Friday, May 28, 2010

Debunking Fluoride Use By the Nazis

Did the Nazis use water fluoridation in their concentration camps for the purpose of "mass medication"? While searching for information about this, the name Charles E Perkins shows up. Perkins was supposedly a chemist and/or researcher who wrote the book, "The Truth about Water Fluoridation". Information supposedly supplied by Perkins is pretty much the sole authority of the Nazis use of fluoridation. Another story is Perkins was supposedly in contact with the German chemists of I.G. Farben after the war and was told of the “scheme (to) control the population in any given area through mass medication of (fluoridated) drinking water.” further “Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him”.

A search of the internet of Charles E Perkins revealed a digitized version of the book, "The Truth about Water Fluoridation". Perkins was obviously no proponent of fluoridated water and gives a detailed explanation why. He also believed fluoridated water started as a communist plot, but the book contains no mention of the use of fluoride by the Nazis at all. As a matter of fact, there is no documentation to even prove the illicit use of fluoridation by the Russians. He simply states, "Mass medication, involving fluoridation of public water systems, has long been known as an important technique of the Communist philosophy of mass control." The story is Perkins was asked to better explain his Russian fluoridation comments in his book and the resulting letter brought to life the Nazi information.

The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from a research chemist by the name of Charles Perkins. 'I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, "The Truth about Water Fluoridation", to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. In the 1930's Hitler and the German Nazis envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place'.

The problem here is Perkins not only does not address his Russian comments, he also offers no documentation as to the additional information about the Nazis. There is also a reference on the same web page, that shows up on many anti-fluoridation sites, that the use of fluoridated water by the Nazi’s was documented in the book, “The Crimes and Punishment Of I.G. Farben”. by Joseph Borkin; this is also is false. I read have the book and did a digital search for "fluor" (fluoride, fluoridation, fluorine) and fluoxetine with no hits.

Another web site, ,
combines both stories;

In an "Address in Reply to the Governor's Speech to Parliament", Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon, Australia (In Australia, parliamentarian Mr. Harley Dickenson raised the issue in the Victorian Legislative council, which is recorded in the official Hansard report on August 12th, 1987) made a statement on the historical use of fluorides for behaviour control. Mr. Dickinson reveals that, "At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff…This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place”.

Pretty much word for word from Perkins then 35 year old letter. Further, there is no mention in Perkins book that he had any connection to I.G. Farben and no mention of Charles Perkins in "The Crimes and Punishment of I.G. Farben."

There is also another false argument that fluoridation is forbidden in Germany. The truth is Germany, like most European countries gets their water from wells and fluoridation of the wells is extremely problematic. That is why in addition to iodine, the salt in these countries is fluoridated for the same reason water is fluoridated in the US.

The other argument I have heard is the similarity between fluoride, fluorine, and fluoxetine (Prozac). Flourine is the component in fluoride that bonds and strengthens teeth. Prozac also contains fluorine, but at a much lower level by mass (10%). So the idea that fluoride has similar effects to Prozac ignores the fact the two by definition, possess different chemical and physical properties. Finally, let me say that I do not believe that water should be fluoridated. Fluoride works best when applied directly to the teeth, such as with toothpaste. Fluoride appears to be an accumulative poison, and the long-term affects continue to be debated. Fortunately my town does not fluoridate its water, so there's no safety issue for my myself or family. But I also don’t believe fluoridation is the outcome of a Communist plot or used by the Nazis, and is more the result of the nanny state and financial interests. We need to stand up and be heard on all things that matter, and water fluoridation matters. But lets make sure that the facts don't take a back seat.

Print Page

Monday, May 24, 2010

God Bless America

The story of America is the story of immigrants that left their home countries and came to America for a better life. Without immigrants from all over the world, America would not have seen perhaps it’s greatest moments, when it defeated the Axis powers and ended WWll. However, it was not long afterwards when America had to seriously deal with the unhealed wound of black racism and truly integrate the black man into the American culture; it is still a work in progress. But this is far and away different than the ideology of multicultural ism; because America has it’s own culture. Much of the culture comes directly from America’s founding documents; the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That by definition, we are a free people; “Hey, it a free county isn’t it”. Another part of our culture is what New York Times writer described as “earned success”… “that America is fundamentally a just society… people who work hard can usually overcome whatever unfairness is thrust in their way...right and wrong is contained in the relationship between reward and effort. If people do not work but get rewarded, that’s wrong. If people work and do not get rewarded, that’s wrong”. In other words, while life is not fair, American’s still believe in honesty and fair play.

