Previous generations had clear struggles to overcome. The greatest generation overcame Nazism and Fascism. The civil rights movement fought draconian laws that excluded entire segments of the population from participating in the economy. Now, with Communism defeated, how does a citizen progress? Well, if you’re on the political Left, you simply fight a gas that all humans exhale and force millions to believe that our very existence on this Planet is evil. That way the struggle is endless because Utopia is the ultimate goal.

Sadly, many people around the world who consider themselves environmentalists never actually read, or listen to, the ideas spouted by those who currently lead the green movement. While, most people want clean air and water, few in the “compassionate majority” would support what the radical minority seeks to accomplish. In fact, I just read an editorial that articulates the minority viewpoint quite well, “Taking Shorter Showers Doesn’t Cut It: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change,” by Derrick Jensen, Orion Magazine. posted July 13, 2009.

Unlike Carol Browner and others currently in power, Jensen does not hide his true intentions; although his views still permeate the green profession. Notably, Jensen begins his editorial by equating environmentalism with the struggle against Nazism and Fascism:

Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?

It take someone with enormous intellectual depth to analogize the fight against throwing people in gas chambers to the fight against SUV exhaust. Like I said earlier, if there is no evil to fight, and no struggle to overcome, simply invent one. Also, it is rather disturbing that Jensen implicitly supports the Communist Revolution by identifying with those who fought the Tsars. History has demonstrated that the Communists made the Tsars look like saints despite the Tsarist oppression.

However, like the Reds of old, the Greens of today require everyone to support their cause. Jensen articulates this viewpoint quite well:

“[I]f we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.”

So, Jensen advocates remaking the entire economy, even calling electricity a “luxury.”  I am sure those siting in hospital beds around the country, who are alive today because of high-tech electrical machines, would appreciate knowing that environmentalists advocate limiting electricity.  Of course, Jensen’s argument is that  if we do not follow his lead, the apocalypse is on the horizon so those dying in hospitals should sacrifice for the good of humanity.

It has in all objective measures become a religion. But, unlike most religions, environmentalism is allowed in our public schools and citizens generally tolerate forced adherence to its tenets. Jensen concludes with the Nazi analogy to remove all doubt that he truly believes in the moral equivalence of Nazism and environmental degradation:

“The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.”

Overall, it is extremely important that the public is aware of environmentalism’s true goals. It is not about saving the Environment. Instead, it is about rapidly changing everyone’s way of life and scaling back the prosperity that took thousands of years to create.

Since I am not a normal human being, the first thing I thought of when I heard California was issuing IOUs was Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The first paragraph reads as follows:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Bringing out the important part, we read that “No State shall emit Bills of Credit.”

It seems pretty obvious that an IOU is a “bill of credit,” but I was curious as to whether the court system would agree. I investigated the Supreme Court rulings pertaining to the “bills of credit” clause. The definition of “bill of credit” as the courts understand it is established mostly in Craig v. Missouri, 29 U.S. 410 (1830). Later rulings refined the Craig ruling somewhat but it has not, as far as I could tell, been overturned.

The key elements in the Craig ruling are:

• There’s a difference between a “bill of credit” and something like a municipal bond. The difference is that “‘bills of credit’ signify a paper medium, intended to circulate between individuals, and between government and individuals, for the ordinary purposes of society.” The ban on “bills of credit” extends to any paper medium issued by a State government, for the purpose of common circulation.
• It doesn’t matter whether or not the “bills of credit” are given legal tender status.
• It is relevant whether the bills can be used to pay taxes or to pay employees, because this gives them currency and makes them likely to circulate as would paper money.
• Several historical examples of the dangers of “bills of credit” are given, including one example from 1690 Massachusetts where the government found itself unable to pay soldiers returning unexpectedly from a failed expedition against Canada and issued “bills of credit” instead of payment.

A later case, Houston & Texas Central R. Co. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 66 (1900), further defined the definition of a bill of credit and a municipality’s obligation with regards to payment when it engages in a contract with the private sector.

• A warrant on a State’s treasury assets isn’t a bill of credit if the money the warrant entitles its holder to is actually in the treasury
• If a municipality contracts for a municipal improvement (e.x. hiring a construction company to build a road) which it has the authority to do, and engages to pay what it owes in a bond which it doesn’t have the authority to issue, the municipality must instead pay in money.

This means that even if there’s a provision in California State employees’ contracts which allows California to pay them in IOUs, California still has to pay in cash, because that part of the contract is null and void.

California’s IOUs seem to pass all the tests for being Constitutionally forbidden “bills of credit.”  About the only argument I could see being made against them is that their denominations make them ill-suited for circulation, but by all accounts they’re circulating anyway, and California clearly intended them to circulate…I don’t know how else they expected their employees to eat.

So we gave the National Park Service a ring to make sure all our ducks were in a row. They were decidedly less than open to the idea. It turns out that not only does the government force you to stay inside a “free speech cage” if you want to exercise your natural rights as a human being, in DC everyone has to have their own separate free speech cage. Wouldn’t want folks with differing opinions to get too close to each other, they might do something obscene like argue in public.

Bureaucrash was told that should we show up and stage a counterprotest, we would be arrested. Of course, they only told us this after asking for Lee’s name and phone number. Natch.  After all, we all know what a loose cannon our Crasher-in-Chief can be.

There are, of course, pragmatic reasons for wanting to separate opposing protesters. Get a bunch of passionate folks together, tensions start running high, some drunkard throws a bottle…all of a sudden you have a brawl on your hands. You can send fewer law enforcement officials to keep order if you keep protesters in separate areas.

