On the surface Ron Paul is probably the least likely of all the candidates to win a presidential election if you consider certain points that usually keep a man or woman from seeking the highest office in the land.

First, there is Paul’s age. He is 76 years old, making him one of the oldest persons to ever run for president. Most voters get concerned if a candidate is over 65. Additionally, Paul is not the best orator to ever deliver a speech — a point that seems to endear him to his supporters because he comes across as just a normal human.

Then there is the matter of his newsletters the press finds highly objectionable, even though Mr. Paul reassures reporters and pundits several times every day that he did not write the material they object to and that he, too, finds that material to be highly offensive. No matter how many questions they ask him leading up to their real reason he’s been asked for an interview, reporters just can’t seem to get past the newsletters. The look on their faces when asking about them ranges from utter delight in trying to make Paul squirm, to sheer glee at the thoughts of torturing him with details about the newsletters — again. So predictable, so obnoxious, but still they persevere in their quest. And just what reaction are they trying to achieve?

I’d be embarrassed to ask the same question about the same subject, knowing I’m going to get the same answer. Move on, already. But, then, by now most candidates would have changed their story, or admitted they’d lied or stepped down to go to rehab after confessing to authorship. Ron Paul is not your typical politician.

Those of us who have read his books, talked with him at length or know him personally, laugh at the thoughts of Ron Paul writing those newsletters. It’s simply not what he believes. Even if he did, he is certainly not ignorant enough to write what he is being accused of. And Ron Paul is genius.

While the Democrats and Republicans all start sounding like Libertarians leading up to a presidential election, they cannot describe in any detail how their newfound Libertarian ideas would work in reality. The best they can do is say things like “reduce the size of the federal government,” or “make Congress accountable to the American people.” They are unable to offer even one or two examples of how they would accomplish these things.

In contrast, Ron Paul has written several entire books on the subjects of economics, health care, education, reducing the size and scope of the federal government, drug policy and dozens of more hot topics. Reporters laugh at and are skeptical of Ron Paul’s stance on the important issues of the day because for so many years they have embraced the federal government as some kind of god who can cure all that ails America — and the world for that matter. Ron Paul is speaking a foreign language reporters are unprepared to understand because they have been brainwashed into believing in Government First rather than the Constitution First.

Through it all, Ron Paul has remained polite while under assault from the press. I wonder how much longer he will be able to refrain from telling reporters they are slow learners with very poor memories and even worse manners?

For example, if I were to deliberately run someone down with my car in a parking lot and the person were killed, then I rightly could be charged with murder, as I clearly intended to do what I did. However, if I were driving in a parking lot, adhering to safety standards, and suddenly someone were to run in front of my car and I hit that person, then it is doubtful that I would be charged with a crime at all, even if the results from the two situations were the same: someone was killed.

The distinction is important, especially because federal criminal law today is so pervasive and broad that any one of us has violated a federal criminal statute — often unknowingly — during our adult lives. Where there once were only three federal criminal laws, today there are more than four thousand federal criminal offenses on the books and more than 10,000 federal regulations that, if violated, even unintentionally, can lead to criminal charges.

Many of these laws are vague and the courts have decided that federal prosecutors are to be given the leeway as to determine whether or not they believe something done is a “crime,” with jurors (who usually are not familiar with the law) ultimately being the ones who are supposed to decided upon the criminality of an act. If the reader believes this is a recipe for injustice and outright tyranny, that person is correct.

People are convicted in federal criminal court for things that utterly boggle the mind. Accountants who have prepared reports they believed were accurate have gone to prison. In the case of Dr. William Hurwitz, a pain specialist, he was accused of writing bogus prescriptions for money but even prosecutors admitted that all of the prescriptions he wrote were to his patients, all of which were complaining about pain.

Dr. Hurwitz was a very competent doctor and a compassionate man, but federal prosecutors told the jury that he was nothing more than a “drug dealer” and prosecutors even successfully managed to suppress a document from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that the defense was planning to use because they wanted a conviction at all costs. They got their conviction, Dr. Hurwitz went to prison where, thanks to the deplorable medical care that is standard at federal prisons (and I can give you chapter and verse on that one from my own personal observations of prisoners I have known), he lost sight of one eye. Thanks to this and other such cases, thousands of Americans today suffering from debilitating pain cannot get the care they need because federal prosecutors wanted to boost their careers and get Drug War money to boot.

Which brings us to Eric Holder, attorney general of the United States. Under Holder’s watch, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched the infamous “Operation Fast and Furious” in which federal agents deliberately had weapons smuggled to drug gangs in Mexico ostensibly to track the guns and the gangs. The whole thing backfired, but when Holder first was questioned about it by Congress, he claimed he had not known of the activity until just before the hearing.

