TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Obama Claims End to “Combat Operations” in Iraqwritten by Thomas R. Eddlem

President Barack Obama claimed August 31 in an Oval Office address to the nation that “tonight, I amannouncing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and theIraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.”

But President Obama stressed that armed U.S. intervention in Iraqi affairs is a long way from over. Obamastressed that even after the Iraqis choose a new coalition government, “there should be no doubt: TheIraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but ourcommitment to Iraq’s future is not.”

Obama emphasized that he had engaged in a plan for a “redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’sSecurity Forces and support its government and people. That’s what we’ve done.” More specifically,Obama has organized an unprecedented militarization of the State Department, which has purchasedarmored personnel carriers and attack helicopters as part of its growing “non-combat” role in Iraq. Tensof thousands of supposedly non-combat U.S. soldiers are remaining behind in Iraq, but Obama pledgedthat “all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year.” He added: “As our military draws down, ourdedicated civilians — diplomats, aid workers, and advisers — are moving into the lead.” This officialtransition from warfare in Iraq to welfare in Iraq, which will be managed by Secretary of State HillaryClinton, will still include a lot of warfare. The militarized “advisers” and “diplomats” will be morenumerous than at present and will often be toting heavy military equipment.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

President Obama also blamed much of the deficit spending over the past decade on the U.S. wars in Iraqand Afghanistan. “Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up thefoundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing fromoverseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to recorddeficits.” Of course, the $1 trillion that Obama mentioned for the entire seven year war is less than the$1.4 trillion deficit for this year alone.

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

But President Obama used the financial costs of the war to transition the speech to a call for takingcontrol of private industry as his “central responsibility as President.” Obama told the nation: “We mustjumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash theinnovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring fromour entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as apeople, and my central responsibility as President.” But with the United States remaining “committed” toIraq under the State Department, a peace dividend seems out of the question.

Photo: AP Images

Related article:

Iraq “Withdrawal”: Building Hillary Clinton an Army

Minnesota Governor Says No to ObamaCareSubsidieswritten by Michael Tennant

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is putting taxpayers’ money where his mouth is. On August 31, hesigned an executive order directing state agencies not to apply for any discretionary funds underObamaCare.

In a statement, the Republican Pawlenty said, “Obamacare is an intrusion by the federal government intopersonal health care matters and it’s an explosion of federal spending that does nothing to make healthcare more affordable. To the fullest extent possible, we need to keep Obamacare out of Minnesota. Thisexecutive order will stop Minnesota’s participation in projects that are laying the groundwork for afederally-controlled healthcare system.”

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Pawlenty’s order describes ObamaCare as “a dramatic attempt to assert federal command and controlover this country’s health care system” that “includes unprecedented federal intrusions into individualliberty,” “massive new spending commitments,” “increased taxes and fees,” and “a multitude of programsand demonstration projects intended to speed the transition to federally-controlled health care.”

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

As his order indicates, Pawlenty had earlier refused to participate in ObamaCare’s early expansion ofMedicaid, and the August 31 order is therefore an extension of the state’s nonparticipation in ObamaCare.It is also consistent with the position Pawlenty expressed at a veterans event in St. Paul, as reported bythe Associated Press: “Anything that I can do to slow down, limit or negate Obamacare, I’m going to try todo it within reason.”

Minnesota’s Attorney General, Democrat Lori Swanson, favors ObamaCare and has not joined the otherstate attorneys general who are suing to overturn the law. On the other hand, seven of those same statesare still lining up for their share of ObamaCare funds to cover retired state employees, according to theAP — precisely the opposite of Minnesota’s situation.

Other Minnesota Democrats have criticized Pawlenty’s order, saying it “could cost the state at least tensof millions of dollars in potential grant money,” the AP reports. “By their calculation, Pawlenty already hasrejected nearly $1.5 billion, including $1.4 billion to expand Medicaid health care for poor adults and $68million for a national high-risk pool for hard-to-insure people.”

Likewise, says the AP, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “told MinnesotaPublic Radio she hopes Minnesotans will ‘have a little discussion’ with Pawlenty to tell him about the law’sbenefits” and said that she fears “the citizens of Minnesota may be the victims.”

But are Minnesotans really being victimized by Pawlenty’s refusal to accept federal money? After all, theonly way for Washington to get the money to send to St. Paul is to take it from Minnesotans — and allother Americans — in the first place. By declining to take the money, Pawlenty is (at least in theory)keeping everyone’s taxes lower, so instead of sending their money to Washington in hopes of getting somefraction of it back, residents of his state get to keep their money from the outset. Furthermore, asPawlenty explained, by accepting the money the state would also be accepting more federal control overits residents’ healthcare, leaving Minnesotans at the mercy of Washington bureaucrats — a far morevictimizing proposition than the loss of federal subsidies.

Pawlenty has been far from consistent in his opposition to federal subsidies. He has accepted subsidiesthat are not connected with ObamaCare and is considering whether to accept Medicaid assistance that isnot part of the legislation. His spokesman, Bruce Gordon, said he is “likely” to take the money.

As a result of such inconsistency, Pawlenty’s opposition to ObamaCare is frequently seen as a politicalmove to assist the Governor in his expected presidential run in 2012. That may be the case. If so, it provesthat opposing ObamaCare is considered by Pawlenty to be a winning issue even two years down the road— evidence that the law is deeply unpopular across the country and is not expected to become morepopular anytime soon.

