GERRYMANDERING 2011 STYLE

Gerrymandering 2011 Style

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

The bipartisan Washington State Congressional Redistricting Commission has drafted the state voting district map to include the first ever “Majority-Minority Voting District”.  From the beginning of the redistricting process activist individuals and Hispanic groups (ACLU, One America, Paul Opostolidis, Aaron Case) lobbied persistently for the creation of such a district.  The new 9^th Congressional District has, according to Baker, “slightly less than 50 percent white mainly due to large blocs of Asians and blacks”.  (Baker, Mike “10^th Congressional District creates swing seat”, Yakima Herald Republic, December 29, 2011, p. 5A)

When a congressional voting district is drawn to create a district in which “large blocs of Asians and blacks” are a majority and where “slightly less than 50% [are] white” the result is racial gerrymandering that creates political apartheid in its rawest and most odious form.  Racial gerrymandering was an anathema when used to “pack” or “crack” the Black vote.  In fact the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed partially to prohibit the development of political apartheid by manipulating the boundaries of congressional voting districts.  Given that track record, I must ask two questions: “Why is it OK today to create majority-minority districts that result in a reverse form of political apartheid?” and, “Is race the most important characteristic of a political candidate as promoted by the drawing of majority-minority voting districts?”

There appears to be no question in the minds of the Redistricting Commissioners about the appropriateness of creating majority-minority districts.  The Yakima Herald Republic (Faulk, Mike, Debate over 15^th “District boundaries slows process”, December 30, 2011, p. B1 and p. B3) reported “Both [commissioners] agree the 15^th District be Latino” by either 60% or slightly in the majority.

It looks like Latino and other political activists (One America, United for Full Representation, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment, National Voting Rights Advocacy Initiative, Win/Win Organization, Cheryl Cayabyab (APACE), Tony Sandoval (Yakima County Democratic Chairman)) and the Redistricting Commissioners aim to reinvent the wheel by focusing on race as a legitimate means to promote reverse discrimination.  I am unaware of empirical data that supports the position that all members of a minority, or a majority, group vote in lock step fashion.  One of the main foci of the civil rights movement was to abolish seeing individuals as members of any race, but rather as human beings each with different attitudes, political philosophies, desires, needs, and economic status regardless of the community in where they live.

Even if empirical data exist to support such a position, Shields argued that since the 1990’s “gerrymandering based solely on racial data has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently in Miller v. Johnson (1995)”.  See: http://www.drury.edu/ess/irconf/MShields.html.

If racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional when it is used to inhibit voting rights of a specific group, why is it not equally unconstitutional when used to promote voting influence by a specific group or groups.  Putting the question of legality aside, gerrymandering by race is poor public policy given the combustible nature of the illegal alien controversy between federal and state governments.

The United States no longer is a “melting pot where immigrates become one with Americans of all races and nationalities.  Rather the United States is becoming a multicultural and multinational nation of various national and religious groups who expect citizens to accommodate their national and religious customs and beliefs, including national symbols and laws, even when they conflict with the customs, beliefs, symbols and laws of American citizens.

The creation of majority-minority districts by racial gerrymandering is a major mistake that will exacerbate this tension with potentially serious results.  Let us hope that these obvious politically based decisions, or lack of decisions, by the Redistricting Commissioners will be modified by wiser heads in the State Legislature as Article 2, Section 7 states: “(7) The legislature may amend the redistricting plan but must do so by a two-thirds vote of the legislators elected or appointed to each house of the legislature. Any amendment must have passed both houses by the end of the thirtieth day of the first session convened after the commission has submitted its plan to the legislature. After that day, the plan, with any legislative amendments, constitutes the state districting law.”

Reinventing the wheel by using Racial Gerrymandering to promote social policy has no place in 2011, or henceforth.   After all, we are not hyphenated-Americans with multiple national loyalties.  We are proud Americans loyal to one nation, one flag and one oath of allegiance.

PRIVATE CHARITY VS. PUBLIC CHARITY

PRIVATE CHARITY VS. PUBLIC CHARITY

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

Christmas Season 2011 has been marked by multiple pleas for charity to assist the poor, the destitute and the down trodden.  Many of the headlines and articles accompanying the pleas blamed the current local, state and national economic situations for the shortages of monetary, food and other gift donations.  This year has seen an inverse relationship between the advertised need for donations and the total donations received.  As the pleas for donations increased,  the quantity and the value of the donations decreased.  The purpose of this post is to challenge the unequivocal acceptance of the position that the lack of donations is the result of the “Great Recession” and its aftermath,  by looking at a broader picture.

Charity may be categorized  as either private or public.  Typically private charity supports the arts; i.e., music, literature, theater, art, etc.  Public charity on the other hand is directed toward social service welfare programs; i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Aid to Dependent Children and untold other government funded public assistant programs.

Private charity donations generally are given voluntarily by individuals who in all probability receive personal satisfaction for doing so.  Private charity, relative to public charity, is “nickel and dime stuff” except for the few individual foundations well-endowed by very wealthy individuals. 

Public social service charities are funded by a process of involuntary taxation on the general population or, at least, of the 54% who pay the federal individual income tax.  Citizens are forced to contribute to public charities by state and federal tax law.  And if citizens do not pay their taxes they are punished.  Donations to public charities rarely result in warm, fuzzy feelings of personal satisfaction!

When public social welfare charities need more funding, tax rates are adjusted.  As noted elsewhere, it is easy for government officials to spend other people’s money, and by doing so to create a welfare entitlement state based on the socialist principle of redistribution of wealth.  Public charities create liberal, socialistic and progressive welfare agencies that are fraught with fraud and waste to a much greater extent than private charities.  In fact because public charities tend to “crowd out” private charitable donations,  private giving decreases.  As a result,  involuntary tax contributions substitute for voluntary giving.

