The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom

Canada’s Bill C-51 May Outlaw Natural Health Food Products

2008-05-08T18:21:44-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: On April 8, a bill was introduced into the Canadian House of Commons that has highly worrisome implications for natural health products and those who consume and use them. The same implications might be in store for Americans as well. Follow this link to the original source: "Canadian Rights And Freedoms Are At Risk"COMMENTARY:A newly proposed law in Canada, Bill C-51, just may outlaw up to 60 percent of natural health products currently sold in Canada — and criminalize people who use them. Bill C-51 which makes significant changes to Canada’s Food and Drugs Act, was introduced into the House of Commons by the Canadian Minister of Health. The first reading on April 8 was followed by it’s second reading on April 28, barely time for consumers, trade groups, and elected representatives to examine, debate, or compose official positions. Acts in Canada must pass three readings in both legislative houses before becoming law. This is supposed to give representatives and the general public time to become aware of any proposed changes, have them debated, and give their consent. On the other hand, Regulations are published in the newspaper twice and can then be signed into law. Parliament does not vote on Regulations. (Keep this bit in mind for later.)The text of the lengthy bill describes many changes to be made to Canada’s Food and Drugs Act and seems to have left no stone unturned. The sweeping changes are couched in the increasingly broad language we have come to expect from bureaucratic governments. The language leaves the door wide open for extreme governmental regulation, licensing, and enforcement that would have devastating consequences on an entire industry and millions of consumers.One of the radical changes the proposed bill offers is in terminology. The word "drug" will be replaced with the term "therapeutic product." This one change alone could effectively put all vitamins, herbs, supplements, and even some foods under the complete control of the government. The term "sell" would now include anyone who sells, buys, or uses "therapeutic products," and anyone who administers those products. It will be the government’s delegates who will decide on the regulation, licensing, marketing, inspecting, and enforcing of all changes listed in the new bill. So it’s interesting to note that the inspection and seizure powers in Bill C-51 are greatly expanded from the original Food and Drugs Act that is presently enforced by Health Canada. Attorney Shawn Buckley has done an excellent job dissecting and analyzing C-51 (click on “Legal Review”) and has this to say about the newly proposed inspection and seizure powers:The inspecting and seizure powers found in s. 23 of the Act are increased to:• give inspectors authority to enter private property to prevent non-compliance with the Act or Regulations;• enter conveyances for the purposes of inspections; • enter places where even a document relating to the Act and Regulations may be located… Note that document is defined in Bill C-51 to include information that can be read by a computer or device so if your blackberry is in your car, the car can be searched;• take samples free of charge… There is no limit to the value of the samples;• seize and detain for any time anything connected to the Act and Regulations such as products and equipment;• enter on and pass through or over private property without any liability and without the owner of the property having the right to object;• charge the owner for storage of seized property;• if inspectors believe on reasonable grounds the seized property could be injurious to human health they can dispose of it at the expense of the owner or direct the owner to dispose of it;The inspectors are given apparently unlimited powers to enforce the Act and Regulations. They can order a Canadian citizen to stop doing anything that they deem is a contravention of the Act. Section 31 is amended to make it an offense not to do something the Minister or an inspector directs person to do or not do.And the new penalties for indictable and summary infractions of the Act or Regulations increase by 1,000 times. A first offense results in a $250,000 fine and/or imprisonment of up to 6 months; subsequent offences will run $500,000 and/or up to 18 months in prison; and indictable offences $5,000,000 (six zeros are correct) and/or imprisonment of up to 2 years. Willful and/or reckless violations, or not listening to the Minister or an inspector are just as extreme.In the "Definitions Et Interpretation" section of C-51, the term "government" will now mean any of the following "or their institutions, as applicable:"a) the federal government;b) a corporation named in Schedule III to 10 of the Financial Administration Act,c) a provincial government or a public body established under an Act of the legislature of a province,d) an aboriginal government as defined in subsection 13(3) of the Access to Information Act,e) a government of a foreign state or of a subdivision of a foreign state, orf) an international organization of states. [Emphasis added.]Defining "government" to include foreign states and/or international organizations is a segue into section 30 which states:A regulation may incorporate by reference documents produced by a person or body other than the Minister of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency including:a) an organization established for the purpose of writing standards, including an organization accredited by the Standards Council of Canada;b) an industrial or trade organization; orc) a governmentThis clever little addition apears to allow the Canadian government to make documents prepared by foreign "governments" the law in Canada simply by passing a regulation incorporating the documents as regulations. The UN’s infamous CODEX Alimentarius, Latin for “food code,” could become law without Parliamentary approval if it’s referred to as a regulation. The text of C-51 states directly that the changes to Canada’s Food and Drug Acts are for "the purpose of implementing, in relation to drugs, Article 1711 of the North American Free Trade Agreement on paragraph 3 of Article 39 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights set out in Annex 1C to the WTO Agreement."So there is a method and a purpose to this madness, and it’s not about public health safety. This should serve as yet another warning and reason for the U.S. to withdraw from NAFTA.And this brings us to the crux of the matter for Americans.The FDA is presently conferencing with its regulatory counterparts in Canada and Mexico to draft one set of food and drug standards for all three countries. Besides the FDA, Health Canada and Mexico’s Secretaria de Salud are committed to harmonizing regulations for all three countries without any legislative oversight or public input under the Trilateral Cooperation Charter. The TCC has as one of their principles, "The use of problem-solving techniques and consensual decision-making processes," in the area of health and safety issues. They expect their members to abide by the TCC’s Steering Committee decisions and "assist in their implementation."But what effect will this have on the United States if the TCC decides to use Canada’s newly overhauled Food and Drug Acts as the standard by which all three countries will now regulate and license foods and drugs? Will the United States’ Food and Drug act be coopted by the implementation of the TCC’s decisions? Certainly, if a convergence or integration takes place via the North American Union, chances of implementation of the TCC’s decisions would be far easier and more probable.Ann ShiblerAnn is the Editorial Assistant for the John Birch Society.

