Watcher’s Council Nominations – UN-believable Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

Council News:

This week, The Mellow Jihadi, The Grouch, The Right Planet and Capitalist Preservation took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status.

You can too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply head over to the ‘Contact Me’ page at Joshuapundit and post a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members, while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have this week…

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!


The Con-Con Con

Gulag Bound

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit
or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention.  The Convention could make
its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congressmen might try to limit the Convention
to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention
would obey it.”
– Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger

“Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention,
I would tremble for the result of the second.”
– James Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United States

Tea Party Patriots and the Constitutional-Convention

Only two days after submitting my article on the Tea Parties, Part 3 and 4, I received a shocking e-mail.  I immediately called a friend in Internet publishing and asked him what I should do.  He said, “Write another article just on this subject.”  The reason I called was because the article on the Tea Parties included an expose of Tea Party Patriots and the e-mail I received was entitled, “Tea Party Group to Convene Conference …at Harvard.”  Yes, Tea Party Patriots (TPP) are going to Harvard on September 24th and 25th to discuss with legal experts the different ways to amend the Constitution and how feasible it would be to hold a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con).

According to several articles on this Conference, The Tea Party Patriots and Harvard Law School are co-sponsoring and co-hosting this event.  In the Tea Party Insider, it states this is being held to address potentially changing the Constitution.  There are an expected 400 attendees who will be there seeking reform on various issues and this will provide the forum for whether a Constitutional Convention should be organized.

David Segal, a former Democratic State representative from Rhode Island said that a Constitutional Convention could be just what the country needs!  Segal claims that the purpose of a federal Con-Con is to give states powers to propose amendments similar to the power imparted on Congress, but the states already have that power.  The states have had that power all along, it is just that they have not made use of it for so long it has atrophied.  So to say they need a Con-Con for this has to be a Trojan horse for a far more nefarious plan.

In an article in The Daily, co-founder and national coordinator of TPP Mark Meckler states, “The founders included the amendment process for the states to resist federal overreach and a convention would give states the chance to exert their authority and overturn unconstitutional laws,” He said the group isn’t yet supporting the idea of a convention, but is interested in exploring it.

Mark Meckler & Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots organization, photo by Gage Skidmore

When TPP co-founder, Jenny Beth Martin was asked about this Con-Con Conference in an e-mail from a TPP member who had been questioned regarding same, she commented by return e-mail,

She probably does not understand that Mark is attending the ConConCon not in support or against a Constitutional Convention, but rather as information and debate on it.  We are not taking a stand on a Constitutional Convention one way or other.

Mark Meckler answered another question in an e-mail,

Tea Party Patriots is co-sponsoring this event.  We will be present along with many others from the conservative movement to protect and defend the Constitution and the vision of the Founders.”

Meckler also stated in e-mail correspondence with a questioning member that the approval for attending came from State and Local Coordinators on their Monday night National calls.  He said,

To make sure we are clear, TPP is not expressing an organizational opinion on the advisability of an Article V Convention (with the exception of my personal opinion that this is not the time for such a convention).  We are going to Harvard to fight for the Constitution and the Framers’ intent.

Sounds good, right?  But then he muddies the water….

In the next to last paragraph Meckler says,

I understand your fear of people messing with the Constitution.  It is not irrational, and not wrong to feel protective of the document.  But we must also remember what many of the founders and especially Thomas Jefferson said to us, ‘Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.  They ascribe to the men of a preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…’ Again, he did not think it good to change them frequently or for small reason.  But he would have been vehemently opposed to the idea that amendments should not be considered nor discussed openly.

Thomas Jefferson did not attend the 1787 Convention, he was the Ambassador to France at the time.  He wished the Constitution had contained term limits for all politicians so they would not make it a lifelong position.

When I read these words in this forwarded e-mail I was shocked that these two leaders and their members do not understand the dangers of a Constitutional Convention, nor do they understand we do not need a Con-Con for amendments to the Constitution.  In my opinion, they are either part of the “controlled” opposition or they are so ignorant of the dangers, they should never be in leadership roles.

