Author Archives: Editor

American Exceptionalism: Part I

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

This report is the first of a series in which I am going to extract parts of my just-finished book America’s Unknown Hebraic Republic: A Goal for the Almost-Chosen People. The goal will be described at the end of the series. This book marks the conclusion of some fifty years of research and writing on the foundational principles and structure of the American Republic, beginning with a trilogy on the Statesmanship of America’s Founding Fathers. Allow me a personal note.

My intellectual odyssey began with my doctoral dissertation, The Philosophy of the American Constitution, which was published by the Free Press in 1968. Professors Leo Strauss and Herbert Storing of the University of Chicago were my dissertation advisers. This first book was followed by A Discourse on Statesmanship published by the Illinois University Press in 1984, which was the first theoretical work on statesmanship based on The Federalist Papers and Aristotle’s Politics. My third book On the Silence if the Declaration of Independence was published by the University of Massachusetts Press in 1976, the bicentennial of that foundational document.

In that year I immigrated to Israel where I taught political science at Bar-Ilan University. Israel was of course the best venue in which to study the Judaic roots of the American Constitution and the Declaration. Thus, in 2000, I wrote Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fail, a book that was translated into Hebrew and Russian. Alas, Israeli statesmanship was disheartening, even funereal. Israel’s government was not only dysfunctional; appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, the government had only the veneer of democracy. For example, the absence of constituency elections in Israel compels citizens to vote for national party lists rather than individual candidates, which enables Knesset Members, indeed the government, to ignore public opinion with impunity. If this were not enough to discredit the political system, the inordinate frequency of Israeli elections—the average duration of Israeli governments is only two years­—renders government policies haphazard and devoid of Jewish vision.

This prompted me in 1995 to establish The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, one purpose of which was to show how Israel could be made more democratic by means of Jewish principles, and more Jewish by means of democratic principles. To this end it would be necessary to import the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers on the one hand, and to revive the wisdom of the Jewish Sages on the other.

Hence, without ignoring the great merit of the founders of modern Israel (who facilitated the in-gathering of millions of Jews to the Promised Land), I proceeded to write several books on Judaic thought and institutions. Suffice to mention the most recent: A Jewish Philosophy of History (2004); The Myth of Israeli Democracy (2007); Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America (2009), An American Political Scientist in Israel (2010), and now the final book of this intellectual odyssey, America’s Unknown Hebraic Republic.

This last book has three interrelated objectives. One objective is to revive the foundational principles which made the United States of America the greatest nation on earth: the principles embodied in America’s Declaration of Independence and original Constitution. It is widely known that America is in a state of decline thanks largely to the multicultural relativism of its college-educated elite. This situation, however, is reversible. An uncorrupted and no longer silent majority of Americans has the will and spiritual values to restore American Exceptionalism, a concept discussed in the first chapter of my latest book.

The second objective is to revive the source of American Exceptionalism, namely Hebraic Exceptionalism. Unknown to most American, Christian Hebraists in Europe regarded the Hebraic Republic of antiquity as the most just and wisest polity in history, superior to those praised by Greek and Roman philosophers. This evaluation was shared by the presidents of various eighteenth-century American universities. It is extremely important for Jews to know this because their one and only homeland, Israel, is the only nation on earth threatened with extermination. The Jewish people need to know that what a matured Israel stands for, and what was manifested in the Hebraic Republic of antiquity, remains and will ever remain the fondest hope of mankind.

The third objective is to articulate the political and meta-political convictions that bond America and Israel, convictions concerning man’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—rights which necessitate limitations on the powers or functions of government. Public acknowledgement of these political and meta-political convictions will fortify the will of these two exceptional nations, not only to stand firm against their common foe—Islam’s global ambitions and its “we believe in death and you believe in life” mantra—but also prompt the West to roll back Islam’s deadly threat to civilization. I have written elsewhere about this common enemy, which can only advance by the default of decent nations. Hence ponder this prophetic epigram from Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm:

“It is my purpose … to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been avoided; how the malice of wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded together into larger organisms, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how even in matters of self-presentation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course, adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull’s-eye of disaster.”

