Back to the Future: Michael J. Fox, Liberal Democrats and the Great Stem Cell Battle by Gregory Hilton

Many people are doubtful of claims now being made by liberal Democrats regarding global warming, health care and reducing the budget deficit. They are skeptical because we have been down this path before.
The utopian rhetoric of the Democratic Party’s left wing has not been based on facts, and it often results in real harm to taxpayers. For example, there has been tremendous hype concerning global warming and this was especially true in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
It has now been documented that many of Gore’s claims were grossly exaggerated. The movie graphics show cities being flooded and sea levels rising by 20 feet, while the UN IPCC was predicting a modest rise of 8 inches over 100 years, and even that is doubtful.
Another issue tremendously hyped by liberals concerns federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR). As usual, the debate has been about politics and has little to do with science. President Obama signed an executive order last March reversing the Bush administrations ban on research related to embryonic stem cells.
In August of 2001, President George W. Bush barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond the 60 cell lines which existed at that time. Bush was advised to do this because embryonic stem cells are known to cause cancer and brain tumors, and they require the permanent use of dangerous immunosuppressive drugs. Their genetic programming does not work in adults.
Nine years have passed so this is an excellent time to review the track record. Actually, if you count research using animal embryos, the data goes back to 1981. To date, no one has been successfully treated because of embryonic-stem-cell research.
The claims made about the potential immediate benefits of ESC were described as fairy tales by many prominent scientists and researchers, but they were an excellent political issue which helped Democrats capture the center in 2004, 2006 and 2008. The left wing started to focus on ESCR after a 2004 Mark Mellman poll for the Democratic National Committee demonstrated that 70% of the American people supported increased funding for stem cell research.
The Democrats made science a political issue and it was at the forefront of Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) 2004 challenge to Bush’s re-election. The leading spokesman for the Democrats was the actor Michael J. Fox, who is suffering from Parkinson’s disease. He frequently implied that there would be immediate progress if federal funding was obtained.
Fox is best known for the “Family Ties” and “Spin City” television series, and the “Back to the Future” movies. He was a star at many events for liberal candidates in 2004 and that year’s Democratic convention was addressed by Ronald Reagan, Jr., the son of the then recently deceased GOP President. He was given a prime time speaking slot.
The young Reagan said Republicans were cruel to deny sick people treatments because of “theological objections.” He said this “may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or any lifetime – the use of embryonic stem cells.” These cells could “cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries, and much more.”
Rep. James R. Langevin (D-RI) introduced Reagan by saying taxpayer subsidies for ESCR would make him walk again. Langevin has been paralyzed from the waist down since the age of 16 when he was seriously injured in an accidental shooting.
Then Senator John Edwards (D-NC), the 2004 vice presidential nominee, said on October 11th of that year: “If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk — get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”
Senator Kerry said President Bush “turned his back on science” at a time when “millions of lives” are stake. A national Kerry TV ad stated: “It’s time to lift the political barriers blocking the stem cell research that could treat or cure diseases like Parkinson’s.” The Bay State Senator said “We stand at the next frontier, but instead of leading the way, we’re stuck on the sidelines. The majority of the American people support stem cell research, and it’s high time we had a president of the United States who does, too. We can’t afford any more stubborn refusal to face the facts.”
Once again, Michael J. Fox was always in the spotlight. He made numerous campaign appearances and was featured in TV ads for successful Senate candidates Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). A typical Michael Fox TV ad is below:
FOX: As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research. In Maryland, you can elect Ben Cardin, who shares my hope for cures. Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research. They say all politics is local, but that’s not always the case. What you do in Maryland matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me.
CARDIN: I’m Ben Cardin, and I approve this message.”
Republican candidates were never against stem cell research. The first break through happened in 1957, and the first president to fund this research was George W. Bush. You would never know that if you listened to the 2004 and 2006 TV ads. The GOP fully supported funding for adult stem cell and cord blood research, but they wanted embryonic stem cell support to be within moral and ethical limits.
Embryonic stem cell researcher Ron McKay of the National Institutes of Health said the idea that stem cells would offer hope for Alzheimer’s patients was a “fairy tale.” Dr. Mehmet Oz appeared with Fox on the Oprah Winfrey show and demonstrated why ESCR would not be useful for Parkinson’s patients.
John Kerry lost the 2004 election but the ESCR campaign culminated in passage of California’s Proposition 71. This allowed the state to borrow $3 billion for ESCR. A California Institute for Regenerative Medicine was established, and now after five years of research there have been no cures, no therapies and little progress. They were established to focus 100% of their work on ESCR, but now this has been largely abandoned.
Other ESCR advocates are at last embracing research on adult stem cells which they once opposed. As I indicated, ESCR has been a highly effective issue for Democrats. Survey research indicates that similar to global warming, ESCR helped them attract significant support from independent voters, and they successfully portrayed Republican candidates as insensitive and uncaring.
BACKGROUND
The Bush Administration maintained that ESC were not a productive area of research because their nature is to reproduce rapidly to form a whole new human being. Even if they did cure a disease, the person would still have to worry about lethal side effects. There were also moral concerns because many people saw the destruction of an embryo as the ending of a human life.
Bush spoke of religious groups who were opposed to ESCR because it involved the destruction of human embryos, which they claim have a right to life. The Catholic Church vigorously opposes ESCR and Pope Benedict XVI said the destruction of human embryos to harvest stem cells is “not only devoid of the light of God but is also devoid of humanity” and “does not truly serve humanity.”
Researchers were later able to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells which ended the moral concerns. There is no longer any need for a program that focuses only on embryonic stem cells, which is what the liberals were seeking.
Furthermore, the Bush restrictions were only on federal funding of stem cell lines which required the sacrifice of new embryos. Private and state funding was allowed, and considerable research has taken place overseas. The claim that research on new embryos was the most promising has never been supported by evidence.
Republicans tend to be pro-life, and that is why they favor stem cell research. They believe in saving human life, and they want cures to be found. That is why the Bush Administration provided funding for adult stem cell research which did not involve the moral concerns of working with embryos.
The focal point for the Bush administration was adult stem cells which have been successfully used since 1957, and they have cured some cancers. They are now being used to treat 83 different diseases.
They have been used to rebuild livers damaged by otherwise irreversible cirrhosis. Adult stem cells from nasal passages have been used to repair spinal cord injuries, and Type 1 diabetes in mice has been treated by using adult spleen cells. They have also put Crohn’s disease into remission and they have repaired heart attack damage.
The Bush Administration emphasized that it was best to concentrate on adult stem cells because they had a track record of not being rejected by a patients body while ESC often cause rejection and multiply uncontrollably similar to a cancer.
The hype of the past campaigns has now died down. The groups which once fought only for ESCR have now shifted to adult stem cells where there is universal agreement on their value. Unlike the past, science will hopefully not be a political issue in the 2010 campaign.

