A Modern Day Pardoner’s Tale

“‘My lords,’ he said, ‘in churches where I preach
I cultivate a haughty kind of speech
And ring it out as roundly as a bell;
I’ve got it all by heart, the tale I tell.
I have a text, it always is the same
And always has been since I learnt the game,
Old as the hills and fresher than the grass,
Radix malorum est cupiditas.’”[1]

From the Pardoner’s Prologue in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, (Coghill translation)[2]

Prologue
The game revealed by Chaucer’s Pardoner in the Canterbury Tales was selling indulgences to the unwary. Until 1567, when Pope Pius V cancelled the sale of indulgences, the Catholic Church sold indulgences to sinners to pardon them from earthly punishment. Drawing on the infinite credit of the good works of Christ and the saints “stored” in the Church’s treasury, Church officials, or Pardoners, played on the fears of individual believers and sold them indulgences.[3] By purchasing indulgences as penance to pay for their sins, sinners avoided earthly punishment and the Church replaced the good works “stored” in its treasury with money.[4]

Since no man is without sin, and only the Catholic Church could claim rights to the “good works” of the saints, it was a booming business.

A Game “Old as the Hills and Fresher than the Grass”

Today’s modern day pardoners advocate trading indulgences between greenhouse gas sinners and the saints who keep their greenhouse gas emissions low. Since 2005, carbon offsets have been traded electronically on the European Climate Exchange (ECX). The market in indulgences in the Middle Ages operated similarly to the market in carbon credits now mandated in Europe and under consideration by the US Congress except:

• Instead of trading in the good works of the Catholic saints, indulgences sold today are based on the good works of the greenhouse gas saints.
• Instead of the Catholic Church deciding who is saintly, today government bureaucrats are the sole arbiters on allowed carbon emissions, and issue credits to those they deem saintly with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions.

On the surface, the details are new and “fresher than the grass”; emitting greenhouse gases is a 21st century sin. But the story is as “old as the hills” as the powerful sell a fiction to the rubes. Since we’re all carbon-based life forms—no man alive is without CO2 or CH4 (methane)—selling carbon indulgences also promises to be a booming business.[5][6]

 

Today the preaching is done in the people’s halls: at IPCC conferences, G8 Summits, or at the UN Climate Talks at the Copenhagen summit—today’s churches—government buildings where power is worshipped and the powerful are the gods. The proposed laws on carbon emissions aren't about morality, they're about numbers of metric ton equivalent CO2 emissions (MtCO2e)—bureaucrats playing god in a centrally-planned, Soviet Union-style economy.

 

Advocates pretend cap and trade mandates by governments are a “free market solution,” harping on the benefits of “free market trading of emissions allowances.” Would-be regulators stress the difference between it and a “command-and-control” pollution reduction system.[7] It’s classic Doublespeak—call it what it isn’t—they never acknowledge that the government-mandated cap, the “command-and-control” part of the system, is crucial to their “free market” scheme.

If governments didn’t make carbon emission a sin, why would anyone need to buy carbon indulgences?[8]

 

“I bring you good news”

The good news in the time of Chaucer’s Pardoner was still the kerygma: the apostolic message that the kingdom of God is at hand. The Catholic church could sell indulgences because it was the one and only intermediary between God and the human race. Throughout the West, it held the monopoly on talking to God. Competitors were branded heretics. The Catholic Church was universal and the gateway to the power of the universe: God.
In 1997, 187 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol went into force on 2005. The US signed, but the US Senate voted 95 to 0 not to ratify the Kyoto treaty. For Pardoners, this was not good news.
It took 12 years before our 21st century would-be-Pardoner-in-chief, Al Gore, declared the “good news” of salvation on July 7, 2009 at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment:

“I bring you good news from the United States. Within one month of taking office, President Obama secured $80 billion US for renewable energy and green infrastructure. And just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey bill, which for all of its flaws, does put a price on carbon and is very much a step in the right direction.”[9]

A step in the right direction for Al Gore means a step towards government mandates for the masses declaring the sinful nature of their carbon emissions.

One World Government aka “Global Governance”: The Catholic (Universal) State is the New Religion

 Today, the power of the state is the new god. And pols everywhere want a universal church—global governance—to control access to that power. The church of global warming needs universal participation—global mandates of emissions caps keep the price of carbon emissions high so worshippers will pay a good price to purchase their indulgences anywhere in the world.
Gore’s good news of 2009 was the drawing near of one world government in the form of HR2454, the 1428-page Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill (pdf). Gore claimed it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” combating what Gore preaches as the “crisis of man-made global warming.” But more importantly, it will move us closer to one world government, something greenhouse gas conspirators now call “Global Governance.”[10]

The would-be-Pardoner-in-chief and fellow conspirators of today see the value of applying the same model as Chaucer’s Pardoner to their own scheme:

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Listen to the Pardoner’s comments on “global governance” at 1min. 10 sec. into this video.)[11]

The day after would-be-Pardoner-in-chief Gore’s talk, Pope Obama (D) pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate as he attended the G8 summit where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.[13]

Climategate Heresy

In December 2009, before the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen, would-be-Pardoner-in-chief Gore repeated his push for a global system. After the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Climategate revelations, Gore also rejected any intimations that like Chaucer’s Pardoner, he relied on false relics. The Times reported that Gore:

“…also brushed aside questions over the reliability of climate science that have followed the publication last month of leaked e-mails between climate experts. He claimed that the scientific consensus around climate change ‘continues to grow from strength to strength’. He added: ‘The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view. This is a race between common sense and unreality.’”[14]

As in Chaucer’s time, when questioning the church meant heresy and heretics were punished, today if the rubes voice their suspicions, those in power try to stifle any dissent.