Now let me mention Abraham Lincoln. On his way to his inauguration in Washington in February 1861, Lincoln stopped in Trenton and addressed the New Jersey State Senate. There he voiced these remarkable words: “I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be a humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost-chosen people …” This is the source of American Exceptionalism.

American Exceptionalism is rooted in the Declaration of Independence. Ponder these words of the Prologue:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The Preamble affirms the existence of a Creator-God, the God of the Hebrew Bible. The Preamble also affirms that all men are created equal, alluding to Genesis, which states that man is created in the image of God. This suggests that just as God is a creator in an infinite sense, man is a creator in a finite sense. This creativity made possible the political creativity of America’s Founding Fathers and American Exceptionalism.

I have yet to say a word about the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Viewed in the context of the Bible, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God was deemed the “moral law.” Christian Hebraists identified the Laws of Nature with the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality. We must also emphasize the “Peroration” of the Declaration of Independence, where its 56 signers appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions,” and whose final sentence speaks of their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” The Peroration clearly confirms that the Declaration is a theistic, not a Deistic document. The Declaration of Independence thus embodies not only a political philosophy, as is generally understood, but a political theology. This warrants our inquiry into the Hebraic roots of the American Republic from which blossomed its unknown Constitution or Hebraic Republic. God willing, I shall elaborate in next week’s report.

US State Department Steps Up Promotion of Homosexual Agenda

By Lauren Funk

The Obama administration has made it repeatedly clear that one of their priorities is the promotion of the homosexual agenda both in the US and around the world. The latest salvo in this campaign is the just-announced policy that the applications for Consular Reports of Birth Abroad and passports would use the designations of “Parent 1” and “Parent 2,” instead of “Mother” and “Father.”

The State Department said, “The improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” Homosexual activists celebrated the change. Such groups have been pushing for the gender neutralization of passport applications and other official document for years, launching online petitions and lobbying government officials.

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, played a key role in achieving the gender neutralization of the passport application. She applauded the change last week, while assuring her supporters online that the FEC would continue to lobby for similar modifications in other identification and medical forms. The gender-neutralization of such documents is one of the goals of the Blueprint for Positive Change, a comprehensive homosexual -rights agenda presented to the Obama Administration in 2008.

In response to rising criticism from conservatives and pro-family groups, last weekend Secretary Clinton modified the previously announced change so that the application would include “mother or parent 1” and “father or parent 2.” Clinton’s press secretary reported that she was unaware of the complete removal of mother and father from the application, and decided to include both terms so that the application would be as “inclusive and informative” as possible.

Clinton has made the advancement of homosexual rights a personal priority, prompting Change.org to name her the most “pro-LGTB” Secretary of State ever. In 2009, Clinton announced that the partners of homosexual diplomats would be eligible for spousal benefits, a move that rest of the US government promptly replicated. Additionally, the State Department recently eased the regulations regarding change of gender procedures on passport applications, making it easier to verify a sex change. Both of these changes were goals of the Blueprint of Action for Positive Change.

The US’s homosexual-rights agenda has also made its way into the halls of the United Nations. Last summer, Clinton instructed the US diplomatic corps to prioritize reporting homosexual rights violations and related issues in their correspondences. The US also muscled through a reversal in a UN committee’s rejection of a homosexual group’s application for official UN recognition. What’s more, US-UN Ambassador Susan Rice recently pushed the UN to include the language of sexual orientation in a General Assembly resolution, a resolution from which the US abstained when it came time to vote. Days earlier, Ambassador Rice pledged to a Human Rights Day event that the US would continue to advocate for the homosexual agenda in international law and policy.

This article was originally published in Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute publication FridayFax, January 13, 2011.

