By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/27/2009

What is most disgusting about what former president Jimmy Carter said this week is not so much that he said it, but that those of Carter’s mentality consistently engage in such reprehensible specious reasoning.

In an NBC interview, Carter declared, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. Racism...still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.”

As long as there are idiots who judge people by the color of the skin as opposed to the content of their character, there will be racism. But to put this in perspective, consider that in 1958 only 35% of whites said they would vote for a black president. But in 2006, a scant 3% of Americans indicated they would not vote for a black president. If used as a barometer of racist tendencies, this progress speaks volumes for the dissolution of a racist mentality and dispels the notion that this is a racist country.

What Carter engaged in is a logical ad hominem fallacy, which is literally an “argument against the person.” This tactic is employed frequently by those who, in order to discredit their adversaries, seek to minimize their argument by making unsubstantiated accusations or allegations against them in order to redirect attention to the adversaries themselves, rather than the argument. By making the adversaries the focus with an accusation, the validity of their claim or premise is discredited since their argument is inextricably linked to them. The construct of the argument looks like this. Person A makes claim X. Regardless of veracity, an objection is made against Person A. Therefore claim X is false.

Even more precisely, this version of the ad hominem fallacy is argumentum ad personam. This device is intentionally used to belittle or insult an opponent in order to retake the offensive and place the opponent on the defensive. Hence, it becomes a verbal misdirection to make the opponent the center of the argument, rather than the issue at hand; something akin to a magicians’ trick.

Enter Carter center stage. In order to mitigate the disastrous polling for “Obamacare,” and the spectacle of Congressman Joe Wilson’s shout at the President, “You Lie!” and the massive demonstration in Washington on September 12 against totalitarian government, Carter makes an accusation “against the person.” The supposition is that the voices of dissent and the strength of the valid arguments against the White House agenda, are negated by the accusation.

Not only is this logically fallacious, but it displays both the arrogance and ignorance of those who engage in such behavior. Ignorance, for it presumes stupidity on the part of the American people, and arrogance because by so engaging, they simply sidestep the real issues underlying dissent. It usually is employed when logic fails. I have always maintained that the first person to call the other a name in a debate has lost the debate, and that’s what comes naturally to those with no ammo left, for they need to misdirect the argument.

The practice also constitutes an attempt to emotionalize an issue and remove it from the purely logical realm, which is crucial especially when their own logical arguments are inferior to their detractors.

It’s not a new tactic, but seems to be used with increasing frequency, not just by the politicians in control today, but by the media. They suppose due to our presumed ignorance, we’ll discount the claims of dissenters while aspersions like “mob,” (NBC & MSNBC), “evil” (Harry Reid), and “Nazis” (Nancy Pelosi) are hurled at them. We see it regarding other issues as well, like the appellation of “homophobic” to those who oppose homosexual marriage regardless of their logical reasons for opposition.

In this caustic political environment, it’s crucial to not only be aware of the ideology employed in transforming America, but to be wary and alert to the methodology they employ to manipulate public perception. With perspicacity, we can see through arrogant facades of those of intellectual vacuity who, like Carter, claim “racism” is behind everything that is anti-Obama.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/20/2009

Although current governmental efforts are directed at “transforming” the nation, there are laws of economics and common sense that can’t be evaded. They can only be obfuscated, hoping that we, the ignorant masses, don’t know any better. For example, government spending does not grow an economy, massive government debt does not stimulate an economy, and increased governmental control over the private sector does not improve service or efficiency. Since history has proven time after time the validity of these simple economic verities, why do those in power incessantly try to dupe us to the contrary?

Over 70% of the U.S. economy is retail driven. Over 95% of jobs in the private sector are with small businesses. Those small businesses are facing the prospect of higher taxes, increased fines from the government if they don’t comply with the “public option” for health-insurance, and diminishing sales and revenue because of a weak economic climate. That climate, especially for retail, is unlikely to improve as long as unemployment increases and those still with jobs fear theirs might be on the chopping block next.

The August Labor Department report revealed a spike in unemployment to 9.7%, from 9.4% in July. This is the worst job environment the nation has had in nearly 30 years. In January we were sold the $787 billion “stimulus” bill based on the premise that if they didn’t pass it, unemployment would surpass 9% from the 7.2% jobless rate in January. Well here we are at 9.7% unemployment, having passed the “porkulus” bill, and we’re undoubtedly headed to over 10%. In spite of all this spending the economy is still projected to shrink by 3% this year. At what point are our elected leaders required to be honest with us?

