By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer - Mon Mar 15, 7:57 am ET

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. - The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.

It's time to start cashing them in.

For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits - billions more each year.

Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes - nearly $29 billion more.

Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs - in the form of Treasury bonds - which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg's municipal offices.

Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn't be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.

Social Security's shortfall will not affect current benefits. As long as the IOUs last, benefits will keep flowing. But experts say it is a warning sign that the program's finances are deteriorating. Social Security is projected to drain its trust funds by 2037 unless Congress acts, and there's concern that the looming crisis will lead to reduced benefits.

"This is not just a wake-up call, this is it. We're here," said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst with The Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group. "We are not going to be able to put it off any more."

For more than two decades, regardless of which political party was in power, Congress has been accused of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other programs, masking the size of the budget deficit.

Remember Al Gore's "lockbox," the one he was going to use to protect Social Security? The former vice president talked about it so much during the 2000 presidential campaign that he was parodied on "Saturday Night Live."

Gore lost the election and never got his lockbox. But to illustrate the government's commitment to repaying Social Security, the Treasury Department has been issuing special bonds that earn interest for the retirement program. The bonds are unique because they are actually printed on paper, while other government bonds exist only in electronic form.

They are stored in a three-ring binder, locked in the bottom drawer of a white metal filing cabinet in the Parkersburg offices of Bureau of Public Debt. The agency, which is part of the Treasury Department, opened offices in Parkersburg in the 1950s as part of a plan to locate important government functions away from Washington, D.C., in case of an attack during the Cold War.

One bond is worth a little more than $15.1 billion and another is valued at just under $10.7 billion. In all, the agency has about $2.5 trillion in bonds, all backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. But don't bother trying to steal them; they're nonnegotiable, which means they are worthless on the open market.

More than 52 million people receive old age or disability benefits from Social Security. The average benefit for retirees is a little under $1,200 a month. Disabled workers get an average of $1,100 a month.

Social Security is financed by payroll taxes - employers and employees must each pay a 6.2 percent tax on workers' earnings up to $106,800. Retirees can start getting early, reduced benefits at age 62. They get full benefits if they wait until they turn 66. Those born after 1960 will have to wait until they turn 67.

Social Security's financial problems have been looming for years as the nation's 78 million baby boomers approached retirement age. The oldest are already there. As that huge group of people starts collecting benefits - and stops paying payroll taxes - Social Security's trust funds will shrink, running out of money by 2037, according to the latest projection from the trustees who oversee the program.

The recession is making things worse, at least in the short term. Tax receipts are down from the loss of more than 8 million jobs, and applications for early retirement benefits have spiked from older workers who were laid off and forced to retire.

Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, says the crisis has been years in the making. "If this helps get people to look more seriously at that in the nearer term, that's probably a good thing. But it's only really a punctuation mark on the fact that we have longer-term financial issues that need to be addressed."

In the short term, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will continue to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes for the next three years. It is projected to post small surpluses of $6 billion each in 2014 and 2015, before returning to indefinite deficits in 2016.

For the budget year that ends in September, Social Security is projected to collect $677 million in taxes and spend $706 million on benefits and expenses.

Social Security will also collect about $120 billion in interest on the trust funds, according to the CBO projections, meaning its overall balance sheet will continue to grow. The interest, however, is paid by the government, adding even more to the budget deficit.

While Congress must shore up the program, action is unlikely this year, said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who just took over last week as chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Social Security.

"The issues required to address the long-term solvency needs of Social Security can be done in a careful, thoughtful and orderly way and they don't need to be done in the next few months," Pomeroy said.

The national debt - the amount of money the government owes its creditors - is about $12.5 trillion, or nearly $42,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. About $8 trillion has been borrowed in public debt markets, much of it from foreign creditors. The rest came from various government trust funds, including retirement funds for civil servants and the military. About $2.5 trillion is owed to Social Security.

Good luck to the politician who reneges on that debt, said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who is now president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

"Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States of America," Kennelly said. "They're as solid as what we owe China and Japan."

Politico.com by Glenn Thrush  3-8-10

Whatever he has done or not done, I will miss Eric Massa, for no other reason than his gift with a phrase.

In an amazing, far-ranging interview/monologue with a Rochester-area radio station, Massa admits making an off-color, sexual comment to a young staffer -- but still claims Democratic leadership ratted him out to kill a health care "no" vote.

That brought him to the subject of Rahm Emanuel and arm-twisting:

"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn," Massa said, according to City Hall. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."