What multiculturalism always misses is “e pluribus unum” means the many being incorporated into a single culture; it is a melting pot, not a tossed salad. It has been said that no country will continue to thrive without a common culture to fall back on. And while America is an inclusive country, the multiculturalist wants to redefine America as accepting of all cultures; something America is not, nor should it be. As a police officer I was exposed to multicultural training and the concept of “culturally acceptable behavior”, or behaviors acceptable in other cultures that may not be acceptable in ours. While sometimes interesting, about half of the cultural differences revolved around violence toward women, which in my opinion was unnecessary. The truth is, domestic violence is un-American, wrong , illegal and I really didn’t care (and still don’t) where it might me acceptable to another culture. America is the borg, “resistance is futile; you will be assimilated”. When you look at how other cultures have been assimilated into the American culture, you will not see a campaign of acceptance. What occurred was a rigorous and often treacherous journey to prove one’s culture could assimilate and prosper in the melting pot.

In no other country, with the possible exception of Britain, does national pride equate to racism in the psyche of the progressive. In a recent May Day celebration on a high school campus, 5 students were sent home because they displayed images of the American flag, which was viewed to be provocative (read racist) on the faux Mexican-American “holiday”. In the American culture the American flag could no more be racist than the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But the political correctness wing of multiculturalism continues unabated and has even restricted national security in America. There is no doubt that profiling young middle eastern men as possible suicide bombers, would be exponentially more effect in airline screening than the current “random” system that strangely results in the same attractive American females being screened on a constant basis; it is certainly a truism that all of the known jihadists that have attacked America via airliners, would have been better scrutinized if these usual suspects had been profiled. This is not to say that racial profiling should be permitted, or that is not a negative right under the 14th Amendment. However, as long a profiling can withstand a “probable cause” scrutiny, it would be permitted under our constitution. Further, if the profile simply initiated a more in-depth background check that would not be known to the subject, it would not interfere with any civil rights.

This madness has to stop. America has the right to look after it’s own self-interest. Those that immigrate to America generally do not do so because they want to change America to be like their home country; and those that do are usually here illegally, but still want all the advantages available in a free society. Americans have the right to national pride and to be culturally judgmental. As I said before, America was founded on cultural inclusion, not cultural acceptance. These concepts are an anathema to the multicultural progressives, whose purpose is to deny American exceptionalism, and create social mediocrity. Our founding fathers believed that the creation of America was the result of divine providence. And regardless of your belief system, America is greater than the sum total of its parts. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and has known no other way.

No Thanks President Calderon, We'll Keep Our Freedoms

If one wants to look at what America would look like without the second amendment, all you need to do is look south of the border. One of President Calderon's key messages to the US was to re-instate the federal assault weapons ban so assault weapons would stop “pouring over the border" and arming the cartels. This is of course a lie. The idea that somehow an assault weapons ban would stop the shipments of military grade small arms to Mexico, is political posturing and has no element of truth; the weapons described by President Calderon are already so tightly regulated in the US, that in all but a few cases, they are already banned. The difference is quite simple, the assault weapons used by the cartels are fully automatic M16's and M4's. The popular AR-15's in the US are not fully automatic, not military grade, and actually more expensive on the world market than their fully automatic big brothers. Further, there is already a ban against selling these weapons to Mexicans Nationals, or any other non-citizen. What President Calderon is hesitant to admit, is the vast majority of the military grade small arms that fall into the hands of the cartels are funnelled through the Mexican military and other international arms dealers across Guatemalan border The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. . Where else could one get grenades launchers with live grenades and their big brothers Rocket Propelled Grenades? These are the munitions that are commonly seized and blamed on sales from the US, as if one could go down to your local Big 5 and buy an RPG.