The White House continues to claim that the stimulus is working. Joe Biden last week had the audacity to claim that the stimulus is “doing more, faster, more efficiently and more effectively than most expected.” With that statement, the charade is perpetuated, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Even more perplexing was his follow-up comment that it “was the right thing to do morally.” In order to eventually pay for that massive spending bill, over a trillion dollars in taxes will have to be collected from tax-payers. How can it possibly be a moral thing to take from the producers and workers of America to fund those congressional pet projects? As we detailed when the bill was passed earlier in the year, there was very little in that legislation that was actually stimulative to the economy, and almost none of it in the private sector. But to have the audacity and mendacity to claim not only that it’s working but that it was morally the right thing to do is blatant prevarication.

Not only hasn’t it worked, though only about 15% of the funds have actually been spent, history teaches us that it will not work. During the Depression era, we know that even with a tripling of federal government spending from 1931 through 1939, the U.S. was still in a dire depression, and unemployment was still over 17%.

FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said that “we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!” Well, Obama said he wanted to be like Roosevelt.

A statement released earlier this year by 200 economists affirms these principles. The statement said in part, “More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's ‘lost decade’ in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

If government spending was stimulative to the economy, it should be overheating now after the record $1.6 trillion spent this fiscal year, nearly all of it borrowed, adding to our deficit. Our economy will eventually rebound, but it will be in spite of what government policy is doing now, not because of it. Washington can spin their tale, but it’s fiction, as the facts tell a very different story.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/13/2009

August Recess for the nations’ lawmakers was certainly not business as usual this year. With headlines and debate centered on the controversial overhaul of our health-care system, it could be fair to say many of them ran into constituent buzz-saws in their town hall meetings across the country. While the exchanges at these meetings were sometimes confrontational, the freedom behind such truly grassroots response to a proposed totalitarian health-care system was inspiring. It would seem that those objecting to “Obamacare” had learned Thomas Jefferson’s truism, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” And silent they were not.

Some of the statements and exchanges between lawmakers and their constituents were memorable, and many provide lasting lessons and imagery that should not be lost on an informed and attentive electorate.

For example, it was not that long ago that Speaker Nancy Pelosi encouraged and praised dissent, and said it was courageous to “speak truth to power.” It may have come as a shock to some, then, to hear from the Speaker that it’s now “un-American,” and that by so engaging, one must be part of a “dangerous, angry mob.” We might rhetorically ask what has changed from then to now?

Speaking of the Speaker, who is exceeded only by Joe Biden for making glib, nonsensical remarks, one of her best accusations against the town hall protestors was that they were “astroturf.” As Astroturf is to real grass, so likewise “astroturf” is to genuine grassroots level politics. Without question, what we witnessed in August was a legitimate grassroots response from concerned citizens about pending health-care legislation and dizzying expansion of government and the federal debt. The only real “astroturfing” we saw was when the health-care overhaul supporters began to show up en masse in buses. Wonder where they came from? I’ll bet the Speaker knows.

Illustrating what I said a few weeks ago that “Nazi” references really have no place in American political dialogue, the Speaker ignominiously called the protestors “Nazis.” She is obviously oblivious to the fact that Nazis are socialists, and that quite to the contrary, the protestors were standing up for their individual right to choose, which is anathema to socialism. If such ignorance was not so scary coming from the third-in-line from the President, it would be humorous. That accusation led to one of the best one-liners from a town hall attendee. Marine veteran David Hedrick at a West Virginia town hall declared, “If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika maybe the first place she should look is on the sleeve of her own arm.” Marines don’t take kindly to pejorative characterizations.

Speaking of good lines, perhaps leading the “best of” collection from August town halls was one delivered by Dan Jeror, addressing Steny Hoyer, Pelosi’s second in command in the House. Jeror, after emphasizing that he was a registered Democrat, asked Hoyer, “Why would you guys try to stuff a health care bill down our throats in three to four weeks when the President took six months to pick a dog for his kids?”

Carol Shea Porter of New Hampshire thought it was below her dignity to answer a question from one of her constituents, and had the audacious retired policeman removed for doing so. How dare these lowly constituents question the omniscience of their puissant elected officials!

