http://912projectidaho.com/blog/ en info@912projectidaho.com Copyright 2010 2010-07-20T05:44:52+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/make_the_pledge_-_40_days_and_40_nights/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/make_the_pledge_-_40_days_and_40_nights/#When:05:44:52Z If you’ve been listening to Glenn Beck lately, you know that he is very concerned about the possibility that the “desperation” of losing ground in the battle for the nation’s soul may cause the progressives to turn up the flame on racist bashing against conservatives, in an attempt to cause civil unrest.  We’re already seeing this in the immigration riots of Arizona and California, and now the DOJ’s unjust dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. If you’ve been listening to Glenn Beck lately, you know that he is very concerned about the possibility that the “desperation” of losing ground in the battle for the nation’s soul may cause the progressives to turn up the flame on racist bashing against conservatives, in an attempt to cause civil unrest.  We’re already seeing this in the immigration riots of Arizona and California, and now the DOJ’s unjust dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. Most folks have been paying close enough attention to recognize that they have been steadily turning up the volume on this agenda, and understand that we must not allow ourselves to be provoked into doing anything radical against them.  We must hold the course on our peaceful resistance.  Continue holding to the truth.  It is working because they have no defense against it.  In keeping with the message of Faith, Hope, and Charity from his American Revival show, please pass this message along to everyone you know.  We are 40 days away from Glenn’s August 28th Restoring Honor Event in Washington, DC [ The following article has been re-posted from http://www.glennbeck.com ] ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Make the Pledge - 40 Days and 40 Nights July 19, 2010 - 14:59 ET _____________________________________ For the next 40 days and 40 nights, I pledge…I COVENANT to practice faith, hope and charity by doing these things.  First…faith. I will pray on my knees every night for the next 40 nights…starting TONIGHT. Pray for guidance, inspiration, peace…pray for the leaders of our country. Pray for their safety, and that they will receive wisdom. I will re-establish my relationship with God. Hope…hope comes from truth. You can’t have hope based on lies. If you go to the doctor and you’re in the early stages of cancer, but the doctor tells you that you just have the sniffles…that’s false hope, and it won’t help you, in fact, it would kill you. So, we have to have honesty, to have real hope. So, I will stop all lies for the next 40 days. That includes lying to myself. I will establish a pattern of honesty and make it become habitual. I will question with boldness…everything…even the things Glenn Beck tells you every night…I will do my own research…and then pray for my own confirmation on the things I have learned. I will find out what is true in my life. And third…I will have charity. Charity begins at home. I will do something kind for every member of your family at least once a week. I will write it down, and then do it. Also, I pledge to take notice of how blessed I really am. I live in the greatest country the world has ever known…and even the least prosperous among us, are among the wealthiest people in the world…I will be grateful. Pledge of Nonviolence Below is the Pledge of Nonviolence that Martin Luther King, Jr. asked those who believed in his message to abide by as well as his core principles of nonviolence. I am going to ask you to make the same commitment to nonviolence and give you the opportunity to make that pledge public by having you ‘sign’ these documents below. -glenn 1. As you prepare to march meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus 2. Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not victory. 3. Walk and talk in the manner of love; for God is love. 4. Pray daily to be used by God that all men and women might be free. 5. Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free. 6. Observe with friend and foes the ordinary rules of courtesy. 7. Perform regular service for others and the world. 8. Refrain from violence of fist, tongue and heart. 9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health. 10. Follow the directions of the movement leaders and of the captains on demonstrations. The Five Principles of Nonviolence 1. Non-violent resistance is not a method for cowards. It does resist. The nonviolent resister is just as strongly opposed to the evil against which he protests, as is the person who uses violence. His method is passive or non-aggressive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, but his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade the opponent that he is mistaken. This method is passive physically but strongly active spiritually; it is non-aggressive physically but dynamically aggressive spiritually. 2. Nonviolent resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation but he realizes that noncooperation is not the ends itself; it is merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. 3. The attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces. It is a struggle between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. 4. Nonviolent resistance avoids not only external physical violence, but also internal violence of spirit. At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love. 5. Nonviolence is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. It is the deep faith in the future that allows a nonviolent resister to accept suffering without retaliation. The nonviolent resister knows that in his struggle for justice, he has a cosmic companionship. _______________________________________________ Please ‘sign’  your name to these documents. _______________________________________________   2010-07-20T05:44:52+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/it_didnt_matter/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/it_didnt_matter/#When:01:11:26Z I was profoundly affected by the sheer accumulation of questionable acts, factual discoveries, observed behaviors, or the complete absence of any denial or response from this President named Barack Hussein Obama.  It’s no wonder to me why so many Americans question his allegiance. The following content was recently received via email from a 9-12er, and despite the fact that we have all heard these things before… one at time, as they occurred, I had not yet seen a comprehensive listing of them all at once.  I was profoundly affected by the sheer accumulation of questionable acts, factual discoveries, observed behaviors, or the complete absence of any denial or response from this President named Barack Hussein Obama.  It’s no wonder to me why so many Americans question his allegiance. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________   When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist, People said it didn’t matter. When it was discovered that his grandparents, who were strong socialists, sent Obama’s mother to a socialist school, and introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama, People said it didn’t matter. When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and stepfather were both Muslims, People said it didn’t matter. When he wrote in another book he authored, “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,” People said it didn’t matter. When he admitted, in his book, that he deliberately chose Marxist friends and professors in college, People said it didn’t matter. When he traveled to Pakistan, after college, on an unknown national passport, People said it didn’t matter. When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, People said it doesn’t matter. When he sat in a Chicago church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, People said it didn’t matter. When an independent Washington organization that tracks senate voting records gave him the distinctive title as the “most liberal senator”, People said it didn’t matter. When the Palestinians in Gaza set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign, People said it didn’t matter. When his voting record supported gun control, People said it didn’t matter. When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, People said it didn’t matter. When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Moammar Khaddafy and Hugo Chavez, People said it didn’t matter. When it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, People said it didn’t matter. When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals and domestic terrorists, People said it didn’t matter. When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, People said it didn’t matter. When he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, People said it didn’t matter. When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, People said it didn’t matter. When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, People said it didn’t matter. When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues, People said it didn’t matter. When he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination,  People said it didn’t matter. When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, People said it didn’t matter. When the place of his birth was called into question