As involuntary public charitable giving has increased, the numbers of individuals who have come to expect public charitable gifts as entitlements, and thus property rights,  has increased.  The expectation that public charitable gifts are property rights has resulted in conflicts between, for example, the so-called 1% “haves” and the 99% “have nots” fully described on the top half of the front pages of newspapers.  At the same time these conflicts competed with pictures and descriptions of confrontations between customers fighting to buy a pair of $180 tennis shoes. This recent event raises the question, “How much do the decisions people make influence their economic conditions?”

The hypothesis developed in this post is that many citizens are fed up with progressive liberal activities to redistribute wealth via public charities and the corresponding growth of entitlements as property rights in the United States.  Couple this attitude with the “free” expenditure of public charity to nations around the world and you have people saying, “Enough is enough.  This has got to stop somewhere.  And it might as well be here and now!”  Maybe, just maybe, tax paying American citizens are becoming more isolationist  and less desirous in their willingness to subsidize other peoples and nations around the world.  And maybe, just maybe, tax paying American citizens are tired of rampant progressive liberal spending in an effort to redistribute wealth in the face of a $15 trillion dollar national debt.  (Underlines added for emphasis). 

Although private charities face some of the same problems as public charities, the problems are not as imbedded or as severe.  Absent the “crowding out” phenomenon resulting from the competition by public charities, the better managed private charities may meet the need without the fraud, the waste and the development of an entitlement mentality by the recipients of funds from public charities.

Senilicide: Are We There Yet?

SENILICIDE: ARE WE THERE YET?

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

Rationing health care for the elderly is one, if not the gorilla in the room, of the trade-offs to implement fully affordable, universal health care for all living in the United States; that is except for the elderly.  The end result of rationing health care for the elderly is senilicide, or sacrificing health care for Americans 75 plus years old to benefit the younger more productive members of society.  This ethical dilemma has challenged society for years.

According to Andre and Velasquez in Aged-Based Health Care rationing (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n3/age.html), Euripides wrote in 500B.C.

“I hate the men who would prolong their lives

By foods and drinks and charms of magic art

Perverting nature’s course to keep off death

    They ought, when they no longer serve the land

          To quit this life, and clear the way for youth.”

If you are elderly are you prepared “to quit this life, and clear the way for youth”?  As callous and as selfish as it may sound, I am not! 

What medical care are the elderly being asked to forego, and who is advocating rationed health care for the post 75 year old Americans?  “The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force recommends against routine screening for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer at age 75 and beyond and it advises against cervical cancer testing after 65…”  Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer at the American Cancer Society said, “the overwhelming majority of folks over 75 should not be getting these screening tests…this is an example of waste”.  (http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-12-12/Many-elderly-screened-for-cancer-despite-risks/51846678/1)  Brawley also wrote “The truth is many Americans cannot afford adequate health care, and health care is rationed in the U.S.  While many do not get the health care they need, some are actually harmed by overconsumption of unnecessary health care. These Americans are treated outside of established guidelines and get unnecessary procedures and take unnecessary medications”. He appears willing to substitute one form of health care rationing for another.  Brawley is not alone.  On December 13, 2011 CBS reported Dr. Keith M. Bellizzi said, “At a minimum in order to see any benefit of screening, you would want your patient to have a life expectancy of more than five years.

Daniel Callahan argued in his 1987 book titled Setting Limits: Medical Goals in an Aging Society that no federal dollars should be paid for life extending medical care for patients beyond 70 or 80. In other words, the elderly should receive only elementary pain relief treatment.  Such age based health care rationing is justified by claiming the elderly have lived a normal, natural life span and are taking from society while younger individuals are in the prime of their productive lives and are contributing to society.  Said another way, the elderly unfairly burden society because they “cost” society more to be kept alive than they contribute to society.  This concept of “collective salvation” sacrifices health care for the elderly for the salvation of the collective, AKA society.

As if the current costs of health care are not sustainable, the implementation of President Obama’s The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, will exacerbate health care costs for all by adding 47 million or more individuals who lack health insurance to the federal dole.  How will this increase be paid for?  Charlotte Allen (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/05/opinion/oe-allen 5],  relates the story of the man who questioned the amount of health care his own grandmother received.  She wrote, President Obama gave us a clue to his thinking when he “questioned the appropriateness of a hip replacement that his grandmother had undergone after breaking her hip shortly after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.”  Obama even suggested how such decisions should be made; i.e., “not by patients or their relatives but by a group of doctors, scientists, ethicists [Independent Payment Advisory Board] who are not part of normal political channels”.  These comments speak volumes about the intentions of the man who made them.  Just think, as this man evidently does, how much Medicare funding would be available for redistribution to the younger and more productive if medical care for the elderly were denied or rationed thus guaranteeing they would die earlier.  When the man making those statements and using his own grandmother’s health care to argue for rationing health care for the elderly--collective salvage-- is the President of the United States, senilicide is well on the way.

When the POTUS is willing to sacrifice his own grandmother and the elderly by rationing their health care so millions of youthful American citizens and non-citizens can be added to his health care program, the elderly should enter the New Year with their eyes open and with New Year’s Resolutions they will work to implement in November 2012.  Their access to physician and patient determined health care when they reach 65 plus depends on it.

