By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 12/20/09

It’s been said that the only constant in life is change. While there is undoubtedly much truth in that, some change is desirable, and some is not. Change in relation to the traditions of our forebears should not be taken lightly, as it seems to me they not only define who we are as a people and a culture, but they provide substance and meaning to our lives associated with something bigger than “me,” and they provide evidence of what we value. There’s also a certain degree of “connectedness” with previous generations precipitated by holding onto multigenerational traditions.

It’s impossible for me to separate myself from those familial traditions at Christmastime. The singing of Christmas carols around the family piano while my mother played, with a perpetual smile gracing her face as she relished the moment. The group treks through the snow to friends and neighbors, delivering homemade fudge, divinity, pecan rolls, hand-dipped chocolates, and a loaf of hand-kneaded bread. All made, and gifted with love and appreciation for the intended recipient. We sang at least two Christmas carols for each visit, and with four brothers, two sisters, and musically gifted parents, we sounded pretty good. And although I’m not Catholic, I used to love going to Christmas Eve Mass at St. Bernards in Blackfoot, for there was a special ambiance, and a feeling of anticipation that was rich with the spirit of Christmas.

Most endearing and defining was Christmas Eve, with the family gathering in the family room around the Christmas tree, where my father read the verse selection from Luke 2 about the birth of Christ, and we shared thoughts on the importance of the event in our individual lives.

We have sought to perpetuate those traditions, and have added new ones to further enrich the family Christmas experience. We have a box under the tree that is specially marked for the Savior, and we each ponder what we will give to Him on this, His birthday. We review what we wrote down last year, to see how we did, and if we delivered on our gifts to Him. Some of the promised gifts from years past have been things like “more time with family,” “more time studying His word,” or “a more grateful heart.”

Those of other ethnic and religious backgrounds have equally profound traditions marking their observance of their particular holy days and celebratory observances. For all of us, our traditions speak volumes of who we are and what we value in life. But for a Christian nation, one whose very foundation was laid by men and women of faith, such traditions provide a cultural depth and cohesiveness based on common values of freedom, liberty, and faith.

It’s impossible for me to think of tradition without mentally referencing one of my deceased mother’s favorite movies, “The Fiddler On the Roof.” In the opening scene, a precariously perched violinist plays an instantly familiar tune from a steep pitched roof, and Tevye speaks of tradition: “For instance, we always keep our heads covered, and always wear a little prayer shawl. This shows our constant devotion to God. You may ask, how did this tradition get started? I’ll tell you. I don’t know. But it’s a tradition. And because of our traditions, every one of us knows who he is and what God expects him to do. . . Without our traditions, our lives would be as shaky as…as…As a fiddler on the roof!”

That’s why it saddens me when multigenerational traditions at a national level are abandoned or threatened. Little things like a generic “Holiday Greetings” in lieu of “Merry Christmas!” on the White House “holiday greeting” cards, and the near elimination of the White House nativity scene in the East Room. Granted, these are minor things, but they are symbolic to a nation that is already immensely divided with feelings running deep over a transformation of a country steeped in Christian tradition into something other than “American.”

Since some of our multigenerational traditions with religious roots may have less significance to the leaders of our nation, it perhaps places the onus more literally on us, to observe and perpetuate our traditions, and even expand them. I can’t help but rejoice at the success of the Handel’s Messiah “Sing In” and how that has grown in scope by the move to the Stevens Performing Arts Center, and involvement by ISU music faculty. By so doing, the scope and inclusiveness, and value to the community is broadened, hopefully making it a permanent traditional fixture for the community as a whole.

However you observe, or choose not to observe this holy season for Christians and Jews alike, I extend my warmest wishes for a joyous, and tradition-rich Christmas to all.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 12/13/09

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said “We will return science to its proper place…” That is a noble goal, one that I concur with. But when the scientific method is sacrificed for ideology, it’s no longer science.

Science is a branch of knowledge which deals with facts and data systematically in order to prove the operation of general laws, whether biological, environmental, or physical. Yet it’s becoming increasingly obvious that what Obama meant was that science would be used not in proving theories and making sound policy based on empirical data, but it would instead be used selectively in order to advance predetermined policy, even with doctored data.