“Cap and Trade” = “Cap and Tax”

"Cap and trade" carbon legislation translates to artificial carbon rationing and new energy taxes.[15] To hide the new energy taxes, the Senate version of “cap and trade” legislation, the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act proposed May 12, 2010, buries them in a 987-page climate bill (pdf).[16][17]
The proposed bill creates a federal greenhouse gas emissions registry and a schedule of allowed US carbon emissions in metric ton equivalent CO2 emissions. It creates a system of carbon indulgences by listing:

• The Sins of our Time: Section 711 lists regulated greenhouse gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, NF3, perfluorocarbon, and hydrofluorocarbon.
• A Definition of the Relative Sinfulness to determine the price for penances: Section 712 lists the CO2 equivalent of the greenhouse gases.
• The Confessionals (where a sinner admits his sin and accepts his penance): Sections 713 and 714 establish registries to track emissions.
• The Plan to Establish God’s Kingdom on Earth (in this case, god = the federal government): Section 721 sets a schedule of decreasing emissions from 2013 to 2050 and Section 722 prohibits excess emissions. Every April Fool’s Day the allowed amount of emissions decreases.
• Establishment of the Price for Indulgences: Section 723 of the proposed bill mandates an “excess emissions penalty” equal to twice what the excess emissions would have cost if purchased in a climate exchange.
• Papal Oversight of the Sale of Indulgences: Section 724 sets up government oversight of the climate exchange.
• The Bank of “Good Works” to draw upon to sell indulgences: Section 725 sets up a banking system in carbon credits.
• Declaration of the Infinite Credit for the Good Works of the Saints: Section 726 sets up a ‘Cost Containment Reserve’ of four billion emission allowances for “market stability” of emission allowances. The federal government gets to sell these. (These “paper indulgences” are comparable to the “paper money” created by the Federal Reserve.)

Radix malorum est cupiditas

Chaucer’s Pardoner admits the abuses that occurred when Pardoners doled out indulgences for money:

"That trick’s been worth a hundred marks a year
Since I became a Pardoner, never fear.
Then priest-like in my pulpit, with a frown,
I stand, and when the yokels have sat down,
I preach, as you have heard me say before,
And tell a hundred lying mockeries more.
I take great pains, and stretching out my neck
To east and west I crane about and peck
Just like a pigeon sitting on a barn.
My hands and tongue together spin the yarn
And all my antics are a joy to see.
The curse of avarice and cupidity
Is all my sermon, for it frees the pelf.
Out come the pence, and specially for myself,
For my exclusive purpose is to win
And not at all to castigate their sin.”
From the Pardoner’s Prologue in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, (Coghill translation)[18]

If only our modern day Pardoners were as honest as Chaucer’s Pardoner. It would be easier for people to see the grift:

• The Pardoner of the British church of Global Warming, former prime minister Tony Blair, “will be paid at least £700,000 a year to act as a ‘strategic adviser’” to an American venture capitalist who seeks to profit from businesses reducing carbon emissions.[19]
• Would-be-Pardoner-in-chief Gore’s venture capital firm, KPCB, loaned $75m to a small California firm, Silver Spring Networks, to develop energy-saving technology in October 2008. By May 2010, more than $560 million in DOE smart grid grants went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.[20]
• Would-be-Pardoner-in-chief Gore’s asset management firm Generation Investment Management (GIM), owns 3% of Richard Sandor’s Climate Exchange PLC, the holding company for the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), North America’s only voluntary, greenhouse gas reduction and trading system. With the slow progress on a Senate “cap and tax” bill, Sandor agreed to sell the business to Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), in April 2010, for$604 million. GIM’s share: approximately $18 million.
• Would-be Pardoner-in-chief Gore preaches about rising sea levels and flooding as some of the consequences for carbon sinners.[21] A foldout from his November 2009 book, Our Choice A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, depicts the world after sea levels rise.[22] His book shows Pico Turquino in Cuba at 6,476 ft elevation covered by water. Gore recently increased his own carbon footprint in April 2010, by spending $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres in Montecito with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms, and nine bathrooms.[23] Montecito’s elevation is 180 feet.

Old as the Hills: 'Redistribution of wealth'

The Catholic church stopped selling indulgences almost 500 years ago. Today pols want to sell carbon indulgences. To administer it, they’re building a “Global Governance”—a system where the power of the state is god and one world government is the only gateway to it.

Did Chaucer’s Pardoner want to save souls when he sold indulgences in the Middle Ages? Do today’s Pardoners want to save the planet?

“What! Do you think, as long as I can preach
And get their silver for the things I teach,
That I will live in poverty, from choice?
That’s not the counsel of my inner voice!”
From the Pardoner’s Prologue in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, (Coghill translation) [24]

Technorati Tags: Cap and Trade,Cap and Tax,Al Gore,Chaucer,Chicago Climate Exchange

_____________________________
[1] Latin for “The root of all evil is greed.”

[2] The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer, late 14th century, Coghill translation 1951, p.241. (Online version at http://books.google.com/books?id=Ek_-lNfzGUcC&lpg=PP1&dq=penguin%20classics%20chaucer%20canterbury%20tales&pg=PA241#v=onepage&q&f=true).

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 4, Section X

1476 We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury, which is "not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy."
1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body."

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 4, Section X

Obtaining indulgence from God through the Church
1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

[5] Dr. Richard Sandor, Chairman and CEO, Chicago Climate Exchange, Executive Chairman, Climate Exchange, PLC discusses the founding of his churches of carbon reduction in this Dec 5, 2007 video where he discusses the potential for wealth creation:

Climate Change Lunch Series, Financial News, London, December 5, 2007, Dr. Richard Sandor, Chairman and CEO, Chicago Climate Exchange, Executive Chairman, Climate Exchange, PLC.

Sandor gives an overview of his theory of wealth creation (all for the benefit of mankind of course):

• 1940-70 based on manufacturing
• decade of 70s inspired by inflation
• 80s commoditization of interest rates, mortgages eliminated discriminations that were common at that time; commoditization of bank debt; democratized capital markets
• 90s commoditization of information and data; fortunes and value creation came from those involved in software and high tech
• Now the commoditization of air and water: public goods; emissions trading potential to transform for the better the lives of people in the world.