World Congress of Families’ 10 Best and Worst Developments for the Family in 2010

In the January issue of its newsletter, World Congress of Families News, the international family-values group published its list of “The 10 Best and Worst Developments for The Family in 2010.”

The 10 Best Developments are:

01. The U.S. elects a pro-family House of Representatives
02. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev begins discussion of his nation’s demographic crisis
03. California voters reject marijuana legalization
04. Canadians refuse to legalize euthanasia
05. Spain holds huge pro-life rallies challenging expansion of abortion
06. U.K. plans to block children’s access to Internet porn
07. Developing nation reject E.U. “sexual orientation” mandate
08. Regarding abortion, Europe preserves right of conscience for medical professionals
09. Hungary’s new government considers pro-life/pro-marriage constitution and
10. U.N. members reject special rapporteur’s recommendations on sexuality education.

Here are The 10 Worst Developments for the Family:

01. Ontario court tries to legalize prostitution in Canada
02. Mexico City institutes same-sex marriage
03. New Kenyan Constitution undermines right to life
04. Ted Turner calls for worldwide one-child policy
05. Hollywood is sexualizing teen girls
06. In U.S., high levels of out-of-wedlock birth among less educated
07. Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
08. Planned Parenthood says abortion and contraception are economic stimulus
09. Growing anti-Christian bigotry in Europe and
10. EU tries for stealth recognition of same-sex marriage.

Click here for the complete list and explanations of why these particular developments or trends were chosen.

WCF Managing Director Larry Jacobs observed: “Anyone can draw up a list of 10 best or worse trends. Ours is validated by the Congress’s experience and expertise. We’ve been dealing with family issues internationally for the past 14 years. Last year, World Congress of Families was directly involved in fighting same-sex marriage in Mexico City, legalization of marijuana in California and Kenya’s pro-abortion Constitution.”

For more information about the Congress, go to http://www.worldcongress.org.

Sharia Law Gains Foothold in US

Last week, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, a federal district court judge in Michigan, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Government’s bailout of AIG, which used over a hundred million dollars in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Sharia-compliant financing (SCF). SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law.

The challenge was brought by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and co-counsel David Yerushalmi, on behalf of Kevin Murray, a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraqi War. TMLC filed a notice of appeal immediately after the ruling and will be seeking review of the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented: “Judge Zatkoff’s ruling allows for oil–rich Muslim countries to plant the flag of Islam on American soil. His ruling ignored the uncontested opinions of several Sharia experts and AIG’s own website, which trumpeted Sharia-compliant financing as promoting the law of the Prophet Mohammed and as an ‘ethical product, ’ and a ‘new way of life.’ His ruling ignored AIG’s use of a foreign Islamic advisory board to control investing in accordance with Islamic law.”

Continued Thompson: “This astonishing decision allows the federal government as well as AIG and other Wall Street bankers to explicitly promote Sharia law ? the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Koran, which demands the destruction of Western Civilization and the United States. This is the same law championed by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; it is the same law that prompted the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks; and it is the same law that is responsible for the murder of thousands of Christians throughout the world. The Law Center will do everything it can to stop Sharia law from rearing its ugly head in America.”

The federal lawsuit was filed in 2008 against Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. It challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $70 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which is considered the market leader in SCF. According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Sharia-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG; and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated $70 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities, $47.5 billion of which was actually distributed to AIG. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in SCF, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities. AIG itself publicly describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .”

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG also employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee.” According to AIG, the role of its Sharia authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.”

Shortly after filing the complaint in 2008, attorneys for the Obama administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on behalf of the named defendants. In a written opinion issued in May 2009, the judge denied the request, holding that the lawsuit properly alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.
In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, DOJ argued that the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, who is a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action. And even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court disagreed….

Following this favorable ruling, the parties engaged in discovery. During discovery, TMLC took depositions, acquired numerous sworn affidavits from AIG and many of its subsidiaries, and acquired thousands of documents. This voluminous evidence was filed with the court in support of TMLC’s motion for summary judgment—a request that the court enter final judgment in its favor because there is no genuine issue of material fact and TMLC should prevail as a matter of law.