A Sense of the Collective Self

A SENSE OF THE COLLECTIVE SELF

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

“Cogito ergo sum”
Rene’ Descartes

Who are we? Where do we belong?
The French philosopher, Rene’ Descartes, set the stage for answers to these questions in 1637 when he proposed “Cogito ergo sum”. The English translation is “I think therefore I am”. Because we think, the above two identity questions will be answered in different ways depending on changes in the social, economic and physical environments.
Arguably since Amerigo Vespucci sailed to a new continent, the name “American” has identified an inhabitant of the northern part of that then unknown continent. Today a more legal description is “Citizen of the United States”, or “United States Citizen”; however, the single word “American” is most often used in common discourse.
America was proudly known as a “melting pot” where legal immigrants shared a common goal to become Americans. For the most part the place in the world where they originated was Europe but the land of freedom where they chose to live was America. Americans were ambitious, industrious and self-reliant with a belief that you own what you earn. Honor was a central virtue and Americans were optimistic and anticipated a bright future. They established a federal republic system of government that was more Jeffersonian with power vested in the people and states as opposed to the statist strong central government advocated by Alexander Hamilton. Americans lived in a country governed by a Constitution based on the enlightened thinking of the framers of the Constitution who reversed the traditional European hereditary kingship model of statist government by empowering the individual collectively as “the people” at the top of the pyramid.
This sense of the “collective self”changed with the election of Franklin Roosevelt who promised “a chicken in every pot” and increased federal employment opportunities to counteract the ravages of the Great Depression. His actions resulted in a social, paternalistic welfare state at the expense of social and economic liberty. As the federal government assumed ever increasing power during the New Deal, the roles of the states and individuals decreased. Thus began the characteristics of the entitlement mentality and the concept of the statist welfare state.
Prosperity slowly returned following World War II and a period of relatively comfortable living began that culminated with, as Alan Greenspan described, “irrational exuberance” that led to the Great Recession. This exuberance was evident in the social as well as economic aspects of life. Social Science and History teachers began teaching that Americans were “multicultural” and that the concept of a “melting pot” society was passé. Black citizens saw themselves as Black or African-Americans. And in 1988 Jesse Jackson led the move to institutionalize the official term, “Black-American” because “It puts us in our proper historical perspective”. Thus began the use of the “hyphenated-American”; e.g., Black-American, African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, etc. As an aside, it is interesting to note there are no White-Americans, European-Americans, German-Americans, English-Americans or Dutch-Americans, etc.
Living the life of irrational exuberance came to a jarring end with the Great Recession in 2007. President Barack Obama modeled Roosevelt by increasing the direct involvement of the federal government in the everyday lives of hyphenated-Americans. Statism ran amok with a veritable alphabet soup of entitlement programs leading to expectations followed by demands for ever increasingassistance from the welfare state.
As I write this in November, 2011 civil strife has spread around the world and demands for economic and social change have become more vocal and confrontational.America is not immune as evidenced by the so-called “Occupy”movement of the 99% “have-nots” versus the 1% “haves”. Current events are ripe for another Kent State tragedy where demonstrators were met with live ammunition. And the stage is being set for a potential civil war between schizophrenic hyphenated-American identity groups and other Americans.
According to a late Summer, 2011 Times/Money poll 60+ percent of respondents were pessimistic government officials would be able to spur economic growth. And more than 50+ percent were pessimistic about the next twelve months. Traditional American values of one nation and one flag are challenged daily. Previously cherished values of honor, self-reliance, independence, collective optimism, hard work, taking responsibility for our actions and the “we are Americans, let’s get it done” attitude are being replaced by an entitlement mentality nourished by statism plus an emphasis on social, racial and national identities. These changes are not free. They come at the tremendous expense of the loss of local control and personal, social and economic liberty.
Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am.

As the Pendulum Swings

As the Pendulum Swings
By Dr. Jimmie Applegate

“There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, when taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full ”sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves. Or lose our venture”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act, Scene 3

In two years the political pendulum swung from the liberal left to the conservative right. In 2008 the incoming Democratic tide was tinted purple, but the Republican tsunami of 2010 inundated maps of the United States from coast to coast with a deep red tide. Arguably this Republican resurgence resulted from the disgust, dismay and dissatisfaction of voters with the policies, principles and practices of President Obama. In other words, the 2010 Republican washout of the Democratic power bases in state legislatures, governorships and congressional seats may have happened primarily because Americans were being forced to accept changes they did not vote for in 2008, and did not want in 2010.
President Obama and Democratic majorities in the Senate and House ran rough shod over the expectations of the American people like unwelcome gluttonous guests filling their legislative plates to overflowing in their haste to complete their progressive socialist agenda. The slow, deliberate legislative process based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that served America well for more than 200 yearswas challenged by egocentric legislators who were intent on enacting legislation to implement their vision of a new and more wonderful world.
Obama’s promises made, implied, or just plain wished for by enthralled Americans were not kept or were unfilled. And his personal political ideology was seen as based more on European socialist theories than on the practices of the American system of private enterprise. Americans believed that Obama’s promises of transparency such as publishing proposed legislation on line, no deals in smoke filled back rooms and no earmarks were ignored. Other promises like being treated with respect as intelligent adults who expected politicians to represent and to work forthe people in the states who elected them were forgotten as well.
OK, so the American people repudiated Obama’s socialist ideology advocating redistribution of wealth through increased taxation and spending, centralizing bigger government, growing government control of private industry and government control of health care. What are the implications for the Republican Party if the 2010 vote was a rejection of Obama’s failures and not necessarily an affirmation of Republican politicians or policies?
Several points are clear. A dictatorship of the extreme Right will be no more effective than was the dictatorship of the Left. Given Obama’s history of immoderation—my way or the highway—expect more of the same despite his murmurings to the contrary. Governing solely by an ideology that deprives Americans of their constitutionally guaranteed rights and without giving serious consideration to pragmatic alternatives will not work as 2010 showed. Ignoring strong signals from the electorate as the Democrats did following the elections in Virginia, North Carolina and Massachusetts will result in disaster. Likewise there will be consequences if Independents and special interest groups are ignored.And the American people are fed up of being ignored by the very people they elected to represent them locally, in state houses and Washington, D.C.
Republicans will ignore these points at their peril. They must actto cut spending thereby reducing the out of control national debt, to repeal or drastically modify ObamaCare, to enforce state and federal laws, to protect our borders and to decrease the size and interference of the federal government by respecting state and individual rights. In sum, Republicans must act in concert with the principles of constitutional conservatism in a federal republic governed by the Constitution under the rule of law. If they do not, the pendulum will swing again in 2012. Which way and how far it will swing depends on the events of the next two years.

