Dakota Beacon

At short public notice on April 12, Ms Heidi Heitkamp appeared at a Bismarck public forum to state her views on an economic plan proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin; a plan which may soon come to debate and a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Heitkamp quickly went through the Ryan plan pointing out specific spending cuts to be made in federal entitlements; Medicare, Farm programs, and college aid. These federal entitlements, by the way, have become “rights” in the view of many Americans; rights that cannot be tampered with except for increasing their scope and payment amounts. The theme of Heitkamp’s speech was the Ryan budget takes all these “rights” away from us: Medicare will be cut to the point of disappearance; the farm program is massively reduced bringing farmers to the brink of bankruptcy; and taking the college money from our children. Does this sound like scare tactics? A few minutes later Heitkamp tells us she wants to have an open and civil discussion.
It is beyond remarkable that Heitkamp says she advocates a balanced budget amendment for the United States Constitution with some exceptions. And, in her view, that balanced budget amendment will somehow fix the massive debt of 15.5 trillion dollars, and reverse three consecutive years with over 1 trillion dollars deficit spending. So how does Heitkamp propose to balance the budget? Not the Ryan way; not the Bowles-Simpson way, not even the Obama way whose 2013 budget proposal got smashed in the House 414 to 0; not one Democrat voted for it.
The Heitkamp solution to the national economic disaster is in concert with the Obama Democrat Party plan to have the rich people pay “their fair share”. And in addition, when the so-called Bush Tax Cuts come up for renewal they must be discontinued. She did not say we will raise taxes, which is the obvious result. Heitkamp’s words of choice are the rich will pay their fair share. The Democrat Party has been trying to re-define “fair” for some 30 years. To the Democrats a vote for fair means that things will come free! To others, the new meaning of fair is --you will pay for the “free”.

North Dakota’s Measure 2 is the most significant tax reform proposal in the last 99 years. It is so profound that we can, without reservation, apply the proverbial saying that the taxpayers and the government can have the cake and eat it.

One of the most significant benefits will be that the taxpayers will no longer have to put up their homes as hostages, and the government will no longer have to collect the tax ransom. Instead the taxpayers and the government will have a mutual agreement to support each other in a civilized manner according to each of their abilities.

Another mutual benefit will be that the government will no longer need to hire, and the taxpayers to pay for, an assessor who goes to the taxpayers homes and guesses how wealthy they are. Instead, both the government and the taxpayers agree to measure the taxpayers wealth according to the IRS rules.

We will no longer need Appeals Boards & Tax Courts to arbitrate the disputes of wealth between property owners and the assessors. No longer will there be the feeling of animosity between the taxpayers and the local government.

Measure 2 is indeed a profound statement. It restores one of the foundation blocks of this country. It restores our belief in a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people.

But it is very sad to see a coalition named “keep it local ND” that adamantly opposes the Measure 2 tax reform. It is a coalition of business interests rather than homeowners. The coalition’s tax priorities are very different than the homeowner’s tax priorities. For the coalition to criticize Measure 2 in order to preserve their business interests and ignore the homeowners interests is very self serving and morally wrong.

The criticism by the coalition is that Measure 2 is not well thought out and does not answer how the local governments will be funded when property taxes are eliminated and that local government control will be lost without property taxes.

On the contrary, Measure 2 is extremely well thought out. It is analogous to a constitutional tree where the government will have tax flexibility to hang future laws to accommodate all levels of government in all fiscal situations of the State. It is guaranteed that the local government revenue stream will always have a capacity that is equal or better than under the present property tax concept.

The North Dakota State Constitution in ARTICLE 10, SECTION 2 states the following: “The power of taxation shall never be surrendered or suspended by any grant or contract to which the state or any county or other municipal corporation shall be a party.”

Measure 2 does not take away the Legislature’s power to grant local governments taxing power. But it wisely suggests that no new local taxes need to be imposed when North Dakota has a surplus.

Please try to keep this tax reform in proper perspective and acknowledge that it was designed by taxpayers for taxpayers and not designed by government for government. Vote for the taxpayer - Vote YES on Measure 2

Juris Curiskis ( former New England, ND resident) 612-377-6153

“I love Fidel Castro,” said Florida Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen to Time magazine. “A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that [expletive] is still here.” Guillen “respects” the Cuban despot.

Guillen has since apologized profusely for his comments, which infuriated Florida’s Cuban émigré community—and for good reason.

Fidel Castro is a tyrant. I could go through a litany of the man’s crimes against humanity since he turned a beautiful country into a communist dictatorship over 50 years ago. Castro violated every form of basic human rights, from freedom of speech to press to assembly to religion. He jailed dissidents and never stood for election—a promise he made in 1959. Liberals might take note of Castro’s locking up of homosexuals on the island. And then there was that whole Cuban Missile Crisis thing, where Fidel and his pal Che Guevara—a hero at American universities—actually wanted to launch the nuclear missiles at the United States and unleash nuclear Armageddon. And don’t forget about the 15,000-20,000 Cubans that Castro has executed, or the tens of thousands who have drowned trying to swim 100 miles to the shores of Florida.

Safely ensconced on those shores is Mr. Ozzie Guillen, who became rich playing baseball under America’s free-enterprise system. Guillen currently basks in a four-year contract for $10-million managing the Marlins. He would never be able to make that kind of money in Cuba. In fact, to consider just how bad Cuba is under Castro, let’s stick to baseball:

Fidel’s favorite sport is baseball. He turned it into a national past-time in Cuba. Unfortunately, Cuban players are not permitted to score some badly needed dollars, or personal freedom. I recall a telling incident in the spring of 1999. The Cuban national team came to America; specifically, to Oriole Park at Camden Yards, where they played the Baltimore Orioles. They blew out the Orioles 12 to 6, giving Castro something to crow about. He framed the win as a victory for communism over capitalism.

Not heralded by Castro, however, was the plight of his players. The entire payroll for the Cuban national team was $2,400—yes, for the entire team. Each man on the roster of 20 players was paid a paltry $120 per year, just like everyone else in Cuba, from doctors to teachers to maintenance workers. That’s called equal distribution of wealth. By comparison, the Orioles payroll for that year was $80 million, with players like Albert Belle and Cal Ripken enjoying huge long-term contracts.