On January 14, 2011, the court reversed its earlier position and ruled against Plaintiff Murray, claiming that there was no evidence presented of religious indoctrination, and if there were such evidence, the indoctrination could not be attributed to the federal government and besides, the amount of federal money that was used to support SCF—$153 million—was “de minimus” (minimal) in light of the large sum of tax money the federal government actually gave to AIG—$47.5 billion.

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC, commented: “Based on the incredible amount of evidence presented, much of which DOJ could not refute , and in light of the strength of the court’s prior ruling, we expected the court to ultimately rule in our favor and hold that the federal government violated the U.S. Constitution by using federal tax money to fund Islamic religious activities. As soon as we read the court’s adverse opinion, we filed an immediate appeal.”

In addition to the court’s remarkable claim that $153 million in tax money is “de minimis, ” the court stated the following: “In the absence of evidence showing that AIG’s development and sale of SCF products has resulted in the instruction of religious beliefs for the purpose of instilling those beliefs in others or furthering a religious mission, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer could conclude that AIG has engaged in religious indoctrination by supplying SCF products.”

In the court filings, however, TMLC presented overwhelming and un-rebutted evidence from experts and AIG itself to demonstrate that AIG, with the direct support of the U.S. Government, was engaging in religious indoctrination. Specifically, in addition to AIG’s own description of its Islamic financing as based upon Sharia and Sharia in turn described as “Islamic law based on Quran and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH), ” AIG promotes Sharia and SCF as a way to proselytize non-Muslims through an “ethical product” and a “new way of life.” Indeed, in the U.S. Government’s filings in the case, it admitted that SCF involves “a theological proposition.”

Muise concluded: “Apparently, the court does not believe that the federal government violates the U.S. Constitution when it provides $153 million in taxpayer money to support Islamic religious activities. This is certainly more than the ‘one pence’ James Madison warned about when he helped craft the First Amendment, and I am sure this decision is news for all of the Christian and Jewish organizations and businesses that are prevented from receiving a dime of federal tax money to support their religious activities.”

The appeal is expected to take at least a year to complete.

From Thomas More Law Center January 19, 2011 email.

Republicans Can Use Senate Rules to Force Vote

by Gary Palmer

Now that H.R. 2, the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), passed the House of Representatives, the nation’s attention will turn to the Senate. If there is to be a repeal vote before the 2012 election, Republicans must be willing to use the rules of the Senate to force the issue.

When bills are passed by the House, they are sent to the Senate for consideration. When the bill is received, it is referred to a committee. Brian Darling, the director of government relations at The Heritage Foundation, recently explained in his blog that in order to force a Senate vote on the House bill, two procedural steps must be taken.

The first step is that a senator must use Senate Rule 14 to prevent H.R. 2 from being assigned to a committee in the Senate. Darling points out that once the repeal bill is assigned to a Senate committee, the Democrats still in the majority in the Senate will prevent a hearing and a vote to get it out of committee. However, with a letter or phone call to the party leader, any senator can invoke Rule 14 to hold H.R. 2 at the Senate desk. In effect, implementing this rule would bypass the committee process and put the bill directly on the Senate calendar.

This puts it in position for the Senate Majority Leader to begin debate at any time. Given that the Senate Majority Leader is Harry Reid (D-NV), it is almost certain that the bill will not be brought up for debate. In order to get the bill up, Republicans will have to initiate the second procedural step by invoking Senate Rule 22, the filibuster rule.

Under Rule 22, any senator who can get 16 other senators to sign a cloture petition would force a cloture vote to limit the delay of a pending matter. It is unlikely that 13 Democrat senators would be willing to vote with 47 Republicans to bring H.R. 2 up for debate and a vote because a cloture vote puts every senator on record, for or against repeal. The Republicans can continue to use Rule 22 to keep the issue front and center going into the 2012 election.