One Year Later: The Collapse of the Youth Vote by Gregory Hilton–

The 2008 Obama victory would have been a monumental landslide if voting had been restricted to those under the age of 30.

In another ominous sign for the Democratic Party, the much heralded youth vote of 2008 is collapsing. The Presidential election turned out 52% of young voters, and in the 18-25 age group they preferred Barack Obama over John McCain by a 66 to 32% margin.
Survey research data now demonstrates that the enthusiasm of young voters has tanked, and this is already being reflected at the polls. The percentage of young people voting in the recent elections in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey declined markedly.
In the Bay State only 15% of those between the ages of 18-29 turned out to vote on Tuesday, which is a sharp reduction from the 47.8% turnout out in 2008. Obama won 78% of under-30 voters in Massachusetts. Turnout on Tuesday for those over 30 was 57%.
The youth turnout in the 2009 Virginia and New Jersey Gubernatorial races was 17 and 19%, respectively. There are several reasons for the decline but perhaps they realize their generation will be paying off today’s spending spree by the Obama Administration and the U.S. Congress. Not only will they have debts well into the future, but they can not find a job. Youth unemployment is a staggering 53%, a rate which has not been seen since the Great Depression.
Furthermore, if the Obama health care bill is enacted, according to WellPoint, their premiums will increase 154%. Young voters will be headed for a rude awakening because their premiums will be used to pay for everyone else’s pre-existing conditions. The insurance plan I had in my early twenties was inexpensive, but that option will not be available for today’s young people.
Half of young Americans are now going without health insurance.
They are typically just starting careers and have limited disposable income. The huge boost in twenty something premiums means even more of them will be uninsured, but that would have to change in 2013 when the Obama penalties arrive and young people are forced to buy insurance.
A year ago the young thought only the rich would be paying more for new government programs. The President’s approval ratings have fallen significantly in all age groups, but the drop among young voters has been the sharpest for any age demographic.
Furthermore, many economists are not predicting a return to full employment in the near future. They are emphasizing that with new technology, businesses have learned to become more efficient and are now able complete their work with fewer employees. By the time America emerges from the recession many of these companies will be able to operate adequately at a downsized level. That is not a good sign for young people who are seeking jobs.
On a related note, every survey indicates young votes give a very low priority to social issues. A survey sponsored by the Young Republican National Federation showed only 6 percent of young party activists thought the GOP should focus on social issues. Economic issues are clearly dominate with the young, with national security concerns coming in second.

The Battle for the U.S. Senate: Will Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) Be The Man in the Arena?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), the Chairman of the House Republican Conference, now has to make the most difficult decision of his political career. Should he give up his safe Congressional seat and the number three position in the GOP leadership to challenge Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)? Pence appears to have an bright future in the House of Representatives, but it is always difficult to turn down the glamour of the United States Senate. For example, Trent Lott (R-MS) was in line to be Speaker of the House, but left his number two position as the GOP Whip to successfully run for the Senate in 1988.
Bayh is a former two term Governor who is now completing his second term in the Senate. His father Birch Bayh (D-IN) served in the Senate from 1962 until he was defeated by Dan Quayle in 1980. Evan Bayh has won five statewide elections while Pence has never been tested at the state level.
Pence, 50, is understandably reluctant to give up a secure GOP Congressional seat. He was defeated by an incumbent in both 1988 and 1990 before finally winning an open seat in 2000. The Congressman would instantly achieve national fame if he knocked off Bayh, but a loss would mean this rising star would go back to obscurity of Columbus, Indiana. If he does run his campaign theme would almost certainly be “No More Bailouts,” which is a position he adopted during the Bush Administration.
Yesterday Pence attended a meeting at the National Republican Senatorial Committee where he was presented with the most recent polling data. The Congressman trails Senators Bayh by only a few percentage points, but all of the popular issues are on the side of the Republican. Bayh has always portrayed himself as a moderate, and is a former Chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). He still points with pride to the $1.6 billion tax cut he implemented as Governor.
The problem is that he has been on Capitol Hill for 12 years and now it is difficult to run away from his voting record. His recent votes on the health-care legislation and the stimulus are particularly unpopular, and Bayh has been urging his party to move to the center.
A new book reveals that Barack Obama almost named Bayh as his 2008 running mate. Bayh still has a 50% approval rating, but between May and January his ratings dropped by nearly 25 points. The Senator’s biggest advantage is that he has $12.7 million in cash-on-hand, while Pence has just $463,000. President Obama won Indiana by 1%, and the state has voted Republican in 10 of the last 11 presidential elections.
Pence has to soon make a decision because the filing deadline is February 18th. He has already emerged as a champion for conservatives on a national scale. The Congressman previously served as Chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee. In 2003, when the House debated the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, Pence led a gang of House conservatives who valiantly opposed it. He said Republicans had lost their way by promoting big spending initiatives.
One of his best assets is that he is a former radio broadcaster and an excellent communicator. He is able to make persuasive and effective arguments. If Pence runs this will instantly become one of the top Senate races of the 2010 election cycle, and Pence would receive considerable fame if he emerges as the Democratic dragon slayer in Indiana.

