Navy Testing Electromagnetic Railgun

The Navy has announced that it is getting close to developing an electromagnetic gun that can fire rounds at targets more than 100 miles away.

Called an electromagnetic railgun, the weapon consists of parallel rails and uses a magnetic field and electric current to generate energy to fire rounds accurate at up to 115 miles. The weapon will be able to hurl its 40-pound projectile at a speed of 5,600 mph at a rate of 10 guided projectiles per second.

The 5-inch guns currently used on Navy on destroyers typically have a range of about 15 miles.

According to Navy researchers, the weapon’s high-velocity and range would allow ships to provide support for Marines as well as self-defense against cruise and ballistic missiles and could target enemy ships.

The video below shows a Naval Research-funded electromagnetic railgun prototype launcher that was recently installed at a test facility in Dahlgren, Va. The test shots begin a month-long series of full-energy tests to evaluate the first of two industry-built launchers.


Congress: Your First Amendment Rights Annoy Us

Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment has been under attack by the American political elite for some time, and a bill voted on in the House on Monday sets the next portion of the Amendment in line for the chopping block.

The House voted this week 388-3 to pass H.R. 347 a bill called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. The bill was slightly amended and voice-voted by the Senate earlier in the month; House passage of the Senate version sends it to the White House for President Barack Obama’s signature into law.

Congress makes it illegal in the bill to trespass on the grounds of the White House. The wording in the bill, however, goes on to allow the government to enforce trespassing laws against more than tourists and protesters near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

A portion of the bill explains who it criminalizes:

`(a) Whoever—`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; `(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; `(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or `(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds.

The bill also explains what are considered restricted places for peaceful protesters:

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; `(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and `(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.

Basically, anyplace where Secret Service agents are present or any building where government business is being conducted is made off limits to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” by language in the bill. Both GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are currently protected by Secret Service agents, and Newt Gingrich has asked for protection. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has said that he will likely not opt for Secret Service protection during the campaign.

According to the Secret Service website, the agency is authorized to protect:

  • The President, the Vice President, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the President-elect and Vice President-elect.
  • The immediate families of the above individuals.
  • Former Presidents and their spouses, except when the spouse remarries.
  • Children of former Presidents until age 16.
  • Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad.
  • Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general Presidential election.
  • Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President.
  • National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Because foreign dignitaries are often protected by the Secret Service, the Federal government could consider demonstrations against any foreign president on American soil a violation of Federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive.

Secret Service’s ability to be present at any “National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security” is also particularly alarming for free-speech advocates, as it could mean no peaceable assembly just about anywhere Janet Napolitano sees fit. According to RT, about three dozen events in all have been considered National Special Security Events since the term was created by President Bill Clinton. Among the events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list were Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

The only “no” votes on the bill were from Representatives Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.).

Amash commented about the bill on his Facebook page saying, “Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights.”

Nanny State To Mandate Rear-View Cameras In All Vehicles

The National Highway Safety Institute has set in place a law that will require that all vehicles come equipped with rear-view cameras, a measure that — if 100 percent effective — will prevent 228 American deaths each year at a cost of about $12 million each to American auto buyers.

According to The New York Times, in a preliminary version of the measure released for public comment, regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle. Some of the cost is expected to be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

Government statistics say that 228 people — 44 percent of whom are younger than 5 — die each year after being backed over by passenger vehicles. About 17,000 people a year are injured in such accidents.

Critics of the measure say that efforts to encourage Americans to pay more attention would be a much more effective way of avoiding tragedies without putting in place yet another auto-industry mandate to reduce the competitiveness of American autos.

Reason reports: “…Legislators put minimum effort into finding the most cost-efficient solution to this problem and failed to consider that car design isn’t really their job in the first place. Clearly, when considering the fact that most backover accidents involve the parent or relative of a child, the right course of action would be legislation that prohibits parents and relatives of children from driving in the first place.”