In the meantime, pressure to repeal continues to mount as more and more information about the scope and cost of the health care law reaches the public. There are currently 26 states that have filed suit in federal court to block the implementation of the individual mandate provision in the law that one federal judge has already ruled is unconstitutional. These efforts are peeling the veneer from a law that will exert unprecedented control over the lives of almost all Americans at a cost far greater than Obama and the Democrats told the American people at the time of its passage.

Now that the bill is law and people are seeing what is really in it and what it is going to cost, there is strong public opinion in favor of repealing the bill and starting over. While the first objective should be to repeal the government takeover of our health care system, the Republicans must also have a sensible and affordable health care reform bill to offer as an alternative.

Darling wrote, “At a minimum, Senators have the power to force a vote on full repeal of Obamacare if they have the will to do so.” By doing so, Republicans can make it clear that they are once again the party that stands for smaller government, fiscal discipline and respect for individual rights.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society

The Health Care Joke Continues

By Mr. David Zanotti

This has to be a comedy. There is no other way to grasp the hysterical claims of those advocating, now defending the nationalized health care take over. Picture clowns with big red noses and giant floppy feet trying to sell a child a balloon. That’s about the size of it. You can only laugh. For example:

  • The Secretary of HHS is out front claiming hundreds of thousands of people will be thrown on the street and left for dead because of pre-existing conditions. Really? This is one problem that states have been successfully working to fix for years. Does the Secretary really think that Congress would roll back this progress or not pass a “replacement” bill to make sure the problem stays fixed.
  • The Secretary, who under this plan becomes one of the most powerful bureaucrats in American history, is certain that repealing this measure will cost billions. So how does the math on that one work? If the government doesn’t spend trillions of NEW money in a field they don’t belong — it will cost the government more money. Explain that one to your kids. Oh, we know the Administration’s logic on this one. There is just one problem: the only way you can cover more people and spend less money is to ration care.
  • A funny thing happened this week: The British Prime Minister is calling for an overhaul of the British Nationalized Health Care system. Great Britain desperately needs to break down their bureaucracy and bring Doctors and non-profits back into the center of health care services. Hmmm… that would be the exact opposite of the current American Administration plan.
  • And of course, the prize joke of the day: Some members are calling for hearings and amendments to the Republican repeal effort in the House. These are the same members who one year ago passed a 2200-page health care bill that would (and did) choke a few elephants. There were no substantive hearings because no one saw the bill until it was time to vote. No one read the bill then and most likely NO ONE has read the bill to this very day. So why would they want to start actually reading legislation now?

This whole thing would be a joke but for two real dangers. First, people will die because of all this clown-town drama in Washington, D.C. And if that isn’t horrid enough, we can already see this Administration playing the oldest, most corrupt game in politics. They are claiming they gave us something that we cannot live without and blaming their opponents for trying to take it away. The old “taking candy from the baby” strategy. The design of the Administration is to paint opponents as evil and hateful and willing to take the “precious” health care away from millions.

The truth is that dastardly deed has already been done. No one in the media or the Administration or most of the Congress has read the news or the bill. Thus they are as clueless as a circus clown — or just pretending to be.

From the American Policy Roundtable’s For the Common Good blog, January 18, 2011.

U.S. government commits avian holocaust with mass poisoning of millions of birds

by Mike Adams, Editor of Natural News

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is engaged in what can only be called an avian holocaust through its Bye Bye Blackbird program that has poisoned tens of millions of birds over the last decade. The USDA even reports the number of birds it has poisoned to death in a PDF document posted on the USDA website.

This document shows that, just in 2009, the following bird populations were poisoned and killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, using taxpayer dollars:

(Listed as “Intentional” and “Killed / Euthanized”)

Brown-headed cowbirds: 1,046,109
European Starlings: 1,259,714
Red-winged blackbirds: 965,889
Canadian geese: 24,519
Grackles: 93,210
Pigeons: 96,297

…plus tens of thousands of crows, doves, ducks, falcons, finches, gulls, hawks, herons, owls, ravens, sparrows, swallows, swans, turkeys, vultures and woodpeckers, among other animals.