It turns out that Holder did not tell the truth, as memos to Holder surfaced that demonstrated he was informed about what was happening long before he claimed to have known. This is the same Eric Holder who has tried to move Heaven and Earth in order to prosecute former Major League Baseball star Roger Clemens, but claims that when he told a falsehood to Congress, his “state of mind” was not such that his statements were lies.

In other words, Holder says that the mens rea standards should apply to him — and that is assuming that Holder actually was not intending to lie, and given his record as the hatchet man for Janet Reno’s DOJ, I have my doubts about the veracity of anything Holder says. Unfortunately, if your name is not Eric Holder, or if you do not work for the DOJ, then mens rea does not apply to you.

Whether or not Eric Holder’s term in office survives the “Fast and Furious” scandal is something I cannot answer at this time. However, his reprehensible and deceitful conduct and the double standards that seem to be part of the DOJ culture demonstrate that this man is not fit to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer. Holder hardly is the first attorney general to lie and to bully others and he won’t be the last. I’m not sure, however, that there ever will be a more dishonest person in the seat where he now resides.

What do politicians call it when they force you to buy health insurance (or anything else) every day, for the rest of your life?

They call it “personal responsibility.”

How do they get away with that?  Can anyone remember a time when personal
responsibility referred to what we each think that we should do?  To what we individually decide is the right thing to do?  When exactly did it come to mean “obey orders,” or “do what you are told or pay a fine — and go to jail if you don’t?”

Politicians try to get away with such an outrage by first corrupting a range of more fundamental principles.  A prime example is the charade of a supposed “right” to health care.  In practice that means everyone should demand that medical care be provided to them by physicians and hospitals at no cost to themselves — even if they take no responsibility for protecting their own health, even if they don’t give a damn about their health or the cost of their own negligence, even if they don’t lift a finger to help themselves.  After all, they have a “right” to health care, don’t they?

Of course, no one and no government can afford medical care that would meet these demands.  When a system that pretends to do so is enforced, patients will soon discover that they actually have no access to any medical care at all — except what the government decides to permit.

Those who resist government force but really do take responsibility for themselves are condemned as greedy for money by those who are greedy for power.

When did “what I must demand” replace “what I must earn?”

Why have those who only want to seize and redistribute wealth replaced those who admire producers of wealth — such as quality medical care providers?  In what kind of world does that exist?  Only in a world in which achievement is condemned as persecution of those who achieve nothing, and wealth is condemned as theft by those who create nothing.

We cannot assume personal responsibility for our medical care by abdicating the freedom to make our own decisions about it.  We must reject the demands of those demonstrating in the streets that we surrender our own medical decisions to them. No one has a right to take away our health care choices any more than they have a right to make us pay for a home they cannot afford, or pay off the loans on their Ph.D. in Romantic Poetry, or to be given a government job, or, as we have heard more recently, to enjoy a “right” to free government diapers.

We can assume responsibility, however, by eliminating the restrictions by state insurance commissioners on our ability to find affordable insurance.  We can assume responsibility by eliminating the power of the Food and Drug Administration to withhold life-saving drugs from terminally ill patients until after they are dead.  We can assume responsibility by repealing thousands of pages of laws and regulations written by those with no competence in regulating anything, let alone medical care.  We can assume responsibility by recognizing the tremendous value of those physicians and others who create our medical care — and by respecting their rights.

To preserve our medical care, as well as all the essential aspects of our lives, we must utterly reject those who promise to fulfill all of our needs if only we hand over all of our freedom.  There can be no greater personal responsibility.

Richard E. Ralston is the executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

It’s heartbreaking to hear of people who must part with treasured family heirlooms and gifts that hold sentimental value at their local pawnshops in order to meet monthly expenses.  Donations to charities have been declining every year, especially during the Christmas holiday season.

I have a dear friend, age 65, who is supposed to be retired, yet he continues to work.  In his case, it’s not because he “needs” the money — he has two retirement checks coming in every month, in addition to Social Security payments.  No, most of what he currently is allowed to earn by the government goes to help three, count them, three very needy families.  I have started helping them as well, although I’m somewhat ashamed to admit not at the level my friend is.  I still have a minor child to support, so perhaps that’s a good enough excuse?

My point is that my friend is only allowed to make a certain amount of money every year because of Social Security restrictions, which I think is one of the most absurd laws in a huge list of absurd laws our government has stuck us with.  Why are we again and again punished for earning money (taxation) and then forced to wait for our Social Security payments until the government says we may have them?  It’s our money; we earned it.  And by what right does the government claim they have to restrict how much we should be allowed of our own money every month upon retirement?  Here is a man who is using his own money of his own free will to help people he chooses to help, yet he is not allowed to claim them for tax purposes on his annual income tax filing because he is not related to them, they do not live with him and he does not contribute more than 50 percent of their support.

The government would much rather force us into paying taxes and using that money to support programs and people we do not even know and in many cases certainly do not morally agree with.  (I have a very serious problem with the government handing $500,000 in grant money to some nut case scientist who wants to study the impact of noise on butterflies.)   If the powers that be have to tax us at the high rate they currently tax us at, why not at least allow us to choose what programs and people we want our tax dollars supporting?