[6] Interesting to etymologists, the word for human gas emissions that can contain the greenhouse gas methane, ‘fart,’ first appears in writing in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

 

[7] “Emissions trading in the U.S. Experience, Lessons, and Considerations for Greenhouse Gases,” Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, A. Denny Ellerman and Paul L. Joskow MIT, David Harrison, Jr. NATIONAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., May 2003, (Accessed at http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/emissions_trading.pdf on May 21, 2010).
From the executive summary:

“Emissions trading has emerged over the last two decades as a popular policy tool for controlling air pollution. Indeed, most major air quality improvement initiatives in the United States now include emissions trading as a component of emissions control programs. The primary attraction of emissions trading is that a properly designed program provides a framework to meet emissions reduction goals at the lowest possible cost.

“It does so by giving emissions sources the flexibility to find and apply the lowest-cost methods for reducing pollution. Emission sources with low-cost compliance options have an incentive to reduce emissions more than they would under command-and-control regulation…”

“In practice, well-designed emissions trading programs also have achieved environmental goals more quickly and with greater confidence than more costly command-and-control alternatives.”

[8] “World Carbon Standards to Relax - CCX Head,” 15-Sep-08, Timothy Gardner, (Accessed at http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/50229/story.htm on May 29, 2010).
Why? Because when the government mandates a thing, it becomes much more expensive. In 2008:

“Credits on the CCX, at US$2.50 a tonne, are far cheaper than those in European Union of about US$31.70 a tonne, where a mandatory market has operated since 2005.”

The CCX carbon credit price is still low after health care “re-form,” because D political capital has waned and they are slow to push the Kerry-Lieberman Senate bill.

 

[9] “Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change,” Ben Webster and Robin Pagnamenta, The Times, July 8, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece on May 17, 2010).

[10] “It's Not Just That Global Warming Is Fake. What Matters Is Why This Fakery Is Being Promoted,” July 3, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.garynorth.com/public/5156print.cfm on May 20, 2010).
Does “Global Governance” sound less oppressive than one world government? North writes:

“The global warming movement is not about global warming. It is about the creation of an international political control arrangement by which bureaucrats who favor socialism can gain control over the international economy.”

Global warming is the misdirection, global governance is the goal. Whom would you rather trust: Al Gore, who has made 1000s of trips to promote his cause and will profit mightily from cap-and-trade, or thousands of scientists who dispute his conclusions?

[11] Webster and Pagnamenta.
Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Chirac on November 20, 2000 when then French President Chirac said in a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance":

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established…From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace.”[11]

[12] “Speech by Mr. Jacques Chirac, French President, to the VIth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Hague,” November 20, 2000, (Accessed at http://sovereignty.net/center/chirac.html on May 20, 2010).

[13] “G8 summit: Barack Obama says world can close the carbon emissions gap,” Patrick Wintour and Larry Elliott, guardian.co.uk, 9 July 2009, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/09/barack-obama-g8-climate-change on May 20, 2010).
While Al could learn from Chaucer’s writings of 1385 AD, Obama could stand a lesson from King Canute circa 1000 AD.

[14] “Copenhagen targets not tough enough, says Al Gore,” Robin Pagnamenta, The Times, December 4, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6943447.ece on May 20, 2010).

[15] “Designing a mandatory greenhouse gas
reduction program for the U.S.,” (pdf) by Robert R. Nordhaus and
Kyle W. Danish for Pew Center on Global Climate Change, May 2003, (Accessed at http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/USGas.pdf on June 4, 2010).

“Because any all-sector cap-and-trade program (whether upstream or downstream) will drive up consumer costs for gasoline, natural gas, and home heating oil, it is likely to be politically difficult.”

[16] “Senate Gets a Climate and Energy Bill, Modified by a Gulf Spill That Still Grows,” By John M. Broder, NY Times, May 12, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/science/earth/13climate.html on May 20, 2010).

[17] “Just Don't Call It a Climate Bill John Kerry rearranges cap and tax—and hopes no one notices,” MAY 17, 2010, (Accessed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240353420875226.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines on June 1, 2010).

[18] The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer, late 14th century, Coghill translation 1951, p.242. (Online version at http://books.google.com/books?id=Ek_-lNfzGUcC&lpg=PP1&dq=penguin%20classics%20chaucer%20canterbury%20tales&pg=PA242#v=onepage&q&f=true).

[19] “Tony Blair to earn millions as climate change adviser,” Sri Carmichael, May 26, 2010, London Evening Standard, (Accessed at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23838369-tony-blair-to-earn-millions-as-climate-change-adviser.do on May 27, 2010).

[20] “Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire,” 03 Nov 2009, Telegraph, (Accessed at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html on May 28, 2010).

[21] “Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths',” By Sally Peck, 11 Oct 2007, Telegraph, (Accessed at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html on May 28, 2010).
From the article:

“Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland ‘in the near future.’ The judge said: ‘This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call"’. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - ‘but only after, and over, millennia.’ The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

[22] “Mistakes with Cover to Our Choice by Al Gore,” by Tony Pann, (Accessed at http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d23-Mistakes-in-Al-Gores-new-book-begin-with-the-cover on June 6, 2010).

Slideshow Accessed at http://www.examiner.com/ExaminerSlideshow.html?entryid=777216&slide=5 on June 6, 2010.

[23] “Al Gore, Tipper Gore snap up Montecito-area villa,” Lauren Beale, Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2010, (Accessed at http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428 on May 17, 2010).
Perhaps Mr. Gore read this.

[24] The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer, late 14th century, Coghill translation 1951, p.244. (Online version at http://books.google.com/books?id=Ek_-lNfzGUcC&lpg=PP1&dq=penguin%20classics%20chaucer%20canterbury%20tales&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=true).

Let Them Eat Cake

"And so I've been a little amused over the past couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes, taxes, you would think they'd be saying, 'Thank you!'" President Obama mocks tax protestors in a talk on April 15, 2010 (video)

In 18th century France, the French government nearly bankrupted itself paying for foreign wars. Massive national debt, inflation, high unemployment, onerous taxes, and widespread famine made life a misery for the common people. Aristocrats flaunted their wealth while the poor struggled with malnutrition. Bread prices were so high that the starving couldn’t afford it. The French queen’s response: “Let them eat cake.”