GOP's Presence in Washington Shrinking Fast

2008-05-08T17:52:38-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: Two recent interim elections for vacant House seats should have been won by Republicans. But Democrats took both and forecasts for the fall elections expect many more GOP losses. Follow this link to the original source: "Democrats Call Victory a Sign G.O.P. Tactic Failed"COMMENTARY:Two months ago, the Illinois seat held for many years by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert went to a Democrat in a special election. It hadn't been in Democratic hands in decades.Early in May, a special election in Louisiana saw popular conservative Republican Woody Jenkins lose his bid for the seat vacated by Republican Richard Baker, who resigned to become a lobbyist. Jenkins lost 49-46 percent to Democrat Don Cazayoux in a closely watched race. The seat had been in GOP hands for 30 years. President Bush won reelection in 2004 with a 59 percent plurality in this very district. Baker likely saw the handwriting on the wall and skedaddled. Because these two House seats had been considered GOP strongholds, national Republican leaders are quietly expressing deep concerns about what will happen in November. Democrats now control the House by 235-198. To recapture control of the House, the GOP will have to take 20 Democrat seats, win more than two dozen races where their own party members have retired, and avoid losses by their incumbents. This is a very tall order at a time when party leader George W. Bush is suffering the lowest approval rating held by a president in memory. Voters everywhere are turning away from the GOP because of the economy's steep decline, the never-ending war, failure to deal with the immigration problem, and more. GOP leaders hope that John McCain's presence at the top of their ticket in November will boost their sagging prospects. But many voters are aware that McCain is famous for teaming with liberal Democrats in legislation he has backed. The names of prominent Democrats with whom he collaborated include Kennedy (immigration), Feingold (restrictions on campaigning), Lieberman (climate change), and Edwards (patient's bill of rights). He has regularly been more comfortable working with Democrats than with fellow Republicans. Several years ago, he even sent his top aide to discuss with Democratic leaders his possible switch to their party.All in all, the GOP's prospects for holding on to what they currently have are slim and losing more ground looks very likely. Democrats from coast to coast are ecstatic. John F. McManusJohn F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.

Clinton or Obama: Who Would Make the Better Loser?

2008-05-07T18:02:48-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: In a May 7 "Analysis" piece in the New York Daily News entitled "Ugly truth why Hillary Clinton won't quit," Thomas M. DeFrank provided a novel explanation about why Senator Hillary Clinton refused to drop out of the presidential race following her defeat in North Carolina and her anemic victory in Indiana in Tuesday’s primaries: Racism. Follow this link to the original source: "Ugly truth why Hillary Clinton won't quit"COMMENTARY:After each Democratic primary, the pundits analyze the potential aftereffects and how the results will impact upon Barrack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's respective quests for the White House. With John McCain having the Republican nomination locked up and able to take a breather from campaigning, all eyes focus on the Democrats. Each perceived setback, whether Obama's embarrassing past association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Clinton's anemic performance in the latest primaries, is held to portend the end of the road for the candidate in question.But it has been a long time since Democrats have seen such a presidential horserace and it's not over yet. Even following Tuesday's results, Obama's 1,840.5-to-1,688 lead in delegates is no guarantee of the nomination, which requires 2,025 delegate votes. With the results of Florida's and Michigan's primaries in dispute and with hundreds of superdelegates free to support anyone they choose, the nomination may not be decided until the convention.Not surprisingly, since this is the first time either an African-American or a woman has gotten this close to securing a major party's presidential nomination, the race and gender factors are being studied carefully.As a May 7 AP article noted: "Racial divisions were stark. In both [North Carolina and Indiana], Clinton won six in 10 white votes while Obama got nine in 10 black votes, exit polls indicated." Even so, the Daily News analysis seemed to play up the race factor to larger-than-life dimensions, pointedly noting: "With Clinton posing alongside pioneering Indy speedster Sarah Fisher, there were almost no African-Americans to be seen. Many in the white, working-class crowd were simply not ready to back Barack Obama — for reasons that are disturbing."While acknowledging that Obama "did manage to pull in many white voters," the writer cited an inadequate sampling (a classic fallacy, as anyone who has taken Logic 101 knows) culled from the Indianapolis crowd to prove that many white voters preferred Cinton because of Obama's race or Muslim-sounding name. When one voter (who cited information he received in a hoax e-mail as a reason to dismiss Obama) said, "I'm kind of still up in the air between McCain and Hillary," the implication (again, more false logic) was: The voter prefers either McCain or Hillary. McCain and Hillary are white. Therefore, the voter is a racist.If such implications of racism can be made in reference to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton — whose husband Bill Clinton was honored at a 2001 Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Annual Awards Dinner in Washington, D.C. as the nation's "first black president" — one can only imagine what outlandish statements might be made in a McCain-Obama general election.Much larger issues need to be looked at besides the petty name-calling and speculation about race, religion, and gender that has dominated this year's election season. The media pundits have continuously raised questions about whether or not a Mormon, a woman, a black man, or even a man as old as John McCain can be elected president. Such arguments shortchange the open-mindedness of the American voter and his or her ability to judge a candidate on their qualifications, rather than their accidental attributes.Conversely, the media may give too much credit to the voter's ability to separate the candidates' positions from their campaign rhetoric and to discern the real issues. And, for this shortcoming, the media is itself to blame. How often does the news media run stories about this or that candidate's positions on matters of real substance? During both the Republican and Democratic debates, the candidates disagreed mainly about how much socialist big government they were in favor of, or about how long we should wait before pulling our troops out of Iraq. Yet, the press gave reams of coverage to the "carbon-copy" candidates and scant coverage to those proclaiming anything original, such as Texas Representative Ron Paul. Interestingly, a May 7 Reuters news story, “Tired voters say Democrats' primary fight divisive,” reflects what may be growing dissatisfaction among Democratic voters. The report quoted Linda Mrochinski, who works for a nonprofit organization in Milwaukee, as representative of this unrest. Said Mrochinski: I backed Hillary in the (Wisconsin) primary, but no matter which one gets in, I'm unimpressed by both of them at this point.Instead of a policy-based and a "what we can do" campaign, it's become a campaign of the women versus the blacks. It's just not a very comfortable campaign at this point.The way Obama and Clinton (and their supporters) have been beating up on each other throughout this campaign (while disagreeing only slightly from each other on matters of policy) one wonders if they are not both working to put John McCain in the White House. It would not be the first time in our history that powerful forces behind the scenes would support one candidate as a "loser" to guarantee the election of their favored candidate. Only a completely disagreeable Democratic candidate that has made legions of enemies within his own party, and who is leftist enough to thoroughly scare most middle-of-the-road voters, could make the lackluster, fence-straddling John McCain the preferred choice of most Americans.When we think about, either Obama or Clinton could fill that role nicely. Warren MassWarren is the Editor for the John Birch Society Bulletin.