and he refused to produce a birth certificate, People said it didn’t matter. When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison, and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home, People said it didn’t matter. When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, People said it didn’t matter. When he started appointing czars who were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communists, People said it didn’t matter. When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this nation” into something else, People said it didn’t matter. When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, People said it didn’t matter. When he appointed a cabinet member and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, People said it didn’t matter. When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, People said it didn’t matter. When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar who believes in “Explicit Consent”, harvesting human organs without family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, People said it didn’t matter. When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of the group Gay Lesbian Education Network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, People said it didn’t matter. When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar who believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, and admires Hugo Chavez, People said it didn’t matter. When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama’s senior White House advisor, even though she is an avowed socialist, People said it didn’t matter. When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, People said it didn’t matter. When he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist, as global warming czar, who is working on Cap and Trade, People said it doesn’t matter. When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, People said it didn’t matter. When Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, People said it didn’t matter. When as president of the United States , he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, People said it didn’t matter. When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, People said it didn’t matter. When his actions concerning the Middle-East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend, People said it doesn’t matter. When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, People said it doesn’t matter. When he upset our Eastern European allies by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, People said it doesn’t matter. When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the field commanders said we had to have to win, People said it didn’t matter. When he encouraged and engineered spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, People said it didn’t matter. When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, People said it didn’t matter. When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., People said it didn’t matter. When he took away student loans from the banks and put them through the government, People said it didn’t matter. When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, People said it didn’t matter. When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, People said it didn’t matter.   When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people finally woke up….. but it was too late….!!!!! 2010-07-06T01:11:26+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/tyranny_thy_name_is_the_commerce_clause/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/tyranny_thy_name_is_the_commerce_clause/#When:18:48:19Z A blog by Bryan Fischer, says….. It is perhaps unsurprising to find that it is possible to graduate from Harvard Law School without ever once taking a class in constitutional law. Dean Kagan made a class in international law obligatory, but a class in constitutional law is still just an elective. This source blog can be found at the “Rightly Concerned” website link given at the bottom of this page.  Date:  7/1/2010 10:37:58 AM By Bryan Fischer ________________________ Sen. Tom Coburn asked Elana Kagan a simple straightforward question: can the government, under the guise of the Commerce Clause, pass a law requiring Americans to eat three vegetables a day? The video of this exchange, which you can see here, has justifiably gone viral. Ms. Kagan’s response is one of stupefied, stunned silence. A long awkward pause follows the question. Her reaction was so blank that it would be uncharitable to our antlered friends in the forest to describe her facial expression as that of a deer caught in the headlights. She could not bring herself to say that Congress has no authority to dictate the dietary intake of every American. Thus the Commerce Clause has been distorted out of all recognition to justify any and all expressions of the tyranny of the central government over every aspect of our lives. It would be a travesty for this woman to take a seat on the Supreme Court when she is so clueless about the constitutional limits on the federal government. She is clearly prepared, as a justice, to justify any overreach of government into our daily lives. Under Justice Kagan, we would be serfs rather than not citizens. Apparently she believes that while government has no place in our bedrooms, it can squat in our refrigerators and cupboards 24 hours a day. Do you see the much-vaunted right to privacy here anywhere? I sure don’t. James Madison, who, as you may recall, is the Father of the Constitution and therefore may be presumed to have more right to speak to this issue than the mind-numbed Ms. Kagan, made it clear in Federalist Paper Number 42 that the purpose of the Commerce Clause was to prevent states from imposing import and export taxes on goods shipped across their borders from neighboring states. Merchants in the days of the founding, in order to get their goods to metropolitan centers or to shipping ports, would often have to transport them across state lines. States had taken to charging import taxes on these goods when they came into their jurisdiction and slapping export taxes on them when they left. Madison and the Founders recognized the threat this posed to harmony among the States of the newly created Union. Said Madison, if this practice were allowed to continue, “it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serous interruptions of the public tranquillity.” So the Commerce Clause was added to prevent this pernicious practice. Madison makes this explicit. “A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through others States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter.” Let’s be clear: the Commerce Clause, as framed by the Founders, gives Congress no authority other than to ban the imposition of import and export fees by the various States. That’s it. The fact that Dean Kagan does not understand this is alone reason enough to disqualify her from sitting on the highest bench in the land. It is perhaps unsurprising to find that it is possible to graduate from Harvard Law School without ever once taking a class in constitutional law. Dean Kagan made a class in international law obligatory, but a class in constitutional law is still just an elective. [Emphasis added by 9-12] Maybe that’s why graduates of Harvard Law, and even former deans, appear to know more about the constitution of Zimbabwe than they do about the constitution of the United States. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Visit the source blog here…....  Rightly Concerned, Cautiously Observing the Left. From the Right ________________________________________________________________________________________ 2010-07-02T18:48:19+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/gop_lawmakers_warn_of_administration_plan_to_grant_amnesty_to_illegal_/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/gop_lawmakers_warn_of_administration_plan_to_grant_amnesty_to_illegal_/#When:07:37:34Z Fox News reported today that President Obama may be considering another “end round” move to circumvent the Congress altogether on the issue of immigration reform.  Some reputable Senators are saying he is contemplating the use of an “Executive Order” to grant amnesty to all illegals currently in the country.  This would be yet one more issue where he is running squarely opposed to the majority of American citizens.  The full story is shown below. Fox News reported today that President Obama may be considering another “end round” move to circumvent the Congress altogether on the issue of immigration reform.  Some reputable Senators are saying he is contemplating the use of an “Executive Order” to grant amnesty to all illegals currently in the country.  This would be yet one more issue where he is running squarely opposed to the majority of American citizens.  The full story is shown below. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Published June 23, 2010 AP FILE: Agents raid a drop house for illegal immigrants in Phoenix in April. Republicans say they fear suspected illegal immigrants will be given blanket amnesty by an executive order of President Obama.   