As explicated in my last column, the United Kingdom based Hadley Climate Research Unit, which is responsible for ground temperature readings from which NASA’s satellites are calibrated and which is replete with “global warming” myrmidons, has been engaged in unethical scientific practices. Phil Jones, director of the Unit, has since stepped down, and Michael Mann is under investigation by Penn State for systematic doctoring and erroneous reporting of data used by the climate monitoring gurus.

And it’s not just for doctoring the data, which they have failed to produce in spite of repeated official requests. Their unethical practices go beyond that. They sought to suppress research of global warming skeptics and polluted the system which defined “peer reviewed” studies. These dubious activities have even embarrassed fellow scientists who likewise believe in man-made global warming. These more serious scientists recognize that “Climategate” has contaminated the scientific community, and reeks of selling out legitimate scientific pursuit in order to advance a cause.

Nate Silver, renowned statistician, called the Unit’s actions “unethical,” and that “it happens all the time.” Tim Ball, former climatology professor, said it marked “the death blow to climate change,” while Patrick Michaels, former state climatologist for Virginia, told the New York Times, “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.” Former NASA climatologist John Theon said, “This whole thing is a fraud.

This adulteration of the scientific process is not only a blemish on the scientific community, but it is the primary source of the information, data, and computer modeling utilized by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. Consequently, all climatic and environmental policy and treaties being proposed by the United Nations as well as our own government, based on the fraudulent data and research generated by the Hadley group is fallacious. If the premise of the man-made global warming argument is predicated upon faulty data, models, and conclusions, any governmental policy based upon the same falls like a house of cards.

The White House response to this scientific manipulation was, “I don’t think there’s any scientific dispute of this.” In other words, it doesn’t matter that the scientific process has become corrupted, it mattered that their ideological agenda was supported. The data the White House bases its conclusion on is the very data doctored by the Hadley Research Unit!

Carbon dioxide emissions have increased steadily since 1998, which according to Mann’s climate model, means global temperatures should have increased commensurately. However, it is clear the temperatures have not increased but have actually dropped in the same time period, erasing a century of “global warming,” and thereby challenging the premise of the global warming alarmists. This disconnect between CO2 emissions and global mean temperatures is captured in the CRU’s Dr. Trenberth comment, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Empirical scientific evidence of a causal relationship between carbon emissions and global warming is lacking, and the computer models are not predictive. Nonetheless, there are some in the scientific, academic, journalistic, and governmental communities who have swallowed hook, line and sinker, and promulgated the now obviously false notion that cataclysmic consequences await mankind if we don’t dramatically curtail our CO2 emissions - colloquially referred to as reducing our carbon footprint.

These people have been the gatekeepers of the data, contaminated the peer review process for publication, and conspired to silence and pressure critics. In short, any “peer reviewed” studies or publications even remotely connected to these climate research gatekeepers is of dubious scientific value.

Investor’s Business Daily recapitulated the actions at the Hadley Center, “With the revelations from what is now being called “Climate-gate,” many people are beginning to see a grand scam in which data were deliberately distorted; peer review was gamed by manipulating and stacking the process; critics were smeared, black-balled, de-funded and even fired; opposing papers were kept from publication; and politically savvy scientists worked in concert with journalists, politicians, bureaucrats and interest groups to deceive both opinion leaders and the public to further their agenda.”

Since their data is contaminated, their process corrupt, and their computer models flawed, the argument that man is causing the earth to warm has officially collapsed. When scientists have to rig the data and scam the system to sell their conclusions, the whole thing is officially bogus.

Even if the U.S. Senate fails to ratify the Copenhagen Treaty, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty to reduce carbon emissions, the Obama administration has a “plan B” to gain control over our energy consumption. Last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that they will treat carbon dioxide (CO2) as a “dangerous pollutant.” This ruling will give them the power to control all areas of our energy consumption without so much as a legislative vote.

What’s ominous about this is the fact that the EPA is basing that ruling on the fraudulent data provided by the Hadley Center. Dr. Alan Carlin, an EPA senior research analyst at the National Center for Environmental Economics wrote that the EPA finding is based on the data manipulation of the CRU.

Earlier this year the President said of those scientists working in stem-cell research, “It's about letting scientists do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

He is exactly right. But the principle has to be applied universally to all scientific disciplines including climate science. Otherwise, the computer input rule of “garbage in, garbage out” will have more specific application to environmental science than computer science.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 11/29/09

Next month the United Nations is gathering in Denmark to work on the Copenhagen Climate Treaty, ostensibly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Language within the Treaty itself should alarm any sentient being, especially Americans, as it calls for creation of a transnational government that would supersede our Constitution and subvert our sovereignty. That entity would have the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all nations that sign it.