Polls At Odds Over Obama's Standing With Americans

2008-05-06T19:01:32-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: One poll says that Obama's connection to Reverend Wright has hurt him, and the other says it detected no change "yet." Follow this link to the original source: "Flap over pastor pulls Obama down, poll finds"COMMENTARY:On May 4, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll stated unambiguously that Barack Obama's "national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy of his former pastor."That same day, the New York Times/CBS News poll results claimed of voters that "the furor over the relationship between Senator Obama and his former pastor has not affected their opinion of Mr. Obama, yet." Comments made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright years ago and posted on widely viewed Internet sites prompted Barack Obama in March to deliver a major speech in which he distanced himself from his pastor of 20 years. At that time, the candidate pointedly did not "disown" the man who married him and his wife, baptized their two children, and ministered to his family for 20 years. He wanted only to be separated from his once close friend and mentor's inflammatory remarks. Wright's widely viewed comments included a plea that God would "damn" America, that our nation was responsible for creating the AIDS crisis, and that America's policies had invited the 9/11 attack. In the March speech, after most Americans had been revolted by Wright's excesses, Obama made clear that these were not his views. But on April 28, Wright was back in front of the microphones. While speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, he not only didn't retract any of his previous statements, he claimed that Obama had walked away from him merely for political reasons. From outrageous attacks on our country, Wright was now sharply criticizing his former parishioner. So Obama took to the microphones again and, this time, he denounced his former close friend. It seems that attacks on the nation can be glossed over, but attacks on him cannot be tolerated and must be challenged. One poll found that Wright's outbursts had hurt the Illinois senator. The other said it had not detected any falling away of support but qualified its findings with the word "yet." So why should anyone put any value in either poll? When attempting to gauge national sentiment on an issue such as the Wright-Obama relationship, polls are far less likely to measure public sentiment accurately than they do when predicting the outcome of a primary or an election. Where the New York Times/CBS News poll found no drop off of support for Obama, the very day the newspaper published its front page findings, it also published an op-ed piece claiming the existence of a sharp drop in support for Obama, and that it was clearly traceable to the continuing ruckus created by the incendiary pastor. William Kristol wrote that the reason for the drop in support for Obama and boost for Hillary Clinton "is surely that Hillary Clinton didn't have as her pastor for 20 years the Rev. Jeremiah Wright."What all of this suggests is that there is little difference between the two Democrat contenders — except for Wright. Both candidates are far leftists who deserve repudiation by anyone who believes government is not the answer to virtually every problem. John F. McManusJohn F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.

Americans Don't Hear about the Real Costs in our Economy

2008-05-05T19:10:37-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: Last week reporters asked President Bush if he would finally agree that we're in a recession. President Bush avoided answering the question, saying: "The average person doesn`t really care what we call it. These are tough times. Economists can argue over the terminology."Follow this link to the original source: "Problems with the U.S. economy"COMMENTARY:One measure of the state of the economy is the Consumer Price Index (CPI). According to the CPI, the official inflation rate based on last year was an increase of 4 percent. This compares with double digit inflation in the 1970s and 1980s. Is this right?No. The fact is government changed the way the CPI is calculated. Writing in Harper's magazine, Kevin Phillips notes: "In 1983, under the Reagan administration, inflation was ... finagled when the Bureau of Labor Statistics decided that housing ... was overstating the Consumer Price Index; the BLS substituted an entirely different "Owner Equivalent Rent" measurement, based on what a homeowner might get for renting his or her house." According to Phillips, this methodology "simply sidestepped what was happening in the real world of homeowner costs." In other words, it was a quick way to cook the books and understate the real level of inflation. Based on the way CPI was figured in 1982, our inflation rate would be 11 percent. One of the reasons for the change to the way CPI is calculated is that the government has tied major expenses, including Social Security benefits, to the official inflation rate. By showing that the official inflation rate is down, government expenses that are indexed for inflation are also kept down. According to Barry Ritholtz, director of equity research at Fusion IQ, who was interviewed by CNN’s Glenn Beck, if we were to figure inflation the way we did in 1982 "we would probably be seeing Social Security payments 70 percent higher than what they are today."In 1983, when government changed the way to measure housing costs, "that basically said, let`s not take into account things like maintenance or utilities or property taxes that we all know have been going through the roof." If we were using only the 1983 changes to figure inflation, it would be at 7.5 percent today.In 1996, however, additional changes were made to the way CPI is calculated. One of those changes is called substitution. "If the price of steak goes up really high," said Ritholtz, "well, you go out and buy chopped meat and, therefore, look, magic, no inflation. The reality is, you`ve been priced out of the cost of steak."Inflation in communist China and the United Kingdom is about 11 percent, said Ritholtz. "It`s a little sad that we get more accurate inflation data from the Chinese than we do here domestically." These are tough times, Mr. President, and they’re made more difficult because government plays games with terminology and in calculating the real costs in our economy.Dr. John FisherDr. John Fisher teaches communications and researches in the area of mass media and political decision making.

