It’s always amusing to observe the benighted, simplistic fashion by which some from the political left characterize and demean those from the right. Last Sunday’s Idaho State Journal provided a perfect example with a “letter to the editor” by Leonard Hitchcock. Although attempted satirically and tongue-in-cheek, it nonetheless accurately characterizes the typical liberal perception of conservatives, which warrants a brief analysis.

His letter begins, “The Republicans’ conviction that big government is bad government rests upon a simple premise: It is good that the poor, the ignorant, the sick, the old, the foolish and the unlucky suffer the consequences of their various disabilities; it is good that they are victimized by the clever and rapacious; good that they sink to the bottom of society. Their misery serves as a salutary lesson for the rest of us, motivating us to be the exploiters, not the exploited, and, providentially, they also provide a source of cheap labor, which the economy requires.”

First off, there is little evidence that the contemporary Republicans in Washington have much less of an opinion of big government than the Democrats do. Truncated to a single line, we could fairly accurately characterize the actions of the Republicans as being for big government, and the Democrats as being for bigger government. An ancillary to the latter corollary could be, in the era of Obama, they advocate explosively burgeoning, liberty infringing, generational debt-producing government.

I can’t speak for Republicans, for I feel that the party has to a large extent divorced itself from its principled roots. But from a conservative or classical-liberal perspective, we hold to Thomas Jefferson’s mantra, “That government governs best which governs least.” That’s why there were specific functions identified in the Constitution at the time of the founding that articulated precisely what the government had the power to do. That great masterwork further declared that all rights and powers not enumerated to the federal government were reserved to the people and the states. It was written so precisely as to “guarantee” maximum individual freedom while restricting government’s ability to make us subservient to it.  

In most basic terms, the premise for conservatives is “viva la liberté.” For with every expansion of government, individual freedom is further eroded. With every trillion dollar spending plan or budget, our economic freedom is further encroached, since those funds will come out of our pockets. Many of us live on fixed incomes, and when government seeks to increase taxes on everything from energy consumption, to health care, income, property, and even soda pop, our economic liberty is assaulted. Increased regulatory and statutory control over our lives, combined with restrictions on our constitutionally guaranteed rights serve additionally as an affront to liberty. In short, when government expands its reach, liberty is sacrificed.

Now let’s see if Mr. Hitchcock’s unflattering depiction of conservatives as miserly holds up. Last year, Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University, authored a book titled “Who Really Cares:The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” based on massive data research which surprised even the author, an avowed independent. Perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the subject, Brooks discovered that although liberal families’ incomes average six percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal household. He also found that conservatives also donate more time and give more blood. And here’s the real knock-out punch; those who disagree with the notion that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. Read that last line one more time just to let it sink in.

So not only is it erroneous to refer to “rich conservatives,” since liberals average six percent more in income, so is it erroneous to, even satirically, characterize conservatives as miserly and penurious. Conservatives apparently give, while liberals think the government should. The logical deduction is that conservatives are charitable with their own money, while liberals are magnanimous with others’.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 07/19/2009

Planned Parenthood is perhaps the most justifiably vilified contemporary social entity. And understandably so, especially to those of us who believe in “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” for this organization is perhaps the largest promoter of abortion in the United States. Yet before a “woman’s right to choose” became their mantra, their raison d’être was eugenics.

Eugenics is “the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics),” according to Dictionary.com. In other words, eugenics is a radical, fascist concept of socially engineered Darwinism, governmentally enforced. The concept gained much prominence in the early 20th century, not only because of the evangelism of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, but because of what was happening in Germany at the time.

Margaret Sanger’s perspective on eugenics was to gradually rid the human population of “undesirables,” including minorities, the impoverished, and the “weak-minded,” thereby improving the remaining population. She spoke favorably of abortion as being an option to reduce undesirable populations, as evidenced by some of her radical statements, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” and by identifying those whose numbers should be reduced as “...human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning... human beings who never should have been born. She forcefully argued for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.” An African-American pro-life group has declared, “That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment which Sanger considered ‘unfit’ cannot be easily refuted.” Lending credence to their claim, Sanger in 1939 organized The "Black" Project which sought restrictive reproduction by those she thought were “least intelligent and fit.”