Later in the interview, Massa -- who sits down with Glenn Beck for a one-hour interview on Tuesday -- tells a bizarre story about Emanuel accosting him in the House gym -- in the buff:

"Let me tell you a story about Rahm Emanuel," Massa started. "I was a congressman in my first eight weeks, and I was in the congressional gym, and I went down and I worked out and I went into the showers...I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird and here comes Rahm Emanuel not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget. Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?"

Massa has never enjoyed a particualrly close relationship with Emanuel, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee when Massa first ran for unsuccessfully, without much DCCC support, in 2006.

Massa's near defeat of incumbent Randy Kuhl that year -- he lost by 6,033 votes -- attracted the attention of Emanuel's successor Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who helped Massa defeat Kuhl in a nail-biting rematch in '08.

The relationship between Massa and House leadership has been in the dumps for months, and only got worse after he bucked leadership on the health reform vote last fall -- earning him the enmity of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her ally Emanuel.

Few tears have been shed over Massa's departure on the Hill. Other member descibe him as volatile, argumentative and the antithesis of the a team player.

The Republican campaign has been a grudge match between Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, but a little-known activist named Debra Medina has emerged as a key factor.

By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times   February 16, 2010

Reporting from Victoria, Texas - Debra Medina isn't calling for Texas to secede from the union. She thinks the state should simply ignore federal laws that Texans can't abide.

"You get [the Environmental Protection Agency] off the backs of Texas agriculture, energy and manufacturing, we won't have an economic crisis," the gubernatorial hopeful says.

She doesn't advocate bloodshed, though Medina believes it may be inevitable "if we don't stand up and start to defend this free, great nation and get it back to . . . constitutional principles."

At another time, in another place, Medina might be a mere curiosity, peddling unconventional ideas -- replacing property taxes with a bigger sales tax, encouraging every citizen to be armed -- from the political fringe. But as early voting starts Tuesday in the March 3 primary, Medina has emerged as a key factor in a Republican race once seen as a battle between two titans, Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Although sparsely funded, Medina, a small business owner and "tea party" activist, could draw enough support to force an April runoff. (Former Houston Mayor Bill White is the likely Democratic nominee.)

Until a recent stumble -- during a radio interview, Medina wouldn't rule out the notion that the government was behind Sept. 11 -- she was well positioned to slip past Hutchison in the first round of balloting.

Very little, it seems, is far-fetched in this angry election season.

The grudge match between Perry and Hutchison has built for years, ever since the governor supposedly reneged on a private pledge to step down after 2010 to clear the way for Hutchison. Perry says he made no such promise.

Still, the candidates' mutual contempt is obvious. Between them, Perry and Hutchison are expected to spend about $50 million scratching and clawing, and more if there is a runoff. (Medina has raised less than $700,000, using her credit card for such expenses as air travel.)

Perry, the longest-serving governor in Texas history, relentlessly assails Hutchison as "a Washington-establishment type who has voted for bailouts, wild spending and skyrocketing debt." Hutchison, a three-term senator, portrays Perry as lazy and corrupt, saying he has rewarded his political cronies but done little else. "It's time we had a governor whose record is as good as the rhetoric," she says in one TV spot.

On most issues, they are closer than either lets on. Both take a tough stance on illegal immigration. (Each accuses the other of being all talk.) Both promise to keep taxes low and foster a business-friendly climate. Perry has backed off an unpopular toll road plan. Hutchison said she would make sure the plan is really, truly dead.

Perry, 59, is the better campaigner -- he is an avid gripper and grinner, where Hutchison is prim and aloof -- and she has suffered by dividing her time between Washington and Texas. Although Hutchison, 66, has spoken of stepping down to campaign full time, her failure to set a date has contributed to a less-than-decisive image. (Her convoluted stance on abortion hasn't helped. Hutchison said at one point that she opposed reversal of Roe vs. Wade because overturning the decision legalizing abortion could lead to more abortions.)

As often happens in three-way contests, Medina has been the beneficiary of all the mud-heaving.

"It seems the longer people are in office, whether it's Washington or Austin, the more out of touch they get," said Mannon Mints, 65, a retired state law officer, who came to see Medina last week at the Victoria Country Club. "They need to go up there and spend a few years and then come home."