Alas, no one in Cuba has a payroll quite like Fidel Castro. At the time, Forbes magazine published its annual list of the world’s wealthiest leaders. Placing eighth was Castro at $110 million—a conservative estimate that doesn’t begin to account for the billions of dollars in land, industry, and resources he has personally confiscated.

“We fight not to create millionaires!” proclaimed Fidel. Well, that’s not quite true. Cuba has its share of filthy rich; they are the “one percent” of Communist Party cronies and apparatchiks, from Fidel’s brother Raul (Cuba’s current leader) to other corrupt mansion Marxists. They are typical of any communist regime.

Of course, Cubans painfully realize their horrible situation. Testimony to that was the reaction of the Cuban national team immediately after they defeated the Baltimore Orioles. Rigoberto Herrera Betancourt defected. And while a bragging Fidel chomped on a hundred-dollar cigar, six other members of the Cuban delegation “overslept” and missed the airplane home. All did this at great personal risk to themselves and the families they left behind. They don’t love Castro.

Ozzie Guillen, however, expressed a markedly different sentiment. Needless to say, if Guillen lived in Cuba, he would never have gotten the opportunities he has in America. He’d be poor or in prison.

Guillen is now in hot water in Florida, dealing with a five-game suspension because of his comments. Fans are still furious.

Well, if it gets worse, maybe he could consider managing the Cuban national team. I hear they’re paying $120 a year.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" and "Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

Measure 2 isn’t about money, it’s about our right to own property. Let’s review some facts.

Property taxes are based on the value of your home, not your income. If your income decreases in a bad economy, your family suffers a hardship or you retire your property taxes remain the same. If you cannot pay the government can take your home and kick you and your family to the curb.

 We keep hearing nonsense about local control. Now really, how much say do you have in what goes on in your child’s classroom? How about when the city wants to expand a football field or a civic center? If you want to keep your money local, it doesn’t get any more local than in your wallet.

We hear horror stories about the services we may lose. Opponents conveniently mention only the services that we actually want. They will not mention city transit busses that drive around town empty or parks that go unused. There is plenty of pork.

This is not a tax cut, the government will get it’s money. With a sales tax for example, everyone pays whether it be with their pay check or their welfare check. When more people pay, everyone pays less. With other taxes your home is not held as collateral. The government cannot take your home.

We know how government works. If you remove one revenue source, they will find another. This is what governments do best. There are better ways to do it and this forces politicians to find a better way.

A right cannot be taken away, a privilege can. We should support measure 2 because owning a home should be a right, not a privilege. With our national economy on the brink, it’s the safe choice to make for our families.

When President Obama made his famous declaration about how he was confident that “that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” many observers figured the chief executive missed April Fools’ Day by a single digit. Certainly this comment—coming from what every pundit likes to emphasize is a “former constitutional law professor”—dropped jaws among legal scholars and supporters everywhere, sending virtually everybody referring to that favorite hunk of American constitutional DNA, Marbury v. Madison. It’s not hard to see why. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall declared that it is the duty of the courts “to say what the law is,” and further “that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” In short, passing judgments on laws passed by Congress is what Supreme Court justices do and have been doing since the origins of the republic.

The problematical aspect of Marbury is that it really isn’t the best case to provide hints about President Obama’s strategy in dealing with what likely will be a judgment that declares unconstitutional at least part of the Affordable Care Act—specifically, the individual mandate requirement. A much more instructive case was decided in May 1935 and involved striking down a law that, if anything, dealt with a much more egregious invasion of the private sector by an act of Congress, the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was part of the original New Deal.

The NIRA provided for “codes of fair competition” drafted by trade or industrial groups, and covered virtually every aspect of business enterprise, including standards on wages, prices, working conditions, trade practices and the like, justified by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Under the auspices of this mammoth and unwieldy piece of legislation, a group of defendants who operated a slaughterhouse and sold chickens to kosher retailers had been convicted of violating the code’s wage and hour stipulations, ignoring the so-called “straight-killing” requirement, and as a result selling an “unfit chicken.”

This constitutional imbroglio, Schecter v. United States, was destined to go down in history as the “sick chicken” case and occasioned strong language from the court about a law that, like Obamacare, was collapsing from its own internal contradictions and widespread unpopularity. Indeed, Chief Justice Hughes declared that “extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power”—remember, this was during the Great Depression—and that Congress had abused its “essential legislative function.”

If all this sounds familiar, it should, but things really got interesting after the law was struck down. By the end of his first term, President Roosevelt saw the court declare unconstitutional 10 of 12 major pieces of New Deal legislation, mostly on the grounds that Congress had overstepped its constitutional boundaries. FDR was incensed, and as a result, early in his second term proposed measures that would have increased the size of the court, with the justification that the bench’s elderly members needed assistance to deal with the Supreme Court’s heavy workload. Roosevelt argued that old judges were no longer able to perform their duties, and “little by little, new facts become blurred through old glasses fitted, as it were, for the needs of another generation.” Hence, newly appointed younger judges, more attuned to the times and administration policy, were needed.

This “packing the court” scheme was too clever by half and was greeted with howls of indignation by conservatives and liberals alike; the president’s proposal went nowhere. However, though FDR lost that legal battle, he won the constitutional war. In a series of cases decided during the spring and summer of 1937, the Supreme Court changed its direction drastically in favor of expanded federal power, a transformation of judicial opinions cited as “the switch in time that saved nine” (that is, nine members of the court). The Supreme Court didn’t seriously challenge Congress again on the Commerce Clause until the 1990s.

All of which suggests that although President Obama’s April 2 statement was literally false, or disingenuous to say the least, his clumsy attempt to perhaps bully the Supreme Court has a powerful historical precedent. And trying to back down from his initial statement changes nothing at all, because his words are unspinnable; the president expressed his constitutional sentiments exactly. The question is: Will his tactic work? Will this convoluted, “sick law” inspire a Supreme Court decision on the constitutional limits of the federal government, or will the Supremes cave to administration rhetoric?

Americans will have their answer by the summer of this very crucial election year. In the meantime, the ghost of FDR hovers over the decision-makers in the highest tribunal of our republic.

— Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans who despair of Washington ever cutting waste from its trillion dollar defense/homeland security budget can take heart from pollster Scott Rasmussen's book The People's Money: How Voters Will Balance the Budget and Eliminate the Federal Debt (http://amzn.to/ImHabu)

The author argues that the public is always ahead of the politicians and that the time is ripe for an effective leader to win election with real budget cuts. His polling shows that most Americans believe that the greatest threats to America are cyber warfare and deficit spending. This is amazing if one thinks how most TV just constantly bombards Americans that Iran or China or Arabs or Russia or other nebulous foreigners are out to get us, that they irrationally hate us because we are so good, as former President Bush used to claim. Today 82% of Americans believe economic threats are greater than military ones.

In a speech at Cato, Rasmussen used the analogy of the Battle of Lexington in 1775, the first in our Revolutionary War, which came 18 months before the Declaration of Independence by America's political leaders. He cited case after case where public opinion was way ahead of Washington's policies.

Rasmussen's book is full of interesting statistics and rebuttals of prevailing Washington wisdom. Only 35% of Americans share the Republican view of cutting everything except defense. He explains that "respect and admiration for our troops exists alongside doubts about the jobs they've been asked to do." He cautions that Americans are turned off by attacks on the military such as those during the Vietnam War.

But attacking Washington for misuse of the military could sell very well. Washington has made commitments to defend 56 nations, but the public only supports protecting 12; indeed, only four garner over 60% support. These are Canada with 80%, England with 74%, Australia with 65%, and Israel with 60%. Half of the 12 are in Western Europe; the others include Mexico (53%), South Korea (59%), and Panama and the Bahamas (58%).

Other interesting statistics: 75% believe that no American troops should be stationed overseas except for "vital national security interests." Only 11% support an American role as "global policeman." The national security budget pays for 800,000 civilians in addition to the military personnel, but these people are not viewed as favorably as soldiers themselves are.

Most Americans are not isolationists. Sixty percent think America should remain involved with international institutions such as the United Nations, but 55% want us to withdraw our troops from Western Europe (only 28% support keeping them there). The author repeatedly compares the public's thinking with that of the political class in Washington and New York. For example, he says, "no one in the political class has advocated such a policy."

"Protect America First," rather than "Send Americans First," is the preferred policy by far of most voters. Troops must only be committed as a last resort and only with clear, feasible objectives. The author sees vast potential savings in a defensive rather than offensive military, as does, for example, candidate Ron Paul. Aircraft carriers, of which we have about 20 squadrons, for example, are now very vulnerable to new anti-ship weaponry. Medical insurance for veterans for life is costing some $45 billion yearly. About 700,000 men and women who served in the First Gulf War are now getting disability benefits that add up to more billions. An Air Force more focused on defense rather than offense would save tens of billions each year.

The book anticipates that only the leadership is lacking for big cuts in the Defense/Homeland Security budget and that a new candidate who is able to articulate the issues (and has military credentials, I would add) will gain vast political support in the future. I do recommend that readers actually watch Eisenhower's farewell address about the military-industrial complex. It is an extraordinarily well-crafted and erudite speech, far, far above the kind of talks given by most politicians nowadays.

Rasmussen is especially interesting in that his polling asks the right questions. Reading his conclusions makes one wonder if most polling by the political class is actually designed to obfuscate the real beliefs of voters, which are opposed to most of what Washington does. His polling shows that voters are intelligent people when asked more profound questions. The author covers much more than just defense spending, including how voters would reform health care, corporate welfare, taxes, and so on. The constant theme is that voters are not dumb - he comments about how the political class deprecates most voters - but Washington's system prevents logical reforms.

Here are several points:

* 69% want competition in health care and 78% of Americans want competition in coverage between insurance companies, but Washington is focused on preventing anything that would cut into the profits of the medical establishment (and the lawyers who sue them).

* 68% prefer a government with fewer services and lower taxes; just 22% want more services and higher taxes. 

* 79% of mainstream voters think Americans are over-taxed.

* Voters overwhelmingly believe their so-called representatives listen more to party leaders and lobbyists than to voters in their districts; 59% believe that most are re-elected because the rules are rigged in their favor.

* 56% believe that growth in government spending should be limited yearly to reflect only the growth in population plus inflation. 

* Voters overwhelmingly believe the game in Washington is a form of legalized extortion and that businesspeople give money to politicians because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they don't.

* The majority always vote for candidates promising to lower or not raise taxes; they are almost always betrayed by the political class of both parties.

* Whether kings or elected politicians rule, wars and crises have always been an excuse for more taxes, which then remain after the war is over. As Thomas Paine wrote, "I know not whether taxes are raised to fight wars, or wars are started in order to raise taxes."

In summary the author's polling shows that Americans have pretty realistic views of the world and realistic assumptions about American strengths and weaknesses.

However, he may still underestimate the power of the political class to continue its rule. Wars are very profitable for many interests and an easy way to channel money from defense contractors to politicians through political donations to their re-election campaigns. (Anywhere else in the world this would be thought of as bribery). The Roman and British Empires saw vast poverty among most of their citizens (see Trade Guilds of the Latter Roman Empire). Empire was mainly supported by their "political classes" too, not the mass of their people, but then their citizens didn't have much voice. In 19th-century England, only 4% of people could vote for parliament.

Anyway, optimists can take heart from this book that America is not on the road to ruin.

###

Read this column online at http://bit.ly/HpSC6k

###

The Jon Basil Utley column is copyright (c) 2012

by Jon Utley and the

Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation.. All rights reserved. A version of this column appeared at The American Conservative magazine's blog at http://bit.ly/I0UELP

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could have a trial run with Romney? Sort of a free sample like you sometimes get in the grocery store or at a perfume counter, to see if you like a product enough to buy it? Then we could see if we’d really like a President Mitt Romney. Oh, wait a minute! We did have that sample! We had California!

Remember a number of years ago when California had an unsustainable deficit and the people staged a revolt, recalling the author of their woes, Governor Gray Davis? This action precipitated a dramatic choice. The people of California could have chosen from among the following: a Democrat, Cruz Bustamante, a Conservative, Tom McClintock and . . . Arnold Schwartzenegger. We all know what happened. The taxpayers’ revolt cast out Gray Davis and instead of staying the course, the fools went with the Republican Party’s choice, Schwartzenegger. The disaster which follows keeps rumbling on, even today. California is economically past resuscitation. Had they elected McClintock they would have gotten government and spending under control. The Golden State would be Golden once again. Had they gone with Bustamante there would have been some recourse to the tragedy which followed in the event he was as bad as Schwartzenegger. But, no, they chose the worst possible option. They picked a guy who would give them no chance to oppose the disastrous plans he had in store.