Eight Republican senators and an independent group that supports tighter limits on immigration are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to “unilaterally” issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws. The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a “Plan B” in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress. “It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill—that it’s a plan that they can actually put forward ... circumventing Congress,” an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. In their letter, the senators—Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss.—urge the president to “abandon” what they say is a move to “unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States.” “Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books,” they wrote. Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from “sources” that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis. Numbers USA, an organization that presses for lower immigration levels along with humanitarian treatment of illegal immigrants, has started a petition to the president expressing “outrage” at the alleged plan. Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations with Numbers USA, said she’s been hearing for weeks from “sources close to the Democratic leadership” in both chambers that administration officials are discussing whether the Department of Homeland Security could direct staff to grant “amnesty” for all illegal immigrants in the country. “They’re trying to figure out ways around a vote,” she said. “Any attempt to force an amnesty on the American people using this underhanded method smacks of despotism,” reads the fax the group is urging supporters to sign. The White House has not responded to a request for comment. The Department of Homeland Security estimated last year that 10.8 million undocumented residents live in the United States; other estimates have ranged higher. Any move to grant blanket legal status, even temporary, would raise questions about how Homeland Security would be able to handle the caseload. Jenks said Congress certainly wouldn’t grant the administration the funding for more caseworkers. The purported discussions of a blanket amnesty come in the middle of several concurrent and heated debates over illegal immigration. The recently signed immigration law in Arizona has divided the country, with some states trying to replicate the state’s tough legislation and other jurisdictions boycotting the state in protest. The Obama administration plans to file a court challenge. Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to round up support for an overhaul bill in Congress, and the Interior Department is facing renewed criticism from Republican lawmakers over restrictions it places on Border Patrol officers policing the border on federal lands. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., shocked several Arizona residents last week when he told them that Obama had said he would not beef up border security because it would leave Republicans without an incentive to pass broader immigration reforms. Jenks said the talks about Homeland Security allowing illegal immigrants to stay are “serious.” Under the law, immigration officials can grant deferred action to temporarily postpone removing an illegal immigrant from the country. That status does not offer a guarantee that they won’t face deportation, but Jenks said illegal immigrants granted parole are often allowed to seek permanent legal status. If a “Plan B” is being discussed, it’s unclear how far along the talks might be. Another GOP Senate aide said the discussions started after Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., called on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in April to stop deportations of undocumented students who could earn legal status under a bill they introduced. A Senate Democratic aide said the Obama administration never responded to the April letter. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/23/lawmakers-warn-administration-plan-unilaterally-grant-blanket-amnesty/ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2010-06-24T07:37:34+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/missouri_ahead_of_the_game_in_dealing_with_illegal_immigrants/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/missouri_ahead_of_the_game_in_dealing_with_illegal_immigrants/#When:07:04:43Z The following “editorial comment” appeared in the May 13, 2010 issue of the Missouri Publication, “The Ozark Sentinel”, and was written by Missouri State Representative Nita Jane Ayres.  Her surprising topic?  Illegal immigration… in Missouri. WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE TURMOIL IN ARIZONA REALLY IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS AFTER ALL !! The following article has been re-posted from an online Missouri news publication. ( emphasis appearing throughout has been added by 9-12 )     Editor’s Note: The following appeared in our May 13 issue and is written by State Representative Nita Jane Ayres ___________________________________________________________________________________________   We’re down to one week to go in the legislative session and bills are moving through the process at a remarkable pace. My goal is to keep you updated on all the pieces of legislation that may be of interest to you and your family. In the coming weeks, I hope to do that. However, this week I want to talk about an issue that Missouri has already addressed in a variety of ways – the issue of illegal immigration. I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines about Arizona’s new law aimed at dealing with those who enter our country illegally. It has been called the strictest immigration law in generations. While Missouri hasn’t gone to the same lengths as Arizona, our state has made significant policy changes that effectively deal with illegal immigrants who enter our state. Because of those changes, Missouri is ahead of the game when compared to many other states that are now dealing with this issue. In 2007, the Missouri General Assembly approved HJR 7 to place on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri. Voters then went to the polls and approved the measure with nearly 90 percent voting in favor. With that, English became the official language for all governmental proceedings in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language other than English. A common language is the cornerstone of a cohesive and united state and country. Ensuring that English is our official language is simply common sense. Another measure that directly addresses the issue of illegal immigration was passed in 2008. HB 1549 requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It also allows Missouri law enforcement officers to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. Furthermore, the bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will not have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps and health care through MO HealthNet. With the passage of this legislation, Missouri sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are not welcome in our state, and that they are certainly not welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers. 2009 saw another significant piece of legislation passed dealing with illegal immigration. HB 390 ensures Missouri’s public institutions of higher education do not award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Department of Higher Education that they have not knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States. The bill represents another common sense approach to the issue as it ensures taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize the education of someone who is in our country illegally. So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it’s important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem. The laws we have on the books help ensure the rights and benefits of Missourians are preserved for actual Missouri citizens. It’s also important to remember that this country has always opened its arms to immigrants, which is why our nation is often referred to as the great melting pot. Immigrants from all parts of the world have helped make our country what it is today. However, our doors are not open to those who try to live in our country illegally. I believe Missouri’s laws make that very clear and give our law enforcement officials the authority they need to deal with the problem. Thanks again for allowing me to represent you in the state capitol. Feel free to contact me with your concerns, suggestions and ideas. My office phone is 573-751-2492. Email address: nitajane.ayres@house.mo.gov Or write to: State Representative Nita Jane Ayres, House Post Office, State Capitol, Room 233-A, Jefferson City, MO 65101.       2010-06-08T07:04:43+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/remembering_americas_heros/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/remembering_americas_heros/#When:08:44:32Z We’ve tired this year of watching the President of our Country make a tour of the world apologizing for the “arrogance” of America.  On this day of remembrance we must each pause to recall the history of American Heros as it really happened, and reject the revisionist perversions of “progressivism” that work to tarnish our history of greatness! We’ve tired this year of watching the President of our Country make a tour of the world apologizing for the “arrogance” of America.  On this day of remembrance, we must each pause to recall the history of American Heros as it really happened, and reject the revisionist perversions of “progressivism” that work to tarnish our history of greatness!  