The most stirring and compelling voice of logic and reason against the Copenhagen Treaty has been that of Lord Chris Monckton, former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. At an address at Bethel University, Monckton said, “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a ‘government.’ But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening…. The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do.”

The fraudulent and ignominious premise upon which this threat to American sovereignty is being perpetrated is that of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In unusual candor, the Club of Rome, a premiere global think tank, has revealed how such a “crisis” as AGW can be used to effect political change. They have said, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” By claiming AGW as a crisis which is man-made and hence, reversible by changing consumption and energy production, they have concocted a scheme whereby national sovereignty is reduced, and a global governing body can dictate, tax, and meddle in national affairs on a global scale. The climate change mantra is touted as a means by which the global order based on the nation-state ought to be reconstructed based on political reasons, not environmental. The clarion call for “reduced carbon footprint” is merely the means to an end. And the end subverts our Constitution and our national identity.

Regrettably, these global plenipotentiaries have accomplices in the academic and scientific world. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased steadily since 1998, while mean global temperatures have dropped in the same time period, erasing a century of “global warming,” and thereby challenging the premise of the AGW alarmists. Since empirical scientific evidence of a causal relationship between carbon emissions and global warming is lacking, those in the scientific and academic world with similar objectives to the Club of Rome and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), have falsified data, manufactured false “hockey-stick charts,” and created computer models projecting cataclysmic consequences for mankind if we don’t collectively revert to stone-age level subsistence.

Evidence of this conspiracy was on full display last week when emails from the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England were hacked and released globally. This is the unit that is responsible for ground temperature readings from which NASA's satellites are calibrated. The emails prove that the temperature data was manipulated in order to show the results they wanted.They included documents written by Phil Jones, Michael Mann and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of IPCC reports. Even NASA’s James Hansen has been caught manipulating data and calculations used by AGW computer models.

The misconduct exposed by the emails is so blatant that one scientist, Tim Ball, said it marked “the death blow to climate change.” Another, Patrick Michaels, told the New York Times, “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.” Retired NASA climatologist John Theon said earlier this year, “This whole thing is a fraud. We need to educate the public about what we’re going to get into unless we stop this nonsense.”

While this all reads like a conspiracy theory, the evidence is ample that the conspiracy is real. It is a conspiracy to erode national sovereignty and individual liberty and create and grant omnipotence to global governance. And it’s based on a “cause” perpetuated by fraudulent and falsified data, and the Copenhagen Treaty is the means by which their objectives are to be met. All legislation and treaties based on the pseudo-science of man-made global warming should be discarded in the dust bin of execrable man-made concoctions, along with the fallacious and maleficent global warming theory upon which they are based.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 11/22/09

It’s been said that life is what happens while we’re making other plans. It seems characteristic of human nature that in the process of eking out our existence and dealing with the vicissitudes of life, we sometimes are remiss in reflecting on the bigger picture and the bounties that are ours.

Our bounties are many, and we have to start with America herself. Our great country was conceived by the Declaration of Independence which proclaims that life and liberty are the inalienable gifts of God - natural rights - which no person or government can rightfully take away, and affirms that these are indeed God-given rights, not bestowed by man or governments. It affirms that the purpose of government is to secure our God-given inalienable individual rights, and that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Our Declaration reduced government from master to servant for the first time in history.

Our United States of America is not perfect. No temporal entity operated by man can be, yet the principles upon which this country is founded are divine in nature, and the resulting government by and for the people, originally was the most ennobling and free on earth. The Pilgrims early on realized freedom in commerce was concomitant with political freedom, and rejected communism, presaging the current struggle for the future of America.

The American people are the most giving in history. When there are calamities, conflicts, and just causes, Americans are there either as volunteers or giving generously of their means to assist. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, “America is great because America is good.”

We must always be grateful to our men and women in uniform who vigilantly ensure our liberties, freedom, and security on a daily basis. I am reminded of a list of truisms that declare: it is the veteran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion. It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble. It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the veteran, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote. Without their service, what we know as America would not be, and we would conceivably all be speaking German.