The Obama administration, like so many liberals, has long ago given up its campaign for liberty.  There are so many reasons why most business people are not liberals but the two most important ones are property rights and the left’s intense hatred of capitalism.  The Obama administration is completely oblivious as to the importance of property rights and seems to go out of its way to violate the property rights of businesses and individuals every chance it gets.  Money is property, yet this administration has absolutely no compunction whatsoever about removing the property of the wealthy (earned income) and giving it to people who did not earn it (welfare).  When property rights are not upheld in a “free” society, there is little or no incentive to create wealth.

Far too many young people see little reason to go to college and attempt to start a career.  They realize by 16 when they look at their first pay stubs that the government has it in for them — they are stunned by how much was taken from their check in taxes.  Why not just quit school and sell drugs?  At least there will be a few hundred (or thousand) dollars in their pocket and they will be driving a nice car, wearing hip clothes and be able to afford electronics, they tell themselves.

During this holiday shopping season, many retailers know they will not be around to process exchanges and refunds after Jan. 1.  This has been the case for the past two years, as more and more businesses simply cannot afford to keep their doors open.  You know the economy is in desperate shape when even the thrift stores can’t make it.  (Yes, there was a thrift shop in Knoxville that had to close its doors after more than 20 years in business.)  As the government continues to increase its regulatory interference in private business, there will be a steady stream of companies seeking bankruptcy or simply closing their doors.

In the case of the thrift shop, they could not afford to advertise a going out of business sale, and the local government would not allow them to put up a sign in their parking lot announcing a sale due to regulations regarding sign restrictions.  Because the shop was Christian-owned, they felt their business was a true “ministry” to the poor.  It was with a tremendous amount of grief they simply locked the doors and went away.

This year, I have been seeing far too many “50 percent off” sales for the holiday season.  Sure, it’s great for consumers who have the money to spend, but with a sense of impending doom, many shoppers are cutting their holiday budget way back from previous years and not buying even at 50 percent off.  Some may be waiting for deeper cuts after January 1, but many simply cannot afford to spend much or are hanging on to their available cash in case they lose their job.

In closing, I’d like to make another prediction.  Based on all I’ve been reading and seeing, it looks like the U.S. will suffer another recession next year.  An election year is always slow for some businesses, and with the economy already on life support, I truly cannot see any room for improvement in the upcoming year.

Despite all the doom and gloom, we can all be thankful to God for what we do have this Christmas season and remember this challenge and promise:

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.  

–2 Chronicles 7:14

—Jayne Andrews

However, at least one federal operation that is true to its acronym is Operation VIPR, or Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response.  Granted, given the media reception that a VIPR project in Tennessee recently received, one would think that it was Operation Love Fest or Operation Protect our Rights.  (Yes, once again, the vaunted “government watchdog” news media takes a government operation that engages in warrantless searches and gives breathless approval of these “terrorism fighters.”  So much for the journalism school propaganda that the mainstream media “protects our rights.”)

Watching Channel 5 from Middle Tennessee and reading Clarksville Online, one would think that the “joint operation” of the gaggle of local, state, and federal agencies actually had “caught” a terrorist when it really was nothing but a useless show of force.  For all of its bluster, the TSA has caught no terrorists or even would-be terrorists.  (However, the TSA does a great job of intimidating mothers, grandmothers in wheelchairs, and young children.)  Take that, you potential terrorists!

As libertarian writer Wendy McElroy has noted, “In short, Tennessee is pioneering a state-wide cooperative venture that turns its highways and mundane mass transit over to the same authority that frisks you at the airport.  Other states are considering whether to follow Tennessee’s lead.”

The stakes are higher than one might think. For now, when someone is stopped by the friendly local police or state trooper, it usually is for speeding or some other traffic violation. While some stops turn into drug searches, for the most part they are relative peaceful and result in someone paying a fine.  Yes, a routine traffic stop is stressful and as one who has received his share of tickets (I’ve gone ticket-free for nearly a decade, however), I can say that I prefer to see something behind me other than a cop’s flashing lights.

With the involvement of the TSA in traffic searches, however, the stakes are raised precipitously.  First, as Constitutional expert John Whitehead explains, the kinds of searches we can expect in the field from TSA agents will be based not on any real suspicions, but rather upon the view of the typical government agent that everyone out there either is a criminal, or could be a criminal. Whitehead notes that illegal searches (at least illegal according to the U.S. Constitution) involve an unofficial rewriting of the Fourth Amendment by the courts that essentially does away with any distinctions over what is “reasonable” when it comes to searches and seizures by government agents. The rationale, of course, is that anything is “reasonable” in the war on terrorism.  What the powers-that-be understand — and Americans remain oblivious to — is that by constantly pushing the envelope and testing the limits of what Americans will tolerate, the government is thus able to ratchet up the level of intrusiveness that Americans consider reasonable.