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee took a cell phone call in the middle of a constituent’s question about health-care reform. That sure goes a long way to dispelling the notion that our elected officials aren’t listening to us!

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC referred to the protestors as “worse than racists,” while comedienne Janeane Garofalo called them “racist rednecks who hate blacks.” But in an interesting twist of such typical radical characterization, Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative, was beaten up at a Missouri town hall by local Service Employees International Union members, one of them shouting racial epithets. So really, who were the racist rednecks? They obviously were following the White House directive to “punch back twice as hard.” Unfortunately for Mr. Gladney, they took the directive as literal. Not surprisingly, the event received scant coverage from the mainstream media.

For the “silent majority” that typically sits reticently on the sidelines waiting for the political dust to settle, the “Tea Party” protestors and outspoken dissidents to the transformation of America are the only semblance of a check and balance we have. With the legislative and executive branches under single-party control, and the mainstream media acting as their guard-dog, all we have is our individual and collective voices of disapprobation. It’s time to no longer be the “silent majority.” This is a fight for the soul and future of America.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/06/2009

For a brief moment in recent history we were united as a nation. We were not divided by ideology, color or creed. We were all Americans. That fateful day nearly eight years ago united us as a nation as did the similarly horrific Pearl Harbor attack. Collectively we mourned the human toll, over 3000 dead. We acknowledged the heroism of those who sought to save lives and mitigate the destruction. And we recognized as never before the growing extremist threat targeting western civilization and our way of life, and America as the pinnacle of that way of life.

That threat has not been eradicated. Estimates are that up to 10% of Muslims adhere to the Sunni extremist Wahhabi ideology which decries democracy, other religions including People of the Book (Jews and Christians), and foments actionable destruction against them.

Our 9/11 commemorations have been a concatenation of eulogies for the fallen, praise and adulation for the heroes of the day, and a recommitment to prevention of such acts being perpetrated against us again.

Apparently that is to be no more. We no longer have a “War on Terror” seeking out those who have or are trying to attack us, but we have “Overseas Contingency Operations,” the administration’s new term. And the initial objective in Afghanistan is apparently no longer to defeat the Taliban and secure peace for a troubled nation, and reducing the risk of another despicable attack from being planned there. Victory over our enemies is no longer the aim, as Obama said last month, “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.” Aside from the historical ignorance displayed by the comment, most troublesome is his admission that we aren’t there to win. If we’re not there to win, what on earth are we doing there?

As if that’s not enough, it’s now becoming increasingly clear that our 9/11 commemorations are about to be hijacked as well. As Mathew Vadum of the American Spectator recently wrote, “The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.”

This was initiated in April with legislation establishing 9/11 as a National Day of Service. They did add the words “And Remembrance” to the bill, but that was undoubtedly an afterthought. I’m sure not many of us gave much heed to the declaration at the time, but a recent conference call between the White House and over sixty radical leftist groups clarified the intent behind the declaration. Among those on the August 11 conference call were Color of Change, ACORN, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Friends of the Earth, Mobilize.org, and the RainbowPUSH Coalition.

According to a source that participated on the call, as quoted in the American Spectator, “They [the Obama administration] think it needs to be taken back from the right. They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day because it focuses the public on supposedly ‘Republican’ issues like patriotism, national security, and terrorism.” That’s very strange that 9/11 is a “Republican” day of remembrance. For some reason I’ve never thought of Pearl Harbor remembrance as a “Democrat” day.

So rather than commemorating those who died on that day, and our military personnel who have sacrificed so much to vanquish the terrorist threat, the day will be transformed into a day for “green” activism, community action, tree hugging, and sundry leftist pet activities.

A week earlier on Aug. 4, controversial “Green Jobs Csar” Van Jones outlined the expectations for Sept. 11 events. In a White House blog video he declared that they will provide, “for people to connect, to find other people in your peer group who are also passionate about repowering America but also greening up America and cleaning up America.” Perhaps a noble venture, but in lieu of 9/11 commemorations? I don’t think so.

Perhaps they should have chosen May Day, or Lenin’s Birthday (which is noncoincidentally also Earth Day), rather than desicrate the memory of 9/11. September 11 will always be to me a sober reminder, not a day to “green up” the neighborhood.