Now, if you look at this translated into the national medium, think of it this way. If Obama signs a UN treaty that abrogates our Constitutional rights, Congress will probably not ratify it. If Romney does (and he’s just as likely to), it WILL be ratified. The Republicans in Congress will not go against a sitting president of their own party. They won’t even go against a weak-kneed sitting Speaker as it is now. And this includes the famous "incumbent" Rick Berg. Now someone out there tell me what is the great advantage in a Romney presidency?

We have the free sample before us. The same kind of people who are promoting Romney promoted Schwartzenegger. There was a Conservative choice in California, just as we have now, who would redirect us to a Constitutional path and out of debt, while shoring up our national security. We are being told to sit down and shut up. Just as with Schwartzenegger, the battle cry is “anything is better than the Democrat!” (Which I maintain is not so.) They have a glitzy candidate they want to put up who has no principles and stands for nothing. One who will go along with a “green agenda” like Schwartzenegger did, and will, like him, finish destroying the economy. Like California, we could choose to go with the Democrat, who would probably do much the same, but we would have room to oppose his actions. This would at least give us a fighting chance.

Some pretty smart people supported Santorum – Michelle Malkin, Richard Viguerie, David Limbaugh, me. It is tragic that he has felt the need to withdraw. Now before we all flock over like pigeons to the Romney campaign, we should consider some others who left to make way for Santorum. There is still Herman Cain, for example, or Rick Perry. Either of these would be better than Romney. And my own next choice would be Ron Paul. I think America and the Republican Party ought to take time to consider carefully. They ought to take another look at their free sample. After all, there is no need to rush. Contrary to what some pundits believe, not having sewn up our choice gives us an advantage over Obama. WE already know who OUR opponent will be. Whoever is finally nominated will have no new game plan. Obama, on the other hand, does not know yet. His plans need to be adjusted depending on whom we nominate. This gives HIM the disadvantage of not knowing. Why telegraph our plans?

If Arnold Schwartzenegger did the work of Democrats (and Liberal ones at that), what will Romney do to the rest of us? His chief advisor on environmental issues was John Holdren. This is the same guy who is now Obama’s czar. The one who believes in population control through forced abortions and forced mass sterilization. The guy who has been compromising our national security through negotiations with China and the old USSR. That’s just one. So are you with me? Shall we study our sample and just say no to Romney? We still have very good alternatives.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition, for whose website (vtpcc.com) she regularly blogs.  She is currently a delegate to the 2012 Minnesota Republican Convention.

President Obama recently complained about the possibility of the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare. He used the term “unprecedented” and was critical of “judicial activism” engaged in by “unelected” judges. In so doing, he showed his monumental misunderstanding of American government, which should be of concern to every American who values constitutional government.

Let’s take each claim in turn. The first is the assertion that if dthe Supreme Court were to find the healthcare law to be unconstitutional, it would be acting in an unprecedented way. As my beginning undergraduate constitutional history students know, the Court has struck down all of or parts of federal enactments for over 200 years. Beginning with the best-known constitutional case in American history in 1803, Marbury v. Madison, Supreme Court justices established themselves as members of that branch of government whose province it is to strike down any legislation that is repugnant to the higher law of the Constitution. Ever since, when necessary, the Supreme Court has acted in that capacity. The latest U.S. Government Printing Office tally of Congressional acts declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court through 2002 lists 158 pieces of legislation struck down. If one adds state and local laws found unconstitutional by the Court, the number is over 1,300.

The president also complains that the judges who threaten his Affordable Care Act are “unelected.” Of course, Obama knows full well that Supreme Court judges, as with all federal judges, must be appointed by the president of the United States, an elected official. Further, all federal judges must be confirmed by action of the Senate, also made up of elected officials. The idea that no elected officials play a part in choosing Supreme Court judges is fiction. What is more perplexing about the president’s statement is that he himself has appointed two Supreme Court judges. If he were to be elected for a second term, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court judge, meaning that he would have appointed one third of the Court. Also, what the president refuses to recognize is that the Founders did not intend the federal government to be constituted entirely by direct popular election. The government is to be made up of a mixture of elected and appointed officials to resist, among other things, the power of short-lived majorities to destroy long-standing constitutional protections.

Finally, President Obama argues that if the Supreme Court found his healthcare law unconstitutional, it would be an example of “judicial activism” long condemned by conservatives. Again, the president sees any legitimate restraint on his ideological agenda as unwarranted. The careful consideration of whether a piece of legislation is consistent with the powers granted to the legislative branch by the Constitution is not judicial activism. It is doing what the Court is called upon to do—restrain attempts by any branch to usurp power. Real judicial activism occurs when the Court concocts “new rights” which are not found in the Constitution nor approved by any legislature, such as in Roe v. Wade.

President Obama is wrong on all three counts. If the Court strikes down Obamacare, it will be nothing new, and it will not be the product of judicial excess.

— Dr. John A. Sparks is dean of the A. J. Calderwood School of Arts & Letters at Grove City College (Grove City, PA) where he teaches constitutional law and business law. A graduate of Grove City College and the University of Michigan Law School, he is a member of the State Bars of Michigan and Ohio and is a fellow with The Center for Vision & Values.

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

GLEN COVE, NY -- Many proponents of "renewable energy" are hypocrites who have no real interest in renewable energy.

About the time that the superiority of bronze and iron tools to stone ones became apparent, man learned that he could harness the power of the wind and flowing streams and rivers. Long before man discovered that electricity could flow through a wire or that steam could turn a wheel, his windmills and waterwheels produced power to serve his needs, for example, powered millstones provided ground grains.

Wind power and water power should be attractive to environmentalists as renewable sources of energy. They are not so, however, because the secret goal of environmentalists is not renewable energy but the death of the Industrial Age.

On the one hand, the proponents of renewable energy rarely list hydroelectric power alongside of wind power, solar energy, and geothermal energy in their propaganda. Instead, they constitute the cheerleading kick line whenever another hydroelectric facility is dynamited in the hope of returning a river to its imagined original course. On the other hand, they have built so many unwarranted wind farms in the Northeast that they have to shut them down to avoid overloading the electrical grid adequately supplied by hydroelectricity.