The problem with the above reasoning is that it assumes citizens are children who need a babysitter. It assumes protesters somehow forfeit their human rights when they happen to be in the same place as people who disagree with them.  The argument is bunk even on a legal level; it assumes that First Amendment rights can be rescinded without due process.

At the core of the madness is the Supreme Court, which has ruled in the past that “time, place and manner” restrictions on speech aren’t in conflict with the First Amendment.  If we want to pick a fight with the other side on socialized medicine in DC, we have to first pick a fight with the police and courts on free speech.

Well, I lied.  At the core of the madness is the notion of “public property,” but it seems to me as though that issue is beyond the scope of my post today.

What do you folks think?  Have you had similar experiences?  Should Bureaucrash look deeper into what can be done about the issue of counterprotests in DC?

I use the phrase “moderately observant” because Obama was promising Universal Healthcare, and he planned to spend more money than any government in history. Those facts alone should have signaled to anyone that he could not possibly cut taxes for 95% of Americans, and he certainly could not cover the difference by taxing “The Rich.” Overall,  there was not enough money to make good on his plan.

Sadly, those who attempted to sound the alarm fell on deaf ears. Even Factcheck.org wrote that anyone who accused Obama of planning to raise taxes on the middle-class was being dishonest. The problem was that Factcheck.org based its claim on what was promised, not what was actually going to happen.  As an aside, that begs the questions how an organization like Factcheck.org can assert it is in the business of fact checking when it turns out to be wrong and does not correct its error. The fact is that there was never going to be a tax cut; it was Obama’s “Read My Lips” moment all along.

Now, as expected, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the president won’t rule out a health care reform bill that includes a tax hike on people making less than $250,000 a year. Oh really?! They just realized that attempting to pay for medical care for 100% of all Americans would require a tax hike on more than 5% of the population. One would think that journalists would have done some investigating one year ago; I guess it is too much to ask?

To make matters worse, if the Cap & Trade bill gets signed into law (it already passed the House of Representatives), it would be the largest tax increase on the middle-class in American history.  When Americans start realizing this disastrous  bill is nothing other than an electricity tax, I hope they will wake up before it is too late.

June 15, 2009 (Washington, D.C.) - Eric Volz, an American citizen whose sham conviction on murder charges in Nicaragua and subsequent release made headlines around the world last year, will file an emergency petition against the Republic of Nicaragua with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, June 16 at 9:30am.

The petition asks the Inter-American Commission to issue an order terminating the Nicaraguan government’s unlawful and improper efforts to have his conviction reinstated by the Supreme Court of Nicaragua. The petition also seeks a declaration that Volz’s human rights were violated by the Nicaraguan court system. click here for more…

“I believe in justice and in the rule of law,” said Eric Volz. “I lost more than a year of my life for a crime the Nicaraguan government and court system knew I did not commit. What happened to me should not happen again to anyone. The courts exist to protect the innocent, and that is why I am asking the Inter-American Commission to act.”

Read entire press release here.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this case is that the trial court excluded or discounted alibi evidence from 7 independent witnesses who were with Volz in Managua when the murder occurred in a town two hours away.  Cell tower and instant messaging records even confirmed his whereabouts. Simply put, Eric Volz is an innocent man.

More depressing is that Eric Volz was convicted solely on testimony from a man originally charged with the crime.  However, the original suspect was granted immunity when he agreed to testify against Volz. That inherent conflict of interest alone would cause any third-party observer to realize this is a travesty of justice. Nevertheless, the Nicaraguan government asked the Supreme Court of Nicaragua to reinstate his conviction even after a successful appeal.

Too often we take our American Justice system for granted. Let us hope that Eric Volz is released as soon as possible. If you want to get more involved in helping Eric, visit http://www.friendsofericvolz.com/ .

Worse yet, on June 24th, the Obama Administration will be pushing the total destruction of our healthcare industry. In essence, it will be a sham debate about the future direction of healthcare, with no real opposition voices being heard. Of course, the cost to broadcast this infomercial will simply be passed on to the taxpayers. Isn’t that brilliant?

So, money is going to be taken out of the taxpayers’ pockets to allow Obama to have a partial takeover of a news network. Stalin would be proud.

During that time, the public will be propagandized toward supporting Universal Healthcare. (As an aside, any economist will tell you that private companies will not be able to compete with government care, so the ultimate result will be total socialized medicine). Sadly, few citizens will complain about the government / private collaboration of the News Media. In fact, you probably won’t hear a word from any of the other networks. It’ll hurt their chances of being the next to collaborate with “The One.”

Only in Obama’s America.

Like I suggested in my last post, please pass these videos around. Even better…download them and re-upload them in the event that Iran cracks down on the protesters. The first video you will see thugs break into a private building to beat a person, possibly to death.

Well, to help activate those who want to get involved, I found some great websites that provide as much information as possible. More information will follow in the coming weeks.

http://www.teapartyrevolution.com/

http://www.teapartyday.com/

http://www.reteaparty.com/teaparties/

As a result, thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest Ahmadinejad’s “victory.” However, despite great numbers, the protesters have been met with violent opposition, and many people have been killed. That is why it is so important now to support Iranian freedom. In the short term, there are several ways to help their efforts:

1) Support the bloggers in Iran - The only way some of this information is getting out is by bloggers who are risking their lives. If they risk their lives to transmit this information, send their information to as many people as you know. It takes very little effort;

2) Help protest videos go viral - CNN reporters had to distort their voices for fear of their safety. When video bloggers post what they find, post these videos all around the internet. Even better…download the videos and repost them in case the government shuts down the videos;

3) Help others find information - If you know where to find information about Iran, leave links for people here at BureauCrash so that everyone can stay informed.

Here are some photos.

Here is how to follow the Iranian elections on Twitter.  Here is more about Twitter and Iran.

It is time we stop Statism.