There He Goes Again: Republican Leaders Need to Denounce Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) by Gregory Hilton

Leaders of the Republican Party should no longer remain silent. They should actively denounce the many reprehensible comments of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
He is the only Republican who has consistently defended Iran’s President when he makes statements such as “Israel should be wiped off the map.” Congressman Paul has also repeatedly justified the actions of terrorists who have attacked the United States. He now accuses the CIA of being in the drug business and says they need to be “taken out.”
In his speech on Saturday to the Campaign for Liberty the Congressman said: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.”
A suicide bombing late last year against Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan took the lives of seven CIA agents. They are heroes who were on the front lines protecting us. We should be praising them, not making false allegations.
The CIA did not invent crack cocaine and they have never been in the drug business. It is Muslim extremists who intentionally target civilians, not the CIA or the US military.
The introduction to Ron Paul’s book on foreign policy says the Cold War and the War on Terror are both a “farce”, and they were designed to justify a larger role for government. He compares the United States role in Afghanistan to “a schoolyard bully.”
Many Ron Paul supporters describe themselves as “very conservative,” but they support an agenda which has much in common with the radical left. Ron Paul advocates abolishing the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and FISA. He wants the U.S. leave NATO, the World Trade Organization and the UN, and to end all aid to Israel.
His libertarian supporters continue to gain strength in the Republican Party. Paul ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988 and in 2008 he sought the GOP nomination. His last presidential campaign raised $35 million and his son, Rand Paul, could well win the GOP nomination in Kentucky for an open Republican U.S. Senate seat. Rep. Paul is once again a featured speaker at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, and the keynote speaker at the upcoming National Tea Party Summit is a Ron Paul supporter.
The Texas Congressman is a firm isolationist and he promotes many conspiracy theories. He frequently talks of the dangers of the North American Union, which does not exist. Paul is considered a champion of the “9/11 Truth” movement. They believe the NYC Twin Towers were packed with explosives. Many liberal activists are understandably enthusiastic about Rep. Paul. One Moveon.org group assisted in the funding and production of one of his TV ads, and the organizations website continues to promote meetings of Paul supporters.
Reps. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) are the only two lawmakers who voted against a resolution condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his statements calling for the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews. The resolution outlined the reasons why the Iranian leader was in violation of the UN Genocide Convention. In October 2009, Ron Paul and Kucinich were the only two Members of Congress to vote against H.Res.175 condemning the government of Iran for “state-sponsored persecution of its Bahá’í minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights.”
On January 9, 2009, Paul and Kucinich were once again in the minority on a 390-5 vote recognizing Israel’s “right to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks” and reaffirming the U.S.’s support for Israel.
Ron Paul is also the only 2008 GOP presidential candidate who refused to support John McCain in the general election.
I sure wish a national Republican leader would step forward to condemn the many radical and dangerous statements of Ron Paul and his supporters.

Will Liberal Democrats Listen to the Message From Massachusetts? by Gregory Hilton