Medina's breakthrough came in January, after two strong debate performances. "She was the one who came across, to judge from polls and reaction afterward, as more forthright, better prepared, quite calm and confident," said the University of Texas analyst Bruce Buchanan. "She was seemingly more gubernatorial than her opponents in some respects."

However, success has brought greater scrutiny, and Medina, 47, has not always handled it well. Last week, on Glenn Beck's radio show, she was asked whether she thought the federal government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. "Some very good questions have been raised in that regard," she said, declining to take a position. (Medina also questions whether President Obama is an American citizen.)

She quickly issued a follow-up statement disavowing any 9/11 conspiracy, but Perry and Hutchison pounced. An "insult" to Americans who lost their lives, said Perry. An "affront" to America's soldiers, said Hutchison.

Still, Medina has already achieved far more than might have been expected. Failing a successful run for governor, she may be a strong candidate to replace her congressman, Republican Ron Paul, whenever he steps down. Paul, who built a strong anti-establishment following in his quixotic 2008 presidential run, is a Medina supporter.

mark.barabak@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

January 20, 10:36 AMDC Independent ExaminerJames Simpson

Scott Brown's stunning electoral victory in Massachusetts yesterday confirms to the world what we have known all along: patriotism and common sense are alive and well. Real Americans remain a majority in this country, and the massively-funded, corrupt Democrat machine, engorged with our tax dollars, radical billionaire money and lock-step union support, cannot buy elections, even in hardcore Democrat states, once the sleeping giant has awoken.

And make no mistake about it: we are wide awake!

The Democrats were certainly hamstrung by choosing an impossibly bad candidate. Martha Coakley made a fool of herself repeatedly, yet throughout it all carried herself with an astonishing sense of conceited entitlement, seemingly contemptuous of even having to campaign at all. Meanwhile, her campaign took on an air of ugly thuggishness. Two scenes captured on video during this short campaign say it all. Everyone has seen the first one, where a reporter is pushed to the ground by a Coakley supporter while she does nothing. Remember, she is the Massachusetts attorney general. The second one, reproduced below, has received less attention, but is even more telling: a female reporter getting thrown out of a Coakley campaign office with shouts of "Nazi." Someone even used the "F" bomb. What class acts.

The real problem is that Coakley defines what the Democrat Party has become today: arrogant, boorish, incomprehensibly ignorant and downright thuggish. Former Vermont Governor and Presidential candidate Howard Dean, for example, reacted to Brown's victory by saying that now Democrats have to get tough, and not "deal with Republicans anymore." Stunning. So that's what we've been witnessing all year, with Democrats violating Senate rules, holding closed-door meetings, locking Republicans out of discussions, rejecting outright any Republican proposals and violating their own promises of "transparency." But they haven't been tough enough. Simply amazing.

Scott Brown's election was certainly about healthcare. Massachusetts already has its own expensive plan. They don't need or want even more government intrusion. It was also about national security. Brown's own internal polling convinced the campaign this was true. People feel insecure with this President and his administration, and with good reason.

But it was even more than that. People have had enough. We have had enough of bald-faced lies from Democrats. We have had enough of big spending bills being disingenuously presented as "deficit reducers." We have had enough of massive government programs guaranteed to cripple the economy and lose jobs. We have had enough of ever more intrusive government attempting to take over every aspect of our daily lives. We have had enough of blatant corruption and coddling of terrorists. We have had enough of radicals attempting to ram their virulently anti-American agenda down our throats and calling us "domestic terrorists" for objecting.

This election is a game changer. Make no mistake about it. Not only is the U.S. Senate in play for Republicans in November, but so is the House of Representatives, state legislatures and governor's mansions. Last night, Sarah Palin said to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News "We just witnessed a wicked political pivot... This is a tidal wave sweeping the country..." She is right.

Now, Republicans have an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We have seen it time and again and that is a real danger here. So let me tell you what this victory is not. It is not about getting Republicans a seat at the Democrat table. Let me repeat that.

This election is not about getting Republicans a seat at the Democrat table.

If nothing else has become clear over the past year, Republicans have to have at least realized this: Democrats don't share. Any effort to use this victory to give Republicans a better "negotiating position" on Democrat-sponsored bills will simply make it easier for Democrats to pursue their reckless agenda, only now they will have "bipartisan" support. Come November, voter contempt for Republicans will be as palpable as it is now for Democrats. Republicans will lose. 

Going along to get along is out. Compromise is out. And if Republicans don't get it they will be repeating the mistakes that put them back into the minority in the first place.