John D. Rockeffellers Sr. & Jr. in 1915, the year of David Rockefeller's birth

The John Birch Society will be in attendance to present the dangers of a Constitutional Convention and what could happen to us.  The JBS understands there are newly written constitutions waiting in the wings for just this opportunity.  Here is a look at one of them written over a period of 10 years at a cost of $25 million by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.  It is called, The New States Constitution.

It is written in an “obverse” style which means “forming a counterpart.”  As an example, Article I, Section 11 states, “Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate test of eligibility.”  The “obverse” of this statement is just as important as the statement itself and means, “All education shall be at public expense.”  In other words, all education will be government controlled and funded by taxpayer dollars, there will be no private schools that are not controlled by the federal government.

Section V of Article I states, “There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, origin or sex.”  This opens the door to pedophilia and bestiality.

Section X of Article I states, “Those who cannot contribute to the productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product.  But distribution shall be fair, and the total may not exceed the amount for this purpose held in the National Sharing Fund.”  Talk about a communist government!

Of course we have allowed our country to get to a stage similar to this and we simply must force these Congressional criminals to obey the Constitution we have.

Origins of the Con-Con

Back in the early 80s, the same excuse was used then as is being used now to push for a Constitutional Convention — a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).  We fought then with prayer and hard work.  Unfortunately, this BBA and Con-Con rhetoric once again sounds good and seems plausible to so many of the uneducated electorate who only want to save their country from the out-of-control abusive politicians, but who are ignorant of the ramifications of such an action. Along with this danger, we must  remember too, that a “false friend” is more dangerous than an open enemy.

In many of my articles I’ve exposed how the Republicans and the phony rightwing have been in bed with the left for decades.  So, when I name names that are alleged conservatives, do not think for one minute they are ill informed or do not know what they’re doing.

Over the years, the pro-Con-Con lobbyists and politicians have attempted to dismiss the concerns about what they call a runaway Convention.  But the above words of James Madison and Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was an expert Constitutional scholar, and scores of others equally qualified make it plain that opening a Con-Con is very dangerous business.

When the gavel fell on the first and only Constitutional Convention which took place in 1787, the delegates proceeded to disregard Congress’ preset agenda, a limited agenda that was given to them calling for modification only of the Articles of Confederation which were in force at that time.  They threw out the Articles of Confederation, i.e. they threw out the existing government at that time, and they wrote a whole new Constitution.  About 50 of the 55 delegates at that Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians, so the Constitution they wrote was rooted squarely in the Word of God and the Ten Commandments.  It maximized individual liberty while at the same time limiting government power.[i]

To ensure the new Constitution was adopted, the delegates simply ignored the existing ratification rules and wrote new ones which they used to get their new Constitution ratified.  It was a gift of God for sure, but there are absolutely no Constitutional guarantees that the legal precedent of the first Convention will not be repeated by the second one with the result being a new Constitution, but you can rest assured that this one will not be from Godly Christian men.  Back in the early 80s, many of the states that called for a one-item Convention like the BBA and wrote limiting language into their calls (thinking they could indeed control the agenda they stated they would secede from the Convention if it overstepped the bounds) but the precedent of the first Convention is the basis for American jurisprudence.[ii]

A Con-Con is not just the amendment that is at issue.  The entire document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and people go to work on it, tearing it apart.  We no longer have statesmen like our founders.  Can you imagine the delegates from each state and those who would work on our law-of-the-land document today?

Part 2

Who is Behind the Con-Con Push

The Constitution has been a target from its very inception.  In the mid 1800s, the American Fabian Society wrote in its journal that the Constitution was too highly individualist to allow for the gradual implementation of socialism.  In the 1950s, the World Constitution and Parliamentary Association was calling for a world constitutional convention.  They’ve been at it ever since and one of the Constitutions slated for inclusion in the Convention is theirs and it would help introduce a world constitution.