Republicans throughout the nation are thrilled with the victory of United States Senator-elect Scott Brown. Only 11% of Bay State voters are Republicans, and this seat has been in Democratic hands for 57 years. Brown will fill Ted Kennedy’s vacancy and be the first Republican in the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation.
No one is claiming the Bay State is turning Republican but voters did send a profound message. Democratic elected officials are asking themselves if they can not win in a state which they carried by 26 points in 2008, where in the world is it safe for a liberal to be a running for federal office in 2010?
Brown raised over $12 million online which a a new record for a Senate candidate. He raised about $1 million/day during the final week. In claiming victory at the Boston Park Plaza Hotel last night, Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) said:
“I thought it was going to be me against the machine. I was wrong. It’s all of us against the machine. You have shown everyone now that you are the machine.” Predicting a cascade of election surprises throughout the nation, Brown said, “Let them take a look at what happened in Massachusetts. What happened here can happen all over the country. When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, there’s trouble everywhere, and they know it.”
If Democrats now moderate some of their views it would be a boost to their outlook in the 2010 election. There is a battle underway between liberal and moderate Democrats, and health care is now the focal point. The reactions of some prominent Democrats and journalists to Brown’s victory appear below:
Terry McAuliffe, former Chairman, Democratic National Committee, “This is a giant wake-up call. We have to do a much better job on the message. People are confused on what this health care bill is going to do.”
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA): “It would only be fair and prudent that we now suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): “It’s probably back to the drawing board on health care, which is unfortunate.”
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN): “Many of our people are in denial, but if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope they will wake up. We can not have the furthest left elements of the Democratic Party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country. . . Moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message. They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected.”
Mayor Thomas M. Menino (D-Boston): “I never thought I’d see the day when a Republican replaces Ted Kennedy. I think Scott Brown caught the wave of anger that’s out there, and the wave of anti-Obama.”
Former Mayor Raymond Flynn (D-Boston): revealed after the vote that he had supported Scott Brown. He said, “People feel like their vote is being taken granted with this powerful, one party state, and with one-party government in Washington. People want a little coalition, and a little respect… I don’t know how you regroup from something like this. There are going to be a lot of problems in the Democratic party from here on out.”
Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo (D-KY): who is running for an open U.S. Senate seat, “The President is especially unpopular in eastern Kentucky. An Obama visit would not help Democrats.”
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): “It is really time now for Democrats to shift their attention to issues that will enjoy broad public support.”
Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL): “When it happens in Massachusetts, it really throws us a curve. It’s a big deal for a lot of members here.”
Politico: “Think back a year ago and imagine someone saying Obama would throw his support behind Democrats in New Jersey, Virginia and Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts — and lose all of them. Think back a year ago and imagine someone saying he would celebrate his first anniversary without having gotten health care, financial regulation or energy legislation signed into law. And that less than 50 percent of the public would hold a favorable view of his presidency.”
The New York Post editorial entitled “Heck of a Job, Brownie!”: “This is the fifth time in three months that Obama has focused his star power to effect political and policy outcomes — losing each time. It didn’t work in Virginia and New Jersey, where he roller-skated in for Democratic gubernatorial candidates Creigh Deeds and JonCorzine last November. Or in Copenhagen, when he popped in to tout Chicago as host for the 2016 Olympics.
“Or in Copenhagen again, last month, at the global climate-change conference. And now this. . . Brown won. Coakley lost. But, obviously, so did Obama. Here’s hoping the president understands why.”
The New York Times: “What happened in Massachusetts on Tuesday was no ordinary special election. Scott Brown shocked and arguably humiliated the White House and the Democratic Party establishment. . . States do not come more Democratic than Massachusetts, the only one that voted for George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972. . . Most ominously, independent voters seemed to have fled to Mr. Brown in Massachusetts, as they did to Republicans in races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey last November. It is hard not to view that as a repudiation of the way Mr. Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have run things.”
The Los Angeles Times: “The Democratic Party’s defeat in Massachusetts on Tuesday — the loss of a single, crucial Senate seat — will force President Obama and his congressional allies to downscale their legislative ambitions and rethink their political strategy.”
Dr. Stuart Rothenberg, GOP political analyst, “This is the biggest political upset of my adult life.”

A Bad Decision by the American Conservative Union: The John Birch Society Co-Sponsors CPAC by Gregory Hilton

The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is one of the nations most prominent right wing gatherings. The event is organized by the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the three day CPAC conference begins on February 18th. For the first time in CPAC history the John Birch Society (JBS) has become a co-sponsor.