Hydroelectricity is, in fact, a major source of the energy for the United States as well as the world. The western frontier of New York state and Ontario get most of their electricity from engineering marvels of the Industrial Age that harness the power of Niagara Falls. The tidal flow electricity generated by the Bay of Fundi is another marvel of engineering that supplies electricity to other parts of Canada. The United States was once proud of such great human achievements as the Boulder Dam and the Hoover Dam.

Why do we build wind farms and blow up hydroelectric plants? Why do people who want a simple water wheel in their back yard spend over $100,000 seeking a permit, only to have it rejected? An obvious but false answer is to protect wildlife and fish. This is a false answer because the killing of birds by the latest high-technology windmills is a far more widespread problem than the sucking of fish into the Niagara intake gates. The true answer is that many environmentalists are unable to grasp that the generation of electricity from water flow is environmentally the same as the grinding of grain from a water wheel.

They love the inefficient generation of electricity from farms of tall windmills, although these devices bear no resemblance to the classic windmills of travel books. Moreover, the level of maintenance required for a wind farm is high in relation to the electricity generated.

While solar energy can be useful, it is probably the least efficient form to meet the demands of major projects.

The foes of hydroelectricity oppose nuclear-generated electricity as well. Nuclear power plants are not fueled by strictly renewable energy, but their fuel is much more durable than coal or petroleum.

Furthermore, the renewable energy fad has failed to adjust to recent discoveries that the potential supply of petroleum is many times greater than previously estimated.

Why, then, do people cling to the solar and wind fads? Perhaps deep down they regret the replacement of stone tools with iron and bronze ones. More likely, they regard nineteenth-century industrial inventions as one giant set for Fritz Lang's 1927 film, "Metropolis," or for the 1976 Bayreuth Festival production of Richard Wagner's "Ring" Cycle.

###

The Confederate Lawyer archives

Sometimes I think that if people really listened to themselves, I'd be out of a job. When they can't mean what they say, you are entitled to doubt that they're saying what they mean.

Few are saying that Mel Gibson had no right to make a film about the Crucifixion. But many are saying he shouldn't have made it. If they don't complain that The Passion of Christ is "anti-Semitic" - that is, annoying to some Jews - they complain that its violence is "excessive" and "overdone." Can they really mean this? Twelve hours of torture are compressed into only two, and that's too much? Has Gibson left out the refreshment break?

Since there have been lots of earlier films about Christ, you might expect Gibson's critics to name one that got it right - showed just the proper degree of torment - or at least admit that the earlier, softer versions failed to do justice to the horror of nailing a man to a cross.

In Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, the guy on the cross is shown having sexual fantasies during his agony. Maybe Scorsese's point is that the victim, even in his agony, has one hell of a libido. Anyway, I don't remember any complaints that the violence in that absurd version was "deficient" or "underdone."

The New York Times now brings a fresh angle: "New Film May Harm Gibson's Career." Why? Because the film is a flop? Not hardly. It seems that some Jewish Hollywood moguls intend to avenge themselves on the film by doing no further business with Gibson, no matter what profits they may be forgoing.

A new Hollywood blacklist, with only one name on it! Maybe we can have a new round of congressional investigations to uncover Christian infiltration of the film industry. You can't be too careful. (The New York Post reports that one Israeli politician "said the movie should be banned in his country and called for Gibson to be put on trial.")

Not everyone shares the hysteria. One Hollywood agent puts the issue in earthy terms: "I don't think it will hurt [Gibson]. People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in the seats." The anti-Christ, yes, of course. That's a no-brainer. But Christ may be another matter.

A decade ago the great English actress Vanessa Redgrave had a scheduled performance in Boston canceled when Jews protested her outspoken anti-Zionism. The Times reported then only that Miss Redgrave's "politics" - not Jewish pressure - had "hurt her career."

If the pressure had come from Christians, the story would have been told differently. The Times and other media would have shrieked about "religious fanatics" trying to "impose their views" and blighting "artistic expression." But today the editorialists aren't viewing the latest hate campaign with much alarm. Even the "straight" news accounts imply that Gibson has brought it all on himself.

The uproar is amusing because it's hypocritical. The Passion of the Christ has received an R rating for its violence, and Gibson isn't objecting to that. But reviewers who have seen it all, and applauded "candor" on the screen as long as it's ungodly, are howling this time. Gibson is using the new tolerance of film violence for a purpose they loathe: Christian evangelism.

But they can't even admit that. Hence they are bandying charges of "excessive violence," "sadism," "masochism," and so forth, implying - or saying outright - that Gibson enjoys the spectacle of torture. They don't explain how he might have made a crucifixion look unpleasant without violating their unspecified proprieties.

Anyone who has read about crucifixion - ancient Rome's answer to "community service" - knows that Gibson hasn't exaggerated. When the Gospels were written, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't have to explain what it meant: a punishment so savage as to make strong men shudder at its mere mention. The only crucifixion modern men remember, that of Christ, has been rendered largely symbolic by centuries of pious Christian art.

By using the techniques of modern cinema, Gibson has made it seem real again. Those who don't believe that Christ redeemed us may see in it nothing but needless horror. But Christians are seeing it with something more than horror: inexpressible wonder and gratitude for God's boundless love.

###

[This column was published originally by Griffin Internet Syndicate on February 26, 2004.]

America anxiously awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare. At the core of the decision is a simple question: Is the “individual mandate” in Obamacare constitutional? And thus, is Obamacare constitutional?

Several times during the debate and deliberation, my mind harkened back to the words of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Remarking on the original Obamacare bill, Pelosi infamously said that first “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Even more outrageous was another Pelosi observation, especially given the pivotal role of the Supreme Court. In October 2009, Pelosi was asked by a reporter if the healthcare legislation was constitutional. Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

Reporter: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Reporter: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi’s incredulity at that perfectly reasonable question is as telling as it is stunning. She scorned the very thought, as if the reporter were either a total idiot, an unregenerate right-wing Neanderthal, or had flown in on a flying saucer from Neptune.

And yet, as Congresswoman Pelosi learned last week, the reporter had hit the crux of the issue. So did state attorneys general nationwide, who quickly filed lawsuits precisely on whether Obamacare is constitutional.

