For opponents of the healthcare bill, using Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence as justification for government takeover of the healthcare industry is just as sad as it is ironic. It is sad because on Sunday night, Pelosi and 218 of her colleagues in the House acted on their gross misinterpretation of that great founding document. But the question that all should be asking is whether or not the Founding Fathers would approve of the healthcare bill.

Simply put, the answer is a resounding “No.” For any student of the political thought of the American founding, the exercise of power by the Democrats in Congress and President Obama is enough to warrant another revolution. Where classrooms once taught that the British parliament circa 1763 is the foremost example of misuse of power and the dangers of disregarding the constitution, one now need look no further than the 111th Congress.

Yes, the process was bad. Deals were struck and bribes were made. Congressional leaders arm twisted and moderate Democrats caved. But if the Founding Fathers were alive today, those would only be minor issues. For in the grand scheme of things, what the Democrats accomplished was not a mere piece of legislation or the overhaul of a huge sector in the economy. It was getting away with a tyranny of the majority with the complete disregard to the American voter.

It was the tyranny of the majority that passed legislation that expands the powers of government more than any other since the 1960s, and all in an openly corrupt, dishonest, yet unapologetic manner. Worse still, the process exemplified the fact that to Democrats, government is an entity entirely separate from the will of the people and can in fact, be opposed to it.

The philosopher John Locke- who was a source of inspiration for many of the Founders- wrote in his Second Treatise on Government that government is derived from men in the state of nature voluntarily agreeing to form an authority to execute the laws of nature. And that is essentially, where the idea comes from that government gets its powers from the “consent of the governed.”

James Wilson- a Founding Father who signed the Declaration of Independence and was one of the original six members of the U.S. Supreme Court – wrote in 1791 that it was the business of the federal government to protect rights, and that under a properly functioning government, people would be more free than they would be in the state of nature. Of course, that concept is hard to grasp because the argument could be made that a perfect government has never existed. Nevertheless, it is still a valid point that deserves consideration in today’s political climate. Does this healthcare reform bill leave Americans more free?

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote that voluntary associations and relations among people were a major cornerstone of any Republican society. The healthcare bill however, does not allow for voluntary relationships. It demands, among other things, that individuals pay for health care for fellow citizens.

Thus it is fair to say that the healthcare bill itself, and the way in which it was passed would not sit well with Jefferson, Wilson, or any other of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and American revolutionaries. Government, in its correct form, should exist to protect individual rights. But by interfering in the economy and forcing individuals to buy health insurance, the government is doing nothing but violating rights.

Moreover, the Founders created a Democratic Republic for many reasons; one of them being that they wanted above all, to ensure that the rights and will of the minority were not trampled.

With the battle over healthcare reform however, Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, managed to pass legislation despite the very serious, genuine, and legitimate objections raised by their Republican colleagues and the unfavorable opinion of the bill from the American public. The Democrats have been clear- public opinion and the rights of the minority do not matter. Is there now no recourse for the tyranny of the majority?

Some say that the late Sunday-night vote in the House was a historic moment. They are right. It was a defining moment in U.S. history that will forever impact the freedom and liberties of future generations. The country came to a fork in the road, and Congress went left. So where does the country go from here?

Megan McArdle, econo-blogger at The Atlantic, explains it best: “The check that we have is that politicians care what the voters think. If that slips away, America’s already quite toxic politics will become poisonous.” In other words, if politicians can get away with misleading the American people and then ignoring them, America will no longer be the country the Founding Fathers created.

It might be time for another speech from Patrick Henry; or maybe a pamphlet or two by Thomas Paine.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

NCLB, an initiative that was put forth by President George W. Bush and signed into law in January 2002, was based on the theory that setting measureable goals and standards for each grade would improve among other things, testing scores in public schools.

Eight years later, NCLB has largely proven to be one massive failure. The act only resulted in increased federal government spending in education by billions of dollars, the illusion of school choice, no real punishment for failing schools, and the introduction of standardized testing as the ultimate litmus test for success or failure.

So President Obama is right when he says NCLB has got to go. However, that promise would be a lot more comforting if the president didn’t already have an abysmal track record when it comes to education.

Consider the DC voucher program, for example. The program, which was authorized by Congress in 2004, gave qualified students up to $7,500 to attend private or charter schools in the district, allowing them the chance to escape some of the worst public schools in the nation. The program almost immediately became a success among students, educators, and parents alike.

For perhaps the first time, low-income students in the District of Columbia were given the opportunity to attend better schools. Yet last April, President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and the Democrats in Congress changed all that.