The reason We The People are in open revolt is because we finally clearly recognize that the entire Democrat agenda is willfully destructive. Republicans need to get this through their heads. We are not merely dealing with a Party of "opposing views." We are dealing with an international movement that will destroy our Republic by snatching our freedoms, our wealth and our independence, with the ultimate goal of, as Barack Obama said, "fundamentally transforming" our Constitutional Republic into a socialist dictatorship.

Republicans have no excuse to be supporting or even compromising with that agenda. Their job should be prevent Democrats from imposing this nation-wrecking agenda, while convincingly articulating their reasons for doing so and offering superior alternatives.

As for Martha Coakley, good riddance and don't let the door smack you on the rear on the way out.

The Atlantic Magazine

Jan 4 2010, 8:00AM by Andrew Cohen

The Politicians Are Nearly Done; Here Come The Lawyers

In the middle of vicious debate over health care reform, one marked by cheap partisan tricks and apocalyptic warnings, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal memorandum for the Attorney General entitled: "Constitutionality of Health Care Reform."

The report's conclusions, offered by eminent Administration scholars, were up at the top of the very first page. In italics, they read: The proposed health care reform legislation "is well within the authority of the Congress under the Commerce Clause, and it does not violate Tenth Amendment or other principles of federalism.  The proposal contains no unconstitutional takings of private property or infringement of liberty interests.  The proposed delegation of administrative authority is not an impermissible delegation of legislative authority."

If you are a glutton for self-abuse and want to dive into the legal debate over health care reform, a debate which minimizes the substance of the legislation while focusing upon the constitutionality of its many moving parts, then the above memo, given to Attorney General Janet Reno on October 29, 1993, is as good a place as any to start. Written by Walter Dellinger and H. Jefferson Powell, the brief tracks in a broad way the legal arguments we are almost certain to see from White House and Justice Department lawyers as they discern the intent and defend the language of the federal statutes that will be altered by the new measure.

Many of the same Supreme Court cases Dellinger and company cited nearly two decades ago will be used by Eric Holder's attorney-soldiers as they march into federal courthouses all over the country to try to save health care reform. On the right, lawyers and "experts" of varying stripes of sanity are licking their chopsdo in court--perhaps at the Supreme Court--what they were unable to achieve either at the ballot box or through their Congressional representatives. In fact, the Internet is jammed with chatter about how the federal courts will save conservatives (or Republicans) by voiding the new health care laws.
waiting to

Look, there are a thousand unknowns about the efficacies of the looming new federal health care reform program. But one of them shouldn't be the coming litigation over its many nooks and crannies. The dozens (hundreds?) of lawsuits that are coming will take years to fully resolve. Some arguments from conservatives --say, the Commerce Clause one -- will be stronger than others -- say, the Tenth Amendment one. Judges in 2010 are almost certainly going to have to decide whether the new measures may be enforced during the pendency of litigation over their constitutionality or whether they must be blocked immediately.

I'd be surprised if vast portions of the new federal law ultimately are deemed unconstitutional. But I also said that about the Child Online Protection Act, which was initially passed in 1998 and which still hasn't been given the rubber-stamp by the federal judiciary. Born before my son, the COPA saga (at least from Congress' point of view) looks unlikely to be resolved by the time he reaches high school. Like it or not, the same can be said of the new health care legislation.

'55 rich white men drafted Constitution to protect their class - slaveholders'

Posted: December 14, 2009   By Drew Zahn   2009 WorldNetDaily

Hollywood celebrities and education gurus have teamed together to distribute to schools across the country a dramatic new curriculum that casts American history as an epic march of victims seeking to shrug off the shackles of the warmongering, racist, capitalist, imperialist United States.

The History Channel's airing of the "The People Speak" last night marks the public coming-out party of a movement that has been in place since last year to teach America's school children a "social justice" brand of history that rails against war, oppression, capitalism and popular patriotism.

The television special featuring performances by Matt Damon, Benjamin Bratt, Marisa Tomei, Don Cheadle, Bruce Springsteen and others condemns the nation's past of oppression by the wealthy, powerful and imperialist and instead trumpets the voices of America's labor unions, minorities and protesters of various stripes.

The accompanying curriculum guide for schools that show "The People Speak" in classrooms, for example, highlights an 1852 reading from abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

The program and discussion guide is the most ambitious resource among many offered to America's schools by the Zinn Education Project, a collaboration of Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change, as part of a push to encourage history instruction based on educator Howard Zinn's 1980 tome exposing the abuses of America's past, "A People's History of the United States."