Pelosi’s contempt for that notion—apparently shared by many of her “progressive” colleagues—has come back to bite her and President Obama and the entirety of the progressive/liberal movement. Democrats who scoff at such questions do so at their own peril. There is another branch of government in this country; it’s called the judiciary. And that branch for over 200 years has been tasked with exactly such a duty: that is, reviewing the constitutionality of legislation.

Ironically, Pelosi’s behavior does a greater disservice to the goals of her own party than to conservatives. Liberals need to step back and understand what has unraveled with Obamacare: Their party leaders flagrantly ignored legitimate constitutional objections (and numerous other criticisms) raised by opponents. These objections were so well-placed that they now hold the potential to place a dagger in the heart of their prized legislation. If the individual mandate is struck down as un-constitutional, then the entire Obamacare legislation might be finished, given that the individual mandate is the chief funding mechanism for the entire program.

Even then, the constitutional problems don’t end there. Next up, probably next year, will be the Obama-HHS mandate requiring every American, including all religious believers and institutions—with the Catholic Church at the center of the controversy—to fund contraception and abortion drugs. Here, too, President Obama and his allies are pushing another mandate that will have to be reviewed by courts because of its blatant challenge to the Constitution—in this case, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion and conscience.

Alas, this brings me to a sincere query for liberals: Why do you tolerate Democratic Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi (among others)? I could literally write a book on outrageous Pelosi comments uttered just in the last five years, from amazing statements like those quoted above to her breathtaking remarks on her own Catholic Church and its teachings on human life.

Why do Democrats accept such shoddy leadership? They are making their dearest plans vulnerable to immediate rejection by the constitutional process. If I were a progressive dreaming of universal healthcare, I would be extremely disappointed. As noted by Joe Postell, a scholar on the progressive moement, progressives have been trying to implement “universal healthcare” since literally 1912, , when those words appeared in that year’s Progressive Party platform. In 2009, they finally had their big chance, but may have blown it by ridiculing or ignoring—and not dealing with—their critics’ objections.

Or, on the other hand, do they have such disrespect and disregard for their critics that they don’t care what they say? If that’s the case, it isn’t prudent leadership. Think about your own life or career or home or company: For major decisions, don’t you at least consider possible obstacles or pitfalls?

Someday, “progressives” may have a solid majority on the Supreme Court and can blithely dismiss the original intent of the Constitution. If Americans keep voting as they do, such a majority is a distinct possibility. For now, however, they ignore realities at their peril. Simply calling conservatives idiots isn’t very smart.

Yes, Congresswoman Pelosi, we’re serious.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" and "Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

As Christians around the world celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ this Easter, heaven is naturally on the minds of many. Recent polls indicate that between 75 and 90 percent of Americans believe that heaven exists, percentages that far exceed the belief by residents of other Western nations.

As the author of “Heaven in the American Imagination,” I have recently been interviewed for both a television special and a “Time” magazine article on heaven. The widespread belief among Christians that we, like Jesus, will live after our death, has led many to ask what heaven is like. Throughout history Americans have offered many different answers to this question.

Although their interpretation of biblical passages has guided most Christians in describing heaven, their cultural settings, dreams, and hopes have also shaped their portraits as expressed in music, art, and literature.

Throughout American history, theologians and pastors have typically depicted heaven as an actual place of dazzling beauty, unending delight, and greatly expanded knowledge. Americans have largely agreed that heaven is a spectacular and delightful home for people who are aware of their own identities and life histories, enjoy rich fellowship with others, enthusiastically worship God, do meaningful work, and experience fantastic joy.

However, deeply influenced by their own life experiences and differing political, social, and economic circumstances, American Christians have provided conflicting portraits of heavenly life. From the Puritans in the 1600s to the Second Great Awakening of the antebellum years, most Christians depicted a God-centered heaven that focused on worshiping and serving the Trinity. Since the Civil War, many portraits of heaven have focused on service, education, and personal growth as these concepts became more important in American society.

During the last decade, several major cultural trends—especially increased anxiety, the prominence of our entertainment culture, the impact of the therapeutic worldview, and concerns about the breakdown of the family and the impoverishment of personal relationships—have shaped American views of heaven.

This has led Christians to offer competing pictures of heaven as a place of comfort, enriching entertainment, self-actualization, robust relationships, and bliss. Heaven has been depicted as a haven from the world’s ills, a magnificent home, a posh vacation resort, a perpetual playground, a therapeutic center, and a place of incredible happiness. Some conceptions of paradise provide a soothing antidote to the anxiety-arousing and disconcerting events that lead many newscasts and newspaper headlines. Heaven promises a pleasant respite from the world’s perils, tragedy, and despair.

America’s focus on entertainment, and fear that heaven may be boring, has prompted depictions of paradise as the ultimate recreation center. Anthony DeStefano’s best-selling “A Travel Guide to Heaven” portrays the celestial realm as “Disney World, Hawaii, Paris, Rome, and New York all rolled into one.” “Heaven is a pleasure palace, a fairyland … and a never-ending vacation…. It’s the ultimate adventure for travelers of all ages.”

For others, the afterlife is principally about introspection and self-actualization. It is the place where individuals listen to their inner child, repair their self-esteem, and finally attain closure. In phenomenally popular books, “The Five People You Meet in Heaven” and “The Lovely Bones,” Mitch Albom and Alice Sebold respectively explain that heaven exists to help people make sense of their earthly lives.

Influenced by a culture that promotes and prizes personal happiness, still others make happiness a key feature of heavenly life. “God will supply us with everything we’ll ever need” to be happy in heaven, declared Billy Graham. Another evangelical predicts that the saints will have “the athleticism of Michael Jordan, the mind of Albert Einstein, and the creativity of Charles Dickens.” Finally, for many, heaven is primarily a place of reunion with family members and friends, characterized by love, intimacy, and comfort.

Americans’ great interest in heaven is evident today in book sales, television and movie themes, art, and music. Books based on the near-death experiences have been especially popular and influential in shaping American conceptions of the afterlife. More than a year after its publication, “Heaven Is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back” is still number one on The New York Times Best Seller List for nonfiction.

As Christians celebrate Easter this year, they rejoice that Christ’s resurrection promises that those who trust in him as their Savior will someday join him in paradise. Until that occurs, Christians will continue to debate the features and wonders of heaven.

— Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College and is a fellow for faith and the presidency with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Heaven in the American Imagination” (Oxford University Press, 2011).

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

There is a widely held view that Congress has virtually unlimited power to legislate, especially concerning economic matters. Consider, for example, the passage of the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act two years ago. While Congress’ power to regulate the economy is not completely unbounded, it is very far-reaching indeed. However, it was not always so.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was powerless to address conflicting commercial regulations imposed by the several states. To remedy that flaw, the enumerated powers given to Congress under the Constitution included the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce … among the several States.”

At the time the Constitution was ratified, “commerce” referred to trade—buying and selling products—but it did not include all economic activity, such as manufacturing, agriculture, and labor. In the ratification debates, there was little deliberation over the Commerce power because it was understood to be an insignificant threat to local or non-commercial affairs. James Madison emphasized that point in Federalist No. 45.

Early Congresses rarely invoked the Commerce power. The Supreme Court’s first opportunity to determine its scope did not arise until Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). In that case, the Court held that Congress may regulate interstate commerce, but not commerce that doesn't extend to or affect other states.

Over the next century, the Court reiterated that Congress' Commerce power did not include regulation of production in anticipation of trade. In these decisions, the Court emphasized the distinction between commerce and other types of economic activity that are not commerce: “Without agriculture, manufacturing, mining, etc., commerce could not exist, but this fact does not suffice to subject them to the control of Congress” (Newberry v. United States, 1921).

A slight shift occurred in 1914, when the Court held that where interstate and intrastate aspects of commerce are so intermingled, the Constitution permits regulation of interstate commerce even if that results in incidental regulation of purely intrastate commerce. But in general, the Court's view of Congress' Commerce power remained unchanged. In 1935, the Court held that Congress may not regulate intrastate sales of poultry, and as late as 1936, the Court invalidated a federal law regulating labor because “the relation of employer and employee is a local relation.”

The Court’s century-old Commerce Clause jurisprudence ultimately bowed to far-reaching New Deal laws. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act against a Commerce Clause challenge, holding that Congress may regulate intrastate production if it has a “close and substantial relation to interstate commerce.” And in United States v. Darby (1941), the Court declared that “[t]he power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states.”

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is generally considered the most expansive Commerce Clause decision to date. In that case, the Court held that Congress could regulate a farmer’s production and consumption of homegrown wheat because even though his activity was local, was not commerce, and did not substantially or directly affect interstate commerce, it could, in combination with others’ similar conduct, affect interstate commerce.

In 1964 and 1971, the Supreme Court rejected Commerce Clause challenges to the application of civil rights laws to motels and restaurants, and to a federal criminal law prohibiting local instances of loan sharking. In these cases, the Court dismissed arguments that: the regulated activity was not commercial, Congress was legislating against moral wrongs, the activity was purely local, and the economic effect of the regulated activity was so small as to be trivial.

In United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court resisted further expansion, a reminder that even after the New Deal cases, Congress' Commerce power still has outer limits. Because the federal laws in Lopez and Morrison (prohibiting possession of a gun near a school and gender-motivated violence, respectively) regulated local activity having no effect on interstate commerce, they were really exercises of the general police power that belongs exclusively to the states.

In the case now pending before the Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the issue is whether Congress has the power to compel non-participants into the health insurance market, so that they can then be regulated. It's a novel question, and no precedent governs the Court's decision. During its oral argument, the federal government asserted that every person is an "actuarial reality" whose current existence and eventual mortality creates a statistically measurable insurance risk.

By that theory, everyone is inescapably a "participant" in the health insurance market and therefore subject to federal regulation. Such metaphysical abstraction threatens not merely to further stretch, but finally to break the Framers' structural design that for 225 years has preserved individual liberty and served as a check on unlimited federal power.

— David J. Porter, J.D., is an attorney with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, a trustee of Grove City College, and a contributor to The Center for Vision & Values. The opinions expressed by the author are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Grove City College, its Board of Trustees, or his firm.

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- You may have heard the late Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012) was initially alerted to the Democrat/media complex when that collaboration smeared Clarence Thomas as it fought to block the latter's Supreme Court confirmation in 1991. There is, of course, more to Breitbart's venture into battle against those who would trash his country.

Though l'affaire Thomas was the spark that awakened Breitbart from the leftist environment in which he had been raised, his instinct then was to learn how the slash and burn alliance had gained so powerful an influence in our society. Some larger force - perhaps historical - was behind this. His "sixth sense" prompted him to start digging for the machine's roots or "back story." He just knew the Orwellian scenario (where dark is light and light is dark) could not have emerged overnight.

Breitbart's scholarly research on that very question emerges right in the middle of his memoirs. The inquiring mind from the Hollywood Hills discovered a gold mine of background as to how America's enemies had taken dead aim at his country and had worked for decades to destroy it.

Breitbart's bestselling book  

In his 2011 best-seller Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World (http://amzn.to/gReEFT), Andrew Breitbart (who recently met his untimely death at age 43) traces the story of how Communism came to America. Rivers of ink have been dispensed to document the many facets and subplots in the drama of the concerted 24/7 campaign to bring Western Civilization to its knees. Those essential investigations of the forces who intend to do us in continue even now in the early 21st century. Meanwhile, Breitbart has offered an abbreviated explanation that is about as concise as one can find with regard to the attack on America.

Beyond brute force

The conspiracy - in its metaphoric dimensions - represents nothing so much as a giant mowing machine, never deviating from its decades-old goal of smashing America's constitutional, cultural, economic, and political infrastructure.

The take-down of America from within has been sought through more than one avenue, but arguably none so pivotal as the Frankfurt School. Breitbart focuses on that phenomenon in his 21-page chapter Breakthrough.

The author/activist discovered the long-term Marxist crusade to tear-down the United States did not end (as many Americans assumed) when the Berlin Wall came down.

Aside from the Soviet empire and the 100 million people killed at the hands of Communist brutality, Marxism has always had its cultural warriors. Nothing impedes their advance so much as the United States of America.

Our enemies long ago concluded that bringing the U.S. to its knees would involve control of the culture - the everyday lives, and the everyday thoughts, of the citizens.

Breitbart saw those forces at work as a student at Tulane University - what he calls a cultural fascisti. What he saw was campus thought control: elites who decided "what was okay to think and what to write, what words meant, and who was allowed to say them. There were (and are) tribunals without oversight, as kids have been thrown out of college for uttering the wrong sentiments."