As you view the photos that follow here, and see the vast expanse of small white crosses… remember that each one of those crosses represents a hero that fought and died to defend the freedom and liberty of our “allied citizens”.  This is hardly an act of arrogance… and our President should bow to no one! ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ The American Battle Monuments Commission, established by the Congress in 1923, is an agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The Commission—guardian of America’s overseas commemorative cemeteries and memorials—honors the service, achievements and sacrifice of United States Armed Forces. The Commission’s commemorative mission includes: • Designing, constructing, operating and maintaining permanent American cemeteries in foreign countries. • Establishing and maintaining U.S. military memorials, monuments and markers where American armed forces have served overseas since April 6, 1917, and within the U.S. when directed by public law. • Controlling the design and construction of permanent U.S. military monuments and markers by other U.S. citizens and organizations, both public and private, and encouraging their maintenance. The ABMC commemorative mission is reflected in 24 overseas military cemeteries that serve as resting places for almost 125,000 American war dead; on Tablets of the Missing that memorialize more than 94,000 U.S. servicemen and women; and through 25 memorials, monuments and markers.  The photographs shown below are being shared here from from their website at http://www.abmc.gov/home.php   1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France. A total of 2289 of our military dead.     2. The American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium. A total of 5329 of our dead.     3. The American Cemetery at Brittany, France. A total of 4410 of our military dead.     4. Brookwood, England American Cemetery. A total of 468 of our dead.     5. Cambridge, England.. 3812 of our military dead.   6. Epinal, France American Cemetery. A total of 5525 of our Military dead.     7. Flanders Field, Belgium. A total of 368 of our military.   8. Florence, Italy. A total of 4402 of our military dead.   9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium. A total of 7992 of our military dead.       10. Lorraine, France. A total of 10,489 of our military dead.   11. Luxembourg, Luxembourg. A total of 5076 of our military dead.   12. Meuse-Argonne. A total of 14246 of our military dead.   13. Netherlands, Netherlands. A total of 8301 of our military dead.   14. Normandy, France. A total of 9387 of our military dead.   15. Oise-Aisne, France. A total of 6012 of our military dead.   16. Rhone, France. A total of 861 of our military dead.   17. Sicily, Italy. A total of 7861 of our military dead.   18. Somme, France. A total of 1844 of our military dead.   19. St. Mihiel, France. A total of 4153 of our military dead.   20. Suresnes, France. a total of 1541 of our military dead.   APOLOGIZE TO NO ONE.   Remind those of our sacrifice and don’t confuse arrogance with leadership.  If I added correctly the count is 104,366 dead.   HOW MANY FRENCH, DUTCH, ITALIANS, BELGIANS AND BRITS ARE BURIED ON OUR SOIL, DEFENDING US AGAINST OUR ENEMIES? WE DON’T ASK FOR PRAISE ... BUT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE!! PLEASE——DO THINK ABOUT THIS, AND REMEMBER THIS WHEN ELECTION TIME COMES AROUND AGAIN IN NOVEMBER. 2010-05-28T08:44:32+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/sonoran_desert_-_outside_tucson_az/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/sonoran_desert_-_outside_tucson_az/#When:07:18:39Z The following information was recently received in one of those “anonymous” emails that circulate so freely these days, but unlike most others, I found the images here so profoundly shocking that I felt it was worthwhile to share them.  Most of us can only offer our opinions about illegal immigration based on our personal beliefs and our understanding that we are a nation of laws.  As such, we respect the laws that govern such issues as “lawful immigration”.  Few of us (if any) in this part of the country have ever actually witnessed the impact of our breached borders directly, and most related dialog seems to focus on the strain it places on state and local law enforcement and their economies. The following information was recently received in one of those “anonymous” emails that circulate so freely these days, but unlike most others, I found the images here so profoundly shocking that I felt it was worthwhile to share them.  Most of us can only offer our opinions about illegal immigration based on our personal beliefs and our understanding that we are a nation of laws.  As such, we respect the laws that govern such issues as “lawful immigration”.  Few of us (if any) in this part of the country have ever actually witnessed the impact of our breached borders directly, and most related dialog seems to focus on the strain it places on state and local law enforcement and their economies.  The following photos reveal and entirely new perspective.  One that could only be fully appreciated in person, I’m sure, due to the lack of stench in photos. The following remarks which accompanied these photos are a bit sarcastic, but the message is quite clear.  As in previous posts, I cannot verify the location of these photos, but have no reason to believe the photos themselves aren’t genuine, and really… where else could they have been made? _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Hey everyone out there!  We, in Arizona, know you’re boycotting us—but you really should come out here and see our Beautiful Sonoran Desert. It’s just gorgeous right now!  We know you’d love it and maybe you can share what you saw with the rest of the country so they can love it too! This is on an ‘illegal super - highway’ from Mexico to the USA (Tucson) used by human smugglers. This area is located in a wash, approximately 1.5 miles long, just south of Tucson, Arizona. If a flood came, all this would be washed to the river and then onto the sea!   It is estimated over 5,000 discarded backpacks are in this wash.  Countless water containers, food wrappers, clothing, feces, including thousands of soiled baby diapers. And as you can see in this picture, fresh footprints leading right into it.     As we kept walking down the wash, we thought for sure it was going to end, but around every corner was more and more trash!       And of course the trail leading out of the wash in our city, heads directly NORTH to Tucson, then leads to your town tomorrow.   ******************************************************************************************************* They’ve already come through here. Isn’t Arizona just beautiful, America? Our desert has basically been turned into a landfill. Why would you boycott us??? ******************************************************************************************************* The trash left behind by people illegally crossing our border is another Environmental Disaster to hit the USA.  If these actions had been done in one of our Northwest Forests or Seashore National Parks areas, there would be an uprising of the American people…..but this is the Arizona-Mexican border.  You won’t see these pictures on CNN, ABC, NBC or the Arizona Republic Repugnant newspaper.  Nor will they mention the disease that comes from the uncovered human waste left in our desert. However, with respect to CNN, ABC & NBC, they do offer us “Special Reports” on cheating celebrity spouses…. This information needs to be seen by the rest of the country. ******************************************************************************************************* It’s not about Right vs Left , Liberal vs. Conservative, Republican vs. Democrat. It’s about defending this country against foreign invasion. 2010-05-26T07:18:39+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/9-12s_entry_in_the_armed_forces_day_parade/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/9-12s_entry_in_the_armed_forces_day_parade/#When:03:37:36Z Well, we didn’t have the 30 people we were expecting for this event, but those of us that participated had a good time!  As it turned out, we were number 83 in the line up, out of about 95 total.  So, needless to say, there was some “waiting around time” beforehand, and overall the march lasted over an hour and a half or so.  FIVE MILES total… and my goodness does my old body feel it now!  Whew… who knew, huh?  Certainly not me!  I’ll likely alter my personal plan next year, for a switch to climb aboard somewhere around the halfway mark! Well, we didn’t have the 30 people we were expecting for this event, but those of us that participated had a good time!  As it turned out, we were number 83 in the line up, out of about 95 total.  So, needless to say, there was some “waiting around time” beforehand, and overall the march lasted about an hour and a half or so… FIVE MILES total, and my goodness does my old body feel it now!  Whew… who knew, huh?  Certainly not me!  I’ll likely need alter my personal plan next year, to climb aboard somewhere around the halfway mark! Here’s a big THANK YOU to everyone that participated, even showing up early to help decorate the truck and trailer!  As always… it only takes a little effort from each of us to make these things worthwhile, and it’s such a pleasure to be around like-minded folks!  You’re simply the best! We represented the 9-12 group well in showing our love of country, and our appreciation to those who serve to protect us!  