Henry Hazlitt, formerly the economic advisor to pro Constitutional Convention James Dale Davidson’s National Taxpayer’s Union, was a renowned conservative and he wrote a book which he republished in 1974 called, A New Constitution Now.  This book is extremely dangerous inasmuch as Davidson states things like, “an amendment could be proposed that would strike out everything after “We the people,” and that of course includes the Bill of Rights.  He was of course suggesting that everything after “We the people” on down be scrapped and rewritten, which is amazing as this document has provided more human dignity and freedom for more people than any other in recorded history.[iii]

The one purpose of the Con-Con is to eliminate the allegiance of this nation to God, family and country.  To do that, the elimination of inalienable, permanent rights from God must happen.

James Dale Davidson has been at the forefront in pushing for a Con-Con for decades and used to give $100,000 per year towards that cause.  He was also one of the initial board members on Newsmax along with CFR members Alexander Haig and Arnaud de Borchgrave.  Newsmax is Christopher Ruddy’s organization and was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife who funds both sides of the aisle much like the Koch brothers and Soros.  Scaife is pro-abortion and strongly believes in taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.

In 1980, the committee on the constitutional System (the CCS) came together in D.C.  It was comprised of globalists, internationalists and career politicians.  The CCS was founded by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission (TC) and funded by Ford, Rockefeller, American Express and Hewlett Foundations  Their directors were nearly all CFR and TC members.  Those involved included former Attorney General Thornburgh, former Secretary of the Treasury Brady, sitting Senators like Kassebaum, Moynihan and Hollings, and the wealthy and influential Robert McNamara, William Fulbright, and Douglas Dillon, among others.

Career elitist politicians from both the Republican and Democrat camps have been strong proponents of a Con-Con, including 3rd party advocates like Ross Perot (CFR), President Clinton (CFR), President G.H.W. Bush.  Today of course the majority of both parties would love a Con-Con.  The State Legislative Lobbyists are some of the worst however and this includes the rightwing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) who has been pushing a Con-Con for decades.  Part 4 of The Phony Right Wing speaks to the efforts of ALEC and their corporate members wishing to rewrite the Constitution.

All of the One-Worlders want and need a Constitutional Convention despite taking an oath to uphold the original document.  The majority are CFR members, globalists, New World Order planners, Trilateralists, Order of Skull and Bones, Transnationalists, Bilderbergers, Geopoliticians, Club of Rome, and Bohemian Club Members.[iv]  Other partners are the likes of Judge Anthony Napolitano who started pushing a Con-Con on the Glenn Beck show May 1, 2009, after the very first Tea Party on April 15th, 2009.

The attack on our Constitution has never come from some fringe element, but from powerful and ostensibly upstanding people on both the right and the left.  Nearly always those in the “white hats” or “our guys” are the ones pushing a Con-Con to the conservatives and making it sound oh-so-wonderful to the electorate, who have not a clue of the protections from government which the Constitution gives them.[v]

What is Required to Add an Amendment

An amendment to the constitution is first proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.  None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention.  This is the way we’ve ratified amendments since the Bill of Rights. It is then sent to the states for their votes.  If 38 of the states ratify the amendment, it will be added to the Constitution.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 states).  When the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution.  This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed. Link

The other way is to have two-thirds of the states, that is thirty-four states of our fifty states petitioning Congress for a Constitutional Convention.  With an amendment, the only thing that is examined, dissected, reviewed, and surgically changed is the amendment itself.  But a Constitutional Convention is not just the amendment that is at issue.  The whole document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and the people go to work on it.  This is fertile ground for someone to step in and say, “Here is a new, modern Constitution which has been developed by the great brains of the world today.”  These are not statesmen with the God given rights of the people in their hearts and minds, but globalists and internationalists seeking to control every single breath we take and dying when they deem it necessary.[vi]

Today’s Balanced Budget Amendment Ruse

Today’s Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is a hoax and a huge trap.  Again, the politicians are selling this to the people because it has such a great sounding name, just like it did a couple decades ago when we fought the push for a Con-Con then.  The problem with this Amendment (which quite obviously all 47 Republican Senators and most of the Republican Representatives don’t understand because they never read the Constitution) is that the Constitutionlimits what the federal government is allowed to spend with taxpayer dollars.  It is so limited that the funding of outrageous items today would fill an encyclopedia.