Government Hiring Grows as Private Sector Employment Shrinks

2008-05-02T13:52:56-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: Over the past six years, federal, state and local governments have hired at a near record pace while huge losses in the private sector are being recorded. The nation is speeding toward total government and our leaders seem to ignore this frightening reality.Follow this link to the original source: "Hiring leaps in public sector"COMMENTARY:The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the first three months of 2008 recorded the fastest growth in government hiring in six years. The previous high occurred in the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. During this same period, according to the BLS, private firms cut 286,000 Americans from jobs they previously held. The federal agency compiling these figures claimed that figures for the month of April demonstrate that both of these trends are continuing. North Carolina State University economics professor Michael Walden doesn’t believe this report points to any problem. “Government jobs are an important cushion for the economy when the private sector falters,” he commented. Perhaps he would rather have everyone working for government, as everyone once did in Soviet Russia and as millions always do in totalitarian states. His job, of course, is safe because he is employed in a government institution.It can’t be said too often that wealth is productivity and government produces nothing. Mostly, government inhibits productivity. Hiring more government workers when the number of manufacturing jobs is shrinking is suicidal. President Bush frequently insists that our nation is “in a slowdown, not a recession.” Call it whatever you want, the fact remains that manufacturing continues to decline, the dollar’s slide hasn’t stopped, imports outnumber exports, and deficit spending and borrowing at the federal level continues apace. Mr. Bush also claims that because the nation emerged from the Great Depression of the 1930s, it can similarly weather the current economic malaise. But 70 years ago, the U.S. was the world’s leader in manufacturing and the world’s largest creditor nation. Today, our manufacturing base is leaving (even being sent away gleefully by greedy corporate executives) and the U.S. is the world’s greatest debtor nation. Huge amounts of tax revenue must to be spent for interest payments, and much of it goes to foreign governments like China and Japan.In short, both freedom for the American people and independence for this nation are in serious jeopardy. Hiring more government workers isn’t the answer. Shouldn’t less government be tried?John F. McManusJohn F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.

Constitutional Danger in the State Taking of Children from Parents

2008-05-02T13:39:23-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: A father lost custody of his 7-year-old son and didn’t get to see him for a week after mistakenly buying the boy an alcoholic lemonade at a baseball game. Follow this link to the original source: "Dad's oversight at Tigers game lands son in foster care"COMMENTARY: Christopher Ratte, a professor of archaeology at the University of Michigan, bought his son Leo a drink called Mike’s Hard Lemonade at a Detroit Tigers game, not knowing it was an alcoholic drink. A stadium guard approached Mr. Ratte during the ninth inning, and asked Ratte if he knew he was serving his son liquor. "You've got to be kidding," he replied, trying to read the bottle. But the guard "snatched it before Ratte could examine the label," the Detroit Free Press reported. Leo Ratte was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance after complaining of minor nausea. Blood tests found no trace of alcohol in his system. The police and social workers agreed the father had made a mistake, but said there was nothing they could do. They had to follow protocol. Michigan’s Child Protective Services (CPS) took Leo into custody and didn’t let him speak to any member of his family for three days. He spent his first night crying in front of a television set while his parents waited outside the building where he was being held. After three days he was allowed to go home to be with his mother. Finally, after a week the father was able to join his family. According to the lawyer representing the Ratte family, the Michigan standard for the emergency removal of children from their parents does not reflect current federal constitutional law, which requires proof of immediate danger to a child. Ratte later stated, "I feel that this was a massive overreaction to our case, and I think that everyone would have to conclude that." He and his wife, who is also a university professor, have filed a formal complaint with the CPS ombudsman’s office.This case should give all citizens pause. The right to have and raise children, Judge Andrew Napolitano has averred, is akin to the right to free speech, yet the state increasingly intervenes and takes children from their parents for the slightest mistake or apparent infraction made by the parent. It does so even when the instigating event is itself a fraud, as in the case of the raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas. There, hundreds of children, including a new born baby, were forcibly removed from their mothers and placed in state custody in a raid that was wildly unconstitutional. Said Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, the Texas raid is "like Alice in Wonderland, off with their heads! And then we'll have a trial." According to DeGuerin who was interviewed on the subject by the Houston Chronicle, "It's the classic case of arrest first and investigate later. They took 500 people away from their homes to a makeshift prison without any evidence they've done anything wrong." If we are to remain a free people, citizens of a great republic where the rule of law governs, then we must insist that the state respect the entire Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, so that people will again be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...." Dr. John FisherDr. John Fisher teaches communications and researches in the area of mass media and political decision making.