In my view the inclusion of this extremist group tarnishes the entire event. The keynote speaker is radio host Glenn Beck, and the conference will also hear addresses from Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), John Barasso (R-WY), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA).
The annual presidential straw poll has been won by Romney for the past three years, and always receives prominent media coverage. My fear is that the news media spotlight will on the JBS role which will district from the positive CPAC atmosphere.
I can not understand what motivated the American Conservative Union to reach out to the JBS. Last year there was a very strong libertarian presence at CPAC. Many of these libertarians were very vocal about their opposition to America’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was strange to hear this anti-war rhetoric at a conservative conference. It was similar to having CPAC co-sponsored by Code Pink.
In preparing for his 1964 presidential campaign, the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) thought it was essential to excommunicate the John Birch Society from the conservative movement. In discussing the JBS, Goldwater said “We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.” Now ACU wants to attach the JBS and to bring them to the head table.
The JBS was established in 1958 and reached its peak in 1965 with 60,000 members. The founder was candy maker Robert Welch and his brother’s company is best known for the “Sugar Daddy.” Welch often spoke of the dangers of fluoridated water which he claimed was a Communist-backed plot to weaken the minds of the American public.
The organization was long headquartered in the birthplace of Joe McCarthy, Appleton, Wisconsin. For the past five decades they have attacked and defamed practically every major political figure in the United States.
In his book “The Politician,” Welch said President Dwight Eisenhower was “a dedicated and conscious agent of the international communist conspiracy,” and the U.S. government was “under operational control of the Communist party.” He later amended this statement to say Communists only had “50-70 percent” control of the government.
The JBS does not denounce its late founder and continues to promote his strange speeches which are now on Youtube. Among the few national candidates the JBS admires are isolationists Pat Buchanan and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The Texas lawmaker refused to endorse John McCain in 2008 but he readily endorses the John Birch Society as a “a great patriotic organization.” He was the keynote speaker at their 50th anniversary celebration.
JBS is often described as a radical right wing group, but in foreign policy many of their “anti-war” positions are readily embraced by the extreme left of the Democratic Party. The Society believes “just four years from now. . . the United States may cease to exist as an independent political entity” because of the North American Union and the Council on Foreign Relations. The North American Union does not exist and never has, and the Council is a think tank which has never taken a position on any issue.
The JBS says it number one selling DVD, “9/11 Press For Truth,” presents “some of the most glaring discrepancies, lies, and cover-ups concerning the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.” The DVD says Israel and President Bush had advance knowledge of the attack and building 7 at the World Trade Center was actually destroyed by dynamite. They claim the Bush Administration allowed Osama bin Laden to escape.
The below link is to an FBI report on the JBS which has now been made public. The report explains why the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and his top subordinates routinely described them as “irrational”, “extremist”, “irresponsible”, “fanatics” and “lunatic fringe”.
Many officials of the White Citizens Councils were prominent JBS members — including Medford Evans. According to the FBI document, the JBS routinely circulated falsehoods about numerous people, organizations, and issues. The JBS and its surrogates have been sued for libel and lost. A common theme in JBS articles and seminars is that there is a secret conspiracy to establish a one world government.
They promote many books and DVD’s on this theme which dates back to their founding. They believe the United States is being manipulated by a small group of bankers and investors. There is no evidence to support their claim so they point to organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, an annual conference of 130 people in the Netherlands. No resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.
These organizations are not promoting a one world government and they have no desire to infringe on the sovereignty of the United States. They have been attacked for decades by the JBS because of the participation of prominent people.
The best selling JBS book is “The Invisible Government” by Dan Smoot. It claims World War II was staged by international bankers. They say the same thing about every subsequent military conflict. For example, the September 16, 1996 issue of the “New American” says: “Not only was the Gulf War undeclared, unconstitutional, and unwarranted, but there are many indications that it was as phonily fomented as its predecessors.”
The JBS believes affluent individuals of various political beliefs are secretly working together, and their goal is make American citizens into slaves. In their view this is all part of a massive conspiracy to defraud the American people of their economic well being and freedom. They say the UN is part of this conspiracy to “overthrow” the U.S. Constitution. Another JBS claim is that the Christian faith is a primary target of this imaginary conspiracy.
The JBS was cast out of the conservative movement in 1963 when a 5,000 word essay by William F. Buckley, Jr., received prominent attention. Buckley’s warning remains valid today: “How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points . . . so far removed from common sense?”