If You Are Using The Internet, You Are A Criminal

Remember the controversy over the past couple of months surrounding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) that was seemingly quelled by the protest of thousands of Internet users and the subsequent blackout of several major websites? Though the tweets, posts and online news stories regarding Internet freedom have waned greatly, the threat to freedom and any level of online privacy persists.

Perhaps it is a product of our always-on news cycle or our constant bombardment with entertainment distractions, but Americans as a whole have a very short attention span when it comes to fighting against threats to our liberty. When lawmakers such as Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) — author of SOPA — draft legislation that deliberately takes away Americans’ freedom and privacy, they do so with a plan.

Smith and his legislative cohorts knew very well that SOPA and PIPA, two bills that screamed censorship and the antithesis of American values, would make American Internet users and free-speech advocates uneasy; that’s why the Texas legislator drafted a backup bill. The bill’s alphabet-soup acronym is PCFIPA (H.R. 1981), which stands for something that all Americans would likely support “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers.” By amending existing laws that give U.S. Marshals the power to issue subpoenas and pursue fugitives, the bill will give Federal authorities access to your every move when using the Internet or Internet-based device. That’s every email, click, text message, password, online financial transaction, etc.

Internet service providers (ISPs) already keep track of some information, but Smith’s bill requires the ISP to retain every move of every individual using the Internet for 18 months, according to IT World. This means that the Feds would have an ever-evolving pool of data pertaining to every Internet-using American to bait with the thousands of Federal laws and regulations on the books and fish until they find some semblance of criminal activity.

Smith — like any good bureaucrat — is using child pornography as a straw man to impose tyranny. By assuming that every American is a child pornographer, the bill compiles a list of every online action and makes every person guilty until proven innocent.

IT World says of the bill: “Since it is empowering U.S. Marshals to investigate people who have not yet been convicted, under PCFIPA, the only thing required to get a valid subpoena to examine all the online activity of 99.762 percent of the U.S. population, is an investigating officer willing to say the subpoena has something to do with investigation of online child porn.”

“The bill is mislabeled,” Representative John Conyers (D-MI) told CNET. “This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.”

SOPA, PIPA and PCFIPA are all pretty nasty attempts by the U.S. government to unleash its crushing regulatory power on the Internet, but there is another threat to internet freedom and privacy. Critics of the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) say the agreement has all of the markers of an evil plot in a movie based on a group of world leaders and corporate interests bent on eliminating communication among their proles to control all production, communication and information. ACTA is supposed to be an international agreement that protects copyright holders against piracy by establishing an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet. The law would use an international organization — such as the World Trade Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization or the United Nations — to carry out its task.

ACTA has not been widely discussed in U.S. media, likely because negotiations regarding the measure were held in secret. It was signed quietly by the United States in October 2011 without the approval of Congress, the Supreme Court or the American public. Tokyo, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea also signed the treaty, while the European Union, Mexico and Switzerland plan to do so in the near future, according to International Business Times. When the measure is finalized, ACTA can be used to crack down on Internet activity worldwide by a coordinated authority that rests outside of any country.

Governments aren’t the only ones who want access to everything you do online. With the advent of a new Google privacy policy on March 1, information from almost all of your Google services — including Gmail, Picasa, YouTube and search — will be compiled and analyzed so that the company can learn more about you. Google collects and can integrate just about anything you’ve ever told the company: calendar appointments, location data, search preferences, contacts, personal habits based on Gmail chatter, device information and search queries among other things. There is no way to opt out of the company’s tracking aside from not using any of its products.

If you’re concerned about Internet freedom and privacy, don’t worry, President Barack Obama has your back — much like he did when it came to the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act. Last week, the Administration issued a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” and said that individuals should be allowed to opt out of corporate Internet tracking. No word yet on whether the White House will call for the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, CIA, U.S. Marshals or international spy agencies to allow Internet users to opt out of tracking by Big Brother anytime soon. Our guess is likely not.

GAO: Duplication Of Programs Costing Taxpayers Billions

A 428-page study conducted by the Government Accountability Office found something infuriating, but likely not surprising to many Americans: overlapping government programs are costing taxpayers billions of dollars annually.

