown by our president to foreign powers. During his trip to Europe last week for the G20 meetings in London (what some pundits have called Obama’s “Bash America Tour”), the new president clearly evidenced his BAS.

To cut a little slack, however, we have to remember that he’s a rookie at this. After all, he only had been a community organizer and a State Senator before advancing to the U.S. Senate. And he’d only served there for 143 days before he began running for president. So we can attribute to his naïveté the full-waist bow to the King of Saudi Arabia (how’s that for subservience?), the gift of an Apple iPod to the 82 year-old Queen of England (loaded with Obama’s speeches and some other things), Michelle’s repeated touching of the Queen (I didn’t go to Harvard, yet even I know that’s anathema!).

And we’re not just talking about minor things like on Saturday when he referred to “Austrian” as a language. No, that’s just one of those verbal faux pas like when he referred to visiting all 57 United States during the campaign. And not like the answer to a BBC reporter’s question about causes for the global financial meltdown. Although that rambling diatribe did generate some immensely humorous missives with the BBC and The Guardian that make for some enlightened reading for those who swallow hook-line-and sinker the American mainstream media twist of the trip. But even that vapid answer followed the pattern for the rest of the trip: blame America for everything, and by default, blame it all on George W. Bush.

Two brief examples characterize his theme in Europe. In Strasbourg he said America “has failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.” Really? In what way is Europe pre-eminent to the United States except in secular socialism? In one fell swoop, America is no longer the one remaining super-power of the world and anti-Americanism is legitimized by the “leader of the free world.”

He further subordinated America’s global leadership role when he stated that our country has “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” He must have been reading Jimmy Carter’s books, for he sounds just like him.

Syndicated columnist and analyst Charles Krauthammer said of Obama’s actions in Europe, “When Kennedy arrived in Paris, he did not attack Eisenhower and the United States. When Obama was elected president, he became president of all of the United States, including Americans who opposed him, and he owns American history, including a past he may not have wanted to engage in. I think what he did is, in order to gain the adoration of the crowd, he denigrated his country in a way that I think is disgraceful.” I couldn’t agree more.

Among his inscrutable statements was one to the Turkish Parliament, where he said, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” If he was speaking of ancient history, I would understand where he was coming from. But there have been precious few significant contributions to the world from the Muslim world for 600 years. Their extremists have provided us with cause for increased security at airports and other segments of our infrastructure. Maybe that’s what he was referring to.

For all his efforts at American obeisance to Europe, European pundits were not nearly so impressed as was the American media who still maintain a “slobbering love affair” with the new president. Perusing analysis from UK sources, for example, his efforts fostered more derision than praise.

Seems to me that last year when Michelle said she was proud of America for the first time, she was echoing the sentiments of the entire Obama household. How sad that the President of the United States should have such apparent disdain and contempt for the country that he leads.

On a cold December night two-hundred and thirty-five years ago, a few dozen men boarded three English ships heavily laden with English tea in Boston and tossed their contents into the harbor. The event became pivotal for American revolutionaries protesting King George’s ability to tax the colonists without representation. This revolutionary event, “The Boston Tea Party,” has become iconic to an America that resents unjust taxation, and lack of accountability in levying taxes.

That same revolutionary spirit seems to be building nationwide. “Tea Parties” are being planned across the nation in protest of proposed profligate spending, proposed increases in taxes, and a spineless congress that serves as a rubber-stamping lapdog to the new administration.

Not surprisingly, the national media, which the media analyst Bernard Goldberg claims has maintained a “slobbering love affair” with the new president, is refusing to cover the story that seems to be growing exponentially in momentum. Media’s reticence proves their complicity and their ideological bias, for they provided a national forum for a single protesting anti-war activist camped outside Crawford, Texas, but refuse to cover the thousands of planned “tea parties” across the nation.

A simple internet search turns up plans for an April 15 demonstration against Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility in over 1500 cities nationwide, with some of those anticipating up to thirty-thousand participants.

This is pretty remarkable. Those who are fiscally and socially conservative usually don’t engage in the typically over-sensationalized symbolism of protests. After all, most of them have jobs, work hard to support their families, and are usually considered to be among the “silent majority.”

The attitude behind this mentality is captured fairly well in an email I recently received. It declared, “There's a storm a brewin'. What happens when good, responsible people keep quiet? Washington has forgotten they work for us. We don't work for them. Throwing good money after bad is NOT the answer. I am sick of the midnight, closed door sessions to come up with a plan. I am sick of Congress raking CEO's over the coals while they, themselves, have defaulted on their taxes.