When the program first began, Congress made funding past the 2009-2010 school year dependent on re-authorization by Congress and the D.C. Council. So, Duncan decided to inform families that since there was no guarantee that the program would exist a year from now, it would be better to not allow any new participants.

Thus, letters were sent out to 200 families who had just gotten into the program, notifying them their scholarship was being rescinded. Of course, in doing so, he also effectively killed the program before it could get any kind of a fair hearing. This was all done of course, with the president’s approval.

Next came Obama’s community college initiative- a plan that was proposed last summer. In it, Obama called for $12 billion of taxpayer money to be invested in community colleges, and an increase in Pell grants for low-income students. To pay for this, a bill was passed on September 17, 2009, that effectively cancels all government subsidies to private lenders making college loans. Instead, the federal government has taken over as lender.

There are many reasons why that bill and the community college initiative are disturbing to free marketers. Not only do they increase government spending and intervention in education, it also tries to make college more accessible by making it easier for prospective students to obtain loans. That same tactic was tried once before with prospective homebuyers.

Reforming NCLB is the next item President Obama has set his eyes on in his overhaul of the education system. His plan involves dividing schools into three categories that are something along the line of “Excellent,” “Good,” and “Poor.” The better a school is, the more it is allowed to be completely autonomous and innovative. Poor schools are punished with strict government control and oversight until improvements are made.

The task now is for Obama to convince Congress that his plan is better than NCLB- which shouldn’t be hard to do. Almost anything would be an improvement over Bush’s initiative. But while the change in education law is likely to occur, given Obama’s record with education reform it remains doubtful whether any actual improvements will take place.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

It has been eight years since planes crashed into one of our nation’s busiest cities. And while civilian’s day-to-day fears may have subsided, the actual threat of terrorism on our homeland remains elevated. This latest threat demonstrates not only the ever present danger of terrorist attacks, but also America’s failed counter-terrorism system.

According to recent reports, Abdulmutallab’s father actually met with CIA officials and warned of his son’s threat. Not only did he blatantly specify his son’s capability of becoming a suicide bomber, he revealed his son’s radicalization. Is this not enough of a red flag? Apparently not. What more do you need than a father verbally indicting his son? CIA officials failed to communicate such significant information to other agencies, furthering the claim that the CIA lacks important inter-agency communication. Not only did they fall short in forwarding information to additional federal officials, they proceeded to issue Abdulmutallab a visa.

In addition to the CIA’s meeting with the father of the suicide bomber, the CIA, NSA and State Department acquired separate, additional information pertaining to Abdulmutallab. One government source reportedly obtained voice-to-voice communication between Abdulmutallab and Yemeni extremist, Anwar al-Aulaqi. And, in as early as August, 2009, the CIA picked up information on “the Nigerian,” concerning meetings with potential terrorist sects in Yemen. While such information was noted, it once again failed to be communicated between governmental agencies.

Two strikes for our nation’s so-called ‘premier’ intelligence agency.

This incident not only illustrates chronic malfunctions in intelligence, it also demonstrates a serious let down of our current administration. On Sunday Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano proclaimed that “the system worked,” despite the fact that airport security measures neglected to detect Abdulmutallab’s explosive device. The bomb still managed to make it on the plane, undetected. She later retracted her statement and placed it in its proper context. According to Napolitano her claim of a “successful system,” referred to the manner in which officials reacted to the event.

Yet even her back-peddling is digging her deeper into a seemingly inevitable resignation. At what point did security officials exhibit successful post-terrorism tactics? Does forcing passengers to remain seated during the first hour and the final hour of their air commute equal success? I may be going out on a limb, but my guess is that an individual committed to blowing up a plane will not just forgo his charge simply because of a new, “stay seated” regulation. If an individual has dedicated time and resources towards developing an upcoming act of terrorism, he would simply go to the bathroom and prepare the device for detonation during a different point in the flight.

What we need is not a keep-your-seatbelt-fastened sign, but rather greater accountability in our nation’s intelligence community. As with the Fort Hood shooting, where officials failed to act on warning signs from the ultimate shooter, federal officials failed to pass on information alerting of Abdulmutallab’s precarious, red-flag behavior. Once a terrorist reaches the airport, the likelihood that one will be apprehended prior to implementing a terrorist attack, is limited. More actions must be taken at an earlier point in the potential terrorist’s trail.

According to Francis Townsend, since 9/11 the CIA workforce has been reduced. There must not be a diminution of intelligence personnel, but instead an increase in intelligence gathering human resources. In addition we must stress the necessity of interoperability among government agencies. I fear that if our government fails to implement such seemingly commonsensical measures, the Christmas day bombing attempt will be repeated…successfully.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She was recently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.  She currently resides in California.