Heading to College and Failure-bound

2008-05-02T13:09:01-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, career counselor Marty Nemko tells us that college is not for all, that higher education has become a racket that can only guarantee the enrichment of one party: the academy itself. Follow this link to the original source: "America's Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor's Degree"COMMENTARY:Going to college has become a rite of passage. Like a high school diploma, it's now often expected that a student will go on to earn — or should I say "get" — a bachelor's degree. After all, this is how we increase our earning potential, right?Not necessarily so, says career counselor Marty Nemko. In the piece cited above, he opens by discussing the folly of encouraging unqualified, unprepared students to attend college, writing:Among high-school students who graduated in the bottom 40 percent of their classes, and whose first institutions were four-year colleges, two-thirds had not earned diplomas eight and a half years later.... Even worse, most of those college dropouts leave the campus having learned little of value, and with a mountain of debt and devastated self-esteem from their unsuccessful struggles. Perhaps worst of all, even those who do manage to graduate too rarely end up in careers that require a college education.Nemko also tells us:Perhaps more surprising, even those high-school students who are fully qualified to attend college are increasingly unlikely to derive enough benefit to justify the often six-figure cost and four to six years (or more) it takes to graduate. Research suggests that more than 40 percent of freshmen at four-year institutions do not graduate in six years. Colleges trumpet the statistic that, over their lifetimes, college graduates earn more than nongraduates, but that's terribly misleading. You could lock the collegebound in a closet for four years, and they'd still go on to earn more than the pool of non-collegebound — they're brighter, more motivated, and have better family connections.Nemko laments the fact that, despite these realities, the academy still encourages millions of unqualified students to matriculate. But this isn't surprising. Colleges are businesses, and, as such, their bottom line has more to do with earnings than education. And you don't make money by turning customers away.Yet, even worse than accepting the unqualified who cannot earn a degree is graduating the unqualified with one. This is now a common failing, and Nemko touches on it as well, quoting a federal study that states: "Over the past decade, literacy among college graduates has actually declined." He also wrote:...50 percent of college seniors scored below "proficient" levels on a test that required them to do such basic tasks as understand the arguments of newspaper editorials or compare credit-card offers. Almost 20 percent of seniors had only basic quantitative skills. The students could not estimate if their car had enough gas to get to the gas station.In justifying their failures, academicians will point out that "a college education is more about enlightenment than employment," reports Nemko. And, actually, they're right — in a way. This certainly was the university's original purpose. The vast majority of colleges and universities in the West were founded as Christian institutions, places in which students (who, mind you, were actually deserving of the designation) were inculcated with Truth. The purpose of study had little to do with obtaining a piece of paper that increases one's earning potential.But the academy is now fallen. A bastion of secularism and relativism, of feelings posing as thought, it has devolved from piety, to indifference to faith, to increasing hostility toward it. In it, youth are indoctrinated with today's fashionable "isms," such as multiculturalism, feminism and radical environmentalism. This is what now masquerades as enlightenment.Yet, to attract the money of the masses — who care more about personal finances than pop-philosophy — the academy must hold out the promise of a lucrative trade. "Come to us, O youngster of ambition, and learn about computers, accounting, nursing, or communication," say the sirens of academia. But such a place is not the "academy" in its original sense. It does have a name, though:Vocational school.And that is the point. Today's university is neither fish nor fowl; it attempts to serve two masters and fails both, having become a purveyor of degraded faux philosophy and a very poor vocational school. What is the solution? We can start by stripping away the pretense and acknowledging reality. If people's ambitions lie with what is essentially vocational training, that should be the focus and the institutions providing it should be called vocational schools. Second, this training should be differentiated from authentic education, which does involve true enlightenment. That means studying the Bible and the classics with an eye toward discerning Truth (this is mainly so that highly-paid de facto tradesmen — such as college professors and lawyers — don't mistake themselves for educated people). Then, we should accept that people have different callings and proclivities; thus, whether it be education or vocational training, one size doesn't fit all. Not everyone can be Einstein any more than Einstein could have excelled in the NBA.Finally, we could consider resurrecting the old practice of apprenticeship. If someone aims to work with computers, I suspect that IBM could teach in six months what takes a college four years. After all, with all the hamburger-helper courses, propaganda and partying, how much time is actually devoted to relevant, practical information at our esteemed institutions of lower learning? Oh, and if you think this is too much of a burden on the private sector, remember that with the unqualified, ignorant graduates our colleges disgorge, businesses often have to pick up the slack anyway. I'm not saying that true education should not be sought, only that it's rarely found on the modern campus (rare exceptions would be colleges such as St. Thomas Aquinas in Ca.). Besides, if the private sector were responsible for teaching trades, you can rest assured they would not waste time and money on Introduction to Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay Literature, Cyberfeminism, Adultery Novel, or classes in pornography. Selwyn DukeSelwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show.