That is not to say that some small arms are not bought by Mexican Nationals. You see, firearms are forbidden to the citizenry in Mexico, so the only firearms in Mexico are in the hands of the corrupt law enforcement, the military, the cartels and of course other criminals (it just like the bumper sticker, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns). Mexico has the distinction of having the highest crime rate in the world. Further the police and military are either hunkered down in bunkers fearful of an attack from the cartels or working for the cartels themselves. This leaves the cartels and other criminals to pretty much have their way with the unarmed citizenry. Further the Mexican government, which continually exerts control over it's citizenry with fear and intimidation, certainly doesn't want a citizenry that can fend for itself. So the citizenry is forced to sneak across the border, and either find to send money south to their families, or obtain some form of self defense and return to his crime ridden homeland; this is apparently the state President Calderon would like to see the US citizenry.

What makes the US different from all other countries, and specifically different than Mexico, is the right that the people control (or are) the government. The second amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", was added to secure that right. The constitution has the audacity to say the people's right to own firearms is necessary to secure the power of the people over it's government. The second amendment does not protect the right to bear arms for hunting and sport shooting, the second amendment prohibits an over reaching federal government from disarming the states, so the states can maintain their autonomy. But, oppressive governments like Mexico do not want an empowered electorate and unfortunately Calderon seems to have found friends in President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder. The argument is simple, do we want America more like Mexico, or does Mexico want to be more like America; 10-30 million illegal aliens can't be wrong.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Arizona Bashers; Don't Let Facts Get in The Way.

When one argues a point because they say it is the right thing to do, they are arguing ideology. The recent debate about the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law is a study in ideology. Like many arguments from the Left, they tend to argue against representative issues, not the issue itself. The ideologues of the Left always starts an Arizona law argument with, 'the Federal Government has sole authority to enforce immigration law', perhaps not realizing this issue is the origin of the law, not a condition of it's demise. Once past the jurisdictional argument, the Left settles on the probability of racial profiling. Admittedly, while the law may prohibit profiling, law enforcement can not always be expected to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to make a detention lawful. I would, however make the case, that even this argument is not sincere. The reason is those that argue against the Arizona law, are actually arguing for a gauntlet policy for immigration. They begrudgingly admit the US needs some form of border control, but they contend, once the illegal immigrants have forded the border, illegal immigrants should be given amnesty.

My argument for this "gauntlet policy" is based on the fact that the Arizona law is a mirror of the federal law. If there is a profiling argument, it needs to also be applied to the federal law, as the federal law allows a detention based solely on the suspicion a subject is an illegal immigrant (the Arizona law requires a lawful detention first). The ideologues know they won't get any mileage on any such argument, so they make straw-man arguments against the Arizona law, assuming the federal government will continue it's half-hearted enforcement.

I mentioned in a previous post, Glenn Beck's book "Arguing with Idiots" and it's flawed premise that facts and history matters. If the argument is a state law will result in racial profiling, the question needs to be asked, "What if the federal government decided to send 10,000 ICE agents to Arizona to enforce the Immigration laws; would that be acceptable?" The answer I'm sure would be in the negative, complaining the federal law enforcement would also result in racial profiling. Those that argue against the Arizona law, including the Obama Administration, desire that the federal government maintain sole authority of enforcing, or in this case not enforcing immigration law. So any argument against the Arizona law, is obviously ideological and not fact based. To put this in prospective, it is much akin to gun control. The evidence is overwhelming that the more law abiding citizens that own and carry guns, the more violent crime rates go down, but that really doesn't matter to the anti-gun lobby; they just don't like guns and that's all that matters to them.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Don't Believe Everything You Think

We live in a time where confidence in our nation's leaders are at an all time low. Free press is protected in the Bill of Rights, and described in the Virginia Bill of Rights; "the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." The job of the press is to educate the electorate, so “we the people” can know what government is doing and can wisely choose our representatives. What is rarely discussed, but just as important, is a free press is a pressure is the valve of the electorate. If the people lose a free and objective press, then they have lost a voice in the bully pulpit of the press; Mark Twain said, "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel". It is commonly said a free press is necessary for the maintenance of a political democracy. But what happens when a free press is either oppressed or self censored? There are two probable results. The first and historic reaction is a hollow Democratic state, that degrades into a totalitarian regime. The other direction has never been seen before. It is when a people, so entrenched in the god given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happines take to the streets; not to overthrow their government, but for the reconstruction of the Democratic state. America has seen attempts at deconstruction in the past, but the difference today is the media is unbalanced, blindly following an ideology that is not consistence with the constitution or the will of the majority.