Our Constitution does not authorize foreign aid, or museums about rock stars, or studying of the blue lizard, or Chinese prostitutes, or unconstitutional wars, etc. ad nauseum.  We have a majority of Republicans in congress today… so why in heaven’s name aren’t they balancing the budget now without an amendment?

This BBA that all these folks absolutely love and want passed and talk so openly about, to the dumbed down electorate would actually legalize constitutionally illegal spending, and give them a free hand to spend whatever they want to on any frivolous item that floats past their desks.  The Constitution limits Congress alone to the spending of money!

The BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship. Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget.  Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful.  But Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the Constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President.  Congress will become a rubber stamp.

Please read Publius Huldah’s, “Why the BBA is a Hoax” on this diabolical change to our constitution planned by the right-wing who have long been in bed with the left.  Senators Jim DeMint and Mike Lee (neo-cons) are determined to jam this down our throats along with Congressional creatures like Michelle Bachmann.  Do not tell me they don’t understand fully what they are doing, because nearly every one of these people are lawyers and they have certainly studied the law.  In the July 7, 2011, Wall Street Journal, Jim DeMint joined with that bastion of conservative politics, Olympia Snowe of Maine to push the BBA stating it is The Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending.”  Liars and thieves!

Another huge danger with this proposed BBA is the Constitutional Convention. Those of us who have written about the Con-Con call have grave concerns that this BBA could easily turn into an Article V convention. Should the BBA fail to get 38 or three-fourths of the states to ratify, the Republicans (who seem to be pushing this for both parties) could easily tell the electorate they can’t get the Democrats to go along with balancing the budget, so we need to get these same states to put out a call for a Constitutional Convention where we can open the constitution for one reason only and that is to balance the budget.  They need only two-thirds or 34 states to put out a call for a Constitutional Convention, to open one.

I wrote about this in detail in my article, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing? and Tom DeWeese of American Policy Center has written about it extensively, as has the John Birch Society, and Bernadine Smith of the Second Amendment Committee, as well as many others.


Hard work and a great deal of prayer went into fighting off the first big call for a Constitutional Convention, when we came within two states of seeing it happen.  The effort has regained new speed with a new generation that knows nothing of the dangers of a Con-Con, nor the history of our founders and the document itself.

I pray people will come to the realization that our freedoms are disappearing at a rapid rate by degrees every single day and will wake up in time to save the one protection we have left.  We need to be forceful and vigilant in demanding our representatives obey their oaths of office to the Constitution, rather than allowing them to rewrite the very document that is our last protection against total annihilation of our God given, unalienable rights. It is only the voices of the people, the grass roots, with everything to lose, who can stop this.  It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

[i] Constitution in Crisis, Kenneth C. Hill and Joan Collins

[ii] ibid, page 12

[iii] ibid, page 13

[iv] ibid, page 30

[v] ibid, page 13

[vi] ibid,  page 17

Kelleigh Nelson has been a sentinel researching the Christian right and operations designed to co-opt it, since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. E-Mail: [email protected]

See Kelleigh Nelson’s Phony Rightwing Series, on certain GOP presidential candidates and her exposé of the globalists trying to co-opt and control the Tea Parties.

Graphics added by Gulag Bound


Communism is Dying? 80 Million Chinese Reds Beg to Differ

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Many Western commentators would tell you that communism is dying in China and will eventually be replaced by capitalism and maybe even a western style “democracy.”

Others will tell you that we don’t have to fear China, because the country has huge internal problems and may eventually fall apart.

Both views are, in my opinion, grossly naive and wishful thinking.

China in my view is following classic Marxist-Leninist principles.

China tried to go directly from feudalism to socialism with disastrous results. Now the Communist Party has returned to Classic Marxism, moving from feudalism, to very tightly controlled “capitalism,” which will lead according to Marx, onto socialism, then communism.

The good Leninists of the Communist Party of China well understand the dangers that “capitalism” could pose to their control, so they are forever building and broadening the reach of the Party into every facet of Chinese life. The party is the glue that holds China together and it is getting stronger every day.

From the Communist Party of China International Department website:

The number of Communist Party of China (CPC) members has exceeded 80 million, a senior CPC official said Friday.