Idaho is a magnificent place to live and to raise a family. Tucked away in the midst of the Rocky Mountains, Idaho affords an environment that is relatively unaffected by many of the evils and social scourges that modern society contends with. We can walk to the park and downtown, and perambulate around our neighborhoods mostly without the fears and apprehensions associated with urban milieus. And here in Pocatello we’re literally within minutes of magnificent forests with clean, flowing streams, lush vegetation, and indigenous wildlife.

With the prevailing value system, Pocatello is a perfect place to raise a family. Largely absent are the pestilences and curses of more urban settings, while an attitude of friendliness and neighborliness prevails. Pocatello is small enough we can claim one another as brothers and sisters even if no other immediate family members live here.

Gratitude and thankful hearts require a degree of humility. The world doesn’t owe us anything, but in humility, we are thankful for what we do have and what freedoms and privileges are ours.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 11/15/09

This past week not only commemorated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it also marked the 45th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s immortal “rendezvous with destiny” speech. It could hardly be considered coincidental that the most ardent foe of totalitarianism who arguably played the most pivotal role in the dismantling of Soviet Block oppression and totalitarianism would have one of his crowning achievements celebrated in conjunction with his immortal clarion call of freedom.

“I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers…The idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election, whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well, I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down. Man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”

Reagan spent his life advancing those founding principles of freedom upon which this country was established, and vehemently decried the oppression of the totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe. Just two years before the symbol of communist oppression was torn down by freedom seeking Germans, Reagan stood before the wall in Brandenburg and challenged the Soviet Premier, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Erected in 1961 to prevent the mass exodus of oppressed East Germans fleeing the dismal, blighted, hopeless existence imposed by communism, the Berlin Wall became the symbol of human oppression. It not only physically prevented escape from communist and socialist oppression, it represented the psychological prison of the communist system where individuals and liberty counted for naught, and all that mattered was the state and the masses.

It represented the dismal failure of the promise of communism to the masses: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” an aphorism gaining in acceptability by our “leaders” in Washington. The 1500 souls fleeing East Germany daily for freedom, and away from the “promises” of socialism, clearly illustrated that not everyone was granted according to his needs. Else, why risk life, limb, and family, for the uncertainty and risk-filled existence in the West which had not the “assurances” of cradle-to-grave security communism claimed to afford? They pined for freedom!

Ronald Reagan stood heads and shoulders above all others in articulating the depravity of the communist principles, and extolling the ennobling, enriching, and fulfilling qualities of freedom in stark contrast thereto. And while there were growing socialistic tendencies within the United States years ago when he uttered those inspiring words, his greatest concern was of the growing threat from without our borders: the Soviet tanks, missiles, and nuclear arsenal poised to vanquish freedom from western civilization and coerce upon all flesh, the ignoble, character-killing, meaninglessness of “the common good.”

We have no Berlin Wall now, separating the free from the oppressed. But we have “Berlin Walls” being constructed, even as we speak, which symbolize just as efficaciously the oppression of coercive, totalitarian government on the people. They are symbols of government ascendency and superiority over the individual which curtail liberty. The Berlin Walls now being constructed are not in Europe, for Europeans have learned their lesson, and are moving more and more away from the principles represented by the Berlin Wall. No, the walls are now being constructed in our own country. They originate as pieces of legislation, and then are signed into our legal codex as dictums to the masses. We must buy health insurance, or be fined or imprisoned. We must pay for a bailout of unsound financial institutions. We must pay for failing auto makers to keep them limping along, a mere shadow of their previous greatness. We must declare our firearms on our tax returns. We must allow the use of our money to fund the infanticide of the unborn. We must pay exorbitant taxes on our energy use in order to “save the planet.” We must risk the very future of the nation in order to feed the insatiable spending appetite of politicians seeking to expand their political base.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, Published 11/08/09

To an extent, both major political parties can claim some victories from Tuesday’s elections. But there are some certainties that can be gleaned from the outcomes, one of which is that President Obama’s Midas touch is now gone. Having actively campaigned for gubernatorial incumbents Jon Corzine in New Jersey, and Creigh Deeds in Virginia, Obama’s efforts in their behalf were rebuffed, as both lost, and Deeds, handily. Considering the national mood, they may well have lost because of Obama, rather than in spite of him.