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

PHOTO CAPTIONS: The John Birch Society will be joining Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and participating in “Conservatives Against War” events at next months CPAC conference. The JBS was exiled by the right wing for four decades, but now the American Conservative Union has decided to welcome them back. It is very bad decision.
(2) The John Birch Society believed President Kennedy was guilty of treason because among other things he sent troops to Alabama to desegregate schools.

The Missile and Bomber Gaps: The Grand Deceptions of the 1960 Presidential Campaign by Gregory Hilton

Today in 1961 President Dwight Eisenhower gave his farewell address. The best known portion is when the departing President warned “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
For almost 50 years that quote has been used by liberals in their attempts to cut the defense budget and to stop national security programs. Eisenhower was planning to use the term “military-industrial-congressional complex,” but in a move he later regretted, was talked out of it by his brother.
Eisenhower was a strong advocate of defense modernization programs, and the real target of his speech was Capitol Hill, not the Pentagon. In those Cold War days, America was spending 9% of its GDP on defense programs, which is almost three times the level of our spending today. National security was ranked as the number one concern of the American people, and everyone was aware of the statement of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, “We will bury you.”
SPUTNIK AND THE MISSILE GAP
The tone of the farewell address was motivated by Ike’s anger at the Democratic Party. In three days John F. Kennedy would be inaugurated and Eisenhower was still stung by criticism aimed at his defense programs. Democrats had campaigned in 1956, ’58 and ’60 on non-existent gaps in defense programs. During Eisenhower’s 1956 re-election campaign the focus was on the “bomber gap.”
This shifted to a “missile gap” in 1958 when the Democrats won 16 Senate seats, and the charge was repeated with more vehemence during the 1960 presidential campaign. Unfortunately the Republican president did not provide any information to rebut these claims. To do so he thought would reveal closely guarded intelligence secrets.
The missile gap can now be seen as the grand deception of the 1960 campaign. It was fueled by the launch of the Soviet space satellite Sputnik on October 4, 1957. This 184 pound satellite instantly became a symbol of Soviet pre-eminence in outer space. It was a major topic in the U.S. and shattered public confidence in our technological superiority. “The national ego had not been so affronted since Pearl Harbor,” Ben Pearse of the New York Times wrote of the national trauma.
Senator John F. Kennedy (D-MA) frequently mentioned Sputnik during his campaign to “Get America moving again.” Kennedy said Eisenhower was “putting fiscal security ahead of national security. Surely our nation’s security overrides budgetary considerations.” Kennedy said Eisenhower had always made insufficient appropriations for defense.
JFK often repeated the same theme, “The nation is losing the satellite-missile race with the Soviet Union because of complacent miscalculations, penny-pinching, budget cutbacks, incredibly confused mismanagement, and wasteful rivalries and jealousies. . . We are facing a gap on which we are gambling with our survival.”
It was also an effective issue for him during the presidential debate, and he quoted the controversial 1957 Gaither Report of the President’s science advisers on the vulnerability of American defenses. Kennedy claimed the USSR had 50 ICBMs while America only had 10, and just 5 of them were operational at any time. He said the gap would be enormous by 1961 when the Soviets would have hundreds of new missiles.
Nixon later said he could not effectively respond to JFK because the information was classified. Kennedy had no inside information about a missile gap, and his source was right wing syndicated columnist Joseph Alsop. We now know Alsop’s figures were bogus.
Many Americans thought a Soviet attack was only a matter of time. Khrushchev arrived in the United States on September 19 for an uninvited and unwelcome twenty-five-day visit. He addressed the United Nations General Assembly, taunted UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, and pounded a shoe on his desk in the General Assembly.
Senator Stuart Symington (D-MO), the former Secretary of the Air Force and the Democrats leading spokesman on defense said, “A very substantial missile gap does exist and the Eisenhower Administration apparently is going to permit this gap to increase.” President Eisenhower responded “The bomber gap of several years ago was always a fiction, and the missile gap shows every sign of being the same.”
In his book, “Who Ever Believed in the ‘Missile Gap’?”: John F. Kennedy and the Politics of National Security,” Christopher Preble argues that because of the missile gap rhetoric, senior Soviet military figures believed JFK was a dangerous extremist. They thought he was trying to justify a pre-emptive American attack, and this led to the Soviets placing nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962.
THE BOMBER GAP
Talk of a bomber gap began in 1954 with the first reports of the USSR “Bison” jet bomber. On May 1, 1955, western observers at the annual May Day parade were awestruck as several formations of 10 new Bison’s thundered overhead. We now know these formations were an illusion.
It was the same pack of 10 bombers circling out of sight and then flying over Red Square six times. Americans were told 600 of these bombers existed, but Bison production was halted in 1963 with the construction of 93 aircraft. The Soviets were not pleased with the capabilities of the Bison and most of the planes were converted into refueling tankers.
In April of 1957 the Soviet Union unveiled the Bear bomber, and once again, rhetoric about a gap was intensified. U-2 intelligence flights had begun on July 4, 1956, and President Eisenhower had convincing proof that there was no gap. The same information was relayed to the Congress, but Democrats were not about to abandon an effective campaign issue. They were supported by defense and aerospace companies which wanted to keep production lines open. Their lobbying was successful and the U.S. response to the 93 Bison bombers was the construction of over 2,500 bombers for the U.S. Air Force.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The United States had a huge lead over the Soviet Union in those days, and the balance would not shift until the mid-1970s. It was known from the outset that these gaps were false, but they were effective political tools.
The campaign rhetoric was not necessary after Kennedy won, and at his first press briefing Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said “The Russians probably have no more intercontinental ballistic missiles than the U.S.” He would later confirm that there never had been a bomber or missile gap. The debate finally ended in October 1961, when members of the Kennedy administration declared that the United States possessed overwhelming military strength in the number of bombers and missiles.