McCain Health Care Plan Would Include Federal Money

2008-05-01T08:13:39-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: Speaking in Tampa, Florida, on April 29, Senator John McCain unveiled his health care plan. While parts of the plan would provide tax incentives encouraging a shift from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals, another provision would give federal money to states to help them cover people who have been denied health insurance.Follow this link to the original source: "Federal Money in Health Care Plan From McCain"COMMENTARY:With Barack Obama's campaign suffering the effects of the candidate's past association with his controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., the odds of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination seem more favorable than they have been in some time. Perhaps in anticipation of facing a candidate largely associated with "Hillarycare," John McCain's advisors may have felt it was time for the senator to roll out a health care plan of his own.For those who do not remember, "Hillarycare" was the nickname given to a 1993 health care "reform" package proposed by the Clinton administration, the creation of which was widely attributed to former First Lady, now presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. Under the Clinton plan, more than 70 percent of the population — including the unemployed, self-employed, and workers at companies with 5,000 or fewer employees — would have been legally required to buy their insurance only from regional health alliances established by state governments.However, Hillarycare did not die when the Clintons left the White House. As Llewellyn Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute pointed out in 1997, in response to Senator Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) joining with Senator Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) in co-sponsoring a bill embracing some key elements of Hillarycare: "The last Congress gave us the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill [which] severely restricted the actuarial discretion of private insurers, with the costs of insuring bad risks sloughed off on employers and employees through ever-higher premiums. Socialism? You bet, but it's never called that when a Republican co-sponsors the bill."Senator McCain has obviously decided that there is ample precedent for Republicans — as well as Democrats — to ignore the Constitution by involving the federal government in health care. Though some parts of his proposed plan are at least worthy of consideration, others would boldly take our nation down the road to nationalized health care, long a hallmark of socialist nations such as Britain and Sweden. The interesting (or at least, constitutional) parts of the McCain plan involve eliminating the current tax exemption for premiums that workers pay on employer-provided insurance, replacing them with $5,000 in tax credits to help families to buy their own insurance. While such a plan might make health insurance more "portable," it is uncertain if anyone has done the math to determine what effect it would have on affordability or availability of health insurance.With that information as yet unavailable, our inclination is to await more feedback from an impartial sampling of employers, health insurers, medical care providers, and consumer groups (if any can be found that do not have a socialist agenda, such as AARP's) and just hang a big question mark on this plank. However, our first question might be, "Why discriminate concerning who is entitled to a tax deduction for health care? Why not make all health care premiums equally eligible for tax credits or exemptions, regardless of who provides the insurance?" Then, we can let the free market take care of the rest.Other parts of the McCain plan are as far removed from the powers designated by the Constitution as anything Hillary Clinton is likely to propose. The plan would urge states to cooperate — and provide some federal assistance — in forming Guaranteed Access Plans to locate "last resort" health insurance for those who have difficulty buying insurance, including those with preexisting health conditions. While a price tag for such federal assistance has yet to be determined, McCain's top domestic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said in an interview that it could cost between $7 billion and $10 billion.Mr. Holtz-Eakin claims that, under the plan, the government would save $3.6 trillion over the next decade by eliminating the tax break that currently encourages employer-based health coverage, funding that would be redirected towards the individual tax credits.The McCain plan would also eliminate individual state requirements that health insurance policies provide specific kinds of coverage. Such requirements, said McCain, create "a different health insurance market in every state." Looking at these last two proposals from a constitutional standpoint, we should recall the words of the Tenth Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."When we search the Constitution (particularly Section 8, which lists the powers of Congress, which must appropriate all funding) we find many powers, including those to coin money, to establish post offices, and to declare war, but we find nothing about providing funding for health care or health insurance. And when it comes to regulatory powers, we find that Congress is charged with regulating commerce (with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes), with providing for patents and copyrights, and regulating the land and naval forces, but nothing about telling the states what they can and cannot require regarding insurance policies.Senator McCain claims that such state requirements create "a different health insurance market in every state." Which is precisely the point. By allowing each state to be basically self-governing (except for matters specifically designated to the federal government — generally out of necessity for things such as national defense and international and interstate trade), the states are left free to compete with each other.With well-governed states left free to prosper (and poorly governed states left free to flounder) voters are free either to vote for better government for their own state, or to "vote with their feet" by moving to a better-run state. In the end, competition will force better government in all states.While parts of the McCain plan may have some merit, its basic deficiencies are rooted in the same mindset that has infected both the Republican and Democratic parties for as long as most of us can remember. That mindset says that all social problems should be solved by throwing more federal money at them.The creation of more federal bureaucracies to administer federal funds not only increases the overhead of problem solving — by using more of our national wealth to pay the salaries of the bureaucrats — it threatens our freedom as well. If the states are our protection against an all-powerful centralized government, and people like John McCain (and Hillary Clinton, too) want to give Washington the power to tell the folks in Des Moines and Salt Lake City how to run their states, what has happened to that protection provided by free and independent states?As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1821:When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. Warren MassWarren is the Editor for the John Birch Society Bulletin.

Pet Food, Toothpaste, Toys, and Now Lethal Drugs From China

2008-05-01T08:03:28-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: A contaminant in a Chinese-produced blood thinner is believed to have caused the deaths of 81 Americans. Food and Drug Administration officials now suspect that a lethal substance was added to heparin deliberately. Follow this link to the original source: "Heparin Contamination May Have Been Deliberate, F.D.A. Says"COMMENTARY:Poisoned pet food led to the death of many revered animals. Poison in toothpaste led to the need to destroy great quantities of the product. Poisonous lead paint led to recall of millions of dollars worth of toys. Now, it has become obvious that drugs imported from China are unsafe. Contaminated heparin, a drug widely used by patients with a kidney disease, is now blamed for 81 deaths. Moreover, it is believed that the contaminant was added to the drug delibarately.Each of the incidents just mentioned stem from a single source: Communist China. As our nation becomes more and more dependent on imports from the Asian Goliath, Americans have become increasingly susceptible to shoddy work, products made with sub-standard and dangerous ingredients, and even lethal sabotage. At an April 29th hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Dr. Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA’s drug center, stated in written testimony that a third of the material found in some quantities of heparin was contaminated. According to Dr. Woodcock, "it strains one's credulity to suggest that [this] might have been done accidentally." She stated further that "FDA's working hypothesis is that this was intentional contamination, but this is not yet proven."The FDA has identified the source of the tainted drug as Changzhou SPL, a subsidiary of Scientific Protein Laboratories and the eventual supplier of contaminated heparin to Baxter International, the manufacturer and distributor of the product. David G. Strunce, CEO of Scientific Protein Laboratories, termed the discovery "an insidious act," adding that it "seems to us an intentional act upstream in the supply chain." Baxter's chief executive, Robert Parkinson, expressed alarm "that one of our products was used in what appears to have been a deliberate scheme to adulterate a life-saving medication."As expected, Chinese officials protested that the product made in their country caused no harm. But congressional investigator David Nelson told the House members that if FDA personnel inspected the plant in China, they would have averted the tragedy that occurred. Chinese officials, admitting nothing, have claimed a right to inspect U.S. plants if the FDA insists on inspecting theirs. Even so, an inspection had been held at the Changzhou facility and FDA officials found so many problems that they stopped the importation of products from the plant. Nelson took the occasion to aim sharp criticism at Baxter International for importing products from Changzhou for several years without conducting its own inspection. The deaths of 81 innocent individuals because of lethally tainted heparin ought to make all products coming from China suspect. But U.S. dependence on Chinese imports grows, along with continued U.S. government borrowing from the Beijing government. All kinds of nooses are being prepared to use on a weakened America. The need for a complete overhaul of U.S. policy is long overdue. John F. McManusJohn F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.