The German version of eugenics not only articulated the eradication of undesirable races, they actually attempted it. They identified strata of the German population for elimination, including homosexuals, criminals, degenerates, dissidents, feeble-minded, idle, insane, religious, and weak. Conservative figures indicate over 100,000 people were killed for purposes of “cleansing the race,” along with 6 million Jews, and over 400,000 forcefully sterilized to prevent propagation.

Not surprisingly, many of Margaret Sanger’s’ early devotees were Nazi sympathizers, speaking at her rallies and contributing to her monthly publication. Sanger published several books which address the issue of eugenics and population control, and also contributed regularly to the Socialist Party newsletter.

Three recent events prompted me to delve into this nefarious history. The first was when Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award earlier this year. Said Clinton, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her…Yet we know that Margaret Sanger’s work here in the United States and certainly across our globe is not done.” The natural follow-up question for her would be, “What parts of her vision would you like to see completed?”

The second event was an interview the New York Times conducted with sitting Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, where she said, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.” You may want to read that quote again, especially the segment about “population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The third event was when I realized who the Obama administration’s science tsar is. John Holdren, Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-authored a book with Paul Ehrlich, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which argued that for the sake of population control, some women should be forced to abort their pregnancies and that the general population could be sterilized by lacing our water supply or food supply with infertility drugs. He also advanced the idea that single mothers and teen mothers should be forced to give their children to other couples to raise and that people who “contribute to social deterioration” can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility,” in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. He recommended that a transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and dictate reproductive standards, enforced by an armed international police force.

As despicable as these concepts are to normal-thinking Americans, such radicalism seems to be prevalent in the administration, especially as ardently as the president supports abortion. All this lends credibility to the idea that those in power now are not “pro-choice,” but that they are indeed “pro-abortion.” It seems that eugenics is alive and well in the era of the Obama administration. And it raises the provocative question, should these people be in charge of American health care?

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 07/12/2009

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” But actions in Washington over the past few weeks prove that ideology is sitting firmly in the front of the class, and science may have been kicked out of the room, as Congress narrowly passed their massive tax on energy (cap and trade bill), and the Obama administration has tried to silence a dissenter on global warming in the EPA.

In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, and anthropogenic global warming. He called for the agency to look at the science behind the arguments which he accurately claimed had “gaping scientific holes” in them. With such an honest assessment of the science, the new administration, with its profound respect for science over ideology, would certainly welcome the report which was replete with peer-reviewed research. Apparently not. Carlin's director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. He said, “There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” In other words, he was censored.

Since the actual empirical science does not support the Jeremiads of the global warming doomsayers, their conviction in their pseudo-science is reduced to, gasp, a matter of faith. The ardent believers are many, and most are those who mock Christians and other people of faith. How’s that for an amusing dichotomy? Even Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.”

The backlash against the “consensus” is growing, as the scientific community is finally speaking up about the evidence. Joanne Simpson, recently retired Ph.D. in meteorology expressed relief that she is now able to speak frankly about the fraudulence of the AGW alarmists. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who participated on the UNs IPCC climate committee claims that man-made warming is “the worst scientific scandal in history,” and a group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding that the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is “settled,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

It looks more and more like this administration doesn’t respect science, but respects the pseudo-science that will provide justification for their ideological objectives, including the asinine assault on our economy called “cap and trade.” And they’re doubling down with a new G8 accord to reduce our carbon output to 1910 levels, committing, as the Investor’s Business Daily puts it, “economic suicide.” Somehow I don’t think this level of respect for science is the “change” we “hoped” for.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 07/05/2009

Freedom! How sweet the word, and how profound the meaning. Men have died, and been willing to sacrifice all they had, for freedom. Our Fourth of July celebrations are based on that Declaration to the English throne, “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

To all freedom loving Americans, William Wallace’s cry of “Freedom!” stirs our souls as he was beheaded by Longshanks’ minions in “Braveheart.” We are moved by the images of bravery against seemingly insurmountable odds, as Benjamin Martin rallies the revolutionary forces with a war-torn flag in the “Patriot.” But the real-life heroes, political and military alike, who have fought for, and defended individual liberty and freedom touch our collective consciousness with profundity unmatched by depictions on the silver screen.