Déjà vu

At an April 15th Miami fundraiser, President Obama (D) ridiculed tax protestors for daring to disagree with him. Wealthy, connected donors laughed along with the President at those silly people who don’t like having their money seized for the President’s vision (video).

The President didn’t even pretend to listen to those he supposedly serves, instead he mocked any who chose to exercise their right to freedom of expression. Obama isn’t the first President to make obvious the disconnection between average people and those who rule over them in America:

• Bill Clinton (D) had cars towed from “Presidential parking zones” instantly created when police posted temporary “No Parking” signs wherever Clinton traveled in a city. Already parked? You’re still paying for the tow. One night 157 cars were towed when Clinton attended a fundraiser in Brooklyn.[1]
• While both Rs and Ds favor free speech cages for those who oppose their views, GWB (R) made an institution of the cages.[2]

Our politicians do not hold those they supposedly serve in high esteem.

The Same Old Con

“…government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” From Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

The “government of the people” became the “government over the people” long ago. Misdirected Rs say it happened with Ds in power, while misguided Ds say it happened with Rs at the helm. Whatever your view, there should be no doubt that any who dare disagree with the executive are stepped on, ridiculed, and ultimately not tolerated.[3]

Speaking at the University of Michigan commencement in May, President Obama criticized those who believe government is the problem (video), and his beguiled audience laughed with him at the silly citizens who disagree with his healthcare re-form:

“But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, “Keep Your Government Hands Out Of My Medicare” -- (laughter) -- which is essentially saying “Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care Plan.” (Laughter.)”[4]

Government-Run Healthcare is Always Unhealthy

This past year politicians were so desperate for healthcare re-form because federal involvement in healthcare in the form of Medicare is such a disaster.[5] On August 11, 2009, while in Portsmouth, N.H. to drum up support for healthcare re-form legislation, President Obama acknowledged Medicare's problems:

"Our deficit will continue to grow because Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path. Medicare is slated to go into the red in about eight to 10 years. I don't know if people are aware of that. If I was a senior citizen, the thing I'd be worried about right now is Medicare starts running out of money because we haven't done anything to make sure that we're getting a good bang for our buck when it comes to health care."[6]

Now with even more federal control of healthcare, President Obama says he has saved America from a great crisis. Yet he never explains why giving even more control to those who put us “on an unsustainable path” is a panacea and not a prescription for an even bigger disaster.

You can hold any view as long as it is pro-government[7]

Our politicians live as modern-day Kings and Queens, yet they perpetuate the lie that we citizens are the government and not merely litter bearers for their royal persons. During his May commencement speech, President Obama reiterated the myth that “government is us”:

“When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us. We, the people -- (applause.) We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders and change our laws, and shape our own destiny.”[8]

“Shape our own destiny”? That’s why Obama’s laughing. We do not shape our own destiny. Our destiny is shaped for us by the federal government. The tea party advocates Obama mocks, don’t want more public healthcare, yet will be forced to pay for it just the same. Meanwhile the President and his tittering supporters can have another slice of cake and enjoy the entertainment.

Turn a Deaf Ear

Obama told graduating students that they should seek out opposing views, something he patronizingly did with the April 15th tax protestors:

"It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship."

Listen to other points of view unless the people expressing those views think taxes are too high, the federal government is too big, and those ruling are as out of touch with everyday Americans as the French queen who suggested the poor eat cake.

If others dare to believe government is the problem, first belittle them, then ignore them (video), and finally threaten them.

“The government of the people, by the people, for the people?” Ask yourself: "Which people?"

_______________________

[1] “Cars Get Towed When Clinton Visits,” By Deb Riechmann
Associated Press, Friday, Feb. 11, 2000, (Accessed at http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg35597.html and http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20000212&id=ad0pAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3c8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1660,2115875 on May 9, 2010).

[2] “Bush Zones Go National,” Jim Hightower, The Nation, July 29, 2004, (Accessed at http://www.thenation.com/article/bush-zones-go-national?page=0,0 on May 9, 2010).

[3] “Federal agency warns of radicals on right,” By Audrey Hudson and Eli Lake, April 14, 2009, Washington Times, (Accessed at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/ on May 9, 2010).

[4] “Remarks by the President at University of Michigan Spring Commencement,” Big House, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 01, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-university-michigan-spring-commencement on May 9, 2010).

[5] Medicare, a federal health "insurance" program for all Americans aged 65 and over. Medicare is paid for with payroll taxes of 2.9% on wages and has been around since 1965. It's not really an insurance program as people pay up front with Medicare taxes for 10 or more years and expect to spend the money later after age 65. It should be an excellent indicator of how well federal government health insurance works. How's it doing?

There are currently $89 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities, and the Obama administration is trying to change the types of treatment received by the elderly by cutting Medicare payments for cancer and heart patient doctors and encouraging more preventive care.

[6] “Remarks by the President in Health Insurance Reform Town Hall,” Portsmouth High School, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-in-Portsmouth-New-Hampshire/ on May 9, 2010).

Later, during the same appearance in N.H., in a reverse bait and switch, when President Obama wanted people who complain about socialism in healthcare to realize that Medicare is government-run health care insurance, Obama tells them it's a good thing:

"And so I do think it's important for particularly seniors who currently receive Medicare to understand that if we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role -- not the dominant role, but a role -- in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance."

So in the same talk, one minute President Obama said Medicare is not a good program, but later listeners were not supposed to conclude that the federal government wasn’t doing a good job with it, that the federal government had gotten it right. Instead citizens were supposed to support President Obama's call for even more federal involvement.

Is it any wonder people aren’t convinced?

[7] “Bill Clinton on Violence and Government: A Lethal Hypocrisy,” By James Bovard, (Accessed at http://jimbovard.com/blog/2010/04/20/bill-clintons-lethal-hypocrisy-on-government-violence/ on May 9, 2010).