“I am sick of the bailed out companies having lavish vacations and retreats on my dollar. I am sick of being told it is MY responsibility to rescue people that, knowingly, bought more house than they could afford. I am sick of being made to feel it is my patriotic duty to pay MORE taxes. I, like all of you, am a responsible citizen. I pay my taxes. I live on a budget and I don't ask someone else to carry the burden for poor decisions I may make. I have emailed my congressmen and senators asking them to NOT vote for the stimulus package as it was written without reading it first. No one listened. They voted for it, pork and all.

“O.K. folks, here it is. You may think you are just one voice and what you think won't make a difference. Well, yes it will and YES, WE CAN!! If you are disgusted and angry with the way Washington is handling our taxes. If you are fearful of the fallout from the reckless spending of BILLIONS to bailout and “stimulate” without accountability and responsibility then we need to become ONE, LOUD VOICE THAT CAN BE HEARD FROM EVERY CITY, TOWN, SUBURB AND HOME IN AMERICA. There is a growing protest to demand that Congress, the President and his cabinet LISTEN to us, the American Citizens. What is being done in Washington is NOT the way to handle the economic free fall.”

No doubt many of us sympathize, and feel the same frustration with the demagoguery of the politicians in Washington, the seizing of once proud companies that symbolized the manufacturing expertise and financial prowess of American industry, and the proposals to spend our nation’s future into oblivion.

I’ve never been the type to protest. I’ve always thought it to be too long on symbolism and short on substance. But this one that’s brewing nationwide is based wholly on substance, and the symbolic significance is validated by the groundswell of support all across the fruited plain.

Washington’s collective irresponsibility has lit a match to the American revolutionary spirit, and each week throws more kindling on the growing conflagration. If the current batch of “leaders” don’t want themselves numbered on the unemployment rolls in a couple years, they’d better wake up.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/29/2009

A few years ago a Danish cartoonist drew a political cartoon that reflected negatively on Mohammed, the leading prophet of Islam. For his indiscretion, a fatwa was issued on the life of the cartoonist, and he was forced into hiding.

Many of us marveled, yet were not surprised, at the intolerant reaction of the Islamic world to a political cartoon. Yet, as I think about it, the same is occurring right now in America.

About 47% of Americans voted against an agenda that would “fundamentally transform America,” in the last presidential election. I can’t speak for the rest of the 58 million Americans who voted that way, but for this American, I rather preferred protection of the principles that paved the way for American grandeur at the time of the nations’ founding. Those principles, clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were founded in a recognition of the sanctity of life regardless of color or creed, the God-given universal right of liberty to the individual, and the freedom to plan and pursue a life of happiness and acquisition of property.

The Constitution went further in defining the limited role of a federal or national government by enumerating the powers that government would hold, and listed specifically some fundamental rights each citizen was entitled to. It went on, in the Tenth Amendment, to declare that those powers not specifically assigned to the federal government were reserved to the states and to the people. In other words, there was to be a very small, specifically functioned national government whose primary roles were protection of the country, facilitating interstate commerce, and standardizing currency.

Is that what we see the national government doing today? Is there even the most remote possibility that Thomas Jefferson or James Madison would look at what their federal government has evolved into, and recognize it as being the American government they intended? Individual freedom and liberty are impinged on nearly daily by those who seek the ever-expanding power and scope of government.

These principles of governance espoused by our Founding Fathers were considered “liberal” in their day. The notion that power and rights were held by individuals who derived them divinely, rather than being granted by a government, despot, monarch, or a parliament was truly radical. Yet most Americans still believe in those principles, and as such, are true liberals; classical liberals. I consider myself to be one.

For the most part, we who are classical liberals have a guttural reaction to what we see perpetrated by those in Washington who are fundamentally transforming the nation from what made us great, to a socialistic, secular European state only different from the rest of Europe by being “across the pond.”

And it is in this context that we see similar reactions to what befell the Danish cartoonist. It is possible to discuss civilly and cogently with some who disagree with the classical liberals, but not with extremists. Those of us who object to the policies, and the cult of conformism promulgated by the mainstream media for the current administration, are made the target of an ideologically spawned “fatwa.”. To the extremists, we are to be silenced at all costs. To facilitate this, they intentionally devolve their attacks to the most base levels, engaging in character assassination, and unwarrantedly charging “racism,” or “hate speech” to quell our dissent. They are the ones who intently look for racism or hate behind everything, and not surprisingly, find it whether it’s there or not.