The project states its goal is to "introduce students to a more accurate, complex and engaging understanding of United States history than is found in traditional textbooks and curricula. ... Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States' emphasizes the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements in shaping history. Students learn that history is made not by a few heroic individuals, but instead by people's choices and actions, thereby also learning that their own choices and actions matter."

The History Channel, furthermore, touts "The People Speak" as a program that "gives voice to those who spoke up for social change throughout U.S. history, forging a nation from the bottom up with their insistence on equality and justice. ... 'The People Speak' illustrates the relevance of these passionate historical moments to our society today and reminds us never to take liberty for granted."

The celebrities featured in "The People Speak" claim the stories of bold protesters and oppressed minorities and workers are "inspiring," while Zinn himself has stated that casting history as a people's movement toward change offers hope.

Critics of the Zinn Project, however, warn that the curriculum is more about pushing Zinn's admitted pacifist and socialist agenda on the next generation.

Michelle Malkin blasts "The People Speak" as an effort to promote "Marxist academic Howard Zinn's capitalism-bashing, America-dissing, grievance-mongering history textbook, 'A People's History of the United States.' ... Zinn's work is a self-proclaimed 'biased account' of American history that rails against white oppressors, the free market and the military."

For complete story .... click here

'Sex acts between preschoolers' among subjects of books backed by openly 'gay' Obama adviser

Posted: December 04, 2009
By Bob Unruh    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

A new report is raising alarms that the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, a homosexual advocacy organization founded by Kevin Jennings, now head of the U.S. Office of Safe Schools for the Obama administration, is recommending XXX-rated sex writings for children as young as preschoolers.

"We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren't merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between preschoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air," said the report.

"One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one's self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview," it advised.

The report was posted online by Jim Hoft at the Gatetway Pundit blog after it was obtained from Breitbart.tv co-founder Scott Baker, who said the recommended children's reading assignments need attention.

Get the new "Marketing of Evil" audiobook on 4 CDs now.

The team whose members assembled the report said a handful of books from the more than 100 titles on GLSEN's recommended reading list for school children were picked randomly. Writings were reviewed with titles such as "Queer 13," "Being Different," "The Full Spectrum," "Revolutionary Voices," "Reflections of a Rock Lobster," "Passages of Pride," "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian," "The Order of the Poison Oak," "In Your Face," "Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son" and "Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth."

"What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless," the report said.

For more ... click here 

16. Nov, 2009  by Josh Eboch

Before government can guarantee provision of a specific good or service to any one individual, thus creating a so-called "positive right," it must first take by force the means of producing that very good or service from someone else.

Health care is no different. Whether by forcibly appropriating and redistributing the money to purchase care for those who lack it, or by arbitrarily devaluing the time and effort of those who provide it, once a government mandate supplants voluntary exchange, coercion must be used to exercise that "right" to health care.

But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right?

Is that not the very essence of slavery?

The truth is that the only rights actually guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution are those that protect freedom of action.

They are "negative rights," which do exactly the opposite of their positive counterparts. Rather than initiate and rely on the use of force to produce a specific reward or outcome, negative rights allow individuals to act or not act in the absence of coercion, so long as they do not hinder the freedom of others to do the same.

For instance, it is the right of people in this country to vocalize unpopular opinions, associate with unpopular people, practice unpopular religions, and even carry unpopular weapons. Thanks to our negative rights the government cannot, without due process, take the life, liberty, or property of any American.

But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that, in order to exercise their rights, each citizen must at birth be given a microphone, a bible, or a gun.

That was no accident. For more than two hundred years, the freedom and responsibility to determine one's own future has been the foundation of America's unparalleled success. But the critical role played by our negative rights has become less and less clearly understood over time.

Many of this country's most celebrated leaders have manipulated that ignorance, redefining rights as unearned rewards for politically favored groups; payoffs thinly veiled in the pious rhetoric of social justice.

FDR himself was among the worst. The abject failure of the New Deal notwithstanding, FDR proposed to codify his authoritarian progressive agenda in a constitutional amendment, known as the "Economic Bill of Rights."

It reads like a list that could just as easily have flowed from the pen of Karl Marx:

The right to a useful and remunerative job...

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition...

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care...

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Besides being, as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest, economically disastrous and utterly impossible to define or achieve, the biggest problem with FDR's list was that it sought to make America into a nation of serfs.