The analogy is the technique of boiling a frog.  Turn up the heat very slowly, and the frog will not notice that he is being boiled alive.  Likewise, the federal government starts at airports and passengers put up with it not so much because it makes them feel safer, but they know that if they resist, they are not getting on the plane.  (And, if an agent so chooses, he or she can trump up something against a recalcitrant passenger who suddenly can find himself or herself charged with “interfering with the duties of a federal officer,” with the maximum prison penalty being 20 years.)

Even though the TSA has proven itself to be incompetent and abusive, TSA head John Pistole wants to take his agency “to the next level,” and that means taking to the roads, bus terminals, and train stations.  Despite the fact that not one — Not One! — real terrorist plot has been stymied by federal officials since 2001, the government continues to expand the terrorism boundaries.

(The only so-called terrorist plots uncovered by the FBI have been those “plots” that were hatched by FBI agents themselves. Actual attempts by real-live people to commit terrorist acts have been stopped by regular private citizens, not the wearers of badges.  Look at the record for yourself.)

Unfortunately, none of that matters when the reporters are there with the TV cameras.  Instead, we see interviews with people claiming to be “relieved” that the TSA is on the job and tracking down terrorists on Tennessee highways — even if there are no “terrorists” to be found there.  Once again, the government media “watchdogs” are nothing more than PR agents for government agents.

There is one more thing to keep in mind.  The TSA is forever in search of terrorists, and if agents cannot find anyone, they simply will use the expanding federal terrorism statutes to claim that about any behavior they don’t like is “terrorism.”  Think about that the next time you argue with a police officer who has stopped you on a Tennessee highway for speeding, and the next thing you know, you are in handcuffs facing a life sentence. Don’t kid yourself.  This is our future — if we let it happen.

—Bill Anderson

Once upon a time in America, people who voiced concerns about intrusiveness of police, about intrusiveness of government agencies into the daily lives of individuals and who repeated Ben Franklin’s prophetic warning about the false tradeoff between safety and “security” were seen as keepers of our freedoms. Today, they are “nut jobs.”

Once upon a time in Chattanooga, the Chattanooga Times was a voice of concern about police state tactics and the increased intrusion of the state into individual lives. Today, the newspaper has become a cheerleader for the state, or, to be more precise, a cheerleader for the regime. The paper that once condemned former Vice-President Richard Cheney for his support of “extreme” measures ostensibly to “fight terrorism” now launches attacks on people who condemn the Obama administration for doing exactly what was done during the Bush years.

In other words, it has come to this: American society is so hopelessly politicized that the only thing that matters is that one’s political heroes be in power. What they actually do when they have power is irrelevant; the only relevant thing is power itself. If there is a legacy of 9/11 and its aftermath, it is that the event and the U.S. response to it has been not only to strengthen the state into an unaccountable leviathan, but also to so utterly politicize the entire national security process to where no one can be secure — except those with the proper political connections.

Let me explain, given that following the event, President George W. Bush’s approval ratings were stratospheric and “United We Stand” bumper stickers appeared everywhere. Americans, supposedly, “came together” and decided to eschew politics as we joined against the common enemies of freedom and their tactics of terrorism.

So, what happened to all that supposed “good will”? It became lost in the political rhetoric. Republicans used the security issues to win the elections of 2002 and 2004, while Democrats began to sing the praises of the Transportation Security Administration and claim that Republicans were not security-conscious enough. It wasn’t enough to go after “terrorists,” the Democrats claimed. After all, the country is full of terrorists, at least according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

So, we got the police state, and I must say that I never dreamed I would see the day when the Chattanooga Times would praise police state tactics, but on September 6, it declared:

“Americans, who moved about the country with almost unfettered freedom before the 9/11 attacks, have grudgingly accepted the measures implemented to protect the country since 2001. And despite grumbling about some heavy-handed and intrusive measures, most agree that the security arrangements have produced a desirable result. No terrorist attack has occurred here since their implementation.”

Guess what? People in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union “grumbled” about the state’s intrusiveness, but Americans at one time did not have to put up with such treatment and would not have stood for it. Today we have no problems with a “Your papers, please” country and those that raise the alarms are shouted down by the Sean Hannitys, the Rachel Maddows, the Keith Olbermanns, and the New York and Chattanooga Times. What do we mean by a “desirable result”? When TSA agents engage in what legally is sexual assault, or when elderly women in wheelchairs and six-year-old children are treated as criminals? If that what we want, I can assure readers that is what we now have.

What the Times has done is to praise police state tactics, and the reason as I see it is that a Democrat is in the White House. The newspaper that condemned Cheney has nothing bad to say about Obama’s CIA assassination squads that roam the earth, nor does it seem now to be bothered by the exact things done by Obama that led its editorial writers to attack the Bush administration’s “security” policies.