As important as the outcomes were for many, perhaps more significant is the pattern which seems to be in evidence. That pattern looms even larger in light of comments after last year’s election which had all but buried the last vestiges of the GOP.

After a disastrous attempt to force socialized medicine on the country during Clinton’s first term, voters swung the political pendulum away from the power grab by gaining the Virginia and New Jersey governorships in 1993. What followed in 1994 was a record gain by Republicans as they retook control of the House and the Senate after maintaining minority status for over 40 years.

As former Clinton advisor D. Morris points out, the election outcomes for Virginia this week are virtually identical with 1993 results. The Clinton administration backed the Democrat candidate, Mary Sue Terry for governor. Terry lost by a 58% to 41% margin, virtually identical with Deeds’ margin of defeat this week.

In New Jersey, the pattern is equally evident, as the 1993 election featured Democrat Jim Florio seeking reelection against Republican Christie Todd Whitman. The race was close but Whitman, who later served as EPA Administrator in the Bush administration, pulled off the upset. So likewise for 2009, the New Jersey gubernatorial race was close but Democrat incumbent governor Jon Corzine was defeated by former US Attorney Chris Christie in one of the most liberal states in the country. Christie’s victory marks the first statewide election victory by a Republican in New Jersey in 12 years.

The compelling question is whether the trend will continue into 2010 as it did in 1994, when all 435 congressmen and a third of the senators are up for reelection. It probably has much more to do with which party is most motivated next year. Based on this year’s election results, the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Parties, and massive demonstrations across the land against administration policies and congressional actions infringing on individual liberty, it would appear that the right of the political spectrum is most motivated for the time being. I have a sneaking hunch that the chagrin over how the country has lurched left will not subside by then.

The economic climate is much different now than it was in 1993 or 1994. By 1993 the minor recession at the end of the George H. W. Bush administration was already ended, unemployment was hovering at about 7% and dropping, while now it is at 10.2%, and likely to go higher before it begins to improve. Also, the budget deficit was narrowing at that time, in stark contrast to the monstrous deficit created in just ten months that dwarfs the government debt of the previous 233 years. While GDP has turned positive for the third quarter ‘09, there can be no real improvement on main street unless the employment picture begins to improve.

If the hubris manifest by the administration and congressional leaders continues unabated after this electoral rebuke in New Jersey and Virginia, many of them, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, could be adding to that 10% unemployment rate. And many of us will rejoice at them being in the unemployment lines they created.

There is no doubt that statistically the country is more conservative than liberal. As I have mentioned before, question D3 on the bipartisan Battleground Poll provides the evidence. 60% of the American electorate considers itself to be at least somewhat conservative.

Many of that majority didn’t bother to vote last year since they didn’t feel like they had a horse in the race. If they truly care about this country, you can bet they won’t be sitting out the next few elections.

Borrowing the text from the message, I’ve removed the direct reference to liberal and conservative, and will leave it for you to decide which is which. There will not be a quiz at the end, but I would imagine those who follow current events closely will immediately recognize which is which. Now as you read these, decide which is the liberal, and which is the conservative, for, given my predilection for investing terms, I will only use the appellations “bulls” and “bears.”

If a bull doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one. If a bear doesn’t like guns, he feels that no one should have one.

If a bull is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a bear is, he thinks no one else should eat meat either.

If a bull sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A bear, however, wonders how to avoid confrontation and look good doing it.

If a bull is homosexual, he quietly lives his life. If a bear is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect and acceptance of his lifestyle as “normal.”

If a minority is a bull, he sees himself as independently successful. Their bear counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a bull is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A similarly down-and-out bear expects the government to take care of him and his working neighbors to pay for it.

If bull doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Bears, however, demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a bull is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A bear who is a non-believer wants any mention of God or religion silenced and all public images thereof banished.

If a bull believes in man-made global warming, he tries to reduce his carbon footprint. A bear who is an adherent to the global warming religion thinks everyone should be forced to live like cavemen.

If a bull decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A bear demands that the rest of us pay for his.

So how obvious was it to you which were the bulls and the bears? Although greatly simplified and generalized, the themes and basic tenets should be obvious. There is much to consider from these generalizations which makes this a pragmatic exercise judging from the national dialogue as it appears in the headlines and commentary on a daily basis. In short, it would appear that bulls believe in the primary tenet upon which this nation was founded: freedom, while the bears prefer government “solutions,” based on conformity and coercion.