If anyone else has photos they’d like to share, just email them to us at the and we’ll get them added.   2010-05-18T03:37:36+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/navy_seal_mccabe_found_not_guilty/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/navy_seal_mccabe_found_not_guilty/#When:07:41:51Z NORFOLK –  It only took a 7-member jury one hour and 40 minutes Thursday afternoon to find Navy SEAL Matthew McCabe not guilty on all counts. McCabe had been charged with assault for allegedly roughing up Ahmed Hashim Abed, the accused terrorist who allegedly masterminded the grisly killings six years ago of four American contractors in Iraq. Navy SEAL McCabe Found Not Guilty May 7, 2010 - 1:04 AM | Fox News By Steve Centanni, Pat Summers and Gretchen Gailey _____________________________________________ NORFOLK –  It only took a 7-member jury one hour and 40 minutes Thursday afternoon to find Navy SEAL Matthew McCabe not guilty on all counts. McCabe had been charged with assault for allegedly roughing up Ahmed Hashim Abed, the accused terrorist who allegedly masterminded the grisly killings six years ago of four American contractors in Iraq. In closing arguments, prosecution attorney Lt. Jason Grover said, “This is a simple case, but not an easy one. Nobody wants to believe a decorated Navy SEAL would assault a detainee.”  Grover also argued that a key prosecution witness, Petty Officer Kevin Demartino, had no reason to lie when he testified that he saw McCabe punch the prisoner in the stomach. “What’s Dimartino’s motive to blame his shipmates?” asked Grover. “If he was looking for an explanation for something that happened on his watch, he had an easy one right in front of him,” the prosecutor argued.  “He could just say the terrorist did it to himself.” Which is exactly what the defense argued in this case.  Defense attorney Haytham Faraj, in his closing argument, insists McCabe acted honorably.  Faraj asked the jury, “Why didn’t McCabe just shoot Abed in the first place?” “These SEALs,”  he continues, referring to McCabe and two other SEALs charged in the case, “had motives, they had opportunities, but they’re professionals.” Faraj insists, “Everyone has to be lying for the government’s case to be believed.” The jury of six men and one woman received the case at 4:15 Thursday afternoon. This follows four days of pre-trial motions, jury selection and testimony before a Judge Advocate General, Captain Moira Modelewski, at the Naval Station Norfolk, in Norfolk, Virginia. Another of the Navy SEALs charged in connection with the Abed case, Petty Officer First Class Julio Huertas, took the stand for the defense Thursday morning. He said that he and the other two Navy SEALs, McCabe and Jonathan Keefe, did visit the detention facility where Abed was being held on the night of the alleged incident. But, he insists, there was no assault.  He says they only dropped by to see if Dimartino, who was in charge of the holding facility, needed anything.  Huertas and Keefe were found not guilty last month in separate trials in Baghdad. The defense called an oral surgeon Thursday who testified by phone from Baghdad.  He said Abed might have bitten an ulcer on his lip, causing it to bleed.  Defense attorneys said this validated their position that no assault occurred and that Al Qaeda detainees are trained to injure themselves then claim abuse. Earlier, after the prosecution and defense both rested their cases, prosecutors Thursday announced they needed time to present a rebuttal.  They were basically trying to rehabilitate their key witness, Demartino, whose character and credibility had been questioned by a string of defense witnesses Wednesday, many of them Navy SEALs.  One of Demartino’s former superior officers, testifying as a rebuttal witness, called Demartino “one of my top sailors—I can depend on him for anything.” Defense witnesses on Wednesday had painted a picture of Demartino as unstable, unreliable and, after the incident with Abed, “distraught.”  According to testimony, Demartino was worried his career would be ruined because a prisoner claimed abuse on his watch, and that he would no longer have a chance for his dream job with the California Highway Patrol.  This, the defense claimed, gave Demartino a motive to lie.  Demartino did not immediately report the alleged assault to his superiors and admits to dereliction of duty.  The defense suggested that since Demartino initially said nothing about an assault, he’s an unreliable witness. The defense also continued throughout the trial to cast doubt on the English translation of Abed’s audio-taped testimony, claiming it was unreliable, which creates an element of doubt.  As in civilian courts, a defendant—in this case McCabe—must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Four of the seven jurors would have had to vote to convict for McCabe to have been found guilty. Thursday afternoon, prosecutors suffered an apparent setback when a witness they called supported the defense position on disputed statements submitted in writing by two Navy SEALs in Iraq shortly after the alleged assault.  The prosecution claimed the two SEALs, Jonathan Keefe and Matthew McCabe, colluded to get their stories straight, because their statements appeared to be identical.  But this witness acknowledged the statements of two SEALs on the same mission often coincide. Abed was captured in a surprise raid by the Navy SEALs in Fallujah, Iraq, in September of last year.  The murders he’s accused of masterminding were a turning point in the Iraq war, galvanizing the U.S. military to launch a major offensive against the insurgents in Fallujah.  The bodies of the four Americans were burned and dragged through the streets, and two of them were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River. Ever since charges were brought against the Navy SEALs last year, there has been a huge outpouring of popular support for the defendants. Rallies were held at which the men were described as heroes rather than criminals. Websites helped raise defense funds and at least 20 members of Congress called for the charges against them to be dropped.  The military, however, insists it has a zero tolerance for detainee abuse and that all members of the services are duty-bound to follow the law. 2010-05-13T07:41:51+00:00 http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/the_concept_of_subjective_value/ http://912projectidaho.com/index.php/blog/the_concept_of_subjective_value/#When:20:14:42Z This is an interesting conceptual presentation of the simple economic workings of a true free-market system.  Where individuals and businesses alike are allowed to determine (each for themselves) what they consider an acceptable exchange… in money, goods, service, or labor.  We are re-posting this article from today’s C4L newsletter because it offers a interesting perspective on why liberal economic policies don’t work.  This is an interesting conceptual presentation of the simple economic workings of a true free-market system.  Where individuals and businesses alike are allowed to determine (each for themselves) what they consider an acceptable exchange… in money, goods, service, or labor.  We are re-posting this article from today’s C4L newsletter because it offers a interesting perspective on why liberal economic policies don’t work.  The article originally appeared in Freedom Daily, a newsletter whose subscription link is given at the end of this article.  Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (it’s publishing organization).  It’s a lengthy but interesting read! ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Liberal Assault on the Poor By Jacob Hornberger View all 53 articles by Jacob Hornberger (courtesy of the Campaign for Liberty website) Published 05/07/10 ________________ Liberals say that they love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged. Unfortunately, however, the economic philosophy that liberals favor constitutes a direct assault on the economic well-being of the poor, along with nearly everyone else in society. Liberals claim to combat poverty in two principal ways. First, they use the force of government (e.g., income taxes) to take money from those who have earned it in order to give it to the poor. Second, they restrict people’s use of their property to enable the poor to have access to such property. What liberals fail to understand, however, is that the very means they choose to combat poverty—socialism and interventionism—actually exacerbate the problem that they claim to address. Their war on poverty hurts the very people they say they are trying to assist. In proposing welfare-state programs, by necessity liberals always make an important assumption. They assume that there is wealth in society. After all, if there is no wealth then what good would welfare-state policies do? The welfare state operates on the assumption that there are people who are earning wealth or have accumulated wealth. Those are the people from whom the government takes money in order to redistribute it to the poor. Let’s consider a hypothetical case based on science fiction. Astronomers discover that an inhabitable planet is hurtling toward our solar system and will soon join the other planets in orbit around the sun. Faced with overcrowding of its prisons, the federal government decides to exile 50,000 prisoners on a spaceship to the planet. Everyone is given six months of