It is expected that the press should be objectively adversarial toward the President. But what America saw with the election of President Obama, was the end of the political Left/ Right paradigm. In the name of security, President Bush (43) enacted some Draconian policies, while increasing the size of government and governmental spending. For this, he was continually lambasted by the press. However, when Obama continued Bush's policies, the press is consistently silent. While this could be taken was an indictment of the press, it also shows that, all posturing aside, the Republicans and Democrats simply offer the same political state. Our leaders lie to us so often, that integrity is no longer expected, and the lack of vigilance by the press leaves no accountability of government, as truth and action become different forms of rhetoric.

The lack of a free press has cause increased polarization amongst the citizenry. The cause is blind ideology that is no longer mitigated by an educating press. Glenn Beck wrote a book called “Arguing with Idiots”, with the misplaced belief that one could win a political argument using history and facts. An example is the new Arizona law that allows state law enforcement to identify and jail illegal immigrants. The Obama administration has repeatedly cast the law with a very unfavourable light, yet it appears few if any members of his administration has even read the law. Although it is my contention that substance doesn't really matter in the current polarized ideological arguments of today, it does matter in the area of competence. It has become an on going embarrassment to the Obama Administration, when the Attorney General, Eric Holden, the head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, and State Department spokesmen P. J. Crowley have had to publicly admit they have not read the law.

The key to Marxism is manipulating the ignorant masses; that they have just enough intelligence that they would not knowingly give themselves over to such an oppressive form of government. Our founding fathers designed a government where the people are in charge. To maintain our freedoms and liberty, the people need good information so they can educate themselves. Today we are getting bad information. However, the American people have one ace up it's sleeve; they know no other style of government. In every other case were capitalism has degraded into totalitarianism, the country's form of government was not static; in America our government defines our country. I said earlier that the press' job is to be a pressure relief valve for a non-responsive government. When that failed, we saw the emergence of the Tea Party movement. The idealogical Left has nothing but disdain for the Tea Party, but the alternative would have been much worse for them. They want to make light of the Tea Party because they fear them so much. Without the Tea Parties however, there probably would have been rioting in the streets. The Left once again underestimated the American people and they have found a way to communicate and educate through the Internet. Expect the president, congress, and yes the press, to push forward with their assault on free speech; but I predict it will be to little to late.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

The American Flag is not racist

One of the newest Left rantings is in reaction to a number of High School students who wore shirts depicting the American flag on Cinco de Mayo, claiming it was race baiting. The idea is patently absurd which I'll explain later. Race baiting is Nancy Pelosi with a gavel the size of Thor and the Congressional Black caucus walking through a sea of Tea Party members, hoping for a racist reaction. And when nothing racist occurred, it didn’t matter, congressman Emanuel Cleaver, despite the incident being on video tape, claimed he was the victim of the N-word. That is race baiting. I mention the new Arizona law, but solely as another example of race baiting. The issues are certainly not as stated by the Left and Latino activist; it is not racial profiling. The Arizona simply parrots the federal law that is not being enforced. The issue is stopping any real attempt at enforcing the laws against illegal immigration on the southern border. If the federal government suddenly starts to enforce the law, the racist rhetoric will be the same.

Wearing the American flag, no matter the circumstances, is simply a sign of patriotism. But that hasn’t stop the Left from claiming that Cinco de Mayo is a day of Mexican pride, and the appearance of the American flag is a slap in the face of Mexican racial pride, referred to as La Raza (the Race). This is where the argument gets convoluted. When a Hispanic refers to La Raza, they are intimating racial pride. Mexican Nationals have no visceral connection to their form of government and they cannot understand a people who do. Mexican Nationals view their flag as a representation of their race, not necessarily their government. So, when Mexican Nationals, or those with a similar view of the Mexican flag, see someone displaying the American flag, or a shirt depicting the flag, they interpret it as a sign of white racial pride, not patriotism.