How can conversations between a spiritual adviser to several 9/11 hijackers as well as a subject if continual federal investigations and an Army Major with an already suspiciously keen interest in Islamic extremism not be suspect?

In a speech given at The Heritage Foundation last week, former Homeland Security Advisor to George W. Bush, Frances Townsend, spoke on this very topic. In her remarks she touched on whether political correctness contributed to the lack of further investigation into Hasan. According to Townsend, while information sharing has proven successful in post 9/11 society, the events at Fort Hood exemplified a weakness in the chain of transparency.

“We need to persuade people with the facts,” said Townsend. “I am not suggesting profiling, but we cannot be intimidated by a culture of political correctness.”

Townsend has a very valid point. Facts are facts. Allowing political correctness to get in the way of providing evidence, and possibly prevent mass casualties, is a sign that the pc movement has gone too far. More could have been done, were it not for people’s fear of being labeled as ‘profilers.’

There is a continual squabble among lawmakers and government officials about what was known prior to the shootings, where the information went, and why nothing was done earlier. However, some remain reluctant to admit that they sat on such information. In my opinion, the facts still add up to valid suspicions and to claim otherwise is foolish.

As an Iranian-American I am not spared from racial stereotyping. Throughout middle school I faced immature comments about the affiliation of my last name, and in high school, post 9/11, I received the occasional question, “Are your family members terrorists.” While I did not take such comments to heart, I can empathize with subjects of ethnic profiling. Nidal Hasan’s behaviors prior to the Fort Hood massacre were more than red flags. They were indicators of instability, and on that front alone, should have been brought into question. Understandably, officials will naturally exemplify more caution when investigating an individual of Muslim decent. But, is it not more important to risk the opinions of peers for the lives of 13 innocent individuals? No more lives should be lost as a result of the pc movement.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She is currently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.

Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation that essentially phases-out the Opportunity Scholarship program by prohibiting any new students from enrolling. The President has stood by and allowed it to happen—effectively denying low-income children in D.C. the same opportunity that he benefited from as a child: the chance to attend a private school on scholarship.

Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder quietly urged proponents of the program to pull a television advertisement that promotes the D.C. OSP and urges President Obama to support school choice for D.C. families. Evidently, the administration is united against providing opportunity for these under-privileged children.

Last week, President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan traveled to Madison, WI where the President spoke to students and educators at James C. Wright Middle School. He highlighted the importance of offering the best education to children in the U.S.

“American prosperity has long rested on how well we educate our children. But, this has never been more true than it is today. There is nothing that will determine our future as a nation and the lives that our children will lead, more than the kind of education that we provide them.”

During Obama’s visit, Secretary Duncan also shared brief comments:

“And what amazes me is that week after week, month after month, he [Obama] just keeps coming back to education, and he’s absolutely passionate about it.  He and his wife, the First Lady Michelle Obama, received great educations.  Neither one was born with a lot of money, but they worked really hard and had great teachers and great principals and made the most of it.  And now he’s our President.  So it’s a pretty remarkable journey. The only reason he’s the President is because he got a great education.”

While Duncan fails to mention that Obama received a great education thanks to a scholarship, he concedes that without that opportunity, he would have never become President. It is impossible to know what will become of the educational futures of those 216 children who recently had their Opportunity Scholarships rescinded. But one thing is certain: Duncan’s remarks would have been highly ironic if delivered in the Nation’s Capitol, where thousands of children are being denied the opportunity to receive a decent education.

The President’s support for schools such as James C. Wright Middle School, a charter school in Madison, begs the question of why he endorses charter schools but does not back other effective school choice options for children. So far, his silence on the issue has meant 216 children have returned to the often dangerous and under performing D.C. public schools.

The children of Washington, D.C. are America’s future, and they deserve to hear President Obama’s explanation for denying them the bright educational opportunity that he was so fortunate to have benefited from.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She is currently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.

Examining a president’s relationship with the media has long been a study of interest for presidential scholars and political scientists. But no assessment of president-press relations is complete without a look back at the vindictive Richard Nixon. Elected on the heels of enormous public unrest (the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were still fresh in the public’s mind as was the on-going Vietnam War, after all) Nixon’s ascendance to the presidency marked one of the greatest and unexpected political success stories in history.

But Nixon’s presidency was marred by a twisted White House logic that viewed any dissenting opinions, whether they were on the editorial page or the primetime news, as attempts to undermine his message and agenda for the American people. In every instance, Nixon approached the press with a battle-like mentality in an attempt to ensure he was treated “fairly,” at all costs.

