- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
October 24, 2009
Exclusive: Oval Office Watch – Saturday, October 24
Lack of Understanding Exploited to Perpetuate Climate Science Falsehoods GO HERE.
As the Commander in Chief Deliberates, Frustration Builds Within the Ranks
Ellizabeth Bumiller, NY Times.com
Only nine months ago, the Pentagon pronounced itself reassured by the early steps of a new commander in chief. President Obama was moving slowly on an American withdrawal from Iraq, had retained former President George W. Bush’s defense secretary and, in a gesture much noticed, had executed his first military salute with crisp precision.
But now, after nearly a month of deliberations by Mr. Obama over whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, frustrations and anxiety are on the rise within the military.
A number of active duty and retired senior officers say there is concern that the president is moving too slowly, is revisiting a war strategy he announced in March and is unduly influenced by political advisers in the Situation Room.
“The thunderstorm is there and it’s kind of brewing and it’s unstable and the lightning hasn’t struck, and hopefully it won’t,” said Nathaniel C. Fick, a former Marine Corps infantry officer who briefed Mr. Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. Read article.
While Washington Fiddles…The Triple Threat!
Ilana Freedman, Gerard Group.com
Twenty-first century America faces an array of challenges unlike anything in our history. The diversity of these challenges - from the failing economy, to the increasingly venomous health care debate, to our foreign relations strategy of appeasement, to the threat of terrorism within our borders - only adds to the dangers that we face.
The controversial domestic issues - such as healthcare and the economy - are creating a major diversion that distracts us from an even larger and more menacing threat - that of terrorism within our own borders. Our nation stands at a major and complex crossroads, uncertain about which roads will lead us away from the precipice that will catapult us to disaster.
Each of these issues is serious enough to bring a great nation to its knees. But together they require a mammoth measure of Solomonic wisdom to keep our nation and the American people safe from catastrophe. Read article.
Get ready to pay more for your health coverage
John W. Schoen, msnbc.com
With annual “open enrollment” season approaching for choosing health care options, get ready to pay more. No matter what happens with national health care reform, employers already are shifting part of the rising cost of care to employees.
For decades, most company-sponsored health plans gave employees relatively little financial responsibility for the cost of their care — often a small “co-pay” portion of a medical bill or prescription refill. But the relentless rise in health care, often invisible to workers, has prompted companies to begin passing along those steeper costs.
“Employers are in a desperate bind,” said Dahlia Remler, a health economist at Baruch College at the City University of New York. “There are only three ways they can deal with (higher health care costs): they can have lower profits, higher prices or lower wages.” Read article.
A Minority View: Academic Dishonesty
Walter E. Williams, Townhall.com
College education is a costly proposition with tuition, room and board at some colleges topping $50,000 a year. Is it worth it? Increasing evidence suggests that it's not. Since the 1960s, academic achievement scores have plummeted, but student college grade point averages (GPA) have skyrocketed. In October 2001, the Boston Globe published an article entitled "Harvard's Quiet Secret: Rampant Grade Inflation."
The article reported that a record 91 percent of Harvard University students were awarded honors during the spring graduation. The newspaper called Harvard's grading practices "the laughing stock of the Ivy League." Harvard is by no means unique. For example, 80 percent of the grades given at the University of Illinois are A's and B's. Fifty percent of students at Columbia University are on the Dean's list. At Stanford University, where F grades used to be banned, only 6 percent of student grades were as low as a C. In the 1930s, the average GPA at American colleges and universities was 2.35, about a C plus; today the national average GPA is 3.2, more than a B.
Today's college students are generally dumber than their predecessors. An article in the Wall Street Journal (1/30/97) reported that a "bachelor of Arts degree in 1997 may not be the equal of a graduation certificate from an academic high school in 1947." Read article.
Disillusioned liberals yearn for Hillary Clinton
Chris Stirewalt, Washington Examiner.com
Where were you when you came to the panicky realization that Hillary Clinton was right?
For me, it was while driving to work one recent morning and talking with a colleague about the state of the health legislation. I was explaining how the Obama plan wasn’t really about universal coverage but rather cutting a deal with the insurance industry and then making it look good for liberals.
I paused, realizing that I had just repeated, almost verbatim, the lines that Clinton used to bludgeon then-Sen. Barack Obama during the Democratic primaries.
As they debated in Cleveland — the nastiest of their one-on-one matchups after John Edwards dropped out to spend more time with his families — Clinton charged that Obama wouldn’t play tough enough and would get rolled by the insurance industry.
Her words came back to me: “Senator Obama’s plan does not cover everyone. It would leave, give or take, 15 million people out.”
I expected to look into the rearview mirror and see her sitting in the back seat cackling and wearing that suit that looked like it had been plucked from the wardrobe trailer of “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”
I shuddered as I did the math. The plan backed by the White House would cover about 94 percent of Americans, leaving about 15 million without coverage. And as an added injury, under the Obama plan, the uninsured will now be paying fines for the offense of not being able to afford what will be more expensive coverage.
Not that Clinton’s plan would have been an idyll of Austrian economics and American self-reliance.
The weight of her mandate would have crushed businesses and young workers with a vengeance, but it would have been real, honest socialism. And everyone would have been covered. Read article.
What our Founders Couldn’t Foresee
Henry Lamb, CFP.com
Perhaps the central point of agreement among the founders was that “just powers” of government derive from the consent of the governed. When the people of America gave their consent to accept the government proposed by our founders, that government was limited to very specific enumerated powers; all other powers were retained by the states or the people.
Only a handful of Americans are aware of these enumerated powers, or where to find them. Today, the federal government is as dictatorial as King George ever was, and those who seek to control government have little respect for the notion that government power arises from the consent of the governed.
Among the factions that want to control government are those who subscribe to the Marxist idea that government should provide equal access to the necessities of life by taking wealth from those who have it, and redistributing it to those who do not. People who accept this notion could not vote to ratify the Constitution were it put before them today. Pressure from these people is a major reason our nation is coming apart at the seams.
Another faction that wants to control government is hyphenated-Americans. These are immigrants who do not want to become Americans, but instead, want America to be subdivided into Black-America; Asian-America; Hispanic-America; Native-America, and the like - where documents must be printed in their language; where their holidays are recognized, where their cultural traditions are honored, and ultimately, where their particular vision of government is exercised.
Freedom's Destruction by Constitutional De-construction
Timothy Baldwin, NWV.com
America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive "construction." If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers' form of government? Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom?
And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government?
Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change?
Quite obviously, in no place does the Constitution grant to the federal government (in any branch) superior sovereignty over the states. Instead, the Constitution requires ALL parties to it (State and federal) to comply with the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. All the framers agreed that federal government and federal law do not equal the "supreme law of the land."
Both the federal government and the federal laws are bound by the terms to which all must comply. Thus, all parties must be watching each other to ensure each is complying with the compact. And as was admitted by even the most ardent nationalist (i.e., Daniel Webster) of America's earlier history, each party to a COMPACT has the sole right to determine whether the other party has complied with the compact.
But over the years, a political idea contrary to our original federal system was adopted--not through open discussion and consent, but by fraud and force. This position states that whatever the federal judiciary rules equates to the "supreme law of the land" and the states must comply therewith, regardless of whether the federal law usurps the power the states retained under the Constitution. What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed "supremacy" clause of the Constitution. What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery.
What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed "supremacy" clause of the Constitution. What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery. Read article.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