The chart even shows that the USDA “unintentionally” euthanized one Bald Eagle.

Also murdered in 2009 by the USDA are victims of other species:

27,000 beavers, 1700 bobcats, 81,000 coyotes, 2,000 gray foxes, 336 mountain lions, 1900 woodchucks, 130 porcupines, 12,000 raccoons, 20,000 squirrels, 30,000 wild pigs, 478 wolves.

See the list yourself at: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/USDA-Bye-Bye-Blackbird.pdf

Keep in mind that murdering animals is an act of violence. Yet in the wake of the recent Giffords shooting, we have U.S. government officials running around screaming about how much they disavow violence, saying things like “violence should never be used to resolve problems.”

But their actions say something different: Violence against non-human life forms is not only tolerated and approved by the federal government, but even encouraged. Through these mass killings of birds, cougars, ducks and other animals, the United States federal government is actively engaged in widespread acts of violence against nature, murdering literally millions of animals on an annual basis.

Keep in mind that the numbers shown above are only for 2009. A similar number of animals were killed by the USDA all the other years, too, going all the way back to the 1960’s when the “Bye Bye Blackbird” program was first initiated.

By my estimates, the USDA has actively murdered at least 100 million animals in America over the last four decades, putting this on the scale of an animal holocaust and a crime against nature.

In the politically correct language-muzzled aftermath of the Giffords shooting, the mere mention of the term “crosshairs” is enough to evoke an on-air apology on network news programs. Now you can’t say someone is a “straight shooter,” either.

But if you work for the USDA, you can murder animals by the tens of millions and virtually no network news outlet even covers the story. It’s not enough, apparently, that humans have already caused widespread destruction of animal habitat across North America; now our own government is actively murdering literally millions of animals every year.

And for what? What is the justification for these actions? According to the USA, these animals are a “nuisance” to farmers.

I have great admiration for farmers, and I understand that there are times when predators can get out of control and cause a lot of damage. Coyotes can get into the chicken coop and kill your chickens, so on most farms and ranches, coyotes are considered live target practice at every opportunity. That’s why nearly all U.S. ranchers own rifles as tools which are used for sniping at groundhogs and moles which tend to take more than their fair share of garden vegetables.

I know one rancher who was trying to plant an orchard and woke up one morning to find his newly planted trees had all been destroyed by a small band of hyperactive beavers. Needless to say, those beavers ended up right in the crosshairs of a utility 22 rifle.

I also understand that wild pigs (feral swine) can root up valuable crops in their search for food. There are times when certain types of animals can become very difficult for ranchers and farmers to deal with. Although I personally don’t enjoy the thought of it, I can at least understand that there might be an economic justification in the minds of farmers and ranchers to kill certain animals which are destroying their crops (or chickens, or orchards). I’ve never met a farmer or rancher who simply killed animals for the fun of it. The ammo is too expensive, and farmers don’t have that kind of time to waste in the first place. Most farmers, by the way, have a very high respect for life and only kill when they feel they have no available alternative.

But since when did sparrows, starlings and blackbirds ever pose a real threat to anyone? They’re not going to fly off with your cow, and to blame these birds for eating the grain being fed to the cows is ridiculous in the first place because cows aren’t supposed to eat grain.

Cows are supposed to eat grass. If you are running a cow operation where the birds are eating your grain and you think the birds are the problem, the real problem is that you’re feeding cows the wrong food! If you raise your cows on grass, the birds don’t get into the grain and you don’t have to poison the birds.

You see, when one ecological element gets out of balance (feeding grain to cows, for example), it then causes another problem that must be dealt with in some other destructive way (such as poisoning the birds). This cycle of disharmony continues and escalates until entire ecosystems are out of whack. Then the USDA shows up with a pickup truck full of poison bait and goes to work poisoning animals.