However there is also a segment of the Mexican culture that knows very well the meaning of the American flag and those are the Marxist. These self-described revolutionaries believe they are walking in the shoes of Castro, Che and Chavez of Venezuela. The Marxists using the rallying call of "reconquista", or the re-conquest of the land acquired Mexican American wars of 1846 and 1848. These Marxist usually have limited connections to Mexico itself, but are second and third generation Mexicans living in the United States. Like all Marxists their main enemy is Capitalism and they expound continually on the white man’s oppression of the Mexican worker. They proclaim the US/Mexican border as racist against the Mexicans, while combining Marxist rhetoric and racial pride. There is also an attempt to portray all Hispanics as having the same mindset, which conveniently ignores the rampant racism that exist within Mexico and between the Hispanic countries in Central America.

Again, unlike Mexican Nationals, US citizens define themselves by their form of government. The American flag, far from being a representation of a race or even a people born within a nation's borders, represents to the American people, freedom and liberty; that within the precepts of our Constitution and Declarations are the inherent rights of man that is our national pride. Further, it would seem the Mexicans in general have given up on their own country. Within their consciousness, there is a rationalization that the prosperity in the land of the reconquista, is not a result of the prosperity from US industry and Capitalism, but the control over the land. Yet, their own country, richer in natural resources that the US, but controlled by corrupt government, is abandoned. The reasoning harkens back to similar times in history; create a common enemy of the people to distract from the real problems within the state.

Then there are the expected attacks from the Left. One blog writer even went so far as to quote the United States Code Title 4 on The Respect for Flag. This of course was the banning of wearing/burning the American flag, which was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1989/ 1990. The blogger appears to be typical of the Left, who's values blow the direction of the wind of political expediency. They burn the American flag as a symbol of American Imperialism, but pretend come to its defense when it suits their political purposes. The American flag is the American flag. It does represent a race, it represents the American way of life that is made up of many races. Americans do not see a race violating its southern border, they see (primarily) Mexican Nationals fleeing a corrupt country, for a better life; and generally they have been welcomed. Still, the federal government has been lax with border security and the criminal activity at the border is out of control. The welcoming spirit of the American citizen still abides legal immigration, but has now ended with illegal immigration. The unintended consequences of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, are the entitlements now expected from the US. The denial of these entitlements is resulting in the accusations of racism and the national conversation is reaching the point impatients. The result has been the mantra, “not racist, not violent, just no longer silent.” Americans know what their flag represents; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Come here legally and it’s all yours. Come here illegally and we’ll be looking for you; nothing that doesn’t happen every day, in every other nation on the planet.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Letter to the Editor; Mayor Rotkin

The following is my article printed in the Santa Cruz Sentential, May 11, 2010

There was nothing I didn’t expect in Michael Rotkin’s piece in Sunday’s paper. Apparently the problem with Santa Cruz and California is taxes are too low. What else would one expect from a die-hard socialist. Rotkin goes on to say that corporate loopholes leave California 48th in funding; what ever that means. Lets look at some numbers from the Tax Foundation (; California is in the top ten in business taxes and individual taxes, but #7 in Wealth and Prosperity. Since Rotkin entered politics in the City of Santa Cruz, he used the city for his Masters Thesis on how college students could take over a small town and drive the politics to the left. Well, you can’t fault him on that one, his planned worked flawlessly. Rotkin, along with his fellow “keep Santa Cruz weird” city council members have gutted the economic engine from the city. In his short tenure in Santa Cruz, he has overseen the departure of Wrigley’s, Lipton, Texas Instruments and SCO to name a few; Santa Cruz and California has finally run out of other people’s money. Finally, a word about public safety. In the US we are supposed to be a country of laws, not of men. When a city council decides to arbitrarily create a protected class, tells the police which law enforcement agencies it’s allowed to contact and what laws it should not enforce, it has unintended consequences; namely a disrespect for the rule of law and eventually violence. For the sake of the citizens of Santa Cruz, hopefully we can turns the city around; but after a generation of viewing the police as a necessary evil, it’s going to be difficult putting the smoke back in the box.