For these extremists, intolerance has supplanted tolerance; a rigid dogmatism has replaced pursuit of truth; intimidation and accusations are used to stifle dissent rather than freely engaging in the exchange of ideas; and attempted censorship has replaced rational discussion.

For some reason, it appears that those of us who are classical liberals are perceived not just as political rivals with opposing views, but as enemies to be vilified and silenced. Perhaps this is because those who support the current transformation of America don’t want their bubble burst that we’re all “unified” now, and think the classical-liberals should just sit idly by and watch our founding principles be cast aside by a presumably messianic figure. We may be more divided more now than ever.

Cries for “unity” in this transformation of America are moot, for classical liberals are “bitter clingers” to the principles and culture that made America what it is, and will not simply acquiesce to the mantra for “change.” I’m sure many Americans didn’t know this was the change they voted for last November. The transformers may have the upper hand now, but our fate as a European satellite nation is hopefully far from set.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/22/2009

It’s impossible to be a student of history and not value the contributions that labor unions have made. Horrendous working conditions, miniscule compensation, child labor, seven-day work weeks, and 18 hour work days were redressed largely with the assistance of organized labor.

While unions have done much to improve the quality of life historically, they may have outlived their usefulness. Unions’ primary role currently seems to be political, rather than serving the collective interests of those they claim to represent. I wish I had a dollar for every union member I have talked with over the years who has appreciated union benefits but detested the political posturing, pressure, and tactics of their union, much of which have had little to do with labor related issues.

In this age of globalized interdependent economies, high salaries and benefits negotiated in behalf of organized workers have made many companies simply uncompetitive. United Auto Workers agreements with Detroit’s Big Three (now, Little Three) automobile manufacturers adds 50% more in labor costs than the domestic non-unionized foreign manufacturers. While UAW controlled shops are on the verge of bankruptcy and requesting massive cash infusions from Washington to even allow them to survive, foreign manufacturers in the U.S. are weathering the current economic storm with greater facility.

Now the Congress, in its infinite wisdom, wants to make it easier for unions to make American corporations even less competitive by introducing the not-surprisingly misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” frequently referred to as “card check.” This legislation will abolish the employee’s right to a secret ballot on union membership. Yes, you read correctly. That bastion of democracy, the secret ballot, is vanquished with this bill. It further allows greater peer-pressure from pro-union supporters and allows union organizers to extend the recruitment period ad infinitum rather than a straight up or down secret ballot vote.

Noted economist Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, in a study titled, “An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications,” concluded that one job will be eliminated for every three workers who are pressured into joining a union. Well, since Obama wants to be compared to FDR, a doubling of our unemployment ranks to 17% would grant him another point of comparison.

There seems to be a dominant mentality among some of us that government is a panacea, or the “cure-all” for all society’s ailments. For some reason, it’s assumed that the government, which is increasingly insulated from complaints and customer (or taxpayer) expectations, will somehow be more responsive to our needs than the private sector. If government is the elixir to all that ails America, why do government employees have a union? If government is as beneficent as some seem to think, there should be no need for government employees to be so organized.

You’ll recall the problems disclosed at Walter Reed Medical facility a few years back. The problems were not the medical care by the doctors, surgeons, and the nursing staff that suffers. By all accounts, the actual medical care is outstanding. Good enough, in fact, to provide medical care to the President and the Vice President for their regular checkups and more complex medical procedures.

Aside from the bureaucratic blunders, the biggest problems apparently had to do with the physical facilities, maintenance, and sanitation. Problems with rodents and mold don’t rest with doctors and nurses; they are supposed to be dealt with by those in maintenance. Regrettably, these maintenance workers are covered by civil service rules that prevent government employees from being fired. Currently those working at the hospital, and elsewhere throughout the government, are protected by the most complicated set of job protection rules in the country.

If companies are to compete in this globalized economy, they need to be able to streamline, manage their costs, and terminate non-productive employees. This card-check legislation is nothing more than a payback by the controlling party in D.C. for the $61 million that unions donated to their party races in the 2008 election cycle The proof is in Joe Biden’s comments to the AFL-CIO two weeks ago when he said, “You all brought me to the dance…it’s time we start dancing.” Card check is not good for America, and not good for the American worker.