The solution isn’t to keep poisoning animals and trying to control populations through toxic chemicals but rather to return to holistic web-of-life farming methods that work in harmony with nature rather than treating nature as the enemy.

Then again, we are talking about the U.S. Department of Agriculture here. And while the USDA has a great number of truly useful programs (such as their USDA organic label, which is a high-integrity program), the agency as a whole remains steeped in the conventional agricultural mythology of pesticides, GMOs and “poisoning varmints.”

All of this really makes me wonder about the whole argument of Big Government versus small government. The argument of those who say we should all pay our taxes is that the government needs your money to “build roads and schools.”

What they don’t bother to mention is that the government is also using your money in very destructive ways, too, such as poisoning animals and pushing GMOs into European nations (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html).

Personally, I am ethically and morally opposed to my money being used for such destructive purposes. And even though I continue to pay my taxes, I do so under strong protest to the reality that my own government is committing an avian holocaust — a crime against nature — with the help of the dollars I reluctantly send to Washington.

The very thought of it makes me sick. I would be more than happy to contribute money to actually building schools and roads. But to see my hard-earned dollars used by the USDA to murder innocent animals is extremely offensive, and it is a violation of my own ethics and principles. My main purpose in serving as the editor of NaturalNews.com has been to protect life. And in my mind, that protection extends beyond human life. I believe we also have a reasonable obligation to protect the life of the animals around us — and the very ecosystems upon which we ultimately depend.

Although I can understand certain rare cases in which eliminating an animal may be the only logical choice for a farmer who is losing his crops and whose livelihood is at stake, it seems that the current killing of animals by the USDA is wildly indiscriminate and lacks proper moral or even economic justification.
It also brings up the bigger question that I posed in a previous article on this topic: If the U.S. government thinks nothing of murdering tens of millions of birds and mammals who have become a “nuisance,” then what happens when the human population becomes “too large” and needs to be controlled, too?

Will they simply feed us poison and hope we die off like the birds?

I might suggest that program is already under way. It’s called water fluoridation. Food additives. Vaccines. Pharmaceuticals.

And the government doesn’t call it murder, by the way. They refer to it as “euthanasia.”

The only difference is they’re killing the humans more slowly.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031084_bird_deaths_holocaust.html#ixzz1BnN9DYi0

Abortion, a Constitutional Right? (38 Years of Roe v Wade)

by Daniel Downs

Today, January 22, 2011, America remembers the Supreme Court decision that inaugurated abortion as legally protected privacy right. Pro-abortion supporters celebrate this day while devotees of pro-life oppose its existence.

A majority of Americans believe abortion is a constitutional right. In a Quinnipiac poll, 60% of Americans agreed Roe v Wade established a women’s right to abortion. I noticed most polls present abortion right as an established Constitutional right and proceed asking whether respondents want an amendment to ban it. Interestingly, 70% of Americans believe Supreme Court justices base their decisions on politics and not law according to the above poll. (Quinnipiac National Poll, April 21, 2010)

In a brief speech today, President Obama commemorated the Roe v Wade decision as establishing a women’s constitutional right to abortion. He said, “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.” (USA Today)

Yes, most Americans believe in abortion as a constitutional right, but where is found in the U.S. Constitution? It is missing in the Supreme Law of the Land.

How then did the majority of Supreme Court justices discover it? They found a woman’s right to abortion in several places. First, natural law states that individuals have an absolute right over their own bodies. Second, they saw this natural law right positively in the 4the Amendment clauses forbidding government intrusion into private matters. Third, and last, they founded a technicality in the disagreement among academics and so-called professionals about when life begins. This technicality was their justification to permit abortions until “society” establishes such a consensus agreement, which they knew was likely to be never. They knew for such a consensus definition to occur secularists and traditionalist or moralists and liberal and conservatives, humanists and religionists would all have to come to an agreement that life begins at conception.