supplies on which to survive—food, water, and clothing—and nothing else. When the prisoners arrive on the planet, they call into existence a federal government, democratically elected. Federal officials are empowered to do everything and anything they can to combat the extreme poverty that is immediately facing society. Liberals are elected to the presidency and to Congress. They propose a massive welfare-state program modeled on Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid. Public housing. Food stamps. Grants to education. Agricultural subsidies. Unemployment relief. Do you see the problem? The federal government isn’t a fountain of wealth. It has no money. Its coffers are empty. In order to get the money to distribute all these welfare benefits to people, it must first impose a tax on people. But do you see the next problem? There are no wealthy or even middle-class people who can be taxed because everyone in this society is poor. In proposing their array of welfare programs to help the poor, liberals operate under the mindless assumption that wealth exists naturally in a society. Even worse, they give nary a thought to the possibility that a society in which wealth is growing is the greatest benefit to the poor. Worst of all, they don’t consider the distinct possibility that their own tax-and-redistribute policies tend toward destroying the base of wealth in society, thereby relegating everyone to poverty. Let’s return to our hypothetical example regarding the prisoners on the new planet. Everyone is poor. Welfare-state policies to combat the poverty will obviously not work because there are no wealthy people to take money from in order to redistribute it to the poor. So what can be done to combat poverty? Ownership, collective and private The liberals come up with a novel solution. They adopt a system by which the government owns everything and by which everyone works for the government. People will be assigned houses to build, businesses to run, or places in fields to grow crops. Government officials will be in charge of planning everything—which crops will be planted, which occupations people will be assigned to, which houses will be built, which consumer goods will be produced. Central planners will distribute food, housing, clothing, and other essentials in accordance with the needs of each person and each family. Everyone seems happy with the scheme, especially since it mirrors much of the prison life to which the prisoners had been accustomed. But a problem arises, one involving human nature. No one feels like working very hard. Agricultural workers are constantly getting sick. People are doing jobs for which they are ill-suited. Goods and services are scarce, and the situation is getting worse for everyone. Actually, this hypothetical society isn’t far from reality. It is pretty much what happened when the first colonists arrived at Plymouth Rock. They formed a society in which most property would be collectively owned and shared. The result? Starvation and famine. One day, Governor Bradford changed the system. From that day forward, everyone would be entitled to own his own property and keep the fruits of his labor for himself and his family. No longer would people be forced to share their earnings with others. Immediately, everyone began working harder and accumulating wealth. No more starvation and famine. The bounty produced by this private-property system formed the foundation for the first Thanksgiving. What would be the solution to poverty in our hypothetical example? It would a libertarian one, a solution based on private property and free markets. Everyone would be free to go into any business he chose. In that way, people could pursue their own interests and talents in an attempt to provide goods or services that other people would be interested in purchasing. People would be free to engage in any economic trade with anyone else, without interference or regulation by the government. People would also be free to accumulate the fruits of their earnings. There would be no income tax imposed on the people. Obviously, at first there would still be manifest poverty, given the difficulties in accumulating wealth. People struggling to survive have a difficult time saving any money. But by the time of the second generation, things will have improved a bit, with families actually accumulating savings that they would then be free to pass down to the third generation. Within a few decades, such a system of free enterprise would not only generate millionaires but also raise the standard of living for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Equally important, the poor would know that they had a chance to join the ranks of the middle class and wealthy simply by working hard and providing a product or service that other people were willing to pay for. This, too, is not as hypothetical as it sounds, as it pretty much describes the situation in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 and continuing through the early 1900s. For the first time in history, people were able to engage in enterprise freely (that is, without government regulation or control) and accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth (that is, without their incomes’ being taxed). That’s not to say, however, that the process of wealth creation was an immediate one. For the first few decades, life was very difficult, as it would be in any society in which there exists only a small base of wealth. Liberals often point to the Industrial Revolution as an example of the horrors of the free-market system. Factory conditions, for example, were horrific for those working there, including wives and children, as liberals are so fond in reminding us. But liberals miss an important point. Those factories, as bad as they were, offered a chance for survival to those who were working in them. A society in which there is no foundation of wealth and no chance of accumulating wealth will inevitably have people starving to death. A society in which there is limited wealth but in which people are free to engage in enterprise and accumulate wealth will inevitably have people struggling to survive but at least having a chance to survive. That’s what was occurring during the Industrial Revolution. American husbands and fathers were sending their wives and children into factories not because they hated them but because they knew that that was the only chance they had to keep them alive. Then, as families began accumulating wealth, the need to send the entire family into the factories became less desperate. It was not government but rather capital—the accumulation of savings—that ultimately brought wives and children out of the factories. The key, then, to a rising standard of living in a society lies in savings and capital. Let’s examine how this is so. The role of capital Let’s assume that a farmer owns a 100-acre tract of land on which he grows various crops. He employs one worker, whose sole piece of equipment is a hoe. The farmer pays the worker $10,000 per year and has additional expenses of $5,000. At the end of the year, the farmer sells his crops at market for $20,000, earning him a profit of $5,000. Since the farmer has earned a profit of $5,000, he can use part of that money to give his worker a raise. But let’s assume that a $5,000 profit is the minimum amount of profit that the farmer has concluded he needs to remain in business. Since farming is a risky business, one in which a crop could sell for much less than anticipated, the farmer just doesn’t feel it’s worth his while to engage in farming if he can’t earn at least $5,000 for himself and his family. Assuming that things stay the same from year to year, that means that the worker’s income simply cannot go up. It must remain the same, given that the farmer lacks the financial means by which to pay the worker more money. But what if the farmer can somehow increase production? Suppose he can double the output on his 100-acre tract of land? If he’s able to do that, he’s then able to give his worker a pay raise. So how does the farmer pull that off? That’s where capital comes into play. Each year, the farmer puts away $500 of his profit. After a few years, he uses his savings to purchase a used tractor. Now, the worker is no longer using a hoe. He’s got a tractor to plant, cultivate, and harvest the crops. Let’s say that production doubles, which increases the farmer’s profit to $10,000. That means that the farmer now has more money at his disposal to increase the pay of the worker. Does the worker need to rely on the beneficence of his employer to guarantee the pay raise? No, because the worker knows that there are surrounding farms that are also employing workers. All that he has to do is check around and see what competing farms are offering and ask his employer to match it. If the farmer fails to do so, the employee can accept a competing offer, leaving his employer with no one to work on his farm. Thus, the people who are among the primary beneficiaries of capital accumulation are the poor—those who are wage-earners at the bottom of the economic ladder. They have as much interest in the success of the company they’re working for as the owner has. The more the company invests its profits in productive capital, the more profits the company stands to earn, enabling more money to be devoted to pay raises. Moreover, the more other companies are doing the same, the more they are able to bid up the real wage rates