That desire for conformity is further manifest in cries for unity and bipartisanship. The caveat to that notion is that for there to be such unity, someone has to sacrifice his principles and belief system to achieve it, and the expectation is that the bulls are the ones who have to acquiesce, while they hope that common sense will prevail and the bears will come to see things through the lens of freedom. The bears assume that since they’re more enlightened the bulls should see things through their lens of conformity and be willing to sacrifice freedom for the common good.

One of the glaring lessons from this little exercise is the realization that it’s not the bulls who attempt to force their belief system on others, as is the common presumption, but it’s the bears who do so. Bulls are content for the most part to allow people to live as they so desire, but the bears, due to the presumed superiority of their position, seek to impose their beliefs on all.

So which ideology is closest to yours? Are you a bull or a bear?

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/25/2009

There are many among us who seem to make a sport of bashing business and the free market system. They appropriately point out the egregious moral and legal failures of some firms but then ascribe culpability to all in the corporate world equally. At the national level, it’s become a “pro sport” as professional politicians exculpate or absolve themselves of all their regulatory blunders creating the business environment companies must function in and cast blame on the corporate world for all that they can’t blame on our former president.

This bashing and fear of American corporations was well articulated by a recent contributor to the Journal blogs who said, “Not only is it appropriate to keep corporate transgressions ever present in any debate concerning the state of our economy, but that unless we do, capitalism as we once knew it will continue its metamorphosis into a controlling entity that has undermined the very Democracy that enabled it to exist.”

Yet what power is wielded by any corporation that even comes close to that which is held by government? Logically, there is much more to fear about government than there ever is to fear about the business world. Businesses make things, sell things, provide service, all to generate a profit so they can grow bigger, hire more people, sell more gadgets, and acquire other companies.

The larger companies grow, the greater their potential impact on the economy and their influence with lawmakers. But they have no more power with politicians than what the politicians grant. In spite of potential influence in D.C., corporations cannot deprive us of our civil or constitutional rights. Corporate policy sometimes can affect their employees and in some cases, their customers. But corporations cannot take away our collective freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to own firearms. In short, they cannot deprive us of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. They cannot force us to give them 30% of our income. Their boards of directors cannot vote to force all of us to part with our earnings to pay for their pet projects and payback for political favors.

However, government can do all of those things. And government is actively engaged in this assault on individual freedom and liberty right before our very eyes. They can force us to pay $1600 more for our energy consumption as a tax. They can force us pay up to $6,000 per household for a public health-insurance plan. And once that is in place, they can dictate our diets and consumption habits for eligibility in the public health plan. They can force us to list all of our firearms on our tax form. They can force any reference of God out of the public sphere, if it smacks of anything Christian. They can do all these things. And they are doing them.

As governments’ appetite for spending increases, so likewise their need to expropriate more of our income increases. With a vote in Washington, we can lose more of our earnings. We can lose more of our liberties. We can be coerced into doing things we have moral, legal, and constitutional objections to. Corporations don’t have that power.

With the factual realization that government has the power to eliminate or minimize our freedoms, and corporations do not, which should we fear more? I can choose not to buy from a company because I object to their policies. But I have no such luxury to withhold my taxes for objectionable cause. I can choose to live outside of a corporations’ influence, but as an American, I cannot simply choose to live outside the parameters of government policy, regulation, and laws.

There is no inherent virtue in government or in capitalism per se, but there is inherent virtue in liberty. Both government and corporations should abide by those same constitutional precepts that were designed to assure individual liberty, and rather than abridging those rights, affirming and perpetuating them. Neither the absolutism of socialism nor unbridled capitalism morally serve the greater interests of the nation. But freedom does.

There is ample reason to be wary of corporations, but not to fear them. After all, they have little power over our fundamental liberties and freedoms. But with a legislative vote and the stroke of a pen, government can, and actively is, reshaping America from the land of the free to the land of the oppressed.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/18/2009

The administration and Congress are actively engaged in a class-envy war on the private sector, the free-market system, and corporations. Part of the process is to villainize corporations to make them objects of our disapprobation.

In this context, it’s advisable to remember that America has been built economically by companies led by men and women of vision and principle. Not only do they provide jobs to over 150 million Americans in the workforce, but they provide health insurance, retirement plans, and a host of other benefits to employees who bring their skills to the table day after day for their employer.