The Challenges Of Living In A Shining City On A Hill

THE CHALLENGES OF LIVING IN A SHINING CITY ON A HILL
By Dr. Jimmie Applegate
Given the centrality of religion in Puritan life it is not surprising that John Winthrop paraphrased these words from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden” in a 1630 sermon aboard his flagship Arbella. Winthrop shared his hopes for the success of the Massachusetts Bay colonists when he said their new home would be “a city on a hill”. More recently both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan reinforced that exceptionalism in at least three major speeches to the nation.
Are we living up to the extraordinary demands of living in a shining city on a hill that is the envy of the free world, or are we peering down a dark alley toward a house of ill repute where goods and services are exchanged in illicit transactions? The effort required to remain exceptional is challenged each day by the enchanting promises of instant gratification echoing from that seedy darkness.
The social-political-economic ideologies of the current administration are liberal, progressive and, yes, Godless in their emphases on socialism. Some basic tenets of these ideologies listed in admittedly selected descriptive words and phrases to make a point include government activism AKA big government with centralized decision making, transformational reform and change, a professional political corps, progressive taxation to redistribute wealth, unconditional support for organized labor; i.e., unionized, acceptance of the equality of any and all religious experiences, equality at the expense of liberty and to enhance the status of lowest common denominator by ending, controlling and redistributing the development of exceptionalism.
These changes are not a new phenomenon. They have happened in fits and starts over more than 150 years; however, my interest here is not the historical development of American liberal, progressive socialism but rather the speed and reckless abandonment and destruction of traditional American values and principles that have been imposed.
President Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and in the brief span of two yearshe and the liberal progressive majority Democrats in Congress cajoled, manipulated and bribed while Speakers Reid and Pelosi proposed, fostered, directed and enacted legislation designed to transform America from a land of “makers” to a “gimme gimme” land of “takers”. The lyrics of the NewWorldSons “Gimme” are frightening in their plea, “I need you oh, I need you oh, Yes its true I really need you now gimme now”.
The recent changes began when Obama’s election was welcomed by some in America and many abroad with messianic fervor. He reacted in typical megalomaniacal fashion by perceiving himself as a human manifestation of the second coming. He travelled widely bowing, lowering his head and slightly kneeling to rulers, kings, monarchs and extending a hand of friendship, even heaven forbid touching the untouchable, all the while repeating one apology after another for American exceptionalism.
Events of the past two years put Obama’s subservient acquiescence in perspective. The President of the United States once respected as the leader of the free world is perceived by some as a soft touch who lacks the common sense to understand the “gimme now” world view. It’s the old, “give me an inch and I’ll take a mile” syndrome at work.
And here at home his flailing attempts to be all things to everyone (except those identified as “the haves”) resulted in one attempt after another to transform American social, political and economic ideals by raising federal income taxes on the “haves” to redistribute wealth to the “have nots”. In 2009 nearly 50% of US households paid no federal income taxes at all and the top 20% earners (households making more than $366,400) paid 73% of federal income taxes collected. And yes, the bottom 40% of earners made a profit by receiving more in tax credits than they earned. Now the liberal progressive ideologues want to tax the wealthiest 2% of the movers and holders of wealth to increase the tax credits, health coverage and government entitlements for a government owned and controlled plantation society. Adding the estate tax to these choreographed actions by a tyranny of the majority is the most blatant example of taxation without representation whereupon death your earned possessions are confiscated and redistributed. There can be no question but what the basic foundations of American exceptionalism are under full siege. The effectiveness of this siege is indisputable as numerous Americans appear willing to trade their birthright for unfulfilled promises of happiness. I invite you to join me in a brief journey through time down a dark and seedy alley.
As we stand at the entrance to the alley leading to a House of Ill Repute we find it littered with the abandoned principles of American exceptionalism much like the arid arroyos of Arizona are full of the discarded belongings of illegal aliens. On one side of the dimly lit alley lies a pile of principles related to the rule of law. Sections of the US Code regarding illegal aliens are ignored in the misguided fairy tale that “aliens” are “immigrants” and are entitled to have the “American Dream” fulfilled without regard to the “rule of Law” or the word “pursuit” in the phrase “pursuit of happiness”.
Over here in the corner lies the wadded up principles of a “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. The ever growing cadre of professional politicians who purchase votes from an ever more dependent citizenry via tax credits, deductibles, bailouts, grants, entitlements and just plain “taking care of the folks back home” by slipping unreviewed earmarks into unread budget documents is responsible for the loss of this principle. Not to be outdone the administration, congressional leaders and committee chairmen resort to outright bribery to get what they want. Add the 40 plus administration appointed “czars”; most of whom are not vetted or subject to congressional oversight and the witches brew thickens. This cadre of professional politicians has forgotten they were elected to represent the people who elected them and not their fellow professional politicians in state capitols or Washington, D.C.
And this pile of discarded principles contains the right to assemble in peaceful protest without being labeled “right wing terrorists”, “brown shirts” and other egregious names by high level administration appointees and elected officials. Citizen’s acceptance of, and acquiescence to political correctness has pervaded everyday life to the point it controls behavior—think teen age peer pressure.
Maddened by what we were seeing, we reeled against the smutty wall, turned back toward the City on the Hill andas we struggled to wade through the flotsam and jetsam discarded the length of the alley we stumbled into a pile of principles labeled “Trust”. At the top of the pile was a plaintive plea for trust from a legislator, “Trust us, you’ll love this bill when you know what is in it.”. The foolishness of such a statement was obvious when citizens learned the legislation that had been passed was neither drafted in its entirety nor read by legislators who caved in to bribery and voted for it.
Finally stepping back into the light, we realized Americans are selling their birthright of exceptionalism. We are trading our self-sufficiency, independence, individualism, working for what you get, keeping what you earn, our Christian heritage, our federal form of government and being held responsible for our decisions and actions. We are trading these cherished principles in exchange for the anticipated pleasant satisfaction of climax once we rid ourselves of the demanding expectations required of an exceptional people.
As Walt Kelly wrote in 1953, “There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.”
May this be the clanging of the alarm Americans needs to wake up to the fact that we are selling our birthright for promises of future happiness.We are Americans. We are exceptional. We will prevail. We will reclaim our birthright, and we will live in the Shining City on a Hill. But first, we must recognize that we are part of the problem!