The study noted that in areas ranging from food safety to background checks to breast cancer research, the Federal government has dozens of repeated agency responsibilities, likely costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year.

The Washington Post points out a few of the duplicate government programs in a recent article:

Fifty-three separate programs run by four federal agencies provide economic development assistance to entrepreneurs and several of the programs provide the same type of assistance. There are 17 programs providing “technical assistance” to entrepreneurs: Two at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, six run by the Small Business Administration, five run by the Agriculture Department and four out of the Commerce Department.

The lack of a coordinate reporting system makes it difficult for the National Institutes of Health, Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affairs to track health research funded by other federal agencies, GAO said, meaning agencies may issue duplicative grants to different research projects on the same topic.

Federal agencies spent at least $79 billion on at least 7,200 investments in information technology last fiscal year. The Pentagon and Energy Department had the most.

The government spent at least $1 billion last year to conduct more than 2 million background checks of federal job applicants, the report said. Costs have grown in recent years in part because at least seven agencies are spending tens of millions of dollars on separate databases to track personnel records.

The GAO also included a list of cost-cutting recommendations for the Federal government.

Eat Broccoli To Ward Off Cancer

Researchers in the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University have discovered yet another reason why broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables are so good for you: They contain a compound called sulforaphane that provides not just one, but two ways to prevent cancer through the complex mechanism of epigenetics.

Epigenetics is the study of genetic code and the way that diet, toxins and other forces can change which genes get activated. This can play a powerful role in everything from cancer to heart disease and other health issues.

Sulforaphane was previously identified as one of the most critical compounds that provide much of the health benefits in cruciferous vegetables, and scientists also knew that a mechanism involved was histone deacetylases, or HDACs. This family of enzymes can interfere with the normal function of genes that suppress tumors.

“It appears that DNA methylation and HDAC inhibition, both of which can be influenced by sulforaphane, work in concert with each other to maintain proper cell function,” said Emily Ho, an associate professor in the Linus Pauling Institute and the OSU College of Public Health and Human Sciences. “They sort of work as partners and talk to each other.”

The one-two punch, according to the doctor, is important to cell function and the control of cell division.

“Cancer is very complex and it’s usually not just one thing that has gone wrong,” Ho said. “It’s increasingly clear that sulforaphane is a real multi-tasker. The more we find out about it, the more benefits it appears to have.”

Sulforaphane is particularly abundant in broccoli, but also found in other cruciferous vegetables such as cauliflower and kale. Both laboratory and clinical studies have shown that higher intake of cruciferous vegetables can aid in cancer prevention.

Wyoming State Government Preppers

State legislators in Wyoming, like American preppers, have decided to prepare for economic and political collapse of the United States because of the Nation’s soaring national debt and Americans’ growing dissatisfaction with the Federal government.

A House bill recently passed in the State (HB 85) calls for the creation of a State-run continuity task force to study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes including disruptions in food and energy supplies and a complete breakdown of the Federal government. The task force will consider the feasibility of the State issuing its own currency, creating a standing army, implementing a State military draft and acquiring strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

According to Wyoming’s Star-Tribune, the measure has gained healthy support from State legislators.

“I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” State Representative Lorraine Quarberg (R-Thermopolis) told the paper. “To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad’s going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy.”

The bill’s sponsor, State Representative David Miller (R-Riverton), said that he does not expect the U.S. government to collapse anytime soon, but that it is important for his State to hedge against problems at the Federal level.

Paul Campaign: There Is No Paul/Romney Coordination

Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign has responded to media speculation that Paul has built an alliance with Mitt Romney and that his son, Senator Rand Paul, may be under consideration for a Romney Vice Presidential pick. The answers are no and no.