“Yesterday, on the fifteenth anniversary of the attack on the federal office building in Oklahoma City, former President Bill Clinton had an op-ed in the New York Times headlined: “Violence is Unacceptable in a Democracy.” The article settles any doubts about whether Clinton was one of the most talented demagogues of modern times.

“Casting a net of collective guilt over much of the 48 contiguous states, Clinton announced that the 1995 bombing was the fault of people who believed ‘that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them.’ People who distrusted government helped echo ideas which somehow persuaded ‘deeply alienated and disconnected Americans’ to carry out the attack.

“In other words, people who harshly criticize the government are guilty of - or at least complicit in - mass murder.”

…

“Clinton declared that ‘we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way.’

“Unless you’re the government.”

[8] “Remarks by the President at University of Michigan Spring Commencement,” ibid.

Controlling Citizens, Not Borders

He also said to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, 'A shower is coming.' And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be scorching heat,' and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time? Luke 12:54-56 ESV

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed a controversial immigration bill (pdf) into law April 23, 2010. The surface debate publicized in the media was between those concerned about the harassment of legal immigrants versus those who want to “control our borders.” Two Arizona Congressmen protested the bill: Raul Grijalva (D) advocated an economic boycott of Arizona, and Ed Pastor (D) insisted the federal government boycott its immigration enforcement agreement with Arizona.[1a] The emotional debate distracts Americans from the deeper issue threatening the freedom of all—and that’s just what those in power want.

All the noise about illegal immigration and the need for the federal government to do something about our borders is designed to keep you distracted from what’s really happening. State actions to “control our borders” and “keep us safe” are part of a long term plan to control everyone inside those borders.

Your Papers Please

Arizona and California already have in-state roadblocks (video). Air travelers throughout the US already are subject to indiscriminate and virtual strip searches. Just as “protection” against terrorists in air travel has resulted in herds of Americans all but mooing as they move unshodden through security checkpoints, the Arizona legislation to protect Arizonans from illegal immigrants is another step to condition us to accept more state control of the “unruly masses.”

The recent Arizona immigration act lets police check the citizenship status of suspected illegal immigrants. Not publicized are the implications for citizens: the need to carry proof of citizenship and the power of police to stop you to check your papers. How do police know you are a citizen if you don’t carry papers?

R or D, State or Fed, They Work Together (and not for you)

During the debate about the immigration bill, lots of noise was also heard about states’ rights. And it was all just noise. Article 8.F of the bill reveals the true goal of the new law: sharing private information of individual citizens with the federal government.[1] Arizona Governor Brewer, protector of the border, is also a “grateful” member of Council of Governors staffed by President Obama’s (D) January 11, 2010 executive order “to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards.”[2]

The Arizona state version of border control goes hand in hand with the federal plan for a national ID card:

• In 2005, the Bush (R) administration gave us the REAL ID Act, which set federal standards for state-issued driver’s licenses to create a National identity card. States have dragged their feet on implementing the plan only because they want the federal government to pay for it.
• In 2007, the DHS and the State department issued a joint ruling called the “Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative,” outlining the plan for machine-readable state driver’s licenses as a national ID.[3]
• Now US Senators Lindsey Graham (R) and Chuck Schumer (D) call for federal border control. Their plan “would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs” to carry “biometric Social Security cards.”

If Graham and Schumer get their way, we’ll all be required to carry biometric identification (video). Free ride advocates Grijalva and Pastor don’t have to worry about police discrimination against Hispanics—it won’t be just immigrants required to show ID, soon we’ll all be stopped at roadblocks to show our state-issued national ID cards. Without them, we won’t be able to travel, work, or purchase firearms.[4]

Rev 13:15-17 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

__________________________

[1a] "Congressman Luis Gutierrez Blames Obama Administration for SB 1070 at Arizona Capitol Rally," By Stephen Lemons, Apr. 25 2010, (Accessed at http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/04/luis_gutierrez_denounces_obama.php on April 26, 2010).

"Pastor repeated this demand, and insisted that the Obama administration suspend all 287(g) agreements and deportations in Arizona until the legislation is enjoined."

The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement site lists several Arizona government entities party to 287(g) agreements.

[1] “Oppose the Revised SB1070 on National ID Concerns,” Posted by Jeff Greenspan on 03/30/10, (Accessed at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34152 on April 25, 2010).

This post identifies the offending section as paragraph E, which changed in the final bill to paragraph F:

S.B. 1070

F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

[2] “Gov. Jan Brewer to serve as Federal Council of Governors member,” Published: February 10, 2010, Coolidge Examiner, (Accessed at http://www.trivalleycentral.com/articles/2010/02/10/coolidge_examiner/top_stories/doc4b71c3c51d62d056256015.txt on April 25, 2010).

“I am grateful for the opportunity the President of the United States has provided me to serve as a member of the Council of Governors,” said Brewer. “I am honored to serve in a bi-partisan effort on a subject that is at the heart of the role of government — the security and defense of our nation.
“This subject is of great interest to all Americans, and I am pleased the President has recognized the role of governors. I am grateful that the invitation to governors is almost assuredly a sign of interest in balancing federal authority with the rights of states, exclusively reserved in the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“I want to be a voice for matters of vital importance to states, such as border security, that are clearly the responsibility of the federal government,” she said.

[3] “Documents Required for Travelers Departing From or Arriving in the United States at Sea and Land Ports-of-Entry from within the Western Hemisphere,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security;
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, USCBP 2007-0061, (Accessed at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/whti_landseafinalrule.pdf on April 25, 2010).

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
USCBP 2007-0061
RIN 1651-AA69
8 CFR Parts 212 and 235
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Parts 41 and 53
Documents Required for Travelers Departing From or Arriving in the United States
at Sea and Land Ports-of-Entry from within the Western Hemisphere

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the second phase of a joint Department of Homeland Security and Department of State plan, known as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, to implement new documentation requirements for U.S. citizens and certain nonimmigrant aliens entering the United States. This final rule details the documents U.S. citizens' and nonimmigrant citizens of Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico will be required to present when entering the United States from within the Western Hemisphere at sea and land ports-of-entry.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 1,2009.