Current Status Of Our American Rights And Suggestions For The Future

CURRENT STATUS OF OUR AMERICAN RIGHTS
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
By Dr. Jimmie Applegate

Are we in danger of losing our American rights? Kittitas County Republicans agreed with Sarah Palin when she said, “Yep, you betcha!” One hundred percent of Kittitas County Republicans who responded to an informal, non-random poll believed not only are we in danger of losing our rights, we already have lost many, and many more are threatened.
And these conservative Republicans were not at all hesitant to describe what they believe must be done in the next two years to reverse the trend and even reclaim our heritage.
Lost American Rights
Fifty-five percent of respondents believed we lost our right of choice, especially regarding aspects of health care, with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 AKA ObamaCare. Specifically they believed we have lost the right to choose health care providers, health care plans and even to choose whether or not we want health care insurance. Because of this mandate one respondent generalized we have lost our right “not to participate in commerce”. More than 25% of respondents believed we have lost representation in Congress because elected officials more often than not forget our republic is a government of, by and for the people.
Others believed, in their own words, we have lost the “right to prosperwithout penalty”, the “right to dignity and privacy”, the “right to free speech”, the “right to try and fail or succeed” and the “right to be left alone”. And, not surprisingly, respondents believed we have lost our “right to freedom of religion” as evidenced by the banning of prayer in classrooms and other public places. Still others believed we have lost our “right to property” and the “right not to be taxed to death”.
In addition to being asked what rights have we lost respondents were asked to list rights they believe are in danger of being lost.
American Rights in Danger of Being Lost
Seventy-three percent of respondents listed the “right to keep and bear arms” on the danger list. As a result of the Executive Branch usurping the power of the Legislative Branch others felt the “balance of power” concept was threatened. Respondents also believed the right “to freedom of speech”, “to freedom of religion”, “to freedom of assembly” and for “protection against illegal search and seizure” were in danger. The right of “an unborn child to be raised by loving adults” and the right “to be free from government intrusion from cradle to grave” also were listed as being in danger.
Respondents were then asked what must be done in the next two years to reclaim lost American rights
and/or to prevent additional losses of American rights.
Recommended Actions to Reclaim our American Rights
Respondents listed many strategies and actions they believed will reclaim losses and/or prevent future losses of our American rights. Because their suggested actions vary across the spectrum they are described in their own words to maintain the integrity of their responses.
Many responses were brief and to the point such as “Keep Republicans in Congress”, “Elect Republicans”, “Vote for Tea Party Candidates”, “Elect more Conservatives” and “Elect Republicans for Congress and a Republican President”. Other suggestions included “Ensure only laws are passed that are based on the Constitution”, “Adhere to the Constitution and enforce it”, and to do this Americans “must stay connected with their legislators”, “participate in judicial elections”, and “select good candidates from the ground up at city, county and state levels”. Still others suggested “Republicans must stand firm”, must “hold constitutional conventions”, limit entitlements”, “defund government 50%”, “reduce number of government employees by 50%”, “limit entitlements” and “return to a country where citizens are responsible for their actions”. And finally “limit the scope of courts to constitutional issues”, “limit the legislative branch to enacting laws based on the Constitution”, “limit lobbyists” and “limit, modify, or repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”.
Summary
All Kittitas County Republican respondents to an informal, non-random poll believed citizens have lost and are in danger of losing even more American rights. Not surprisingly the rights they believed citizens have lost or are in danger of losing could be categorized as those held by conservatives, constitutional conservatives, libertarians or Tea Party adherents. And there was a clear recognition that individuals must “get involved” at all levels not only to create an atmosphere for change, but to participate in the actual events resulting in the desired changes. Respondents believed change requires more than eloquence, hope and wishful thinking. It requires another conservative value; i.e., work!

CCSS - A National School Curriculum

CCSS—A National School Curriculum
By Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