The campaign recently published a statement on its website explaining why Paul has focused attacks heavily on Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, but has had little to say about Romney:

If Republican voters are already supporting Romney then they’ve already made peace with his big government, anti-conservative record. Newt Gingrich wanted to be the anti-Romney, until conservatives could no longer ignore that Newt’s big government record wasn’t much different from Mitt’s. Santorum now wants to be the anti-Romney. The problem is Santorum is every bit the big government politician Romney is. Mr. “politics is a team sport” Santorum was literally a water carrier for the GOP establishment throughout the last decade and then some.

Speaking on MSNBC, Paul campaign advisor Doug Wead explained that Paul and Romney are polar opposites when it comes to voting records and proposals.

“There is no alliance. I mean, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are exact opposites—maybe that’s why they like each other so much,” he said.

In another statement, the campaign eliminated any speculation that Paul’s son was supporting or would consider any position in a Romney White House.

“I think the story kind of got misrepresented, because you know when I was asked, every time I’m asked these kind of questions, these are hypothetical questions, I always say you know what? I still have my first choice in the race and that’s Ron Paul. My first choice would be a Ron Paul presidency and my first choice for a position would be an unofficial adviser to a Ron Paul presidency,” said the Senator.

African Americans For Obama

As a part of his re-election strategy, President Barack Obama is working to entwine race and religion into his 2012 campaign for the Presidency.

Earlier this month via a video message, Obama announced the 2012 launch of African Americans for Obama, saying he didn’t believe there is a better time than Black History Month to kick off the initiative.

“Every day, I think of the generations of African American men and women who overcame slavery and oppression, risked their own safety to cast a ballot, even gave up their lives to help build a country that lived up to its founding principles, “ said Obama in his call-to-action video.

Visitors to the President’s re-election website can opt to volunteer for the campaign by “organizing in barber shops and beauty salons,” “organizing black businesses,” “organizing civic organizations,” “organizing congregations” or “organizing at historically black colleges and universities.”

The initiative has led some people to ponder what might happen if one of the white candidates organized a similarly racially exclusive campaign initiative. Paul Joseph Watson writes in a recent Prison Planet article:

Imagine if Ron Paul announced a national campaign called ‘Whites for Ron Paul’ – he’d be vilified as a racist. And yet Barack Obama has done the equivalent of precisely that with his launch of ‘African Americans for Obama’…

Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.

A recent report by NPR says that Obama is focusing more heavily on black voters this election season amid concerns that black voter turnout will be less in 2012 than it was in 2008, though the President still carries favorability in the 90 percent range among blacks.

Video Games Depict Religion As Problematic

It has long been noted that video games often contain graphic content including violence, gore, drug use and sexuality, but a new study points out another trend: the vilification of organized religion.

Greg Perreault, a doctoral student at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, examined five recent video games with religious-themed storylines — “Mass Effect 2,” “Final Fantasy 13,” “Assassin’s Creed,” “Castlevania: Lords of Shadow” and “Elder Scrolls: Oblivion” — and found that each associated religion with violence.

“In most of these games there was a heavy emphasis on a ‘Knights Templar’ and crusader motifs,” Perreault said. “Not only was the violent side of religion emphasized, but in each of these games religion created a problem that the main character must overcome, whether it is a direct confrontation with religious zealots or being haunted by religious guilt.”

The researcher said that he did not believe the game developers are intentionally vilifying religion.

“It doesn’t appear that game developers are trying to purposefully bash organized religion in these games,” Perreault said. “I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at video games across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting. Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative.”

Perreault presented his findings at the Center for Media Religion and Culture Conference on Digital Religion.

Study: Americans Always Think Their Candidate Is Most Popular

A new study from Northwestern University finds that because of a phenomenon called the false consensus effect, most voters believe that their preferred candidate will win in an election despite what polls say.

Using data from the American Life Panel researchers studied survey responses and results from the 2008 U.S. Presidential election and 2010 senatorial and gubernatorial State elections. Regardless of race, gender or level of schooling, voters believed that their chosen candidate was the most popular — no matter what results from polls said.

For example, someone who strongly supported a Democrat candidate over a Republican would have given a 20 to 30 percent higher chance, on average, that the Democrat would win the election than would someone who strongly supports the Republican.