Yet it wasn’t just this suspicion and dislike of certain media outlets that characterized the Nixon White House as much as it was the systemized effort to strike back. Nixon, along with aides H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman and others within the upper echelons of the administration organized efforts to retaliate against news outlets, including public denunciations, lawsuits against CBS, NBC and ABC, wiretapping reporters’ phones, an enemies list and other covert activities.

Fast forward to 2009 and what you have is a new administration, but the same Nixon tactics. Yet this time, the animosity is being directed only at the unfair and unbalanced network that is Fox “News.”

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” espoused White House Communications Director Anita Dunn recently on CNN. “When he [the president] goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition. [Fox is] widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party […] let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”

Senior Advisor David Axelrod also went on the offensive, explaining that Fox is “not really a news station.” “It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective,” added Rahm Emmanuel. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs even joined in by specifically targeting Fox’s Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, saying they represented the networks’ unfair coverage. And according to U.S. News and World Report, a “senior Obama adviser” said, “Our hope is simply that responsible journalists will not go chasing after Fox stories as if these stories were legitimate.”

If this doesn’t reek of an organized, Nixonian push to discredit a privately-owned news network simply for presenting different views, what does? There is no evidence yet that proves Axelrod and Emmanuel are another Haldeman and Erlichman team; but though the Obama administration’s tactics aren’t as extensive, the same mindset that plagued the White House in the early 1970s is afflicting the White House again.

The only difference today is that the rest of the mainstream media isn’t rising up in outrage against the Obama administration. The White House pool, to their credit, did stand up against the administration when it tried to exclude Fox from interviewing Kenneth Feinberg, but that’s been the extent of their action on behalf of their fellow network. During Nixon’s day everyone from Time Magazine to the Washington Post to the New York Times was writing negative editorials about the president because of his attacks against the media.

But just like what happened with Nixon, President Obama will soon find out that any strategy that involves attacking media networks isn’t going to produce positive results. Obama is going directly against his promise for bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle. Instead, it seems as though his new era of politics is one intent on shutting down the opposition. That’s not what the American people voted for.

A recent Gallup poll showed Obama’s approval ratings at 53 percent. This is especially telling considering the decline in his popularity since July is the steepest of any president at the same stage of the first term in over 50 years. An organized, systematic attack on a news network won’t help those numbers. If Nixon were still alive, he would attest to that fact.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

During Obama’s campaign for the White House, he stressed the importance of a transparent government. Today it appears that he has retracted such a commitment. As the debate on health care reform progresses we are seeing the renunciation of more and more assurances. The most recent is Obama’s pledge to conduct the health care debate in an environment that is open to the public. One may argue that there is a multitude of open dispute on the issue. Yet, as the Senate vote on the bill draws near, three Democratic lawmakers continue their discussions behind the veil of closed doors.

Senators Reid, Dodd, and Baucus have spent the past week, not in the view of American citizens, but rather in a room with two other senators, deciding the future of Americans. This is not an issue of who is deciding the future of our nation’s health care policy, but rather how politicians are proceeding in the debate. Secretly adjusting the bills to wed opposing arguments is not a democratic form of the legislative process.

As of yet there are no plans to televise the roundtable dialogue on CSPAN, as President Obama once pledged. And while chairmen will continue to regularly brief lawmakers about their arguments, there remains no actual public disclosure of what is concretely said inside the chamber.

The health care bill is a form of legislation that directly affects citizens of our nation. It is not a proposal which has indirect impacts on Americans, but rather, is a measure which has the potential to greatly impact our generation and generations to come. Obama did not have to guarantee constituents complete access to the health care debate. He was not coerced to run his campaign on the pledge of full transparency. However, he did, and for a President who prides himself on fighting for the people of the United States, it only seems justified that he should follow through with his promise.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She is currently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.

Carol A. Taber, president of Family Security Matters, recently discussed the concerns of American women.  As a former publisher of national women’s magazines, the sort read by nearly 100 million women annually, she knows what women want.

Taber says our concerns tend to occur in concentric circles, with all priorities spreading out from the same center: our family.  That, of course, includes parents, spouse, and children.  Next comes our neighborhood (including schools and friends), then our community, then our state or region, and so on.

Assuming that this theory holds true for most women, it’s puzzling that some otherwise savvy ladies have a knee-jerk opposition to a program called “missile defense.”