of the wage-earning class. Return to poverty Now, let’s return to our science-fiction example where the prisoners are living on that new planet. Let’s propel them forward by 100 years. By that time, people have accumulated massive amounts of wealth and everyone has a very high standard of living. There are, of course, those who are much wealthier than others but by the same token, those who are the poorest have a nice living standard. Everyone understands that the high standard of living depends, in fact, on the savings and capital accumulation engaged in by the very wealthy and by everyone else. Reenter the liberals. Seeing all this wealth, they exclaim, “Notwithstanding God’s injunction against coveting, it’s simply not fair that some have more when others have less. We wish to declare war on poverty. Let us rid ourselves of this libertarian free-market scourge and establish a socialistic welfare state, one in which the federal government will take from those at the top of the economic ladder and redistribute it to those at the bottom of the economic ladder.” People succumb to the liberals’ siren song. At first, everything works fine. Old people are getting free retirement payments and health care. Poor people are getting free housing, food, and clothing. Producers are getting free subsidies. Children are getting free education. People fail to notice, however, a disquieting phenomenon. The ranks of the wealthy slowly start dropping because those who are barely on the margin of the wealthy and middle class drop back into the lower category, owing to the new income taxes imposed on them to fund all the free programs. As the process grows, the tax base shrinks, causing federal officials to extend their income tax to the middle class. That causes people on the margin between the poor and middle class to begin dropping back into the lower category. Gradually, taxes continue to expand and rise to keep the socialistic system going, bringing about an ominous development—a gradual reduction in savings and capital accumulation, the keys to a rising standard of living. In fact, our hypothetical case is not so hypothetical. It describes the economic history of the United States for most of the 20th century. After 19th-century Americans had brought into existence an unprecedented accumulation of capital and, consequently, the highest standard of living in history, 20th-century liberals saw a golden opportunity, one that would enable them to tax the wealthy, and later the middle class, to help out the poor. That is what Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society were all about—using government to take money from those who had earned it and giving it to those who had not earned it. Over time, socialism returns people to a state of poverty, one in which everyone is equal by virtue of everyone’s having nothing. Cuba is a good example. By taking everything away from the wealthy and middle class, including their businesses, homes, and bank accounts, with the alleged intent of helping the poor, Fidel Castro carried the socialist principle to its logical conclusion. The result? Manifest poverty. In fact, if it hadn’t been for loans and grants from the Soviet Union (which itself was based on the socialist confiscation-and-redistribution principle), Cubans would have faced the same result as the people at Plymouth Rock—starvation and famine. The only reason that the U.S. standard of living continued rising during the era of American socialism was that the private sector continued accumulating savings and wealth faster than federal officials were confiscating it. The invention of computers, for example, almost immediately made workers much more productive. But it is impossible to say how much more productive Americans would be—how much higher our standards of living would be—if the wealth-producing process that our American ancestors had brought into existence had been free to continue. If Americans had never adopted the income tax and the welfare state, it boggles the mind to think how much better off the American people would be, especially those at the bottom of the economic ladder. When it comes to economic policy, liberals suffer from two major weaknesses. One, they believe that all that matters with respect to policy are good intentions. As long as liberals mean well, they think that the policies they implement, especially with respect to the poor, are justified. Two, they have a woeful lack of understanding of economic principles, which inevitably leads them to think that they can change the natural laws of economics through the simple act of enacting legislation. Arguably, the people who have paid the highest price for these two liberal weaknesses are the poor, the class of people around whom liberal domestic policy has claimed to primarily revolve since at least the time of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. It would be difficult to find a better example of all this than minimum-wage laws. These are laws by which liberals claim to help the poor by requiring employers to pay their employees a minimum hourly rate set by the government. The notion is that this helps the poor by preventing employers from paying less than a subsistence wage. In the absence of a minimum-wage law, the liberals say, employers would be paying workers so little that the poor would be starving in the streets. The truth, however, is that no matter how well intended liberals might be, a minimum-wage law actually serves as a monumental attack on the poor. It is a classic example of how a lack of understanding about economic principles leads liberals into harming the very people they claim to want to help. Let’s examine some fundamental economic principles to show how the poor—those at the bottom of the economic ladders—are damaged by minimum-wage laws. In every exchange, both sides give up something they value less for something they value more. It’s a natural principle on which trade is based. Let’s assume that I have 10 apples and you have 10 oranges and that I give you 7 apples and you give me 3 oranges. Someone might say that that’s an unequal exchange because I gave up more than you did. Not so. I gave up something I valued less—7 apples—for something I valued more—3 oranges. But you did the same—you gave up something you valued less—3 oranges—for something you valued more—7 apples. Both of us have benefited from the exchange. We have both given up something we value less for something we value more. We have improved our respective standard of living through the simple act of exchange. Employment and subjective value This principle applies not only in the trading of goods, but also in the trading of labor services. When an employer and employee enter into a labor agreement, each of them is giving up something he values less for something he values more. The employer gives up a certain amount of money in exchange for the labor services of the employee. He values the money less than he values the work that the employee is performing. By the same token, the employee gives up his time and labor in exchange for the money he receives from the employer. The employee places a higher value on the money than he does on the time and labor he’s devoting to the employer. There is an important economic principle involved here: Value is entirely subjective. It lies in the eyes of the beholder. The value that I place on a particular item is likely to be different from the value that you place on it. Thus, I might well be willing to pay a higher price for certain things than you would, and the same applies to you. This principle of subjective value applies to employers when they’re hiring employees. When contemplating whether to hire a certain worker, employers subjectively determine the applicants’ value. By the same token, the subjective determination of the worker will determine whether he takes the job. Whether a person is hired or not will ultimately turn on the subjective determinations of both employer and worker. An employer might think to himself, “That person is worth $5 an hour to me.” The worker might think to himself, “I’m worth $6 an hour.” If neither side budges, then no trade will take place. That means that the worker will not be employed at that business and must seek other employment where the employer says, “That worker is worth $6 an hour to me.” And the first employer has to continue looking for someone who will work for $5 an hour. There will be a meeting of the minds when each side gives up something he values less for something he values more, enabling an employment contract to come into existence. This is an area in which liberals go astray. They simply do not understand the concept of subjective value. They think that everything and everybody has some sort of objectively determined value, one that can be legislatively imposed. Let’s consider an example. Suppose an 18-year-old man is looking for a job. He comes from a very poor family, dresses very badly, and speaks poor English. He has no work experience. Everywhere he goes looking for a job, he is met with the same answer: No. No matter how many businesses he visits, he simply cannot get a job. Finally, he walks into a business and says, “I’m willing to work for a dollar an hour. I’ll do whatever you want me to.” For his part, the employer finds that offer extremely attractive. He has menial tasks to be performed and it is worth it to him to pay $1 an hour to get them done. Thus, both sides—the employer and