“People thought their preferred candidate had a higher chance of winning, in every election, no matter in which state they live, no matter who was running, no matter which political party,” said Charles F. Manski, co-author of the paper. “This is one of the strongest empirical regularities I’ve ever seen.”

Pennsylvania Judge Uses Court To Push Sharia, Defend Muslim Attacker Of Atheist

A Muslim judge, an atheist and another Muslim walk into a courtroom — and, nope, this isn’t the beginning of a bad joke.

A judge in Pennsylvania dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who allegedly choked an atheist during a Halloween parade because the man offended Islam. American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V was wearing a “zombie Muhammad” costume and claiming to be the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at a Halloween parade on Oct. 11 in Mechanicsburg, Pa. Also at the parade was a zombie version of the Catholic Pope.

As the atheists marched down the street, an enraged Muslim named Talaag Elbayomy stormed out of the crowd and latched on to a sign hanging from Perce’s neck that read “Only Muhammad can Rape America,” pulling until the strings choked the man.

Police officer Bryan Curtis, upon witnessing the assault, intervened and charged Elbayomy — who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad — with harassment.

Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.” Adding, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”

District Judge Mark Martin, however, didn’t agree and instead accused Perce of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims.

According to WND, while brandishing a Quran, Judge Martin delivered a scathing attack against Perce in support of Muslims. An excerpt follows:

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus…

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’

Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

After delivering his lesson in Sharia Law, Martin dismissed the charges against Elbayomy despite video evidence of the attack and Curtis’ testimony on Perce’s behalf.

Here is a video of the events that transpired during the parade.


Perce, angered by Martin’s dismissal of the charge and the lengths he went to belittle the plaintiff, released the following the following recording of the judge’s ruling. Perce claims he had permission to release the audio, but Martin is now threatening to hold him in contempt of court, according to the Scranton Atheism Examiner.


Scholarship For Liberty

Higher education in the United States has become nearly synonymous with liberalism. Many conservative parents likely cringe when they imagine the mind-bending lectures that their young, knowledge-hungry, first-year college students will be subjected to upon arrival at university. Luckily, there is an antithesis to the trend.

The words college and conservative are not often used in the same context. The first years of college are considered by a great number of individuals as a time for self-exploration and pushing the limits — and rightly so. Unfortunately for many students, self-exploration is hampered by the constant barrage of liberal indoctrination that some educators consider knowledge and pushing the limits is encouraged only when the limits involve self-destructive personal behaviors. One small liberal arts college located on 200 acres in southern rural Michigan, though, has been rejecting regressive modern trends in higher education since its founding in 1844.

Hillsdale College is an independent, coeducational, residential, liberal arts college with a student body of about 1,400. Students who are accepted to the selective school embark on a four-year journey of learning that leads them to a bachelor of arts or a bachelor of sciences degree. Perhaps more important than the resultant degree Hillsdale students receive from the accredited institution, though, is the path the college’s educators take to bring them to the degree.

In the 1970s, the college made certain that liberal indoctrination on behalf of the status-quo Federal bureaucracy would never creep into its halls. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare set out to interfere with Hillsdale admissions policy during that period on the pretext that the school received Federal money in the form of student loans and financial aid. The Federal agency demanded that the college adopt an affirmative action admissions policy despite the fact that it was the first American college to prohibit in its charter any discrimination based on race, religion or sex, and became an early force for the abolition of slavery. It was also the second college in the Nation to grant four-year liberal arts degrees to women. Because the government’s unConstitutional mandate would make the college subject its admission roster to levels of discrimination that it had never before practiced, Hillsdale’s trustees responded with two resolutions:

  1. The College would continue its policy of non-discrimination.
  2. “With the help of God,” it would “resist, by all legal means, any encroachments on its independence.”