 For one thing, such opposition runs counter to public opinion.  A poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation in May reveals that 88 percent of the respondents believe that the federal government should field a system for countering ballistic missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction.  They happen to also believe (mistakenly) that we already have what we need to defeat a range of threats.

The threat from ballistic missile attack is real.  So is the possibility that such missiles could be armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.  That could cause damage far beyond the scale of even 9/11.  Many may be surprised to know that in only 33 minutes or fewer, an enemy ballistic missile launched from the other side of the world could hit the United States.  Today’s fledgling system doesn’t protect every state or all of our cities.

Missile defense is exactly that: a purely defensive system that only protects Americans (as well as troops overseas and allies, too).  Missile defense cannot kill anyone.  Indeed, as Lt. General (Ret.) Trey Obering has said, missile defense is similar to an insurance policy for the protection of all Americans.  Except, of course, it’s a much better investment.

Missile defense is better than insurance.  If, say, you get into a car accident, only then does your insurance help you.  But with missile defense, having a system in place would prevent an enemy attack from ever reaching Washington, New York, Dallas, Miami, Seattle, or Los Angeles.

Regrettably, the Missile Defense Agency under President Obama is beginning to slow all the progress we’ve made in developing ever more effective defenses.  It’s adopting a spiral development strategy where we build a little, test a little, build a little and test a little more.  This only drags out how long it takes to build complete systems and makes the whole process more expensive.  Worse, every day that the fielding of state-of-the-art missile defenses is delayed in this way is one more day that Americans stay vulnerable.

******

Mackenzie Eaglen is the Research Fellow for National Security Studies, in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

On September 17, the House passed legislation to overhaul the college loan system. The bill, introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and supported by Obama, ends government subsidies to banks and other private lending companies for college loans. The Democrats who pushed for the bill’s passage, say it will free up $80 billion; half of which, will go toward increasing the amount of money in the Pell Grant program.

Other provisions of the bill include roughly $10 billion toward improvements for community colleges and a myriad of other spending initiatives for preschool, elementary, and high schools. Sounds like noble enough goals, right?

Actually, as noble and honorable as this bill sounds, calling it such would be a great misnomer. Throwing money at a problem has been the go-to-solution for presidents in recent years, but there is little to show for it.

President George W. Bush had his College Cost Reduction and Access Act that increased Pell Grants and cut student loan interest rates. Before that, President Clinton had his own initiatives, calling for a $1,500 tax credit for students who committed to going to community college for two years and maintaining a “B” average.

The fact is Washington has been trying to spend its way out of mediocrity in education for years. Yet the results don’t add up. The Department of Education estimates that the U.S. spent $667 billion on K-12 schools during the 2008-09 academic year alone. That’s up from $553 billion the previous year. And that number is only getting higher, especially with the $100 billion from the stimulus bill that was allotted for education.

Yet despite this massive amount of funding, reading scores on nationalized tests in elementary schools have stayed relatively the same since 1970. Furthermore, the New York Times recently reported that only about half of teenagers that enroll in college end up with a bachelor’s degree. Among advanced countries, only Italy has a worse graduation rate.

However, that same New York Times article went on to praise President Obama’s education bill, saying that taking the practice of student loan lending out of private companies and transferring it to the government is a good thing. Why? Because it would ensure that more people have access to higher education, since the government wouldn’t be so stringent with their rules and requirements in order to qualify for a loan.

The graduation rate in America may be dismal, but the way to increase it is not by throwing more money at young adults, enticing them to enter college. Increasing demand for any product only increases prices for everyone. That lesson is taught in any basic economics course. But maybe Obama was sick that day.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of this bill is that its sole purpose is to increase access to college by making it more affordable, by increasing student loans. Yet this approach was tried once before with the housing industry, when the government decided that it was a basic, American right to own a house.

We saw what happened next. For a while, the housing industry boomed and thrived, but then that bubble burst, resulting in banks closing and thousands, if not millions of people swimming in debt.

When it comes to education, the result will be the same. Increasing access to college will not raise graduation rates. If anything, it will just increase drop-out rates. And when everything is said and done, there won’t be more people with college degrees; just more young people saddled with enormous amounts of debt. As if the burden of paying for social security and a possible universal health care system weren’t enough.

President Obama and the other proponents of this new bill need to realize that education is not a right. It is not the job of the federal government to ensure that everyone make it through college. Nor should any individual be forced to finance another’s college education through taxes. Whether it’s elementary, high school, or preschool, flooding the education system with money is not a panacea for low graduation rates and poor test scores. The sooner those concepts are grasped, the better. Or else we may be on the road to a collapse of the education bubble. 

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.