By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/28/10

Those who assume that Americans are going to sit idly by while their lives become micromanaged by a corpulent federal government bureaucracy don’t understand the American spirit. Born of freedom and steeped in common sense solutions, citizens across the land are coming, albeit lately, to a realization of what the health-care reform bill was all about.

Congressman John Dingell, Democrat from Michigan and former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman had a Freudian-slip moment earlier this week when he spoke about the legislation. He said, “It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Yes, you read that correctly. “To control the people.” I can’t imagine a more effective means of granting a government total control over the lives of its people than by yielding control of our health to a bureaucracy. Since they will have control over treatments and care, they will have ultimate control of life and death decisions, life styles, and diet. This certainly puts a new light on the First Lady’s new “Let’s Move” campaign to eliminate childhood obesity “in a generation.” If people have a choice to eat and conduct their lives as they choose, that’s not going to happen. But if it’s forced by government life-style and diet standards, Dingell nailed it: they “control the people.” That wasn’t in the bill passed last week, but like the president said, this is “a beginning.”

According to a new CBS News poll conducted earlier this week, 62% of Americans want Republicans to keep fighting the just-signed health legislation even now that it has been passed and signed. A scant 17% of Americans believe the new law will benefit them. This is astounding since the main-stream media has been pounding the drums for the Washington leadership incessantly for the past couple of years. A CNN poll last month indicated just 23% of respondents liked the bill.

It probably didn’t help that none of the promises were kept while grinding the legislative sausage. There were no C-Span cameras set up to allow us to watch the process, and it was signed just two days after passage by the House, rather than the five days promised. So much for the transparency promised by the president.

We know that the health reform monstrosity was not about insuring the uninsured. That could have been accomplished as an extension of Medicare for a fraction of the $1 trillion per year price tag of the just-passed bill. And it obviously wasn’t done to control health-care costs. Whenever the government has attempted to control costs by price-fixing or rationing it has backfired. Remember wage and price control, the promises of Medicare to control costs of health care delivery for seniors? Even the Congressional Budget Office concedes governmental price control never works. The CBO explains that, “Price controls always break down after a short time because there are too many prices that, by their nature, cannot be controlled for any length of time.” Venezuela provides a superb current example on the inefficacy of price controls as well.

There were some in congress, including Dennis Kucinich, who didn’t want to sign onto Obamacare because it didn’t go far enough in eliminating private sector health insurance in favor of a government monopoly. How were those votes swayed in support of the president’s plan? They were assured that the current package is a “foundation” that would lead to a public option and elimination of private insurance, according to the Washington Post earlier this week. The president has admitted many times that it would take 10-15 years for socialized medicine to “control the people,” using Dingell’s terms.

I can’t help but believe that most of the nation believes that the Constitution was intended as a framework whereby individual freedom and liberty were assured against the encroachment of a burgeoning government. That’s why there were basically three explicit powers granted the federal government: national security, minting of currency, and regulation of interstate commerce.

But to some, the Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it was written on for it stands as an unwanted obstacle to what they feel the government should be able to do, whether constitutionally legal or not. As we’ve seen this week, the majority in Washington falls into that camp.

For some time now, many of us have been worried that we are beginning to see the unraveling of the fabric of our national values – the Constitution seems to be hanging by a thread. It is for this reason that we must do all we can to help in the fight against any proposal that delegitimizes our Constitutional rights. This constitutionally illegitimate healthcare plan is at the top of that list.

Some fear it, while others extol it. The quantification of demographic information is perhaps the most mundane thing the government does, but don’t let that mundaneness fool you. Its results are at the heart of the politics and federal funds allocation for the next several years which makes it even more imperative that the decennial census be accurate and reliable.

Many have fears of the census gathering process. People who are here illegally fear discovery of their status which will lead to deportation (which it cannot, by law) and some fear the data will somehow be used to curtail or abridge their constitutional rights. Yet neither fear is justified as long as the constitutional intent and the US Code upon which the census is based are followed.

Authorization for the census comes from the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 2 of our constitution reads: “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Subsequent US Code, Titles 13 and 26, guarantee the private nature of the data gathered, which should mollify concerns of those who have fears about it. In short, census data cannot be used to prosecute, extradite, or deport anyone living in the U.S.

Not only are the quantitative data generated by the census important for providing the demographic composition of the country, but they’re used to determine how many congressional seats, and electoral votes, each state has. It’s also used in the formulas for distributing nearly $400 billion in federal funds each year.