For the document requirements which went into effect on January 3 1,2008, please see the Notice "Oral
Declarations No Longer Satisfactory as Evidence of Citizenship and Identity" which was published in the Federal Register on December 2 1,2007, at 72 FR 72744.

From pp 10-11:

5. Other Relevant legislation
On August 4,2007, the President signed into law the Implementing Recommendations of the 911 Commission Act of 2007 (911 Commission Act of 2007).18 Section 723 of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 called on the Secretary of Homeland Security to begin to develop pilot programs with states to develop state-issued secure documents that would denote identity and citizenship. Section 724 of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 called on the Secretary of State to examine the feasibility of lowering the execution fee for the proposed passport card.

From p 14:

8. State Enhanced Driver's License Projects.

Certify to agreement for at least one voluntary program with a state to test a state-issued enhanced driver's license and identification document.
On March 23,2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Washington signed a Memorandum of Agreement to develop, issue, test, and evaluate an enhanced driver's license and identification card with facilitative technology to be used for border crossing purposes. On September 26,2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Vermont signed a similar Memorandum of Agreement for an enhanced driver's license and identification card to be used for border crossing
purposes; on October 27,2007, the Secretary and the Governor of New York also signed a Memorandum of Agreement. On December 6,2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Arizona also signed a similar Memorandum of Agreement to develop, issue, test, and evaluate an enhanced driver's license and identification card. The Departments have worked very closely to update the appropriate
congressional committees on the status of these certifications and will continue to do so until final certifications are made. DOS and DHS believe that these certifications will be made well in advance of the June 1,2009, deadline for implementation. In the unlikely event that the Departments are unable to complete all the necessary certifications by June 1,2009, the Departments will provide notice to the public and amend the date(s) for compliance with the document requirements for land and sea border crossings as necessary.

From pp 48-50:

5. State Enhanced Driver's License Projects
Comment: DHS and DOS received two comments to the Air and Sea NPRM stating that the best solution to increasing security at our borders is one that incorporates improved technology in existing documentation, such as a driver's license. Thirty commenters to the Land and Sea NPRM stated that WHTI should not be implemented until all state or provincial enhanced driver's license pilot programs are in place. Six Canadian provinces urged DHS to explicitly recognize their proposed enhanced driver's license in the final rule. Twelve commenters supported proposed state pilot programs. One hundred-eight commenters recommended that DHS recognize an enhanced driver's license denoting identity and citizenship for entry by both Canadian and American citizens. One commenter stated that programs for producing an enhanced driver's license need more time for development and distribution prior to the summer of 2008. Eleven commenters recommended completing an enhanced driver's license pilot project prior to implementation of WHTI. Fifty-six commenters to the Land and Sea NPRM requested
financial and technical assistance from the Federal government so that states could produce enhanced driver's licenses.
Response: DHS encourages U.S. states and Canadian provinces acting through the Canadian Government to undertake enhanced driver's license projects. In a separate notice published concurrently in the Federal Register with this final rule, DHS will designate the Washington State enhanced driver's license as acceptable and notes that additional such documents will be added by notice. DHS will consider documents such as U.S. state and Canadian provincial enhanced driver's licenses that satisfy the WHTI
requirements by denoting identity and citizenship undertaken pursuant to agreements with DHS. These documents also will have compatible facilitative technology and must meet minimum standards of issuance to meet CBP's operational needs. As noted above, the State of Washington has begun a voluntary program to develop an enhanced driver's license and identification card that would denote identity and citizenship. On March 23, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Washington signed a Memorandum of Agreement to develop, issue, test, and evaluate an enhanced driver's
license and identification card with facilitative technology to be used for border crossing purposes. Under this final rule, U.S. citizens arriving from contiguous territory and adjacent islands may present the enhanced driver's license and identification card issued by the State of Washington at land and sea ports-of-entry. To establish an EDL program, each entity individually enters into agreement with DHS based on specific factors such as the entity's level of interest, funding, technology, and other development and implementation factors. As each EDL program is specific to each entity, DHS does not intend to delay the implementation of WHTI until all potential state and provincial enhanced driver's license projects are operational. However, DHS will continue to welcome states and provinces interested in implementing EDL
programs- even those that start after WHTI implementation.
Comment: Two commenters recommended a meeting with all state driver's license directors by January 2008 before the completion of the Washington State pilot program.
Response: DHS appreciates this comment and remains committed to working on a continuing basis with and coordinating efforts among states interested in developing, testing, and implementing pilot programs for enhanced driver's licenses. DHS encourages states interested in developing enhanced driver's licenses to work closely with DHS to that end.

From pp 51-52:

7. REAL ID Driver's Licenses
Comment: Four commenters to the Land and Sea NPRM asked for clarification whether enhanced driver's licenses issued as part of a state pilot program under WHTI would comply with the REAL ID requirements as well. Two commenters cautioned against the action of implementing WHTI using the requirements of REAL ID due to concerns regarding privacy, costs, a complicated verification system, and the issues of
federalism. One commenter stated that DHS must definitively declare that WHTI compliant driver's licenses meet the improved driver's license requirements of the REAL ID Act.
Response: DHS has worked to align REAL ID and EDL requirements. EDLs are being developed consistent with the requirements of REAL ID and, as such, can be used for official purposes such as accessing a Federal facility, boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft, and entering nuclear power plants. While the REAL ID requirements include proof of legal status in the US., the EDL will require that the cardholder be a U.S. citizen. In addition, the EDL will also include technologies that facilitate electronic verification and travel at ports-of-entry. DHS is extremely cognizant of the need to protect privacy, and as such institutes best practices with regard to the collection and use of personal data for all of its programs.

From pp 86-88:

D. State Enhanced Driver's License Projects
DHS remains committed to considering travel documents developed by the various U.S. states and the Governments of Canada and Mexico in the future that would denote identity and citizenship and would also satisfy section 7209 of IRTPA, as amended by section 723 of the 911 1 Commission Act of 2007.

Under this final rule, DHS will consider as appropriate documents such as state driver's licenses and identification cards that satisfy the WHTI requirements by denoting identity and citizenship. These documents must also have compatible technology, security criteria, and must respond to CBP's operational concerns.