There are also companies who go beyond good business practices, following a higher law in contributing to communities and caring for their own. One such example is Texas Roadhouse.

Three weeks ago Texas Roadhouse opened another of their outstanding restaurants in Logan, Utah. New restaurant openings are not uncommon, but this one is. All of the profits generated by this one venue will be used to fund the company’s charity, Andy’s Outreach. Andy is the name of the company’s armadillo mascot, and the charity so named is established to help Texas Roadhouse employees and their families during times of need. As the company puts it, “Andy’s Outreach Fund is the Texas Roadhouse way of raising money to help our family members (any employee) who might be struggling while carrying on the incredible, legendary culture of our one-of-a-kind place to work.”

The origins of the program are found in tragedy for one of their “family members.” Company CEO G.J. Hart was attending a seminar at the company headquarters in Louisville a few years ago where he met a veteran dishwasher named James Bryan. Bryan was a deaf man and was the father to five children. A few weeks later, Hart learned that Bryan had died from a heart attack, and he mobilized his resources and organized an effort to pay for his funeral and help his surviving family members. They succeeded in doing much more than that, as the organizing group eventually put all five children through college.

In just the few years that Texas Roadhouse has been in Pocatello, Andy’s Outreach has assisted over half-a-dozen local employees. Most recently, three have been helped with medical expenses, including one who is out of work for six months due to a car accident. Dave Alexander, the Managing Partner for the Pocatello restaurant says employees can contribute to the fund as well, and that Pocatello has the highest percentage of employee contributions of any in the chain.

To further illustrate how important Andy’s Outreach is to the 320 Managing Partners in the company, they contributed the necessary funds to build the Logan restaurant.

Another superb example is provided by Sears. By law, companies who have reservist employees who are called to active duty are required to hold their jobs open until their tour of duty is complete. With over 500 reservist employees called to active duty over the past few years, Sears did much more than what the law required. They not only held the reservists jobs for them, but the company paid the difference in salaries and maintained all benefits including medical insurance and bonus programs for their reservist employees. They extended these benefits for up to 60 months.

When I first learned of this policy a few years ago I was impressed at their commitment to their employees and their families and the support of our troops, and resolved that I owed them my loyalty. I’ve had to replace three major appliances during that time, and intentionally used Sears products to replace them for that very reason.

I’ve also been gratified to learn that IDACORP, the parent company of Idaho Power did the same for their reservist employees.

Corporations are nothing more than people coalesced around specific products and services to serve other people. Although there may be exceptions, it is disingenuous to ascribe nefarious motives to corporations carte blanche and the private sector in general. And many, many companies, like Texas Roadhouse, Sears, and IDACORP see the bigger picture and deserve our respect and admiration, not our scorn.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/11/2009

The appellation “Neo-con” has been so unscrupulously bandied about the last few years, and so incorrectly used as a pejorative that the actual meaning of “neo-conservative” has become lost in the din of ignorant debate. With the passing of Irving Kristol, who graduated from mortality two weeks ago at the age of 89, a review of the contributions and analysis of the father of neo-conservatism is a venture into what made America great.

As a young socialist, Kristol was critical of the primary tenet which he found animating the socialist movement; the idyllic perfectibility of man and his milieu. As early as 1944 he wrote of his preference for “moral realism” which “foresees no new virtues and is interested in human beings as it finds them, content with the possibilities and limitations that are always with us.” Such an expression would lead him over the ensuing decades to a realization that ideals have value in reality, if they work, but not if they don’t.

His ideas and analysis truly took hold in the 1960s when he and other liberals like him, were castigated for being “neo-conservatives.” He was driven to do something that made many liberals uncomfortable, to monitor whether their theories worked in the real world, or if they created more problems than they solved. Kristol himself described neoconservatives as “liberals mugged by reality.”

Through his column in the Wall Street Journal and his quarterly journal, he analyzed the issues founded in the “Great Society” programs. Did urban redevelopment improve conditions for the poor? Did welfare programs create more problems, especially sociological issues, than they solved economically? Did they solve any economical issues for the impoverished? As a liberal who based efficacy on what worked rather than good intent, he came to the conclusion over 20 years ago, “The problem with our current welfare programs is not that they are costly – which they are – but that they have such perverse consequences for the people they are supposed to benefit.”