The CPC had 80.269 million members by the end of last year, Wang Qinfeng, deputy head of the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee, said at a press conference.

The Party grew from only about 50 members at its birth to nearly 4.5 million when the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949.

Last year, 3.075 million people joined the CPC, the world’s largest political Party — a net increase of 2.274 million taking into account members who died or left the party.

The two leading groups in new members were college students and people at the frontline of production or work, such as industrial workers, farmers, herders, and migrant workers, both accounting for more than 40 percent of the total new Party members.

The CPC received 21.017 million membership applications last year, a year-on-year increase of 861,000.

Of the Party’s members, 18.03 million were women and 5.338 million were from ethnic minority groups in 2010, accounting for 22.5 percent and 6.6 percent of the total respectively, according to Wang.

In terms of occupation, the group of farmers, herders and fishermen, numbering 24.427 million, was the largest, while 6.989 million Party members were workers, he said.

Another 6.812 million members worked in Party and state agencies, and 18.413 million were managerial staff and professional technicians working in enterprises and non-profitable organizations, and 2.539 million were students, according to Wang.

Meanwhile, a total of 32,000 people were expelled or withdrew from the Party last year, most of whom were forced out to ensure the advanced nature and purity of the CPC, Wang said.

Besides enlarging its membership, the CPC continued to expand both in public and private sectors last year.

Party organizations had been established in nearly all government agencies, state-owned and private enterprises, and social organizations.

They had also been set up in 99.9 percent of villages and urban communities and in all associations of lawyers and certified accountants, Wang said.

Regarding the 3 million migrant worker Party members, Wang said that the Party had managed to have them join Party organization activities in their current place of residence so that they could stay connected with the Party.

Does this sound like a dying organization to you?


Jewish Activists Arrested Near The UN

By: Fern Sidman

Six Jewish activists including Rabbi Avi Weiss, director of Amcha-Coalition for Jewish Concerns, were arrested on Tuesday morning, September 20th, at the corner of 1st Avenue and East 40th Street, as they blocked traffic in a symbolic protest against the Palestinian bid for independent statehood at the United Nations annual general assembly conference. Their arrest was part of a rally co-sponsored by Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI) and Amcha that drew over 35 people, many of whom also stood in the street with them.

Pointing to the UN building looming in the background, Rabbi Weiss told the rally attendees who gathered in the heavy rain along with throngs of local and national media that, “Today we are sitting in the street to tell this den of evil that they will be responsible for the violence that will, G-d forbid, take place in Israel as a result of this move to legitimize a state who clearly does not want peace. If the New York City police really “got it,” they wouldn’t be arresting those who represent the Jewish voice of consciousness and those who speak truth to power, but they’d be arresting Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is guilty of murdering countless numbers of his own people and who threatens genocide against the Jewish state.”

Glenn Richter, a former leader of the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry organization and a leading spokesman for Jewish causes declared, “There can be no business as usual at the United Nations while it continues to demonize and delegitimize Israel, endorse a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood and welcome the evil Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”.

Also attending the rally was Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, executive director of New York Board of Rabbis who said, “Given the choice between being part of an immoral majority or moral minority, I’d rather be part of the minority than the majority which meets in the UN and makes Israel too often the guilty party. There’s a Yiddish saying which translates, ‘fear G-d, not people.’ We’re here because of what people may sometimes do to us and that’s why we have to be so vocal.”

Saying that she was mortified by the abject silence of the Jewish establishment organizations in lieu of the impending UN vote to create a Palestinian state predicated on a terrorist doctrine, Helen Freedman, executive director of AFSI and one of those arrested said, “Incomprehensibly, the major Jewish Organizations have chosen to stay away from the battle. Is it spinelessness or mindlessness?”

Turning her attention to the existential threat that a Palestinian state would present for Israel, Ms. Freedman added, Mahmoud Abbas’ unilateral efforts to have a PA state declared at the UN are reprehensible and incredibly dangerous for Israel. Iran’s Ahmadinejad should not be permitted into this country, not in New York City and certainly not in our streets, restaurants and universities, while he is threatening the western world with nuclear war. The Durban III denunciations of Israel should not be tolerated. The entire purpose of the United Nations has been turned upside down.”