This is what happens in a hopelessly politicized society. As for “terrorist” attacks, let us keep in mind that almost every arrest for “terrorism” in this county has involved either the FBI acting as the agents provocateur, as we saw in the case in Newburgh, New York, or things occurring under suspicious circumstances, as was the situation with the “underwear bomber” who apparently had been escorted onto the plane past security, according to a number of witnesses.

Furthermore, by extending the police state, the government also makes it easier to go after everyone else for reasons that defy the imagination. The recent federal raid on Gibson Guitars in Nashville and Memphis has no real basis in law, given that the government of India had not complained about Gibson’s purchase of wood from that country. Nonetheless, the Obama administration has decided that there is not enough unemployment in Tennessee, so it is out to smash a successful Tennessee company that makes a product that is sold around the world.

Why? They do it just to show the rest of us that they are the “law,” and that we are not. By the way, even though federal agents brandishing automatic weapons burst into a company full of unarmed American workers, treating them as though they were terrorists and creating a situation in which innocent people could have been gunned down, there was not a single word of condemnation in the Times or the Tennessean, both of which would like for us to think that they are defenders of “civil liberties.”

We can say what we want about the past decade since the 9/11 attacks. Americans are no more safe now than they were then, and we now have a much more intrusive and, frankly, vicious government. And for all of the talk about “civil liberties” from the mainstream media, it seems to me that the biggest cheerleaders for the liberty-killing security state are the people to tell the rest of us that they are the “watchdogs of government.”

— Bill Anderson

“This is an exciting day for Tennessee and the citizens of Sequatchie County,” Haslam said.  “We welcome MANN+HUMMEL USA to Tennessee and appreciate the investment and jobs the company is creating here.  Today’s announcement is part of our continuing effort to make Tennessee the No. 1 location in the Southeast for high quality jobs.”

“MANN+HUMMEL USA is a prime example of the growth and promise we see in both the automotive industry and advanced manufacturing industry here in Tennessee,” Hagerty said.  “It is a testament to our state’s business friendly environment and available, high-quality workforce when successful companies like MANN+HUMMEL USA locate in Dunlap.”

“With this expanded production footprint, MANN+HUMMEL USA will better serve our diverse customer base with our technical competence and manufacturing capabilities,” said Francisco Gomes Neto, group vice president, MANN+HUMMEL AMERICAS.  “This expansion demonstrates MANN+HUMMEL’s customer focus and our recognition of the qualified workforce and support for manufacturers in the State of Tennessee.”

After an extensive site search supported by the Site Selection Group, LLC, Dallas, TX,  the decision was made by MANN+HUMMEL USA to establish its southern operations in an existing facility in Dunlap, Tenn.  MANN+HUMMEL USA, Inc. is headquartered in Portage, Mich. and currently employs 320 people in Michigan. The company designs and produces air intake manifolds, air cleaner systems and fluid reservoirs for the automotive, heavy duty and industrial markets.  The company also distributes MANN FILTER brand air, oil and fuel filter elements for vehicle and industrial applications.  MANN+HUMMEL USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of the MANN+HUMMEL Group which is headquartered in Ludwigsburg, Germany.  The project is subject to final agreement and approval of all transaction documents.  The parties expect to close the transaction before the end of this year.

“I am excited MANN+HUMMEL USA selected Sequatchie County for its new facility and thankful for the jobs it will provide our citizens,” Claude Lewis, Sequatchie County mayor, said.

“On behalf of the residents of Dunlap and Sequatchie County, we are excited that MANN+HUMMEL USA has made the decision to locate its newest plant here in our town and community,” Dwain Land, Dunlap mayor, said.  “We are especially excited for the workers and their families that will directly benefit from their employment at MANN+HUMMEL USA, and we know they will make MANN+HUMMEL USA proud to be a part of our community.”

Only about 30 percent of the Occupiers are employed, so they have plenty of time for mischief. They choose to ignore facts that don’t suit their purpose. The fact that 1 percent of the highest income earners in New York City pay 40 percent of the taxes is simply irrelevant to the Occupiers.

Their favorite Liberal Lady, Roseanne Barr, was the first celebrity to join the Occupier cause. As is always the case, she could not refrain from her usual pro-Socialism rant, complete with language I will not print here. Ms. Barr hates America, so I’ve always wondered why she bothers to live here. Some people just need a cause to rally around, and complaining and cursing is almost like a hobby to Ms. Barr.

Most of us understand why the Occupiers in Nashville are angry. However, I just can’t relate to their methods of demonstrating that anger. Granted, things in the United States of Obama are not going as well as Candidate Obama wanted us to believe they would. That’s what got the Canadian bunch that initiated the protests fired up to begin the madness we now call “Occupy Wall Street.” The Occupiers, for the most part, pinned their hopes for a better world on Obama when he was elected. They have turned on him, and rightfully so, over his actions or lack of actions during the past three years. Some of the protester Occupiers have called Obama a “gutless wonder” and I agree them. His administration will be examined for many years to come. I’m rather sure it will be condemned as one of the worst presidential reigns in history. Yes “reigns,” which is a term usually reserved for kings. If I sound harsh, that’s OK, I intend to sound that way.