The problems with the Roe v Wade decision are many. Several worth stating are as follows: (1) Roe v Wade violates the law that prohibits individuals from harming their own bodies or others. Our laws allow officials arrest and detain people who seek to destroy their own body parts. (2) Human life is the result of the behavior of two people, not one. The court only recognizes the right of the women. In practice, the man has no right to his body part contributed to the newly conceived person. (3) At every stage, a baby develops as a separate entity apart from the women whose body is made to nourish and nurture the new person. A baby at the blastocyte, fetus, or any other stage is still a developing human being. (4) Lastly, the Constitution is supposed to protect the right to life. That two-letter word has more meaning than most people realize. If the right was a “right of life,” however human life may be defined, all Americans have a right to right possess it. However, the right is to life, which indicates a process of obtaining what human life is. And, human life is a process of becoming as well as a state of entropy. Human life is an inheritance of the past and a development toward a future, and a present state of being.

Because human life is an inherited interrelational, historical, and futuristic process, Roe v Wade should be regarded as a political act of violence against all human life. No way can it be constitutional.

2010 K-12 Ohio Teacher Salary and Estimated Pensions, Searchable On-Line Database

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions released on ots website the 2010 K-12 salary and estimated pension data for all Ohio public school teachers. Unlike the data collected for previous years, the 2010 data includes salary and pension information for many superintendents, principals, and other administrative staff members. The pension data includes each teacher?s salary based on a 2,080-hour year (40 hour work-week, 52 week year) so users can properly evaluate teacher pay, as most teachers are contractually limited to working 1,350 hours per year.

In 2010, approximately 1,800 school employees earned over $100,000 per year. Due to increasing staffing costs, Ohio?s 613 public school districts are expected to face a $7.6 billion funding deficit by 2015, with personnel expenses consuming 96 percent of tax revenues. In the last election, citizens used the Teacher Salary Database to hold their school districts accountable for spending choices, citing that average teacher
salaries had grown at rates that, in many cases, far outpaced inflation. In addition to the new data, the website now contains a search counter which records the number of searches performed in the eight database tools (State Salary, Federal Salary, Higher Ed Salary, Teacher Salary, Local Salary, School
Data, County Data, and State Lobbyists). Since the website?s launch on April 30, 2010, visitors from 473 Ohio cities, the 49 other states, and 119 foreign countries have spent over 20,000 hours conducting almost 1.5 million data searches.

Buckeye Institute President Matt A. Mayer stated: “With so many school districts under financial duress, it is now even more important than ever that taxpayers know how school districts are spending their money. Instead of cutting staff positions, sports, bussing, and other programs, most school districts could balance their budgets without raising taxes through cutting staff compensation packages by a small percentage.”

The Teacher Salary data tool is available at www.buckeyeinstitute.org.

Ohio Banking; Federal Reserve Beige Book of Economic Conditions

This is the last day of the Beige Book reports. During the past four days, the retail, manufacturing, transportation, energy, and construction sectors have been covered. Today, the banking sector report of the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank folows.

In general, bankers reported that commercial loan demand was stable or showed modest growth since our last survey. A few bankers commented that although loan originations are up, outstanding balances have declined. We also heard reports from some large banks that lending to small businesses is increasing. On the consumer side, conventional loan demand remains soft, although several of our contacts told us that they are beginning to see early signs of growth. Direct and indirect auto lending continues to show strength, while some weakening was observed in the use of home equity lines of credit. Interest rates for business and consumer credit were stable. Many of our contacts said that demand for residential mortgage refinancing has slowed due to the rise in interest rates. New-purchase mortgage originations remain weak. Core deposits continue to grow, with most of the growth occurring in non-maturing products. Credit quality was characterized as either stable or showing a slight improvement, especially for business applicants. Delinquency rates are stable or trending down. Staffing levels have shown little change during the past few weeks; however, several bankers reported that they are considering hiring during 2011.