The Social Conservatives vs. the Regular Republicans: The Battle for Iowa Has National Implications by Gregory Hilton

Because of its first in the nation presidential precinct caucuses, Iowa is often at the center stage of American politics. Statewide candidates are frequently linked to presidential contenders, and this year will be no different. A crucial battle is now being waged between social conservatives and regular Republicans, and it will culminate in the June 8th gubernatorial primary.
Voters will be determining the direction of the state party, and this could well be a key indicator of GOP success throughout the nation this year. Will Republicans stick to their base by emphasizing a social conservative agenda, or will they back peddle these concerns in an effort to reach out to independent voters in a swing state?
Iowa put Barack Obama on the road to the White House with his solid 2008 win in the precinct caucuses. Anti-war Democrats flocked to his cause and Hillary Clinton came in third. Clinton spent $29 million but only received 70,000 votes. The results completely changed perceptions about her campaign, and she was no longer the Democratic front runner.
The strength of anti-war liberals on the Democratic side was matched by social conservatives in the Republican contest. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) was outspent significantly but defeated former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) by a 34% to 25% margin. The eventual GOP nominee, Senator John McCain (AZ), received only 13%. In the most recent Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, Huckabee is viewed favorably by 70% of Republicans, while Sarah Palin is at 60% and Romney comes in at 58%.
The good news is that 2010 promises to be an outstanding year for Republicans. It has been a long time, but now all of the leading issues are finally on the side of the GOP. Former four term Governor Terry Branstad (R) already has a 57 to 33% lead over incumbent liberal Governor Chet Culver (D).
Numerous state lawmakers and party officials have endorsed Branstad, the longest-sitting governor in Iowa’s history. He has been able to raise $1.5 million even though he will not officially launch his campaign until next week.
Branstad has a 72% approval rating compared to Culver’s 48%. Branstad was in office during the farm crisis but still left the state with a $900 million surplus. Now Iowa has an estimated $1 billion budget deficit, which is unprecedented.
Governor Culver enacted the largest budget in state history during a recession, and prior to this year, rejected calls for spending cuts. He also signed a utility tax increase, raised taxes on employers, and levied $250 million of new taxes on property owners. The Governor has signed over a half a billion dollars in tax increases. He is now cutting the budget but he waited far too long to take this action.
The bad political news is that in-fighting between the Christian right and regular Republicans is causing a serious split which could well lead to Culver’s re-election. This has happened before.
Iowa was once solidly in the GOP camp but Democrats now have a huge edge in voter registration. Furthermore, in the last three election cycles independents broke decisively for the Democrats. This has allowed them to capture control of both houses of the legislature. They currently have a 32 to 18 seat edge in the State Senate.
To understand the current battle it is best to go back to 2002. Then Gov. Tom Vilsack (D), who is now Secretary of Agriculture, was easily re-elected that year. This happened when the Republican Party disintegrated. Doug Gross, the chief of staff for former Gov. Branstad, squeaked out a primary victory that year over Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent social conservative.
Gross and Vander Plaats were in agreement on all of the major social issues. Nevertheless, the primary sharply divided the Christian right and regular Republicans. Nearly two-thirds of Republican voters who didn’t support Gross in the primary never truly came home. The problem for some activists was that Gross’ campaign did not emphasize issues such as opposition to abortion.
Gross called on the GOP to be more inclusive. He wants less of a focus on social issues because they are turning off a younger generation of voters. He is against “a litmus test associated with social issues.” “Social conservatives are an important part of our base,” Gross says. “We can’t win without them, but we can’t win only with them, and we need to understand that and broaden the tent. . . Social conservatives are a minority group within a minority party.”
Some of the same divisions from 2002 are now back again this year. The GOP gubernatorial primary contest is also closely linked to 2012 presidential politics. Gross ran Romney’s 2008 effort while Vander Plaats was chairman of the Huckabee campaign. Huckabee has endorsed Vander Plaats, a former high-school teacher and basketball coach, in this year’s race and is closely associated with him. The manager of the Iowa Huckabee effort is now running the Vander Plaats campaign.
The leading Republican gubernatorial candidates are Branstad, Vander Plaats and State Rep. Rod Roberts. Once again, Vander Plaats lost the 2002 race and in 2006 he was unsuccessful in his bid for Lt. Governor. He should not be underestimated because he already has an 8 point lead over Culver in the Iowa Poll, and recently won the endorsement of the states most prominent Christian right organization, the Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC).
Furthermore, the IFPC has promised not to support Branstad in a general election if he wins the GOP nomination. There is speculation they will mount an independent campaign for Vander Plaats if he is not successful in the primary, and such a move would guarantee Gov. Culver’s re-election.
Branstad and Rod Roberts, an evangelical minister, are both pro-life and they oppose gay marriage. Branstad has participated in many Right-to-Life activities and as Governor he helped to pass the Defense of Marriage Act. That is not good enough for the IFPC. Social conservatives disapprove of Branstad’s support for gambling, his selection of a pro-choice running mate in 1990, former Lt. Governor Joy Corning, and his nomination of the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court who issued a ruling favorable to gay marriage.
The former Governor met with the leaders of the IFPC, Iowa Right to Life and the Iowa Christian Alliance last October. He emphasized his agreement with them, but also said he would focus his campaign on the economy and jobs rather than social conservative concerns. Branstad reviewed past elections which demonstrated candidates who were primarily identified with social conservative issues were not successful in general elections.
Abortion has long been the litmus test for state Republicans, but a new dominant issue for social conservatives emerged on April 3, 2008. This was when a unanimous decision of the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. Iowa then became one of the first states outside of New England to allow homosexual marriage.
Bob Vander Plaats immediately jumped into the forefront of the opposition, and the centerpiece of his campaign involves a gay marriage pledge. If he is elected, on his first day in office Vander Plaats promises to sign an executive order stopping same-sex marriage until the legislature either passes a law legalizing it, passes a constitutional amendment banning it, or the public has an opportunity to vote on it. Because of Iowa laws, a vote could not be held for several years.
The problem with the Vander Plaats promise is that it is illegal. Not only does Vander Plaats acknowledge this, but says he is ready to be impeached for this action. Vander Plaats plans to proceed with this pledge even though the Attorney General says a governor does not have the authority to issue an executive order freezing a decision by the Supreme Court.
This had been acknowledged by scholars on the left and right. Such an executive order would immediately create a constitutional crisis. Branstad and Roberts will not agree to issue an illegal executive order, so they lost the IFPC endorsement. Vander Platts says he is running as a Republican “in spite of the Republican Party.”
During the 2006 campaign, Gov. Culver promised to do “whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman.” He reversed this position just a few days after the state Supreme Court ruling. The Governor is now opposed to a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
The most recent Iowa Poll found 41% supporting a ban and 40% percent in favor of gay marriage. A whopping 63% say other issues are more important. Many Iowa Republicans, but not the IFPC, favor civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage.
A bill to outlaw same-sex marriage has been introduced in the State Senate. It has the support of all 18 Republicans, but it is not expected to pass. In fact, Democrats will probably not allow a vote on the measure. All efforts to secure a vote in the Iowa House in 2009 met with failure. The legislation would amend the state’s constitution to say “marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.”
In order to amend the constitution, the legislature must pass the resolution in two separate General Assemblies. The measure would then go to a public vote. If advocates of a same-sex marriage ban are unsuccessful in 2010, it would likely be 2014 at the earliest before the public would weigh in.
State Rep. Rod Roberts, the third candidate in the GOP primary, is an ordained minister, but this is also not good enough for the ultra-conservative IFPC. Roberts’ big issue is getting rid of business income taxes as a way to stimulate job growth.
The IFPC wants candidates talking about abortion and gay marriage. Their press release says, “Roberts can be counted on to interject godly counsel and to cast principled votes. He has not, however, demonstrated the bold resolve and drive necessary to successfully confront those in leadership positions who actively promote wrong-doing in Iowa.” Roberts represents a Democratic leaning district and says the IFPC wants candidates who will be “mean” and “mad,” but that is not his style.
If Iowa Republicans are united this year they will have an excellent chance to finally regain the governorship, win back at least one Congressional seat and to make gains in the state legislature. If social conservatives insist on a gay marriage pledge and abandon Branstad than Culver’s re-election is assured. It is hard to think of a time when the outlook has been better for the state GOP, but some members of the Christian right may be capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Several Key Senate Democrats Probably Want the GOP’s Scott Brown to Win the Massachusetts Special Election by Gregory Hilton