Many of my fellow baby boomers thought they would retire around age 65 or so with a comfortable retirement. Some boomers are reconsidering that option thanks to the declining economy because of Mr. Obama and his power grab, faulty decisions and outright ignorance of economics. To many of us, he seems to go out of his way to destroy our nation — one bailout or favor to a crony at a time.

I strongly believe in a citizen’s right to disagree with his or her government and its leadership. This journalist has got to be in the top 10 or 20 in the nation for disagreement with our government on all levels — federal, state and local. I’ve watched the federal government do the most foolish things that have cost our citizens dearly in terms of tax dollars, world opinion and morale here at home. People without jobs are losing their homes, which is scary to rest who fear they could be next. And for good reason … things under the current administration get worse every day. There seems to be no end to the outrages the Obama administration is willing to dump on the American people. It took a few months — not years — after the election for Americans to begin to chafe under the new administration.

The first sign of citizen unrest that caught national attention came from the Tea Party. Then came the liberal version of the Tea Party, the Occupiers. While the Tea Party movement, for the most part, was well organized, they faced ridicule from the liberal press because they are so “conservative.” Instead of fair coverage, they got mean spirited slams from the liberal press. Yes, it’s true — most of us in the media are extremely liberal. If you don’t agree, that’s OK. Get a subscription to Editor & Publisher, read the propaganda and you’ll change your mind. Nobody has ever accused this publication of liberalism, thank God. We strive to be objective, but Mr. Obama makes it very hard for us to remain silent regarding his foolish approach to the welfare of the United States. I’ve always viewed him as confused, immature and egotistical.

The Occupiers are an entirely different breed than the Tea Party because the Tea Party has a mission to impact elections, while the Occupiers only want to hurt people. The Tea Party seems to have clearly stated goals for the most part. They raise money, endorse candidates they favor and otherwise annoy the liberal press. I think they intend to stick around for a long time.

The Occupiers in all 600 or so cities worldwide, get lots of press, that’s for sure. Anyone who uses public property as a toilet and garbage receptacle should get lots of press. They should also receive some jail time and a big fat fine for the vandalism they engage in. The last I heard, littering is against the law in most states. So are public demonstrations of sex, and using public property as a latrine, as well as vandalism of any property, no matter who that property belongs to. Over half of the Occupiers surveyed in New York admitted they would resort to violence if needed. I don’t recall the Tea Party activists condoning violence. Innocent people get hurt when protests become violent. I would not want my child to witness the actions of the Occupiers. Enough is enough.

Our constant interference in the affairs of other countries always seems to come back to bite us in terms of military lives lost. (Our military, as well as the Innocents.) The way things are going the past several years, we may not have a “United” States of America much longer. Some states like Texas and Vermont have strong citizen groups who favor secession from the union. They are tired of all the government interference in their lives along with the absurd spending/taxation cycle we seem content to live with. Jefferson, Adams and Revere had it right way back in the beginning of our country’s founding. They broke away from the King of England. He certainly considered our founding fathers to be a rebellious lot of lawbreakers who deserved imprisonment and even death. While I have not heard even the Occupy Wall Street crowd calling for the “death” of any bankers or wealthy individuals, it would not be a stretch to say the death of a Republican billionaire would bring a certain measure of smug joy to many in the Occupy bunch. They have most certainly endangered the lives of their fellow protesters along with any non-protestors who happen to find themselves near any of the Occupier demonstrations.

With their propensity for using the scenes of their protests and rallies as a public rest room, it’s just a matter of time until someone contracts an illness from the feces, urine and garbage the Occupiers cheerfully and gleefully deposit wherever they decide to “protest” the Wicked Rich. I wonder what their reaction will be when disease begins to spread and their hangouts are considered contaminated by local health departments. Will they be willing to remain on-site and risk their lives for their cause? When the cold winter weather sets in, I wonder if they will cut bait and retreat? Right now, most Occupy sites have a distinct party atmosphere to them.

The thoughts and actions of the Occupy Wall Streeters — as well as their contemporaries in cities like Chattanooga and Knoxville — have been widely discussed, analyzed, applauded and criticized locally as well as nationally. The Occupiers have been written off by some as a bunch of crazies being financed by liberal left-wingers. If they brought their own garbage bags to clean up after themselves, local governments may be more inclined to hear the message of the Occupiers. Instead, they are regarded as filthy troublemakers who are costing cities huge sums of money they did not budget for in terms of additional sanitation and law enforcement costs. Crowd control is a must.

“If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed — I would say, ‘good!’” said U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, (R-Texas) of the Occupiers. That’s the way I look at it, too.