Such acceptable documents will be announced and updated by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A list of such programs and documents will also be maintained on the CBP website. It is still anticipated that the Secretary of Homeland Security will designate documents that satisfy section 7209 and the technology, security, and operational concerns discussed above as documents acceptable for travel under section 7209.
To date, DHS has entered into formal Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with the States of Washington, Vermont, New York, and Arizona which have begun voluntary programs to develop an "enhanced driver's license" and identification card that would denote identity and citizenship.44 Concurrent with this final rule, DHS is also publishing a separate notice in today's Federal Register wherein the Secretary of Homeland Security is designating that the State of Washington enhanced driver's license document
is secure. Therefore, U.S. citizens may present the enhanced driver's licenses and identification cards issued by the State of Washington pursuant to the MOA at land and sea ports-of-entry when arriving from contiguous territory and adjacent islands.

DHS is continuing discussions on the development of enhanced driver's license projects with several other states and the Government of Canada. CBSA and several Canadian provinces are planning and developing EDL projects. DHS remains committed to working with and coordinating efforts among states interested in developing, testing, and implementing programs for enhanced driver's licenses on a continuing basis. DHS encourages states interested in developing enhanced driver's licenses to work closely with DHS to that end.

On January 28,2008, DHS published a final rule in the Federal Register concerning minimum standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards that can be accepted for official purposes in accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005.45 DHS has worked to align REAL ID and EDL requirements. EDLs are being developed consistent with the requirements of REAL ID and, as such, can be used for official
purposes such as accessing a Federal facility, boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft, and entering nuclear power plants The enhanced driver's license will also include technologies that facilitate electronic verification and travel at ports-of-entry. While the proposed REAL ID requirements include proof of legal status in the U.S., the enhanced driver's license will require that the card holder be a U.S. citizen.

___________________________________________

44 On September 26,2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of Vermont signed a
similar Memorandum of Agreement for an enhanced driver's license and identification card to be used for
border crossing purposes; on October 27,2007, the Secretary and the Governor of New York also signed a
similar Memorandum of Agreement. The state of Arizona has also announced its intention to sign an MOA
with DHS to begin an enhanced driver's license project. For more information on these projects, see
www.dhs.gov.
45 The REAL ID Act of 2005 prohibits Federal agencies, effective May I 1,2008, from accepting a driver's
license or personal identification card for any official purpose unless the license or card has been issued by a State that is meeting the requirements set forth in the Act. See Pub. L. 109-13m 119 Stat. 231,302 (May 1 I, 2005) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30301 note). On March 9,2007, DHS issued a rule proposing to establish minimum standards for State-issued driver's licenses and identification cards that Federal agencies would accept for official purposes after May 1 1,2008. See 72 FR 10820.

[4] “Urgent Action Req: (Arizona) SB1070/HB2632. PLEASE READ,” Posted by Jeff Greenspan on 03/18/10, (Accessed at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=33689 on April 25, 2010).

“They are ostensibly anti-illegal immigration bills. As such, there are good things in there such as elimination of sanctuary cities.

“However, these bills have a sneak provision in them that turns the Arizona Drivers License into a national id. Section 2. 11-1051, subsections F.1-3. specifically require that the state obtain prior clearance from the US Department of Homeland Security before you can obtain or renew your Drivers License. Additionally, it requires data exchange of your domicile information.

“This also creates a backdoor gun purchase registration capability.”

Technorati Tags: REAL ID,Border control,Illegal Immigrants

NOTE: Revised April 26, 2010 to clarify the type of boycott of Arizona called for by Ed Pastor. Inserted [1a].

The Loyal Opposition

"...the term loyal opposition is applied to the opposition parties in the legislature to indicate that the non-governing parties may oppose the actions of the sitting cabinet – typically comprising parliamentarians from the party with the most seats in the elected legislative chamber -- while maintaining loyalty to the source of the government's power." Wikipedia

On January 19, 2010, Senator-elect Scott Brown (R) joined the loyal opposition in Washington, D.C. in a Massachusetts special election, Brown rode a groundswell of opposition to increased federal involvement in health care. He thought differently four years earlier as a Massachusetts state senator with Mitt Romney (R) as governor, when Brown voted for government-controlled health care. The federal law Massachusetts voters elected Brown to oppose in 2010 is modeled after the Massachusetts law Brown voted for in 2006 as a state senator--both require individuals to purchase health insurance.[1] Today the Massachusetts pols Brown left behind are fighting to keep out-of-control health care costs from bankrupting their experiment started four years ago.[2]

“Today, our nation faces a growing budget deficit due to out of control federal spending. I absolutely believe that a balanced federal budget is crucial to a healthy economy, and I remain an active and dedicated member of the fiscally conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC). In a few short years, baby boomers, the most productive generation in the history of the world, will begin to retire. Mandatory spending in the federal budget is on a trajectory to be over 100% of projected revenues. Dramatically slowing the rate of federal spending growth, easing the regulatory and tax burden on productivity in this country, and eliminating government waste are all critical if we are to balance this federal budget monster and return this nation to consistent economic prosperity. I am deeply committed to that endeavor.” Trent Franks Congressional site

Today congressman Trent Franks (R) is a member of the loyal opposition. A stalwart opponent of socialism, and a champion of limited government and fiscal responsibility in 2010, Franks thought differently in 2003 when George W. Bush (R) was President and Rs controlled Congress. On November 22, 2003, congressman Franks supplied one of the last minute votes in the early morning hours to pass then-President Bush's (R) Medicare Modernization Act (Medicare part D (pdf)).[3] As of 2009, Medicare suffers from $89 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Socialism is Evil When the Other Guys are In Power

“It seems the fall of socialism across the world has taught many of our politicians nothing. It is hard to envision a plan that would hinder health care excellence and damage the doctor/patient relationship more than government run socialized medicine.” Trent Franks campaign site

Franks and fellow Rs vigorously oppose socialized healthcare proposed by Obama (D) and pushed through Congress by Ds, yet ignore the obvious: Medicare is socialist, too. Tea partiers may convince themselves they've paid for Medicare with their taxes, just like Social Security, but they’re both Ponzi schemes and both broke. Rs helped nationalize the mortgage markets when Bush was President, yet now, as the loyal opposition, decry the Obama administration takeover of banks and the auto industry.