DHS and TSA To Use Psych 101 on Travelers

2008-04-29T11:19:14-05:00

The Department of Homeland Security is going another step further in its efforts to condition travelers to accept more invasive screening techniques, but it is t rying to soften the blow.By retraining TSA agents to exude calmness, dressing them in cheerful colors, introducing soft blue lights and soft music, they are hoping to gain more cooperation — and success in catching terrorists, they say — from travelers. The airlines are to take on even more of the responsibility of screening passengers by way of the carrot and stick method. The Washington Post reported:Airlines, which check passenger names against the list, will now be allowed to accept dates of birth from passengers to more thoroughly check information against the watch lists, Chertoff said. Once passengers have proven that they are not suspected terrorists, they will be able to print boarding passes at kiosks or at home, rather than going through a check-in line, Chertoff said. But of course, one will still have to run the gauntlet of the search and seizure lines. And in fact, more whole body imagers have been purchased enabling agents to analyze passengers in a virtual naked perspective.Unfortunately, no one ever seems to ask whether or not the Fourth Amendment has anything to say about these types of policies.

The Value of Determination

2008-04-29T11:11:59-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: "Today's trouble, the 89-year-old Mr. Bernstein says, is worse than he has seen since the Depression and threatens to roil markets into 2009 and beyond — longer than many people expect," reported the Wall Street Journal.Follow this link to the original source: "One Guy Who Has Seen It All Doesn't Like What He Sees Now"COMMENTARY:In his recent WSJ interview, Bernstein reflected: "I'm a child of the Depression, and I am thinking about what the early years were like after World War II. It took a very long time to get the memory of the Depression out of business decisions, and certainly banking decisions. I think this is going to be the same."When asked what the solution is, Bernstein put his hope in the Federal Reserve, and that its "intervention will prevent deflation and depression." In reality, the Fed is actually the primary culprit for our current economic condition, but that is another matter.However, as one who has lived through much of the last century, and witnessed many of the events most of us have only read about in history books, Mr. Bernstein's forecast of our likely near future economic situation should be a clarion call for Americans to sit up and take note:"...we are going to have an extremely risk-averse economy for a long time.""If China goes into a recession, God knows.""There are so many things that have got to get buttoned down before you say that the future looks good enough to take a risk."With such a bleak assessment, and one that is only a single example among many these days, many citizens will arrive at the conclusion, who haven't already done so, that America's situation is hopeless. Too often otherwise good Americans respond to these and other salient facts with defeatism. Some fall back to a survivalist mentality, saying, in effect, "Let's pack up our guns and groceries and head for the hills, because the country can not be saved."This includes some of the "experts" and other prognosticators that I've met over the years who invariably, with a smug authoritarian attitude, repeat the same worn-out excuse whenever you suggest that they join an effort to preserve the republic. A forlorn look streams across their face as they proceed to "educate" you that "this is the last election," and that the president has signed such-and-such an executive order, and that martial law is coming tomorrow, or at least the day after tomorrow, or that some other disaster of an extreme character is about to put an end to freedom in America. But appearances can be deceptive, and predictions of impending doom don't necessarily follow the path forecast by the doomsayers. When the chips are down, determination and grit can often win the day over incredibly long odds.Nature itself offers lessons we can learn from in overcoming seemingly impossible odds as this dramatic video demonstrates.We should never give up. And more importantly, if enough Americans actually chose to work together, our nation's enemies — predators that they are — would turn with their tails tucked and flee. Lee GonzalesLee, a Chapter Leader for the John Birch Society, resides in New Mexico.

Soldier Claims He's an Atheist, Sues Army Over Harassment

2008-04-29T10:21:43-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: Claiming that his right to be an atheist is guaranteed by the First Amendment, a soldier got help from an advocacy group known as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and sued the Army over harassment.Follow this link to the original source: "Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats"COMMENTARY:Specialist Jeremy Hall claims he was placed in jeopardy because he's an atheist. He insists his "constitutional rights" were violated when an officer berated him for being a non-believer. The 23-year-old sought and received help from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. His suit names Defense Secretary Robert Gates.Stationed in Qatar when the suit was filed last September, Hall believes his own safety was threatened when fellow soldiers found out about his atheism. Army officials found themselves unable to protect him and sent him back to Fort Riley, Kansas. He continues to serve in a small unit while awaiting disposition of his suit. He is scheduled to leave the service in April 2009. That the suit would ever be filed with a claim of rights "under the First Amendment" makes obvious how widespread is the suppression of awareness about our nation's fundamental roots. Simply stated, the claimed right does not exist without acknowledgement of its source. And its source, according to the nation's philosophical base stated very clearly in the Declaration of Independence, is our "Creator." The First Amendment didn't give protection to anyone claiming to be an atheist. All it stated in its pertinent clause is that "Congress" is prohibited from establishing a specific religion for the nation. People forget, or never knew, that the prohibition against a congressionally sanctioned established religion did not apply to the states, some of which ratified the First Amendment while themselves establishing for their state a tax-supported specific sect. But that is another issue. What is important in this instance is that the First Amendment did not make the nation atheist or even agnostic. If the nation departs from the "self-evident truth" that rights come from God, then rights must have been created either out of thin air or out of government goodness. The "thin air" argument has few supporters. Hence, government becomes their provider in the minds of most who fail to realize that, if a government grants a right (speech, press, assembly, petition, own a gun, etc.), then government can take it away. History confirms that, in the absence of the belief stated so eloquently in the Declaration, rights will be taken away.Americans have largely departed (actually been taken away) from their roots. We are at a point where a man can challenge this fundamental fact while claiming that his right is other than God-given. The upside-down reality is that such an easily contested notion is rarely contested and is, instead, given near-universal dignity.Hall claims to have been harassed by senior officers and by fellow soldiers. If this actually occurred, it is wrong. The man should be persuaded, not brow-beaten. No matter what any judge might state, however, the fact remains that this nation was built and has thrived on a belief that God both exists and is the grantor of rights. It should occur to our supposedly wise judges that a person who is not a believer cannot legitimately swear the oath to defend the Constitution from all its enemies because the Constitution does not stand alone. Without the philosophical base stated openly and clearly in the Declaration, the Constitution has no anchor. Today, our increasingly anchorless Constitution can be tortured almost out of existence. Specialist Hall surely didn't intend to do so, but his suit may stimulate many Americans to think about the real roots of this nation, and how a departure from them has led to his situation and to so many similar occasions for undoing the American system. If we don't get back to relying on the anchor — the self-evident truth that there is a God from Whom rights emanate — all rights will become distant memories. John F. McManusJohn F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.