Monday, May 10, 2010

America Will Defeat Socialism

It's been 30 years since I bought my first house in Tujunga, CA, a small suburb on the edge of the San Fernando Valley. Several months after the sale, my real estate agent called me on the telephone and offered me a position near the top of “pyramid.” I said no. Rather than deter him, he countered with, he was going make his pyramid scheme better than the others by keeping the membership small. For those of you that don’t know what a pyramid money scheme is, it’s a scam that had a short, but very popular life back in the 1980’s. It was presented as a club, where you would invest $100 for a position in the pyramid. The $100 would go to the members in the level above you in the pyramid, where they would keep $50 and send $50 to those on the level above them. Obviously nobody is going to make money unless you’re near the top level, but a lot of people lost a lot of money, thinking the scam would make them rich, without really thinking it through. This is much the same argument for socialism.

As marxists, past and present, have tried to make socialism work, it continues to fail, generally degrading into violence and death. Still, the so-called Intelligentsia keeps trying to re-package socialism, hoping this time they’ll get it right. Socialism always sounds like the right thing to do. Socialism is based loosely on “to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. It’s the belief that every job in the collective is equal and necessary and anyone who raises himself above the collective, is doing so on the back of the common worker. So, the money of the rich is re-distributed through the government. The government takes that money, along with a large portion of the workers income, and re-distributes it back in the form of entitlements. The entitlements of socialism are food, housing, employment, healthcare, and education. While the Declaration of Independence states that government shall not deny a person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, socialism demands they are the responsibility of government. To many, this sounds to good to be true, which it is. The problem with socialism is it sounds good, but it never works. Like the pyramid scheme, it has fundamental flaws. The most basic flaw is socialism does not take into account the human condition. First and foremost entitlements are very expensive and socialism has no economic engine to pay for them. So, like Greece, the state runs out of money to re-distribute and the workers face crippling debt and fiscal austerity.

Still, those that espouse socialism believe themselves on a higher intellectual level. President Obama's statement “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”, shows the elitists attitude of all socialist; The message is pretty straight forward, the American people are stupid; they’re stupid and racist; they’re a bunch of stupid, racist hillbillies, clinging to their guns and religion.. ; and we hear this mantra over and over. It’s the Bill Maher syndrome, “You can’t get Americans to agree on anything. Sixty-percent? Sixty-percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid”, and racist, Bill, don’t forget racist. The truth of course is nothing is farther from the truth. The mere fact that the left is using race to try and silence dissent, shows how sensitive the American people are to the issue race, but the Obama administration continues the baiting unabated.

There is one area where the Left is correct, many Americans are ignorant; but ignorant of socialism. This is the result of the Progressive Left hiding their agenda from the American people. They know that if the American people really understood socialism, they would vote it down into oblivion like they did the progressive agenda in 1940’s. President Obama in a recent statement, described his political reality saying information is now a "distraction" and “putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.” Really? And all this time I thought information and knowledge was good for our democracy. Failing that, the Left attempts to frame socialism as a bastardized version of Martin Luther King Jr's fight for “social justice,” but rather than justice they offer an overreaching government, seeking equality using the re-distribution of wealth. But the good thing is, Americans do not need to know about socialism, because they already know that freedom and liberty are god given rights. Unlike any other country, Americans define themselves by their Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Despite the revisionist history currently taught in our schools, the American people believe in freedom beyond all else. We maintain the freedom to protect the possibility of becoming successful, at the risk of failure, as the rest of the world resigns itself to mediocrity. Americans believe not only in their exceptionalism, but in the exceptionalism of the individual. We are not part of the collective, we are Americans and we know tyranny when we see it. We may not know the genus or species of the tyranny, but we know how to kill it.

Monday, May 3, 2010

The Unintended Consequences of Sanctuary Cities

The City of Santa Cruz is in trouble, with the senseless deaths of Carl Reimer and Tyler Tenorio at the hands of gang members, and now the trashing of the Pacific Av business by so called Anarchist. There a single thread that tie these incidents together and that is Santa Cruz city status as a Sanctuary City. Now I am not saying there is a direct cause and effect here, there might be, but that will not be known unless all parties have been identified. What I am saying is the Sanctuary City status has created the environment, where these crimes are allowed to fester.