Holding aloft large Israeli and American flags and signs saying, “Shame On the UN For Demonizing and Delegitimizing Israel!” and “We Support Israel,” the rally participants chanted “Am Yisrael Chai” (the Jewish people live), as police begand to handcuff and lead the six demonstrators to a nearby paddy wagon. They were brought to the 17th precinct in Midtown Manhattan where they were booked on charges of disorderly conduct.

In addition to Rabbi Weiss, who is also senior rabbi at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and Helen Freedman of AFSI, the others arrrested were Cheryl Jacobs Lewin, chairwoman of AFSI’s Chicago chapter who flew in to New York to participate in the protest, Miriam Prince, Sarah Rosenbaum and Glenn Richter. They were represented by attorney Karen Stahl-Don.

Impugning the moral integrity of the Palestinian leadership and agenda was Rabbi Jason Herman of Manhattan’s West Side Jewish Center who said, “A little over a week ago, Noam Shalit, father of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, kidnapped by Hamas, spoke to many UN delegations. He said that if you have a state which continues to deny the Red Cross a visit to his son for over five years, what kind of a state will that be? If you have a Palestinian Authority which seeks a unilaterally declared state instead by negotiation, what kind of a state will that be? If Palestinians wish a state, that state must behave with the behavior appropriate to a moral state.”



By: Chad Kent
Chad Kent Speaks

In California, police are sending a clear message that we should never make any attempt to be self-reliant. Instead, we should be completely dependent on the government… regardless of the situation.

According to a local CBS affiliate:

When a major traffic light in the area went out Thursday morning, Alan Ehrlich took matters into his own hands, directing traffic at Fair Oaks and Huntington avenues.

“I grabbed a bright orange shirt that I have and a couple of orange safety flags. I took it upon myself to help get motorists through that intersection faster,” said Ehrlich.

If you read the article you’ll notice that no one ever claims that Ehrlich caused any problems or created any confusion. On the contrary, people on the scene reported that only minutes after he got out of his car traffic was running smoothly again. This man did a great public service and likely saved a lot of people a lot of time and frustration – and may have prevented a collision.

But instead of thanking Ehrlich for doing a good deed, Pasadena Police gave him a ticket. It’s like something out of 1984, where “service” is now “crime”.

In other words, even when the government is failing miserably at something, citizens should suffer through it and wait for them to figure it out rather than taking it upon ourselves to find a solution.

Not content to sit back and take the humiliation of allowing a private citizen to succeed where government was failing, the city of Pasadena went out of its way to highlight just how misplaced its priorities really are:

“Police responded to the scene and told Ehrlich to stop and issued him a ticket, but never stepped into direct traffic themselves.” (emphasis mine)

So they took the time to punish the guy who was actually trying to solve the problem… but never even attempted to solve the problem themselves. Wow.

You might be asking, “Ok, so this is annoying. But why are you making such a big deal about this, Chad?” Simple – because it directly affects our freedom.

Freedom and self-reliance go hand-in-hand. You can’t have freedom without self-reliance; and you can’t have self-reliance without freedom.

Unfortunately, most of our public officials have the same attitude as the city of Pasadena. Look at all the areas of our lives where we are being told to rely on government and not ourselves: retirement (Social Security), personal safety (don’t carry a gun, wait for police to save you!), and now health care. The list goes on and on.

When you depend on someone else to provide for a critical area of your life, they own you. Think of what your parents always told you, “If you live under my roof, you’ll live under my rules.”

It’s the same with government. “If you are going to get my health care, you’re going to get it according to my rules.”

Remember, one of the greatest parts about freedom is having control over the direction of your own life. To whatever extent we depend on someone else to provide for us, we give up that control (ie. give up our freedom).

If we want to preserve our freedom, we must learn from Mr. Ehrlich’s example. When we see a problem, we need to look for ways to solve it ourselves rather than waiting around for the government to do it.

And in doing so, we must reject any efforts by politicians or public officials to force us to be more and more reliant on government.