If State Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) wins the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacancy on January 19th, several Democrats might be relieved. The Senate balance would become 59 to 41, and a few moderates would no longer be on the hot seat. They would not be pressured to provide the crucial 60th vote necessary to pass the health care reform bill and other legislation.
Among lawmakers who might breath a sign of relief if the GOP’s Brown wins are Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Joe Lieberman (CT), Kent Conrad (ND), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Evan Bayh (IN).
These lawmakers worked as a team to stop the House passed version of the public option.
Lieberman spoke for many of them, “If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today.” The Senators won on the public option, Nelson and Landrieu cut lucrative side deals with Majority Leader Reid, but since then the lawmakers have had to cope with outraged voters back home.
Nelson is running 30% behind Gov. Dave Heineman (R-NE) in a hypothetical 2012 matchup, and has said it was a mistake to take up health care this year. Lincoln is 10 points behind her GOP challengers, and Lieberman has seen a 25% drop in his approval rating. It is no wonder all of these Senators are far from happy with the health care bill which passed the Senate.
The pressure on them to once again vote in favor of health care reform is enormous. Every one of these Senators has already made statements questioning the fiscal soundness of the bill. The lawmakers are also well aware of the gimmicks used to get the bill through the Senate. The increased taxes go into effect immediately but people will have to wait until 2014 for benefits. They also realize the bill is not deficit neutral, nor will it save money in the long run.
Finally, if Brown does win on Tuesday he should thank Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) was in office when Kerry began his 2004 presidential campaign. Democrats thought Kerry could win the presidential election, and they did not want Romney to have the power to appoint a Republican to fill a Senate vacancy until 2006. They changed the law to require a special election rather than a gubernatorial appointment in the event of a vacancy. If the law had not been changed Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) could have immediately appointed a Democrat to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacancy.

Obama and Biden Believe Our Future is in New Jersey? By Gregory Hilton

Outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) gave his final “State of State Address” today. A week from now he will be heading back to Manhattan, and he leaves behind a $9 billion deficit and plenty of challenges for his successor. Prior to entering politics, Corzine had been CEO of the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs and his net worth is in excess of $300 million. He was portrayed as a “Wizard of Wall Street” when he arrived in Trenton, but the state soon learned he was unable to balance a check book.
He has a 61% disapproval rating and lost to Gov-elect Chris Christie (R) last November by 85,000 votes. Now that he is leaving office he has begun to recognize some of the sources of voter anger. This afternoon Corzine said there was “reckless borrowing,” and “Let’s call it like it is: Everyone’s property taxes are too damn high.”
Not only is he correct but they are the highest taxes in the nation. Four years ago he promised to cut them by 40%. The Corzine plan was to cut property taxes by 10% a year over a four year period. They ended up increasing by 20%.
He also raised the sales tax and increased the state budget. He promised to bring fiscal sanity in his 2005 campaign, but he only brought insanity to Trenton. He said there would be no government borrowing without voter approval, but he broke that promise immediately. He claimed there would be no more “gimmicks”, and then he postponed interest payments until 2014.
In his speech today the Governor called New Jersey a “beacon for progressive government.” He is correct. New Jersey is a prime example of what happens when liberals have complete control of a state government.
What was most disturbing is when the Governor said Obama and Biden “looked to New Jersey for ideas and they used them.” I am not sure what ideas he is talking about because Corzine increased spending, borrowing, debt and nearly bankrupted the pension system.
When he came into office the Republican Party offered to work with Governor Corzine. GOP leaders promised to cooperate with him on his campaign promise to cut property taxes, and reform state government. The Governor was also told Republicans would support practically any budget reductions he submitted. He ignored the offer of assistance which is a major reason he lost.
His first budget was 11% higher than his predecessor and he hired over 7,000 new state workers. Tolls on the NJ Turnpike went up 40% under Corzine. With bipartisan support the legislature did enact $1 billion in spending cuts, but they were vetoed by the Governor because his labor union allies did not want them.
Corzine was also anti-business, and enacted burdensome regulations such as the very generous family leave policies. These regulations makes the state non-competitive. Many citizens have relocated because of the high property and state income taxes, and others have not fled because it is so difficult to sell a home in New Jersey.
Corzine spent $130 million of his own money on his campaigns and many saw this as a good point because he would not be beholden to the special interests. Unfortunately that was never the case, and the Governor was always on the string of the SEIU and the NJ Education Association. Corzine ignored many dire fiscal problems and his priorities were instead gay marriage and legalized marijuana.
The damage done by Corzine will be difficult to repair. The new Governor has to raise revenue or drastically cut services. State pensions and medical benefits are going to be a huge structural liability for many decades. Christie needs to fire 5000-7000 state workers, and cut staff salaries by 20%.
Every union contract has to be open and cut. He needs to eliminate tenure for teachers across the board. State employees should have insurance but similar to the private sector, they need to pay for family coverage as well as 50% of the premiums. Pensions for workers with less than five years of service should be moved to 401k plans.
The state is on the verge of bankruptcy and the real loser has been the besieged taxpayers. Gov-elect Christie now has one of the most difficult jobs in the nation, and he must contend with a state legislature which is firmly controlled by the Democratic Party. Despite Corzine’s persistent lobbying the legislature recently rejected gay marriage as well as free in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The new Governor has a mandate for dramatic reform so all eyes will now be on the state legislature. If they are going to climb out of the current fiscal hole they need to put partisan politics aside.
I sure hope President Obama is not looking to New Jersey for the new initiatives he will propose in his upcoming State of the Union Address.