What do the letters CCSS and CAL mean? If you are a parent who was asked to assist your 3rd grade student with math homework and ended up frustrated, you might know. However if you are like most of us the letters are more alphabet soup in an already full bowl. Or perhaps you have heard the terms Common Core School Standards (CCSS) and Computerized Assessments and Learning (CAL). These terms replaced respectively the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALR’s), or state curriculum, standards, and the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), or state mandated achievement test.
If you are still with me, a more direct question is: Are you aware that Governor Gregoire and Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) Dorn advocate legislation that will require Washington adopt a national—one size fits all states—curriculum? And do you know that Dorn supported ESSS Bill 6696, which was adopted June 10, 2010, and further that he provisionally adopted these mandated national curriculum standards for Washington state on July 19, 2010? Believe it or not 41 states have adopted these standards. Many did so before the standards were developed and put in writing. Talk about buying a pig in a poke! As parents and taxpayers you also should know that paper and pencil tests of proficiency are being replaced by the on-line CAL. That little item will require each local district to have a sufficient number of computers and adequately wired computer labs to handle large numbers of students at the same time. Pity the children who are not computer literate.
CAL proponents claim that “all the on-line tests have been reviewed, tested and validated using state approved test development specifications and control standards”. Have the results of those reviews, tests and validation techniques been made available to local district parents? I do not believe so. Proponents of the CCSS also claim that Washington state teachers support them. How do they know that? Let’s see now. In 2009 there were 59,487 Washington classroom teachers with 3,974 (6.68%) of them National Board Certified Teachers. Seventy-nine (1.98%) of the 3,974 were surveyed and this resulted in .132% of the total number of classroom teachers who were surveyed. If those 79 teachers who were surveyed were not selected randomly no generalizations of the results can be made beyond those 79 who were surveyed. Even if the 79 teachers were randomly selected, and assuming all other statistical requirements were met, the results could only be generalized to the population of 3,974 National Board Certified teachers from which they were selected. So much for the claim that “Washington state teachers support the CCSS”. Proponents also claim Washington citizens support the nationalized common core curriculum. Do they really? In 2009, Washington’s estimated population was 6,664,195. Of these 500 (.000075%) were interviewed by telephone. Statistically if this were a probability, stratifiedand randomly selected sample—which it most likely was not—an acceptable randomly selected sample size would have been 600 given the confidence levels and intervals claimed. These basic questions regarding methodology cast major doubts on any claims based on the studies made by the proponents.
Do you know anyone who is familiar with the proposed nationalized curriculum standards? Ask your neighbors. Ask local teachers. Ask members of the local School Board. Ask them if they know states must agree to adopt CCSS word for word and must comply with the requirement that at a minimum 85% of the state’s standards will be the CCSS. Are you comfortable with a nationalized core curriculum “informed”--whatever that means--by other states’ curricula and by foreign countries? If so, a direct result of that “sense of comfort” is the continued diminution and subjugation of states’ rights and local parental influence and control of the education of their children to a central government. But don’t forget you still will have to pay for that sense of comfort. It has been estimated the cost of implementing the CCSS and CAL over five years in Washington State is $182,600,000. The state’s share is estimated to be $17,100,000 (9.4%). Costs to local districts total $165,500,000 (90.6%). Given the necessary number of in-service days that will be required to bring classroom teachers up to speed and foradditional staff to assist special needs students (Special Education, non-English speakers, non-computer literate and other disadvantaged students) the personnel costs will be much higher. When the necessary school infrastructure costs for computer labs and equipment are factored in, hold on to your wallets and purses! Aren’t you glad Washington State is financially solvent?
There appears to be no question that proponents of the CCSS and CAL were keeping their fingers crossed no one would “look a gift horse in the mouth”. However after having done so, my response is “No Way”! I value and support local control and state’s rights, especially where the education of children in a democratic republic is concerned.

The Hidden Curriculum In A Middle School

The Hidden Curriculum in a Middle School
By
Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

This is a true story of the potential impact of the “hidden curriculum” in one public school in Washington State. Names, genders and locations have been changed, but the events actually happened. My purpose in writing this is to illustrate that American rights not only are being lost by overt political action but also as a consequences of overt—and I hope unintended but not well thought out—actions by public school teachers and administrators.
April not only heralds the advent of May flowers. It also marks the beginning of the Associated Student Body election process in many public schools. Students in Mayflower Middle School who are interested in “applying for ASB/Leadership” positions must attend one of two meetings to be “eligible for ASB/Leadership”.
Potential candidates are given an “ASB Elected Officer Application” form to complete and submit. Students elected to office must agree to complete a year long elective called Leadership Class. Admission requirements for this class include a 2.8 GPA and four teacher recommendations “showing they come highly recommended—scoring an average of at least 80%”. In addition candidates must have a 3.0 cumulative GPA and “must average at least 56 out of 70 points (80%) between all 4 teacher recommendations” (emphasis added). The recommendation section of the Application Form is made more confusing by the statement “Candidates should have at least an average of 80% from all his/her recommendations” (emphasis added). Potentialcandidates also are required to answer 8-9 questions one of which is “As an ASB Officer you will need to think of and implement ideas which will get other students involved in school activities. What ideas do you have for including or involving more students?”
These requirements ensure the teachers and administrators retain total control over the selection of candidates. Voting by the students is no more than a pro forma exercise that guarantees a candidate “acceptable” to teachers and administrators is elected.
When Jane, a nearly straight A student, received this note she was shocked: “Dear Jane Eyre. Thank you for applying for an officer position…. Unfortunately you are ineligible to run because some of your forms were incomplete…Thanks, Leadership”. Jane couldn’t believe the reason since she had devoted a lot of time to prepare her application. Her parents agreed and contacted Mayflower Middle School and asked which of Jane’s forms were incomplete. The parents were told the application forms had been shredded and they did not know. The parents asked the principal for clarification. The principal agreed there were inconsistencies in the process and said he would solicit four teacher recommendations—which he did apparently discounting the reason Jane was ineligible was because “some of your forms were incomplete”. Following this Jane’s parents were informed that she was ineligible this time because her scores did not average 70%--one teacher scored Jane 21 points below the “should have” 70 points. After further discussion with the parents the principal agreed the procedure was flawed and that all candidates declared ineligible due to recommendation forms with scores below 80% could run. Problem solved.
But wait, Jane was then told she would have to change her speech to the student body in which she suggested changing the time for a school event to involve more students in the activity. She was told that was a decision that already been made unilaterally by the administration and was not subject to discussion. And further when Jane was taping her televised speech she was told after four attempts to get it the way she wanted she was out of time and no more attempts could be made. Another student was given 23 times to “get it right”. Sound equal?
Parents must get involved in all school activities. Ask to see detailed written policies and procedures about school elections. Many Americans have fought and died to protect our sacred American right to vote our choice. Don’t let that right be sabotaged by the hidden curriculum,or by the consequences of actions by school administrators and teachers..
If middle school students are learning from the “hidden curriculum that this is the way elections are conducted in a federal republic form of democracy, the once bright light of American exceptionalism is rapidly dimming. Our American rights are under constant overt attack by forces that discourage or prohibit free speech which might, for example, offend Muslims, but the lessons learned from the “hidden curriculum” in schools are covert. Not only are they covert but they are insidious and must not be permitted in the public schools of the United States.