I’ve always tried to imagine how I’d feel if I wore the shoes of any of the whiners or complainers I read about or talk to every day. It’s been tough to work up much empathy for the Occupiers. They certainly are not being “environmentally correct” or “recycling responsibly” with their tons of trash.

Second, I am troubled by the lack of a clear message the Occupiers have for the world. If they protested in front of the White House, or at the homes of the rich movie stars who support their cause, I could “feel their pain,” as former President Bill Clinton once said. Instead, they blame capitalism as the cause of All Evil in the U.S. They complain corporate America is buying off politicians and lobbyists. So why not protest their offices? Could it be they know the Secret Service would not tolerate their nonsense for even one hour?

Sadly, the protesting Occupiers are correct in that our country truly is in a mess, but a great deal of it was caused by faulty government policies that have destroyed the confidence of the American people in general. We have been taught that free markets means freedom for the government and huge corporations to dictate who the winners and losers of government welfare will be.

They don’t realize that free markets means the government should not harness businesses with unreasonable taxes and regulations. (Not all businesses receive government handouts or favoritism.) The government should not stifle honest competition or dole out welfare checks to unsustainable industries. What the government should do is hold businesses liable for their mistakes and actions.

It’s shameful that some businesses go to the government for handouts and special treatment. If there is anyone who deserves blame, it’s the politicians who dole out special favors and pick who the winners and losers are.

Hopefully, crony capitalism will end soon. As a country, we can’t afford to make any more mistakes that cost trillions of dollars like the bailouts have. Some mistakes will cost trillions more to rectify, although it may be too late. I think the Occupiers may come to realize that the real culprit occupies a very nice house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

—Jayne Andrews

The 20th Century was not kind to Latvia and its people. It began the century as part of the Russian Empire, was occupied by Germans during World War I, was independent (one of the three small Baltic countries to break away from Russia after the war) for about 20 years, and then faced 51 years of holocaust from both Germany and the Soviet Union.

Germans murdered a large number of Latvians and pretty much wiped out the country’s Jewish population, with more than 70,000 Jews killed. Because the Soviets first occupied Latvia (and Lithuania and Estonia) in 1940, when the Germans invaded in 1941, they initially were hailed as liberators, until it became clear that Germany would be as murderous as the communists they had displaced.

The Soviets pushed back and then took over Latvia, incorporating it into the U.S.S.R. by 1944 and imposing its system upon people who clearly did not want to be part of communism. That meant collectivization of agriculture and state takeover of all private property and private enterprise. The end result was the usual socialist disaster.

To better understand what the Soviets did, keep in mind that before World War II, Riga, Latvia’s capital, was known as “Little Paris,” supporting not only musicians and artists, but boasting many architectural treasures, some of which exist even today. In the place of the beauty that was Riga, the Soviets built the usual shoddy, ugly monstrosities that dot the landscape, and the country reflected life in the U.S.S.R., from the shops featuring bad food, lousy service, long lines, to just the daily grimness that one expected from the Soviet bloc.

In 1991, with the collapse of the U.S.S.R., the country became independent and is that way even now. Granted, the Soviets brought permanent change. First, it had sent hundreds of thousands of Latvians to death camps in Siberia and replaced them with Russian nationals, and this still is a sore point with Latvians today (although most know how to speak Russian for business purposes, Latvian is the national language). Second, a half-century of directing an economy into a hell of inefficiency is not easily overcome, especially given that entrepreneurship —the heart of a private enterprise economy — was a criminal offense punishable by prison or even execution.

So, where does that bring us today, and why do I write this column, if it is not a glorified travelogue? I have spent more than three weeks in a country that is relatively poor to its neighbors. The Latvian income is about half of ours in the USA, but prices are comparable to what we pay. Life for many people can be hard, and unemployment is high.

Because we came with a lot of money for this trip, we could afford to live fairly well, staying in an apartment in the incomparably beautiful Old Town part of Riga, featuring the architecture that sets European cities apart from anything we see in the USA. Thus, our existence has been a bit unreal, although we still have dealt with the various aspects of living like Latvians, including walking everywhere (or taking public transportation) and shopping for food almost daily.

Yet, I have seen something else, something that I am going to miss when I return to the USA. While life is hard here, nonetheless life is not politicized the way it is at home. There is a multi-party system, and they will have elections in about a week, but we are not inundated with political advertisements and commentary as we are in America during the eternal election seasons. Latvians have a healthy disregard for the wonders of the state, given their experience with the Ultimate Powerful State.

Latvia needs more entrepreneurship, more capital, and more economic freedom — and lower taxes. It is much better off than it was 20 years ago, but government still gets in the way of entrepreneurs moving resources from lower-valued to higher-valued uses. This was something that we Americans used to understand — but no more. I have come to believe that no people on this planet hate liberty, both of the political/social variety and also economic, the way that Americans have come to hate freedom.