When a city designates itself a Sanctuary City, it is arbitrarily creating a protected class. As it does so it propagates the notion that America is a country of arbitrary rights not a country of laws. The 14th Amendment made it quite clear, that in the eyes of the law, all are equal. But the Sanctuary City movement circumvents that concept by saying the city is going to ignore the law in the case of this protected class. Once this has been done, there is nothing to stop other groups to declare themselves as a protective class. This has already happened with the anarchist groups, who view their agenda so important that they can ignore the law and cause wanton vandalism. One should not confuse Sanctuary City movement terror groups that advocate vandalism and violence, with civil disobedience. The purpose of civil disobedience is to challenge a law, not ignore it. The heroes of the civil rights movement, using non-violence, challenged the powers that be to arrests them and did not cover their faces to hide their identity; the civil rights marchers were courageous and nothing like the cowards of today.

Finally, it is not racist to say that the Sanctuary City movement adds to gang violence and ties the hand of the police. It is a common event for police officers to run across gang members that are classified as “Previously Deported Felons” and are unable to do anything but complete a contact card. In order to detain these criminals for ICE, the police would have to contact ICE to place a hold; but, the police are directed not to contact or cooperate with ICE. We know that the majority of illegal immigrants have come to America to improve their station in life and not join criminal street gangs. So if we accept that premise, how can the city counsel in good conscious not allow the police to turn these criminals over to ICE once they have been identified?

John Adams believed, “the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.” This is not a callous belief that the government is always right and the people must cower to it's authority. Just the opposite, it means justice is blind and no one is above the law. When you try and skirt the law with Sanctuary Cities, you reap the unintended consequences the rule of law, by definition, eliminates.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

When Freedom of Speech Gets in the Way

Once again we find the democrats and this time President Obama's dislike of free speech, when it's from the Tea Party and/or conservative media and comes on the tail of remarks by ex-President Clinton. Clinton seemed to be referring about Tea Party talking points, when he wrote in a NYT op-ed piece, "Fifteen years ago, the line was crossed in Oklahoma City. In the current climate, with so many threats against the president, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross it again."( NYT April 18, 2010). This was preceded by, “I don't want something bad to happen to get this thing right again”, (CNN Situation Room April 17, 1010); the later quote sounding too much like a Chicago gangster, “You wouldn't want anything bad to happen again; Know whatimean? botaboom”.

Now we have President Obama with this commencement speech statement, “But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. ... For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us.” President Obama (Michigan Graduation, April 30 2010). Now this statement may not sound exceeding provocative , but it takes on a completely different tone if one is aware that the day before Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, referred to the Obama Administration as a “foreign entity” that was trying to take over the country; it would seem the entire commencement speech was a response to being criticized on the radio! It also brings to mind, that after 8 years of a President Bush, who almost never responded to negative press, we now have a President who is so unsure of himself, he feels he must rebuke the press for every slight. During the same commencement speech, the President qualified his attacks on free speech with these platitudes, “Of course, there have always been those who've opposed such efforts. They argue that government intervention is usually inefficient; that it restricts individual freedom and dampens individual initiative. And in certain instances, that's been true”, as if he is really listening the concerns of the American people. Finally he tries to shut down debate with, “the truth is, the debate we've had for decades between more government and less government doesn't really fit the times in which we live". What? Of course that debate fits our times. In a truly open society, no argument is final and no science is settled; to deny this is the propaganda tool of tyrants.

The President finished this line of thought with," We know that too much government can stifle competition, deprive us of choice, and burden us with debt. But we've also seen clearly the dangers of too little government - like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy”. So if the debate on the size of government is over, must we now accept a future of big government, stifled competition, deprivation of choice and the burden of crushing debt? And what about governmental accountability? What about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, whose backing of NINJO home sales and sub-prime mortgages, prompted Wall Street to create the financial instruments they used to implode the economy?

If you believe the saying, “Dissent the highest form of Patriotism”* (mis-attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but actually the words of a liberal progressive, Howard Zinn), then we must add an asterisk for the sake of the lost integrity of the left.

*”Unless we're in power, than it's un-American, racists and a prelude to terrorism”.