The 2000 census results led to significant changes in the electoral and congressional landscape. Eighteen states changed the number of electoral votes and congressional seats they have. Two states, New York and Pennsylvania, lost two votes each. Four states, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Florida, gained two votes each. Four additional states gained one vote and eight states lost one vote. Utah was 86 people short of gaining a seat, which led to a court challenge which later afforded them that seat.

Politicians know how important this process is, which is why the White House announced last year they were going to have the Chief of Staff to the president oversee the census, rather than the Commerce Department, where it has been handled since 1902. This was one of the issues which precluded Senator Judd Gregg from accepting his appointment as Secretary of Commerce. A firestorm erupted, exacerbated by the fact that the dubious group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was slated to be one of the partner organizations for this years’ census. ACORN was dropped from participation last September. And even though the official census form and correspondence identify the Commerce Department as the source of the census information, I’ve not seen any recantation from the White House that Rahm Emanuel is overseeing the operation which is of concern from a manipulation and politicization perspective.

The 2010 version of the census features one of the shortest questionnaires ever with only 10 questions, and should take all of three minutes to complete. There used to be a “long form” with nearly 100 questions sent out to roughly 20% of respondents, but that is being discontinued in favor of continuous data gathering by the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a nationwide, continuous survey designed to provide reliable and timely demographic, housing, social, and economic data every year. The ACS will replace the long form in 2010 and thereafter by collecting long-form-type information throughout the decade rather than only once every 10 years.

The 2000 census was considered the most accurate to date with 98% accuracy, according to the Census Bureau. Still, with 2% error, that means roughly 6 million people were not accurately tabulated from the most accurate census yet. That equates to roughly $9 billion not properly allocated because of lost head count.

According to my dear friend Rogerio Castro, who works with the Census Bureau, over 2000 people in Pocatello were not counted ten years ago. That represents a loss of federal revenue of roughly $2.8 million annually for infrastructure, highways, community improvements, education, veterans support, senior citizen support, and health services.

The decennial census is constitutionally mandated, and the results are critical to our electoral representation and distribution of funds to Southeast Idaho. Take the three minutes to complete the census. It’s time for all of us to be counted.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/07/10

It appears that a storm is brewing. This is an ideological storm, and is of monumental proportions, and it appears to be sweeping the nation with hurricane force. It is, intrinsically, a grass roots movement to its very core. The forces converging to create the political disturbance are motivated by a visceral reaction to what we’ve come to recognize as “hope” and “change,” the Obama version of which is antithetical to those principles upon which this nation was founded.

Most of us are familiar with the Tea Party movement, motivated by the spending binge Washington is engorging itself with and the dilution of individual liberty. Aside from the obvious anti-incumbent demeanor of the Tea Partiers, they seem to be finding their voice in positive ways by coalescing around the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment which would constrain government spending to a percentage of the U.S. economy which would require a declaration of war or a two-thirds vote by Congress to waive the spending constraints. That should be an amendment any sound-thinking American find logically acceptable.

Another manifestation of the anti-Washington mood is the Mount Vernon Statement, posted on the Heritage.org website. The Statement is garnering significant attention, and serves as a reaffirmation of our founding principles. The statement posits, in part, “We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government. These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.”

Illustrating the profundity of the grass-roots movement against “hope and change,” ecclesiastical leaders are also fighting back against the secular, anti-religious and specifically, anti-Christian elements of the amoral, if not immoral cancer spreading out from our nations’ capital. As the Washington Times reported in December, “unlike the signatories of other declarations that are long on rhetoric and short on calls to action, the more than 300,000 people who signed this declaration (including 55 Catholic bishops who have oversight of more than 600 of the nation's private hospitals) agree to engage in civil disobedience regarding laws that reject mainstream values.”

Signers pledge “that no power on Earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence” on the sanctity of life, the divinely ordained nature of marriage, and religious liberty.” Those truths, they agree, are open to neither compromise nor revision.

With conviction and clarity, the signatories vow, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

Further, the Oathkeepers’ movement shows how concerned our first responders and military personnel are over the possibility of being issued orders clearly unconstitutional. The movement was spawned by reports from General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s office early last year that the new president wanted their oath made to him rather than to the Constitution. The Oathkeepers declare, “We each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic,” they vow to disobey orders contrary to the constitution, including disarming of citizens, warrant-less searches, unlawful detention of citizens, and several others.

The media and the ruling party leaders in Washington, attempt to portray all of these as “radicals,” “extremists,” and “dangerous right-wingers.” It appears to me they couldn’t be more mainstream American. Those who assert their fealty to the Constitution are not radicals or extremists, except to those who disdain the principles and limitations it’s based upon. They rather epitomize the American spirit.