But Tulane was a mere microcosm. Cultural Marxism was (and is) pervasive in the mainstream media, Hollywood, education (K-higher ed), and straight on into the government.

America did not simply wake up in the mid-sixties and suddenly embrace the rebellious counter-culture that would define the era. No, those seeds had been planted decades earlier. 

"Progressives"

Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, according to Breitbart, were early U.S. progenitors of the Hegelian theory that drove the early 20th century's so-called "progressive movement." George Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel was a German philosopher who provided the dialectic argumentation for Karl Marx's utopianism - i.e., that human nature could be changed only by destroying the surrounding society.

Of the people no more

As Breitbart informs us, Wilson "frowned on democracy," and "rejected the idea of government by the people," which he believed should be "replaced by elites who knew better than the masses." Or, as he intoned, "Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."

The Frankfurt school

Fortunately for America at the time, Wilson and progressivism in general were exceedingly unpopular by the time the former Princeton professor mercifully ended his White House tenure.

But for the Marxists - not to worry. Some European Marxist imports would ultimately make their way into our society. The Brown socialists (Nazis) and the Red socialists (Communists) had battled each other on the streets of Germany during the twenties. When one of these two strains of socialism gained power, the other would have to flee. But that gets us ahead of our story:

Changing society

Prior to the Nazi takeover, Felix Weil, a young radical Marxist from Frankfurt, Germany, organized the Institute for Social Research, quickly dubbed the Frankfurt School. (Breitbart defines the group as "really a precursor to [Obama ally] John Podesta's Center for American Progress.")

The central theme of the "school" was that tearing down society was a pre-condition for the eventual victory of global Marxism; that capitalism had rendered man "weak," which in turn explained why socialism had not come into existence already. (Remember, this was late twenties Europe and North America).

Further the Frankfurt School taught that Judeo-Christian morality must be rejected; that "a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without annihilation of the solid values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries"; and that "critical theory" reflected the school's curriculum.

Breitbart says Frankfurt School philosopher Max Horkheimer coined the term "critical theory." Its meaning would "embody the whole corrupt philosophy whose mission was to destroy society and culture...."

In fact, Breitbart says "critical theory," as he was taught at Tulane, was "quite literally, a theory of criticizing everyone and everything everywhere."

We might add here that "critical theory" was also taught at Mercer Island High School in Washington State when President Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham attended it. Instapundit informs us the curriculum included 1 - "rejection of societal norms; 2 - attacks on Christianity, the traditional family; and 3 - [assigning the] readings of Karl Marx." That Washington State high school also was "a hotbed of pro-Marxist radical teachers," and had been cited in testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Frankfurt school moves to U.S.

After the Brown socialists took over Germany, the Red socialists at the Frankfurt School had to get out of there. And they had nowhere to go except the United States.

Breitbart goes on:

"We welcomed the Frankfurt School. We accepted them with open arms. They took full advantage. They walked right into our cultural institutions, and as they started to put in place their leadership, their language and their lexicon, too many chose to ignore them. And the most dangerous thing you can do with a driven leftist clique is to ignore it."

The tentacles spread

Upon arriving on our shores, Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and other Frankfurt School icons initially took up new quarters in Southern California, where they "were disturbed by consumer culture and the Gospel of relentless cheeriness."

As Breitbart opines, "These Marxists were here trying to destroy the best lifestyle man has ever created. If I could go back in a time machine...I would kick these malcontents in their shins."

Ultimately in New York, Columbia University's Sociology Department was dying and only too willing to take in new blood. "They liked what they saw in the Frankfurt School." In fact, "It was a marriage made in hell" (also BTW, a marriage arranged in part by commentator Edward R. Murrow).

Again, quoting Breitbart: "With their tentacles affixed to the institutions of American higher education, the Frankfurt School philosophy began eking its way into every crevice of American culture. Horkheimer's 'critical theory' became a staple of Philosophy, History, and English courses across the country."

Herbert Marcuse

Andrew Breitbart identifies Herbert Marcuse as the most significant of what he defined as these "deranged soul[s]" striving to deconstruct the good life."

Marcuse, a "major contributor to the Frankfurt School," was the founder of what came to be known in the sixties as the "New Left."

Herbert Marcuse, a former student of future Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, "longed for the moment 'when the spiritual strength of the West fails and its joints crack, when the moribund semblance of culture caves in and drags all forces into confusion and lets them suffocate in madness."

After becoming a U.S. citizen, Marcuse's employment record included a stint for FDR in the Office of War Information (OWI) - a government-backed effort that also included Owen Lattimore, a key figure in steering U.S. policy toward aiding the Communists' takeover of China, a regime whose leaders today threaten us with military might, steal our weapons secrets through industrial and government espionage, and hold a massive debt over our heads in case we get any bright ideas about sassing them back.

Marcuse served in the pre-CIA OSS (a hotbed of communist infiltrators), and in the State Department where he worked to prevent the U.S. from pushing post-war Germany away from socialism. He taught at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis, and finally the University of California, San Diego.

Today's buzzwords no accident

Much of the intellectual poison in our society is traceable to Herbert Marcuse's mission to dismantle American society by using "diversity," and "multiculturalism," as "crowbars to pry the structure apart piece by piece." He saw a part of his mission as to encourage black opposition to whites (way beyond the civil rights agenda, with its theme equality for all).

In fact, Marcuse whipped up all "victim groups" in opposition to society in general. If you were a happy American who loved his country, you were part of the problem. One of his rallying cries was "Marx, Mao, and Marcuse."

In his Breakthrough chapter, Breitbart goes on to trace the Frankfurt School influence to Saul Alinsky, the "community organizer so influential with Barack Obama." We will deal with that next.

This column has in the past cited the literal hotbed of subversion that is the Frankfurt School. See "The plot against America exposed" (Nov. 27, 2006, http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/061127), where we discuss the book Cry Havoc! The Great American Bring-down and How it Happened (http://amzn.to/GYncms) written (practically on his death bed) by the late Ralph de Toledano, a true giant in the annals of Washington journalism.

###

The Big Picture Elucidator is copyright © 2012 by

Wes Vernon and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved. A version of this column appeared at RenewAmerica.com. It may be forwarded or re-posted if credit is given to Wes Vernon and fgfBooks.com.