I approach this Independence Day celebration with sadness commensurate with my aforementioned respect and gratitude, for our freedom is being sacrificed, one bill at a time, by an out-of-control federal government. With each bill passed and signed, government grows. With such expansion of government, control over our individual lives increases exponentially, and the erosion of personal freedom and liberty is unmistakable. This erosion has accelerated at a dizzying pace in the first six months of the year. As 1776 marked the birth of American freedom, 2009 may well mark its demise.

A quadrupling of the budget deficit places not just this generation, but future generations in financial thralldom. Current tax receipts collected by the treasury will barely be enough to cover the yearly interest on the new federal debt.

So to expand receipts, more taxes need to be levied and collected. The declared intent to allow expiration of the Bush tax cuts will amount to the largest tax increase ever imposed on the country as the average American will see a tax increase between $2100 and $5600 annually, according to the Wall Street Journal.

But wait, there’s another bigger tax increase threatening us. The Waxman-Marky “cap and trade” bill will impose another $1600-$2400 annually in increased cost for all of our energy consumption. And that’s regardless of income bracket, thereby constituting the largest regressive tax ever imposed on us. Speaking of energy, remember what Obama has said, “We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…” Looks like he meant it. The government means to tax us into behaving the way it thinks we should.

The more the government withholds from our paychecks or requires from our quarterly tax filings, the greater the infringement on our financial liberty. What are you willing to give up from your person standard of living in order to pay an energy tax fraudulently sold to us in the name of “saving the planet?” Since our incomes are largely fixed, what will you sacrifice? A car? Your house? A yearly family vacation? Who can deny that our freedoms are severely impinged upon by such ludicrous and unwarranted governmental expansion? Perhaps only the clueless or the ideologues.

For generations, America has attracted the most gifted and visionary minds of the world. Not just for the individual freedom available here, but for the financial freedom afforded men and women of great talent and vision in seeing their work yield fruits of pecuniary bounty. But by targeting the most successful amongst us for increased tax burden, and even seeking to limit compensation by the appointment of a “Pay Tsar” in the White House, our freedom to earn is under assault.

Federal usurpation of our health care constitutes an erasure of personal freedom of unparalleled proportions. When the government defines benefits under their plan, they can set the terms for participation in the benefits. They make the life and death decisions for us, and our ability to choose is negated. As President Obama said last week, “Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller,” when referring to end-of-life health care decisions for the elderly or the terminally ill. Granted, our freedom may be limited by current insurance coverage in making such decisions, but to completely abrogate that right and have the government make such decisions for us is unconscionable, and dare I say it? Un-American. That brings them one step closer to telling us how to live our lives, what to eat and drink, and mandating “risk-free” behavior.

And in true Orwellian fashion, “Newspeak” is being codified into federal law. Just as George Orwell’s “1984” defined acceptable and unacceptable speech in order to “narrow the range of thought,” so likewise passage of hate crime legislation, and universal distribution of Department of Homeland Security encyclicals seek to coerce politically correct speech and thought, further infringing upon our First Amendment rights. According to DHS, all who disagree with the administrations’ official policies are regarded as enemies of the state.

Our majestic “Old Glory,” which has stood as a symbolic ensign of freedom and liberty to the world, is being trampled upon by the very stewards elected to “preserve us a nation.” As our banner is sullied and loses its luster, I sorrow at the apparent demise of a great nation once dedicated to the protection of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” America, I have loved you and what you have stood for, but I hardly recognize you now.