These reactions to “hope and change” are to be expected, and even applauded. Nationally polls indicate that just 30% of us feel the country’s headed in the right direction. Even Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton reminded us just a few years ago that dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism. Well, the country seems to be teeming with patriots who are being awakened out of their passivity and political agnosticism incentivizing them to fight for the preservation of the republic they love.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 02/28/10

Imagine yourself preparing to pay for your purchase at a local grocery store, and the clerk asks you, “Paper or plastic?” Innocuously, and preferring the diverse functionality of plastic bags, you reply, “Plastic.” Next thing you know your head is being smacked against the scanner and you’re being cuffed by some fearsome-looking officer dressed in green and white, and he declares, “That’s the magic word. Green police. You picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy.”

On returning home you see similarly attired officers scavenging through all your neighbors’ garbage cans, obviously looking for contraband. One officer yells out ecstatically, “Batteries!” at which time a swarm of green and white clad police leap into action and converge on the perpetrator of the heinous crime. What? You missed the crime? He threw away batteries. You can’t be much more egregious in your crimes against humanity and the earth than that!

That evening, after indulging in one of your favorite fruits, you go to the sink to dispose of the orange peeling in the garbage disposal. Before you even have a chance to place the offending rinds into the sink, a spotlight blinds you from a helicopter circling overhead, and an authoritative voice commands, “Put the rind down.” You should have known, it should have been composted instead of chopped up in the disposal. You abruptly turn and run for your life from the omnipresent green police as you see them swarming up your driveway to arrest you.

You next observe your neighbor doing a “perp-walk” down his driveway, while a live television crew covers the horrific incident. The announcer declares, “Tragedy strikes tonight for a man who has just been arrested for possession of an incandescent light bulb.” The bulb was undoubtedly a 100 watt variety, which is now banned from production and sale in the United States. He should have known better, you think to yourself, and had his incandescent bulbs replaced with those squirrelly mercury-based bulbs that require a HASMAT team to clean up when they’re broken.

You notice a couple of youth nearby being detained by the green police who are ostentatiously pouring the water out of their plastic water bottles, declaring, “What do you think of your plastic water bottles now?” They should have used bota bags, as long as they weren’t made of leather. That would have made them subject to harassment from the PETA police.

The green police have swarmed into another neighbor’s yard where a young couple is relaxing in a hot tub. You notice one officer attempting to place handcuffs on the young man, while another is proclaiming their crime, “The water setting is at a hundred and five.” The young man flees for his life.

These scenarios were played out during the Super Bowl a few weeks ago in an Audi “clean diesel” car commercial. All good humor (if we accept the premise that the ad was designed to be humorous) has an element of truth which provides the foundation for jocularity. The element of truth here is that there are no doubt many who would support such fascistic efforts to protect the environment and “save the planet.”

Those who would dogmatically adhere to such a creed would no doubt like to see legislation and enforcement by “Green Police” supporting their pantheistic pet peeves. Those who either worship the earth on a par with God, or in lieu of God, who believe all the earth’s inhabitants should be forced to abide by their personal pantheistic or environmentally conscious standards. But would not such legislation and enforcement be on a par with their accusations against protectors of the unborn, of “legislating morality”? Would that not that also be on a par with refusing “the right to choose,” which ostensibly is the sacrosanct precept upon which abortion rights are argued? The dichotomy makes for a delicious debate. Based on that value system, it’s okay to choose to kill the unborn, but it’s not acceptable to choose plastic over paper. Now that’s a warped value system!

There are parts of the country well on their way to such “Green Police” enforcement. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom twittered, “Ok. That ‘green police’ Audi commercial hits home.” And no wonder it hits home for him. His city currently requires citizens to compost their food waste, or face a $500 fine for violation. Nationally, President Obama and the majority leadership in Washington want to enact an energy policy (Cap and Trade) that will impose punitive fines for what they deem excessive carbon emissions, and impose drastically higher electricity costs and lower standards of living. New York has its own trans-fat police forcing restaurants into municipal ordinance compliance. That’s just a tip of the iceberg.

Freedom has a price, and part of it is vigilance by the citizens to prevent fascistic and tyrannical coercions of do-gooders who seek to impose their extremist environmental morality on the rest of us. While intended as humor, the Audi Super Bowl ad can serve as an awakening to the intentions of such extremists. Heaven forbid that the ad should serve as a portent of things to come.