the worker—have arrived at a meeting of the minds. Each is willing to give up something he values less for something he values more. Their decisions are based on their subjective valuation of the elements being exchanged—labor and money. Creating unemployment Will the deal go through? Not today. The reason? The federal minimum-wage law, which requires employers to pay workers at a minimal rate of $7.25 per hour. The reasoning employed by liberals goes like this: Nobody can survive earning a dollar an hour. To sustain one’s life, liberals say, requires a minimal rate of $7.25 an hour. Therefore, liberals enact a law that requires employers to pay their workers that minimal rate. In the process, liberals portray themselves as great heroes for the poor. But there’s obviously a problem here, one involving subjective value. In our example, that 18-year-old is unable to find any employer willing to pay him $7.25. All they’re willing to pay him is $1 an hour, a rate that he is willing to accept but is precluded from doing so because of the minimum-wage law. What happens to that 18-year-old? As a result of the minimum-wage law, he goes unemployed, permanently. He simply cannot get a job at the federally established minimum because employers do not place that value on his labor. That leaves the worker with the following choices: die by starvation, live on charity, engage in criminal conduct, or go on government welfare. Keep in mind that when a minimum-wage law is enacted, the government does not require employers to hire people at that rate. Instead, what the government does is to require people who are hired to be paid at that minimal rate. The obvious question arises with respect to subjective value: What happens to people whose labor is valued by employers at less than the governmentally established minimum? The answer is as obvious as the question, but unfortunately it’s one that liberals simply fail to consider. Those people are laid off and, even worse, permanently locked out of the labor market, assuming that valuations remain the same. That is, as long as employers place a subjective value on the labor of unemployed people that is lower than the governmentally established minimum, those people are going to be out of work. Employers will simply refuse to hire them. To make the matter clearer, suppose that Congress enacted a minimum wage of $1,000 an hour. Wouldn’t that be a great thing for workers? No, because it’s easy to see that lots of people would be laid off. The reason? Subjective value. All those workers whose labor is valued by employers at less than $1,000 an hour would be terminated. Liberals will rail against this natural law of economics. They’ll exclaim, “Every employer should place a high value on the work of employees. The value they place should at least equal the amount we set in our minimum-wage law.” But that’s not how life works. Again, value is subjective, not objective. Employers have their own personal, subjective valuations. For their part, so do workers. Thus, in an unhampered market economy—that is, one unhampered by such governmental interventions as minimum-wage laws—there will be no permanent unemployment because people will be able to find jobs at wage rates that are acceptable to them and to their employers, even if it is at rates that liberals consider too low. Liberals say that it is abhorrent that that 18-year-old would have to work at a dollar an hour. They say that no one could survive at that rate. They say that it’s unconscionable that anyone should have to work at that less-than-subsistence wage rate. But in their paternalistic approach to this situation, they block out of their minds some important things. Even though the young man is making only a dollar an hour, he’s not only earning a bit of money he’s also learning work skills and a work ethic. He’s learning the business he’s working for. He’s building up his stock of knowledge, which will enable him to become more marketable down the road or perhaps even open his own business to compete against already-established businesses. Unemployment and crime But when a teenager willing to work is locked out of the labor market, thanks to the minimum-wage law, he doesn’t acquire any of those things. As a result of the supposedly good intentions of the liberals, the minimum-wage law locks him out of the labor market and relegates him to a life of charity, illegal activity (e.g., theft or drug dealing), or welfare. Liberals cry, “But the boy could never survive on a dollar an hour.” Nonsense! There are all sorts of things he could do to make do, especially knowing that the situation is likely to be temporary. He could live with family or with a large bunch of friends who are sharing expenses. He would do what was necessary to survive during the time he was improving his work skills. With their minimum-wage laws, liberals never give that 18-year-old a chance. With their supposedly good intentions, they make him permanently unemployable. Is there a real-life example of this phenomenon? Last October the New York Times published a news story about runaway teenagers in America (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/us/26runaway.html?_r=2), the number of which has soared because of family financial problems arising from the recession. Citing federal studies and experts, the article stated that 1.6 million juveniles become runaways annually. According to the article, “Legitimate employment was hard to find in the summer of 2009; the Labor Department said fewer than 30 percent of teenagers had jobs.” The runaways supported themselves by selling drugs, panhandling, and prostitution. Why weren’t the runaway teenagers choosing to work at legitimate jobs to support themselves? The answer: minimum-wage laws. There are no jobs being offered at low wage rates to 14-year-old runaways with minimal education, rates that many of the runaways might well be willing to work at. All the available jobs are being offered at the minimum wage because that’s what the law requires. And employers simply do not place that value on the work of runaway teenagers who lack an education and work experience. (A related factor here is teen work permits, another ludicrous regulation that most states require.) Suppose there was no minimum-wage law. Then there would be all sorts of jobs being offered on the market at hourly rates of $5, $4, $1. Runaway teenagers would have an array of available options open to them from which to choose. But those options are never permitted to come into existence because of the government’s minimum-wage law. It relegates runaway teenagers to surviving by working in such activities as drug dealing and prostitution. High wages Liberals say that in the absence of minimum-wage laws, employers would pay everyone below-subsistence wages. But that’s obviously ridiculous, for the labor market is filled with instances of employers paying their workers more than the minimum wage. How do liberals explain that? In other words, if employers would pay everyone below-subsistence wages in the absence of a minimum-wage law, why would so many employers today be paying many of their workers more than the minimum? Wouldn’t you think that they would be paying the minimum amount established by law and not a penny more? The answer lies, again, in the concept of subjective value. The reason that employers pay some workers higher than the minimum wage is that they subjectively place a higher value on the labor of such workers. Thus, some employers are willing to trade, say, $20 an hour in exchange for the labor of their employees. Why would employers do that? Why not pay less rather than more, even if you place a higher valuation on the labor of the workers? Because there are other businesses that are competing for the labor of those workers, which tends to send labor rates upward. Thus, it is in the interests of workers to have as many businesses operating as possible. More businesses mean greater competition for workers. Yet, because of minimum-wage laws and other such governmental interventions, many businesses cannot survive. For example, a company that is barely operating at the margin cannot afford to give its workers a governmentally established pay raise. With the increase in the minimum wage, such a business has no choice but to close down, thereby laying off its workers. Add to that all the businesses that have to shut down as a result of other governmental interventions. Among the people who are hurt are the poor because there are fewer businesses competing for their services. Liberals operate under the quaint notion that such natural laws as the law of supply and demand can be repealed by public officials. They cannot be. Minimum-wage laws are just one example among many of a government intervention that hurts the poor. Other examples include price controls, welfare, protectionism, licensure, and subsidies. Good intentions don’t matter and a lack of understanding of economic principles is no excuse. What matters are the actual consequences of government policy. Those whom liberals claim to love—the poor—are the ones who suffer the most from liberal economic policies. __________________________________________________________________ Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. This article originally appeared in Freedom Daily. You may subscribe —-HERE—- online to the print or email version of Freedom Daily. Copyright © 2010 Future of Freedom Foundation� 2010-05-07T20:14:42+00:00