America has become the police state that Latvia once was and I find few Americans being alarmed at the intrusion of government into everything. Latvians would find it utterly ludicrous to have government shutting down kids’ lemonade stands or federal agents brandishing loaded machine guns raiding shops where unarmed and peaceful people sell raw milk. They would consider the police brutality that is part of every American jurisdiction to be a blot on their society.

I have spoken to a number of Latvians, and they believe in personal liberty the way that Americans once believed in it before they became convinced that only an overpowering state can “protect” them. Latvians would consider the “helicopter parenting” that seems to be the norm in the USA to be utterly ridiculous, as though children cannot find a bus stop or walk from one place to another, even in a crowded city like Riga.

The American economy is tanking in large part because Americans no longer believe that they should bear any personal responsibility for anything. Let the state run everything! Let the state print dollars, and then we can demand that everyone around the world accept our money — on our terms! Americans have come to believe that they can print money to pay for our bloated government and our pointless wars abroad, and if the rest of the world objects, then the world must “hate us for our freedoms.”

For many years, Latvians have seen the USA as a beacon of hope and of freedom. We used to be like that, but as I watch the nation where I have lived for nearly 58 years deteriorate into madness, I realize that in the future, we are likely to envy the Latvians, as poor as they might be, for their freedoms and even their wealth.

I never thought it would come to this, but unless Americans are willing to realize what it took for the nation to become that beacon of freedom and, yes, wealth and free enterprise, we are going to have a future that will make Latvia’s sad 20th Century history look like a season of joy.

-—Bill Anderson

When I told my friends I was working on a magazine article, then a book, about a tsunami of racial violence in America over the last two years, they said, “I haven’t heard about that.”

When my Tennessee friend told me about a horrific racial crime in Knoxville, Tennessee, I told him: “I haven’t heard about that.”

Outside of Tennessee, most did not.

Locals may remember the story: In 2008 and 2009, five black people were convicted of the carjacking, torture, rape and murder of University of Tennessee graduates Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

To the extent the case attracted attention outside Knoxville, it was mostly about how this case was not attracting attention.

Syndicated columnist Michele Malkin wrote: “This case – an attractive white couple murdered by five black thugs – doesn’t fit any political agenda. It’s not a useful crime. Reverse the races and just imagine how the national media would cover the story of a young black couple murdered by five white assailants.”

This curious double-standard has been on display over the last two years in hundreds of episodes of racial crime and violence in more than 50 cities.  While most are not as horrific as the Chistian-Newsom case, groups of black people are roaming the streets of America — assaulting, intimidating, stalking, threatening, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, even raping and killing.

Local media and public officials are often silent. Crime is color blind, says a Milwaukee police chief. Race is not important and if you notice, you are a racist,  a Chicago newspaper editor says.

That denies the obvious: America is the most race conscious society in the world.

We learn that every day from black caucuses, black teachers, black unions, black ministers, black colleges, black high schools, black music, black moguls, black hair business owners, black public employees, black art, black names, black poets, black inventors, black soldiers.

Everything except black violent crime. That is taboo.

In Iowa,  last year, following a racial disturbance at the state fair, one police report called it “Beat Whitey Night.”

Peoria? Absolutely: Right in the middle of Middle America.

Milwaukee? Yes, on the Fourth of July, after looting a nearby convenience store,  a crowd of nearly 100 blacks set upon a some white teens on a picnic. After beating one white woman, a black woman noted “Oh, White girl bleed a lot.”

At the Wisconsin state fair, just a few weeks later, hundreds of black people roamed the fairgrounds, targeting white people for violence. You didn’t hear about that?

Then you probably did not hear about Black Beach Week, held every year in Miami Beach over the Memorial Day Weekend. This year, 200,000 black people created a three day riot complete with shootings, killing, mountains of filth and everything in between — causing another kind of riot: An uprising to shut down this annual violent uprising.

Even Skidmore College in bucolic Saratoga Springs had its very own race riot — with a twist.  In December 2010, several black members of the Skidmore basketball team (from New York City) taunted, then beat, a white off-duty police officer for having lunch with a black colleague.

The school president, Susan Kress, led a campaign to convince the District Attorney that her students were the victims of racism — no matter what the dozens of witnesses in the diner said.

She recently, and quietly, left her post. The students were convicted.

The list of cities goes on and on. As do the denials and excuses.

In Chicago, Congressman and former Black Panther leader Bobby Rush says this kind of crime in common in black neighborhoods and the only reason anyone is noticing now is because white people are getting hurt.

Rush is probably right. Which means this problems is hundreds of times worse than we think.

The message of Knoxville is this: If it can happen here it can happen anywhere.

Public officials,  local media and even victims may be too squeamish to talk about the new race riots, but YouTube is not. Neither is talk radio.

So we learn in fits and starts and pieces and glimpses. Finally, we are connecting the dots. Which is good: The solutions cannot begin until the denial ends. But first we all need to hear — and see — it.