Ds aren’t immune to budget hypocrisy. While part of the loyal opposition, in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit, then-Senator Obama said:

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Obama later joined his D colleagues to vote against raising the debt limit.[4]

After Obama became President, the roles reversed, and Rs assumed the role of the loyal opposition:

• On February 17, 2009, the American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009 (aka the Stimulus bill) passed despite all House Rs and all but three Senate Rs voting against it. In addition to authorizing $787 billion in spending, the bill also raised the debt limit to $12.104 trillion (see page 252 of pdf).
• On December 28, 2009, when the Ds snuck a politically unpopular increase of the debt limit to $12.394 trillion through Congress, no Rs in the House voted for it and only one soon-to-be-retired R in the Senate voted for it.
• On February 12, 2010, Obama signed a bill to increase the federal debt limit to $14.3 trillion. Of the loyal opposition, no R in the House or the Senate voted for the measure.

Yet during the Bush administration, “fiscally conservative” Rs voted to increase the national debt limit seven times from $5.95 to $11.315 trillion. Rs complain that Ds were in control of Congress for five of those increases totaling $3.68 trillion.

Brought to You by Rs and Ds

Today’s limited government loyal opposition Rs were yesterday’s big government supporters. And yesterday’s loyal opposition Ds are today’s big government supporters. They both pretend to fight the growth of government or the loss of freedom, but in the end, the growth of the federal government is both parties’ long term solution to everything. The following are brought to you courtesy of both the party in power and the loyal opposition:

• Undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Yemen. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to declare war, and says nothing about delegating that power to the Executive branch. Both the Bush and Obama administrations support these wars.
• The Patriot Act and its extensions limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens everywhere by allowing searches of telephone, email, medical, financial, and other records; ignoring Fourth Amendment protections by allowing warrantless searches and roving wiretaps, paying telephone providers for access to trillions of phone records; granting broad powers for the Treasury Department to demand private banking information, and collecting vast amounts of electronic data on virtually every American swept up by insider arrangements and purchases from phone companies, airlines, and other businesses afraid to say no to a government “request.” These bills pass through Congress with little scrutiny.
• A $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage-backed securities,TARP, and other bailouts so investment bankers get multi-million dollar bonuses. Aren’t you glad to know that hedge fund investors have made billions of dollars because of government bailout of the banks “too big to fail”?[5]
• The Transportation Safety Administration that treats people like cattle at airports.
• The inept Homeland Security Administration.
• The Guantanamo detention center.

Democracy: the Opiate of the Masses

We're taught that in a democracy we can change things by voting. Not if you put your faith in the loyal opposition. The loyal opposition is there to let you pretend you have a voice. If the people get angry enough, the loyal opposition tries to channel and divert their anger. Even now, another member of the loyal opposition, part of the sham campaign to pretend there was a choice in the 2008 Presidential election, Sarah Palin is busily trying to co-opt tea partiers. If that fails, the federal government has the tools to control the "disloyal opposition," and is acquiring more:

• According to this Department of Homeland Security report (pdf), opponents of the Obama administration are racists to be watched.[6] The federal government is creating fusion centers with local authorities to help with the watching. Those in power are afraid of the mob, they alleviate your burden only enough to keep you from revolting.[7][8]
• The Supreme Court ruled January 25, 2009 that police can frisk you on routine traffic stops to protect themselves. Cops won’t abuse this…. Right?
• They also want to track your cell phone.

You can't fight city hall by sending Tweedledee to replace Tweedledum. Make no mistake about it: Rs are the loyal opposition for now. They loyally oppose Ds in power--only because they want to be in control. R or D: there's no difference. They all suffer from the same disease; they think Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency.

_________________________________________

[1] "Re-examining Massachusetts Health Care Post-election comments from the MSM miss the boat," By Trudy Lieberman, January 22, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/reexamining_massachusetts_heal.php?page=all on March 29, 2010).

"My own reporting over the past year shows that people in Massachusetts are concerned about affordability. One fifty-four-year-old woman, who lives in a small town south of Boston, told me she is an independent who voted for Brown because he could make a difference in Washington. That difference: stopping the health plan. “I know the plan is all wrong,” she said. What exactly was wrong? It was just like the one in Massachusetts, which makes people buy unaffordable insurance, she explained. “The Connector [the state’s shopping service] wants to determine your affordability. They don’t care if you have past loans or alimony to pay,” she said. Her daughter makes $32,000 working two jobs and can’t afford coverage; she pays the penalty for not having it."

[2] "Deciding Who Will Lead a Health Care Leader," By Kevin Sack, NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/health/policy/27massgov.html?th&emc=th on March 28, 2010).

[3] “Republican Deficit Hypocrisy,” Bruce Bartlett, Forbes magazine, 11.20.09, (Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html on April 1, 2010).

Rs complain about D tactics to pass health care reform, forgetting their history from 2003:

“...when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.

“What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

“Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

“Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)”

[4] “Senate must raise debt ceiling above $12T,” By Walter Alarkon, 09/07/09, (Accessed at http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-senate-must-raise-debt-ceiling-above-12t on April 1, 2010).

[5] “Pay of Hedge Fund Managers Roared Back Last Year,” By N elson D. Schwartz and Louise Story, NY Times, March 31, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html?th&emc=th on April 1, 2010).

[6] US Department of Homeland Security Assessment "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," (Accessed at http://www.wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf on March 28, 2010).

From page 2:

"The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

[7] "Principal forgiveness program may offer relief for underwater homeowners," Kenneth R. Harney, The Washington Post, March 27, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604817.html on March 28, 2010).

[8] "A Bold U.S. Plan to Help Struggling Homeowners," By David Streitfeld, NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/business/27modify.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on March 28, 2010).