A decade of litigation ensued; and in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled against Hillsdale, saying it was indeed subject to bureaucratic mandates. The college announced that rather than comply with unConstitutional Federal regulation, it would no longer accept Federal taxpayer money to pay student tuition. In 2007, the school also rejected any tuition assistance funded by the State of Michigan, instead opting to aid students who need financial help with private contributions.

Hillsdale has taught a Constitution course to its students since the college opened its doors in 1844 as a part of a core curriculum that takes up about half of each student’s four-year learning journey. Because the college’s administration believes that the United States has reached a point in its history when the Constitutional foundation of the Nation will either be decimated completely by Federal bureaucracy or renewed by the populace, it offers the course online to anyone who signs up here.

In a recent interview with the college’s publication, Imprimis, Hillsdale President Larry P. Arnn discusses the importance of all Americans’ dedication to the values set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Of the Declaration he says:

…It opens by speaking of universal principles. It does not portray the Founding era as unique—“When in the Course of human events” means any time—or portray the Founding generation as special or grand—“it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” means any people. The Declaration is thus an act of obedience—an act of obedience to a law that persists beyond the English law and beyond any law that the Founders themselves might make. It is an act of obedience to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and to certain self-evident principles—above all the principle “that all men are created equal” with “certain unalienable Rights.”

Arnn contends that the Constitution is more important than ever by quoting James Madison in Federalist 51, “[W]hat is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The college President says Americans should take a look at the Federal government and ask themselves the following questions: Is the bureaucracy politically impartial? Is it efficient and rational, as if staffed by angels? Or is it politically motivated and massively self-interested?

No. No. Yes. That, Arnn contends, is why the Nation’s founding documents are as relevant today as they have ever been and should be studied and revered by all citizens of the United States.

At a time when the curricula of many colleges are chock full of liberal indoctrination — some are now even teaching classes in Occupy Wall Street, no joke — it should be refreshing to any conservative American to know that institutions like Hillsdale are still around. Anyone who may be worried that his children or grandchildren getting ready to send off college applications will end up wearing the blinders of liberal indoctrination may want to suggest Hillsdale. The country can never have too few Constitutionally-minded citizens.

Editor’s note: It’s time to make your submissions for this month’s You Sound Off! feature, which will run Feb. 29. Get your submission in by Feb. 27. It should be no more than 750 words (if they are longer, we probably won’t read them). We will select the one or two we think are the best of the week to publish. We reserve the right to edit for grammar and style but will try not to alter the meaning.

Send your submissions to Please include your name, address and telephone number (only your name will be published) so we can contact you if we need to clarify something. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.–BL

Report: Only Paul’s Plan Fiscally Conservative

Ron Paul said what may be the most accurate political statement of the election season during Wednesday night’s GOP debate: “When people are running for office, they’re really fiscally conservative. When they’re in office, they do something different. Then, when they explain themselves they say: ‘Oh, well, I want to repeal that.’”

A new report shows what Paul supporters already know: The national debt will grow as a result of the tax policy proposals of any of the other GOP Presidential candidates. A report by U.S. Budget Watch shows that the tax plans released by any of the other three GOP candidates will grossly add to national debt.

The report says Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would do the most damage to the Nation’s finances, with tax and spending policies likely to require trillions of dollars in borrowing.  Mitt Romney’s plan would do less damage, but still does not tackle debt.

Paul’s policy would cut tax revenues by more than $5 trillion over the next decade, the report said, and the revenue loss would be offset by more than $7 trillion in spending cuts.

Ron Paul Says Conservative Hawks Are Fiscal Hypocrites

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, in a statement regarding the recently released 2013 Federal budget, calls for an end to the hypocrisy of massive government spending and its negative impact on national security.

Paul writes that conservatives rightly complain about the more than $1 trillion deficit outlined in the budget, but that the same “conservatives” also complain that more money needs to be allocated for what the candidate refers to as overseas adventurism.

Citing “Attack of the Porkhawks,” an article written by the Cato Institute’s Doug Bandow, Paul argues that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: More money equals better results. The Federal education system clearly disproves the theory, writes the candidate.