The logic is inescapable. Once something has been deemed a right by those in government, the ability of every person who produces or consumes that good or service to engage in voluntary transactions with the fruit of their own labor is stolen. Their labor is then owned and administered by agents of the collective.

Again, I ask: Is that not the very essence of slavery?

There is no doubt that freedom entails risk, and America has not always lived up to the promise of her founding. But when certain people or groups pervert the notion of rights, harnessing the power of government to take by force what they desire but have not earned, then negative freedom becomes a positive tyranny.

Let us hope that more Americans, before it is too late, learn how to tell the difference.

Josh is a proud "tenther", freelance writer, and activist originally from the Washington, D.C. area.

November 09, 2009 6:30 PM ... from Sunlen Miller:

During an exclusive interview with ABC News' Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to "free ride" the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.

"What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty."

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don't' pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there's a threat - as with a lot of tax fines - of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it's also important to not be "so punitive" that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

"I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance.  That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by," Mr. Obama said, "penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance."

The President said that he didn't think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the "biggest question" the House and Senate are facing right now.

GAWTP WatchDog Group In The News … Tyler Morning Telegraph, Tyler, TX … August 30 & September 1, 2009

Posted on
Sunday, August 30, 2009

Commissioners Court Expecting To Adopt 2010 Budget

During its regular meeting, the court also will address several recommendations presented by Grassroots America - We The People, a nonprofit watchdog group.

Read full article   http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090830/NEWS08/908290376/0/NEWS01

Posted on
Tuesday, September 01, 2009 (front page article)

Citizens Express Concerns As Court OKs Budget

Grassroots group members made their presence known during the Smith County Commissioners Court's final public budget hearing to ensure accountability for taxpayer green.    Grassroots America -- We The People President George Stephenson commended the court's work during the budget process but warned officials that anger toward the federal government is "spilling over into the local levels." "Before we take care of Washington, we have to take care of local government," he told the court. "It's our responsibility."                                                                                                                                  Read full article   http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090901/NEWS01/909010315

Posted on
Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Commissioners Weigh Advice From East Texas Grassroots Group

The Smith County Commissioners Court discussed several recommendations Monday made by a conservative political action group seeking fiscal responsibility and transparency at the local level.   During the previous public meeting Grassroots America - We The People President George Stephenson asked that the court discuss several items, including implementation of a hiring freeze, adding fiscal notes to agenda items, limiting "pay-go" projects and real estate purchases and seeking a long-range infrastructure planning study by an independent entity.                                                                  Read full article   http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090901/NEWS01/909010306

From: Huffington Post.com

Hannity Draws Crowd At Tyler Appearance By KELLY GOOCH
Staff Writer, Tyler Morning Telegraph

An estimated 3,000 people gathered at the Oil Palace Friday night to hear conservative political commentator and author Sean Hannity.

Event organizer Jim Couch said Hannity was invited to speak because they felt like it would be an honor to have him in Tyler.

"We needed something in this area. The conservative people in this area are looking for a leader," he said.

Before Hannity stepped up to the podium, George Stephenson, with Grassroots America-We The People, addressed the crowd.
Stephenson told audience members about Grassroots America-We The People and encouraged them to get involved in their precinct neighborhoods.

"We can't take care of Washington if we can't take care of Smith County," he said. "... We have to put God back into the United States of America."

Cheers erupted from the audience as Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, and U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, each stepped up to the podium.

Rep. Berman talked about the Founding Fathers, along with college tuition for illegal immigrants, while Rep. Gohmert discussed health care.

After hearing from both representatives, attendees waived flags and listened to the Singing Men of Tyler perform patriotic music such as "Yankee Doodle" and "This Land Is Your Land."

Perhaps the real highlight of the evening was when Hannity took the stage.

Hannity talked about the "Obama mania" that is going on the country and what he would like to see from the Republican Party.

"I think the Republican Party needs to stand with a bold vision for the future," he said. "... I want the Republicans to be the party of fiscal responsibility ... I want the Republican Party to be the party that balances the budget."

DEADLY DOCTORS

OBAMA ADVISORS WANT TO RATION CARE

By Betsy McCaughey,  founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor. For more information on the status health care legislation, visit www.defendyourhealthcare.us

July 24, 2009 --

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia"  (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically delivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor. For more information on the status health care legislation, visit www.defendyourhealthcare.us