Time after time, and issue after issue, Kristol brilliantly exposed the principles of the Great Society (major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, poverty, and transportation) as worthy ideas, yet wholly inadequate or destructive in application. As he aptly pointed out, after over a trillion dollars of wealth redistribution based on Great Society programs, we still have roughly 12% of the population living at poverty level. As one “mugged by reality,” he concluded that principles of socialism, even when partially executed, empirically fail.

Through his honest assessment of the failures of contemporary liberalism, Kristol emerged as one of capitalism’s greatest apologists. As he frequently reminded us, “Capitalism has eased more misery and engendered more comfort than any other economic system in world history.” And this man knew his history. So to Kristol, it only made sense that what the world needed more of was capitalism, not more of any of the other “isms” that ingratiate a few at the expense of the many.

The more nefarious use of the term was used throughout the Bush presidency, where the neoconservative concept of using American economic and military strength for purposes of expanding democracy, human rights, and capitalism. Conceptually I find it difficult to comprehend that any moral person would object to such a notion, but in the case of Bush, it had more to do with how the principle was implemented in Iraq, not a rejection of the philosophy behind it.

Even more disconcerting to Kristol’s former liberal colleagues, was his evolution as a social conservative. In his missive “My Cold War,” a recapitulation of his intellectual migration from left to right, he wrote, “What began to concern me more and more were the clear signs of rot and decadence germinating within American society -- a rot and decadence that was no longer the consequence of liberalism but was the actual agenda of contemporary liberalism. And the more contemporary, the more candid and radical was this agenda.” He warned, “Combating the cultural decay -- a war on spiritual poverty -- was even more important than winning the other Cold War.”

Much of neo-conservatism is based in common sense and application of principles with proven empirical efficacy, both of which are scarcities in Washington. Seems to me we need a lot more Irving Kristols. At the very least, we need a lot more neoconservatives.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/04/2009

I actually had misgivings about the Van Jones resignation as the administrations’ “Green Jobs Csar.” He was the most high-level “green” advocate who was actually honest about what the green movement was all about. As he said, “The green economy will start off as a small subset of a complete revolution away from gray capitalism and toward redistribution of all the wealth…And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.” He was also the most honest of the administration appointees about being a self-avowed communist. I’m sorry we’ve lost his openness, for he made the case very clearly that capping carbon emissions, and taxing everyone who creates a “carbon footprint” was not about saving the earth, but about governmental control over our energy consumption and redistribution of wealth.

About the same time Jones was resigning, Richard Lindzen of MIT published a paper that proves the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusions were wrong about carbon emissions. The IPCC conclusions were based on computer models, including the famed Michael Mann “hockey-stick” graph which has been discredited, whereas Lindzen relies on raw data and provides a breakthrough explanation for why global warming does not rise with carbon emissions.

Lindzen reports, “The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant ‘global warming’ for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.”

“More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade ‘global warming’ must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the ‘official’ theory that ‘global warming’ will happen on anything other than a minute scale.”

Lindzen’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

Data and graphical display of that data illustrate how carbon emissions have been steadily increasing over the past 15 years, while global mean temperatures have been declining. If carbon emissions were causal to warming global temperatures, there would be some concomitant harmony between the two charts. Namely, as carbon emissions increase, temperatures increase. Yet even when taken back over the past 100 years, there is no such correlation between the two. Critics argue that as complex as the climate is, there will always be a lag time between increase in CO2 and global mean temperatures. Yet even allowing for such a lag time, there is no observable correlation.

But what is most decimating to the global warming alarmist theory is the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) data, according to Lindzen. The data prove that CO2, which is a much less prevalent and effective “greenhouse gas” than water vapor, is incapable of capturing the amount of heat in our atmosphere as the IPCC claims. The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, prove the exact opposite of the IPCC projections based on computer models. In science, when hard data is juxtaposed with computer models, the data win. To see the full study, select the July CO2 report on the Science and Public Policy website.

The results of Lindzen’s report led one reviewer to comment, “All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.”

Those of us who have questioned the pseudo-science behind the man-made global warming alarmists have known the motives were not about saving the planet. As more and more evidence provides justification for our skepticism, we will find ourselves in the dubious position of missing the honest proponents of controlling and taxing carbon emissions, like Van Jones.

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.