American Citizens: The Lost Generations

AMERICAN CITIZENS: THE LOST GENERATIONS
By
DR. JIMMIE R. APPLEGATE

It was1630 when the Puritan pastor John Winthrop, aboard the flagship Arbella on the way to the New World, challenged his flock to “build a city upon a hill”. Little did he realize his challenge would result in a robust national spirit unknown in the Old World. This new spirit was characterized by individualism, self-sufficiency, responsibility, pride in accomplishment, love of liberty and freedom, local control and small government. This budding spirit of American exceptionalism was an object of wonder as described in 1835 by the French politician/historian Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.
Now 381 years later not only have the American geographical and physical environments undergone massive change but, sadly, so have the principles and practices of American exceptionalism that made America great. We no longer see ourselves as the singular American. Instead mainstream media in their unbridled efforts to be politically correct identify us as hyphened Americans; for example, Asian-Americans, Black-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Muslin-Americans, Native-Americans, etc. We “dial 1 for English”. Official American documents are printed in multiple languages. Interpreters are demanded and required in schools and other public facilities. Children in public schools are taught in two or more languages. Free and/or reduced price lunches are provided in schools—in some locations year round through age 18. Medical care and food stamps in essence are provided at no cost. Such entitlements are the norm and have become in bred and expected.
Government has become larger and more centralized to the tipping point where American citizens once born free and nurtured with liberty and freedom are subjected to ever increasing governmental control and demands for information that will lead to more growth, demands and control over citizens by the federal government.
The American Community Survey (ACS) is a case in point. Most Americans probably are unaware of the stealth-like Department of Commerce survey that some citizens are required to complete each year. Or if they have heard of the ACS, they most likely do not know how intrusive the questions are, and that Americans are threatened with a $5,000 fine for refusing to participate in the survey. US Census Bureau representatives argue the ACS replaces the “long form” formerly required during each ten year census even though no constitutional provision permits such questions at any time, let alone each year.
The ACS has many intrusive personal questions having nothing to do with the 10 year census as described in Article1 and in Amendment XIV of the Constitution. For example, were you in school or college in the last three months, and what specific major was your bachelor’s degree? You also are asked what your ancestry or ethnic origin is and if you speak English and how well. You must respond to questions about your health such as, what health insurance do you have, are you deaf or have hearing difficulty, are you blind or have difficulty seeing, do you have difficulty breathing, climbing stairs, walking, concentrating or making decisions?
Have you had enough? The Census Bureau has not because they want to know where you worked (address, city, county, state)—even if just for one hour for pay last week, how did you get to work last week, what time did you leave home for work, and how long did it take you to get to work? Not only that but you are asked specifically how much annual income you received from wages, salaries, self-employment, interest, dividends, rental income, social security, railroad retirement and Veteran’s payments last year. You also are asked how many separate rooms are in your house, apartment or mobile home, how many are bedrooms, do you have hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, a sink with a faucet, how is your house heated, etc.
The purpose and time of the Census is described in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution thus: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers……”“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such manner as they shall by Law direct”. Amendment XIV, Section 2 is clear that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according their respective numbers….”. There is no mention of where you work, what you earn, how you get to work or when you leave for work each day.And just to emphasize a point, there is not a single word here about flush toilets, sinks with faucets or running water!
If you think the American Community Survey is something for Ripley’s “Believe it or Not” and that you must be paranoid to believe such questions are being asked of American citizens, and that American citizens are being forced to accept such government intrusion under threat of a $5,000 fine, you can obtain your personal copy of the official ACS at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/questionnaires/2011/Quest11.pdf
It is axiomatic that as the intrusiveness of the federal government into the private lives of American citizens increases so does the expectation of, and the dependence upon, federal largesse in the form of entitlements to redistribute wealth. At the same time there is a corresponding decrease in self-sufficiency, independence and pride in accomplishment. The result is that American’s love of liberty and freedom are sacrificed on the altar of comfort, ease and security.
The American Community Survey is just one example of the many waysAmerican exceptionalism is under attack, and why exceptionalism is an attitude that is becoming a relic of the past among the lost generations of American citizens.

Federal Dollars Beget Federal Power

FEDERAL DOLLARS BEGET FEDERAL POWER
BY
Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

“O Oysters,” said the carpenter,
“You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?”
But answer came there none—
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one

Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll

That America was to become a shining city upon a hill whose light cannot be hidden was foretold by John Winthrop in 1630. Winthrop’s prescient statement came to pass, but not without multiple challenges to the liberty and to the individual autonomy so cherished by the colonists. The early colonists love of liberty even resulted in some moving from colony to colony in search of freedom from control by the local establishment. The French and Indian War from 1754-1763 was a major challengeto their liberty and it wasfollowed a short time later by the greatest challenge of all—The War of Independence.
Following the Declaration of Independence and the successful conclusion of the War of Independence, Americans continued the debate over the distinction between liberty and power in the arguments between those who supported individual liberty and state’s rights and those who supported the power of a strong central government in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States.
The current debate regarding the primacy of state’s rights in a federal form of government versus a stronger central government should be viewedin the context of the arguments made during the ratification process. The Anti-Federalist
Papers 1 were writtenin support of a strong state’s right position. The Federalist Papers2 are far better known and most often cited. The authors of the Federalist Papers wrote in support of the provisions in the Constitution that created a strong central democratic federal republic. The position of the Federalists was paramount in the Constitution; however, the Bill of Rights was an attempt to appease the anti-federalist’s fear of a strong central government.
The title of this blog, “Save Our American Rights”, is contemporary, but the conflict between liberty and power began in England, was carried by the colonists to the “shining city on a hill”, survived the early challenges, the War of Independence, the ratification of the Constitution and it continues today. The Anti-Federalist Robert Yates aka “Brutus” captured the kernel of the conflict when on October 18, 1787 he was critical of the language “Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” all powers granted to the government of the United States “or in any department or office thereof”. Brutus argued the “most natural and grammatical construction” is that such language authorizes Congress “to do anything which in their judgement will tend to provide for the general welfare, and this amounts to the same thing as general and unlimited powers of legislation in all cases…..”.3
The federalist arguments that were used in 1787 to support a strong federal government inherent in the language“….to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper….” and “….to provide for the general welfare….” are used by the adherents of the liberal-progressive philosophy today to rationalize increasing the power of the central government.
I believe in liberty that begins with the individual citizen and progresses through local, county, and state governments in that order to the federal level. It is the “collective citizen as individual” who grants power to local, county, state and national entities—not the other way around. Or said another way, neither political organizations nor politicians grant liberty to individual citizens. Liberty, and thus power, is the individual citizen’s inherent right to deny or to cede.
The recent actions by the Obama administration in nationalizing American automobile manufacturing, the firing and hiring of Chief Executive Officers of American businesses, the Common Core School Standards and, of course, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka “Obamacare” are examples of top down actions that centralize power in the federal government. Today, gun ownership, our choices of the light bulbs we use and the SUVs we drive as well as the content of the fast foods we purchase are threatened. To solidify power in the federal government, Obama appointed fifty some czars none of whom were vetted or approved by Congress and all reported directly to Obama resulting in unilateral administrative rule making without Congressional action. Activist judges continue to reinterpretthe Constitution to fit “current circumstances”. Federal grants and contracts entice the unwitting with so-called free money that is nothing more than brides with strings attached. School districts, counties and states stand in line to compete vigorously for these entitlements only to discover the real cost is loss of local control and state’s rights to the central government resulting in an ever increasing debt for future generations. Local sovereignty is sold for federal dollars, and federal dollars beget federal power.
To make matter worse we live in a time when political correctness demands an emphasis on multi-culturalism with hyphenated Americans such as Muslim-American or Hispanic American be they citizens or illegal aliens. The historical concepts of one American, individual American rights and American exceptionalism are under siege.
I fear for the America we have known and love. But I have faith our future is not that of the oysters who joyously trotted along with the walrus and the carpenter who shed crocodile tears while eating the trusting oysters alive. We are Americans, we are exceptional and we will survive the current challenges to our liberty and power as we have throughout our history.

1. Borden, Marton. The Antifederalist Papers. The Michigan University Press, 1965
2. Rossiter, Clinton, Ed. The Federalist Papers. New American Library, New York, 2003
3. McClellan, James. Liberty, Order and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitution, Liberty Fund, Indianopolis, 1989.

New Property Rights

NEW PROPERTY RIGHTS
By
Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy…..” Alexis de Tocqueville
The promises of hope and change were sold by “the talk of the lips”. Americans are painfully aware of the penurious nature of the rest of the story as written in Proverbs 14:23 “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty”.Faced with staggering debt, high unemployment and lingering doubt about the future, the United States has been unable to recover from the Great Recession. Because people living in the United States are faced with these challenges, the opportunity to “profit” from government entitlements, or gratuities, becomes ever more attractive.
The creation and rapid proliferation of these gratuities was followed as sure as death follows life by the development of an “Entitlement Mentality” in the recipients of federal largesse, and among their supporters irrespective of political affiliation.An “Entitlement Mentality” has been defined as “getting something for nothing”. Much like a long sought perpetual motion machine that runs forever without expending any energy, those with an Entitlement Mentality believe they are owed a benefit, or profit, without personally having to expend any energy or “hard work”. The difficulty with this concept is that someone expended energy to produce the benefit or profit they expect to receive without expending any of their energy. As de Tocqueville said, a democracy “can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury….”.
Is there an Entitlement Mentality in the United States? Consider that in 2010 one in six people were in some anti-poverty program. Fifty million people were in Medicaid and the new health care program will add 16M more by 2014. Ten million people were receiving unemployment benefits and 4.4M were on welfare. All of these numbers increased in 2011; e.g., food stamp recipients increased from 40M in 2010 to 45M in 2011 (14.7% of US population).
The Entitlement Mentality has developed with more intensity over time. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932-35) began the revolution with the New Deal programs in 1933 to combat the Great Depression. Democrat President John F. Kennedy (1960-1963) continued federal activities to eliminate poverty and racial injustice with his New Frontier program. And Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson followed with the Great Society. These presidents and their democratic successors, supported by their democratic colleagues in Congress, enacted legislation and encouraged legal interpretation of the Constitution that resulted in the development of an entitlement mentality.
In his seminal article “The New Property” published in the Yale Law Journal (1964, pp.773-87), Charles Reich argued “….certain benefits of core importance to individuals must be held as a right, not as a gratuity”. He argued that since status is so closely related to livelihood and personality, any denial of unemployment compensation, public assistance or old age pensions is inappropriate because they are property rights. The Supreme Court Justices agreed, ‘“It may be realistic today to regard welfare benefits more like ‘property’ than a ‘gratuity’….”’ (397 US 254 1970). Furthermore, public assistance was deemed not mere charity, but a means to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. This decision broadened the traditional interpretation of “property” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and it institutionalized the concept that entitlements such as welfare are property rights.
Reich’s article resulted in changing the consideration of entitlements from a social moral argument to a legal argument based on a questionable interpretation and definition of the constitutionally guaranteed concept of “property rights”. In other words, all men and women may become owners of constitutionally protected “property” by virtue of government entitlement and gratuity support. This means anyone can become a perpetual motion machine and receive “profit” earned by others without the expenditure of energy except the little required to place an X beside the name of a candidate who promises “a chicken in every pot”.
Although the United States is a Democratic Federal Republic, in every day discourse the single word “Democracy” is often used to describe our form of government. If de Tocqueville’s prediction is valid, the current debate surrounding spending (entitlements) vs. revenue (taxation) is much more than a philosophical disagreement between liberal and conservative politicians. It is about the future of the United States of America!