Paul writes:

Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama’s “cuts”, adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world’s dominant military power, by far.

Though the Republican establishment and mainstream media continue to defend the notion that Paul’s foreign policy is nothing short of insane, the candidate continues to enjoy comfortable support from many people with close ties to national defense. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden unit, endorsed Paul several months ago; and members of the armed forces overwhelmingly support the candidate.

WSJ: Fed Secrecy Increasing Under Transparency Sham

Despite popular outcry in recent years from Americans demanding more transparency from the Federal Reserve, the central bank has operated behind closed doors to rewrite the rule book that governs U.S. financial markets.

The Fed recently publicized a push for transparency in its interest rate and emergency lending practices; but, unbeknownst to most Americans, there is much more going on behind the scenes. According to The Wall Street Journal, since the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul became law in 2010, the Fed has taken on a larger regulatory role than it ever has. Since passage, the central bank has held 47 financial regulation votes.

To give the illusion of transparency, the Fed’s five voting members reportedly email their votes in on a number of key regulatory issues, rather than casting votes in public meetings like they did throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Central bank officials claim that public meetings tend to be scripted affairs and shine little light on the process anyway. The officials said they still give the public as many as 90 days to comment on rules.

Among recent Fed disclosures, however, was a dissent from one Fed governor on a regulation related to the Volcker rule that was released Feb. 14, a day after the public comment period on the proposal had closed, depriving public commenters of a valuable perspective.

“I can’t think of any justification” for that, said the official directing the Fed’s rule-writing work.

United States Tiptoeing Toward Iranian Conflict

Western pressure on Iran is mounting as mainstream media continue to ready Americans for a likely armed conflict with the Islamic Republic, following a failed two-day International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visit to the country during which the agency requested access to a military site at Parchin — a request that was denied.

The IAEA said that intensive efforts were made to reach agreement facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues in connection with any military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. No agreement was reached.

“It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin during the first or second meetings,” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said. “We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached.”

Top Iranian officials cast the visit in a positive light, saying that the country’s cooperation with the IAEA remains at its highest levels. But foreign policy experts cite the failed trip as further proof of Iran’s unwillingness to back off of nuclear ambitions, despite international pressure.

According to Reuters, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov warned U.S. ally Israel on Wednesday that despite Iranian unwillingness to cooperate with international demands, any military offensive on the country would be “catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations.” The Russians contend that while Iran must be more open to dialogue regarding its nuclear ambitions, there is still much room for diplomacy from Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany.

Amid mounting tensions, the Israeli Jerusalem Post has given hawks fodder for their war cannons with a report that the Iranians not only wish to pose a threat to Israel, but are currently in the process of developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States and Europe.

Since 2009, the Administration of Barack Obama has imposed numerous sanctions on Iran, but the President has most recently taken a backseat approach regarding relations with the Islamic Republic, instead leaving the toughest measures to be levied by members of Congress and European allies, according to The Sacramento Bee.

The Administration likely fears that leading into an election season, any actions against Iran will result in soaring fuel prices that will be blamed on the President by detractors in the Republican Party. The price of oil is already on the rise as a result of the conflict, hovering around $106 a barrel in Asian markets on Wednesday.

Public Enemy No. 1

What country do you consider to be the United States’ greatest enemy? If you think like a majority of Americans, you likely picked Iran.

In a recent Gallup poll a random sample of 1,029 adults in the United States were asked the open-ended question: What one country anywhere in the world do you consider to be the United States’ greatest enemy today?

The majority of respondents, 32 percent, picked Iran — followed by China at 23 percent, North Korea at 10 percent, Afghanistan at 7 percent, Iraq at 5 percent, and Russia and Pakistan both at 2 percent. One percent of respondents said the United States was its own worst enemy.

Americans most frequently mentioned Iraq as the United States’ greatest enemy in 2001 and in 2005, when it tied North Korea. Iran has topped the list in each of the five surveys since. In the most recent survey, China was mentioned as an enemy more often than any other time, likely because of its growing global economic influence.