UN Sidesteps Allegations in DR Congo – Part II

2008-04-28T19:27:27-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: Officials at UN headquarters are irked at the BBC’s “rehashed” allegations of gold and ivory smuggling and arms trading inside DR Congo.Follow this link to the original source: "UN frustration at DRC allegations"COMMENTARY:Head UN peacekeeper Jean-Marie Guehenno has written a letter to the BBC about the nine-month-old story of gold and ivory smuggling and arms trading inside DR Congo. "Every incident of misconduct by the Blue Helmets diminishes public confidence in our work and weakens the institution of peacekeeping," Guehenno complained. That's to be expected, because that’s exactly what apparent corruption and abuse inside an organization should do. It’s a matter of reputation. And it’s been deservedly lost where the UN is concerned.The world body's "damage control" efforts center on claims that an independent watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), failed to find evidence of peacekeepers rearming DRC militias. It did find, according to the BBC, "enough evidence to substantiate an allegation that some troops purchased counterfeit gold and illegally detained a local resident." Several witnesses relate, however, that they saw the Pakistani officers contracting deals directly with the militia, using gold as barter.According to UN spokesmen, though, such behavior among "peacekeepers" is to be expected from time to time. Guehenno pointed out to the BBC that with 110,000 UN peacekeepers deployed throughout the world, there’s bound to be some abuse. Moreover, the UN apologists at the British news agency point out, the UN can't really be expected to enforce discipline among its troops. "The UN can investigate, and send wrongdoers home (a process called repatriation)," says the BBC, "but it is up to the governments involved to prosecute. Some are reluctant to do so." UN official Guehenno also downplayed the UN's culpability. "We do not always receive timely responses detailing follow-up actions from our troop- and police-contributing countries once repatriation has taken place," he said in his letter to the BBC. In the end, what can be done about UN abuses? Apparently nothing. As the BBC uncomfortably observes, "the problem of misbehaving peacekeepers just will not go away." The UN has no intention or ability to curtail abuse, but American taxpayers have the ability. That's because the lion's share of the funding that keeps the UN in business comes from the pockets of hard-working Americans and travels through the Congressional freeway to the front door of the UN. All Americans need to do to force the UN to curtail its destabilizing activities in Africa and elsewhere around the world is to demand that Congress end U.S. participation in the UN. If it were to happen it would be a win-win-win scenario: American taxpayers would be able to keep more of their hard-earned money; the UN would not be able to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations around the world; and there would be fewer victims of UN peacekeepers in areas where, instead of restoring order, they further fan the flames of conflict. Ann ShiblerAnn is the Editorial Assistant for the John Birch Society.

UN Sidesteps Allegations in DR Congo – Part I

2008-04-28T18:57:55-05:00

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: The BBC reports that the UN ignored or suppressed evidence that its troops gave arms to militias and smuggled gold and ivory in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Still nothing has been done. Follow this link to the original source: "UN defends DR Congo investigation"COMMENTARY:Last July, during an 18-month investigation, the BBC obtained an internal UN report that examined allegations of gold smuggling by Pakistani UN troops inside the Democratic Republic of the Congo. BBC News maintains that inquiries into a UN cover-up in the operations of its troops in the DR Congo were halted due to political pressure. But the head of UN operations for DR Congo, Alan Doss, denies these charges, somewhat.While he acknowledged that some UN personnel had behaved inappropriately, he said that it would be wrong to blame Pakistan as a whole for the behavior of its UN contingent in DR Congo. "I think it would be very unfair to smear whole countries and their contingents for irresponsible behaviour and sometimes illegal behaviour, I have to say, by a group of individuals or a few individuals," he said.And he’s absolutely correct. No one is trying to "smear whole countries;" that is merely his attempt to deflect attention from the heart of the matter. It is under UN authority, not Pakistani, that these crimes have occurred. It is the UN, not Pakistan, therefore, that should be held accountable.For what, exactly? At the end of an 18-month investigation, the BBC concluded:• Pakistani peacekeepers in the eastern town of Mongbwalu were involved in illegal trade in gold with the FNI militia, providing them with weapons to guard the perimeter of the mines• Indian peacekeepers operating around the town of Goma had direct dealings with the militia responsible for the Rwandan genocide, now living in eastern DR Congo.• The Indians traded gold, bought drugs from the militias and flew a UN helicopter into the Virunga National Park, where they exchanged ammunition for ivory.To substantiate this, a BBC correspondent gained access to two FNI leaders known as "Kung-fu" and "Dragon", who had been jailed in a maximum-security prison. They stated publicly that they received help from the UN. And UN insiders, one a Congolease officer close to the investigation, told the BBC they "had been prevented from pursuing their inquiries for political reasons."Inga Britt Ahlenius, head of the UN division supposedly responsible for investigating corruption and mismanagement, glossed over the charges, saying that new managers in place. According to the BBC, she claimed the "difficulties ... are now in the past, and that new managers are in place." Ahlenius, though, provided no evidence that substantive changes had been made, meaning that this latest afront by the UN is just another in the world body's sordid history of crime in Africa. Ann ShiblerAnn is the Editorial Assistant for the John Birch Society.