Gallup attributes Americans’ growing distaste for Iran to its public announcements of its nuclear capabilities, belligerence against the United States and Israel, and threats to disrupt the flow of oil in the Mideast.

Supreme Court To Hear Affirmative Action Case This Year

A 2003 Supreme Court decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, allows for affirmative action to be considered when public universities choose which students to admit. But in the term that begins in October, the Court will hear the case of one white student’s claim that the racial policy kept her from getting a spot in the freshman class at the University of Texas.

The Administration of Barack Obama has previously supported the 2003 Court decision that allows race to be used as a determining factor of university acceptance. In Texas, the policy calls for universities to first accept students in the top 10 academic percentile regardless of race. The institutions then accept all other students from a pool of applicants in which race is considered along with other factors, including community service, leadership qualities, test scores and work experience.

In Fisher v. University of Texas, student Abigail Noel Fisher says that she, being part of the second-round pool of applicants, was unfairly discriminated against by the State’s policy. Her lawyer, Bert Rein, contends that the State’s race-neutral policy for the top 10 already fulfills minority student requirements since 30 percent of enrolling students are from minority groups.

Affirmative action opponents hope the Supreme Court will do away with the race policy, and the issue is expected by some experts to come up during the Presidential election. Republican candidate Ron Paul likely represents the strongest opposition to the affirmative action-friendly Obama Administration.

Number Of Child Transsexuals Growing

Both The Associated Press and the British newspaper The Telegraph recently published stories about an alarming societal trend: Children as young as 4 are being subject to gender reassignment procedures and therapies.

Though research data in recent years show that the human brain likely does not fully mature until sometime in the mid-20s, some doctors say that very young children are able to determine that they were born in the body of the wrong sex. Critics say that parents are behind the children’s beliefs.

Dr. Norman Spack, director of a U.S. gender identity medical clinic at Children’s Hospital Boston, told the AP that one in 10,000 children likely have a gender-identity problem. He says that the condition exists because of differences in the way the children’s brains operate and should be addressed with treatments and therapies.

Spack authored a report that details a fourfold increase in young patients seen for gender reassignment at the Boston hospital. His gender clinic, which opened at the hospital in 2007, averages about 19 patients each year, compared with about four per year treated for gender issues at the hospital in the late 1990s. The report says 97 girls and boys were treated between 1998 and 2010. The youngest was 4 years old.

The children and their parents are psychologically evaluated and the children given hormone blocking drugs that prevent them from entering puberty, according to the report. Spack said boys switching to girls will develop breasts and girls transitioning to boys will be flat-chested if puberty is blocked and sex hormones are started soon enough.

The Telegraph reports that one 5-year-old, thought to be the youngest person in Britain with a gender identity disorder, decided he wanted to become a girl at age 3 after becoming obsessed with the female character in the children’s show “Dora the Explorer.”

The child’s mother, Theresa Avery, said that she allows her son to live as a girl because, “He just turned round to me one day when he was three and said: ‘Mummy, I’m a girl’. I assumed he was just going through a phase and just left it at that. But then it got serious and he would become upset if anyone referred to him as a boy. He used to cry and try to cut off his willy out of frustration.”

Scientist Wants To Produce Meat In A Lab

Science has taken nature out of healing, growing crops and nearly every other aspect of modern life, often to the detriment of health and prosperity; now, scientists want to grow your meat in a lab.

Mark Post, a Dutch scientist, says that by fall he will have perfected a method of making beef from the stem cells of cows, and his goal is to replace the entire animal meat industry.

According to Discovery News, Post is working to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat. He says that he is still in the laboratory phase, but should be able to make a stem-cell hamburger by fall.

Post is the chair of physiology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. He said his project is funded with 250,000 euros from an anonymous private investor who claims their motivation is “care for the environment, food for the world and interest in life-transforming technologies.”

Scientists like Post hope to perfect their “meat” products for mass consumption, claiming they will reduce the environmental and health costs of conventional food production.