Political or not, Pawlenty’s move to avoid a federal takeover of his state’s healthcare system is a welcomeaddition to the growing state nullification movement.

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Photo of Gov. Tim Pawlenty: AP Images

Bailing Out Big Media?written by William F. Jasper

The creaking, decrepit mastodons of the Big Media are soliciting our sympathy — and our money. Wemust save them, they say, from extinction. For our own good, of course.

It is in our interest, they insist, to have enlightened politicians, federal bureaucrats, and officials at theFederal Reserve take billions from us in taxes and funnel that money to, say, the New York Times‘sThomas Friedman, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, PBS’s Bill Moyers, or Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, is one of those leading the charge for taxpayer-funded, socialized media, a campaign that has been gathering steam in the mastodon herd over the pastyear. On July 14, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal provided Bollinger with generous space for an op-ed entitled “Journalism Needs Government Help.” The crux of his appeal was contained in the subtitle:“Media budgets have been decimated as the Internet facilitates a communications revolution. More publicfunding for news-gathering is the answer.”

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

“The financial viability of the U.S. press has been shaken to its core,” says Bollinger. “The proliferation ofcommunications outlets has fractured the base of advertising and readers. Newsrooms have shrunkdramatically and foreign bureaus have been decimated.”

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

“The institutions of the press we have inherited are the result of a mixed system of public and privatecooperation,” says Bollinger. “Trusting the market alone to provide all the news coverage we need wouldmean venturing into the unknown — a risky proposition with a vital public institution hanging in thebalance.”

Bollinger is a big fan of socialized media, praising Communist China’s “news” agencies, as well as theBritish BBC and our own PBS and NPR. “Ironically,” he notes, “we already depend to some extent onpublicly funded foreign news media for much of our international news — especially through broadcasts ofthe BBC and BBC World Service on PBS and NPR.”

Bollinger continues:

To me a key priority is to strengthen our public broadcasting role in the global arena. In today’srapidly globalizing and interconnected world, other countries are developing a strong mediapresence. In addition to the BBC, there is China’s CCTV and Xinhua news, as well as Qatar’s AlJazeera….

This system needs to be revised and its resources consolidated and augmented with those of NPR and PBSto create an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters. Thegoal would be an American broadcasting system with full journalistic independence that can provide thenews we need. Let’s demonstrate great journalism’s essential role in a free and dynamic society.

Ah yes, let’s consider the “free and dynamic society” engendered by the “full journalistic independence”and “great journalism” of CCTV and Xinhua news. How many investigative stories have they done on theongoing communist persecution of Christians, Muslims, and Falun Gong in China? How many have theydone exposing Beijing’s ongoing policies of genocide in Tibet? How many editorials criticizing the Beijingregime’s brutal one-child policy or its extensive censorship of the Internet?

As for the vaunted BBC, to take just one example, consider how slavishly it has flogged the “globalwarming” hysteria for years, refusing to give coverage to the wide array of world-renowned scientists thatdissent from the Al Gore “climate crisis” thesis. And how did BBC deal with exposure of the “Climate-gate”e-mail scandal at East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit last year? Well, it has since come to lightthat BBC knew about the e-mails before other media did, but had suppressed them. To compound itsculpability, over the past months the BBC has given only spotty, grudging coverage to this hugelyimportant issue and, for the most part, has continued to push its “crisis” bias, the corollary to which isthat we need global government controls over all human-generated CO2. Which means, of course,government controls over all human activity.

Bollinger’s appeal for a Mussolini-style public-private cartelized media is more fully explicated in his book,Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century, published by Oxford UniversityPress this year — to rave reviews and beaucoup favorable media coverage, naturally. Yes, the title and thecontent are an incredible, oxymoronic mismatch — like dry water or socialist free enterprise. ButBollinger’s message resonates with the higher powers who seek to transform America. Within days afterhis WSJ editorial paean to the fascist-socialist-corporatist media model, Bollinger was voted in aschairman of the board of directors of the New York Federal Reserve, the lead bank in the Federal ReserveSystem that has been fanatically pushing the fascist-socialist-corporatist model for all sectors of oureconomy.

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Big Media has been the handmaiden to Big Government for decades. Now that the Internet andindependent media are challenging the statist game plan, Big Media and Big Government are desperatelyseeking to formally legitimize their longstanding illicit affair.

Governor Brewer Reacts to U.S. Human RightsReportwritten by Raven Clabough

In response to the State Department’s Human Rights report that named Arizona as a violator of humanrights for its passage of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer wrote Secretary of State Hillary Clintona scathing letter calling the reference “downright offensive” as well as “unconstitutional.”

Brewer wrote, “The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state ofthe United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional.”

The report in question indicates, “A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention anddebate at home and around the world.”

In addition, the Human Rights report submitted to the United Nations’ Human Rights council included theJustice Department’s legal challenge to S.B. 1070 as an example of how the federal government issafeguarding human rights.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

According to the report, “The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federalgovernment has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the laware currently enjoined.”

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

In an appearance this week on Fox News’s On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Brewer explained herdecision to write the letter: “We are really offended, Greta, that the Obama and Secretary Clinton wouldtake a duly enacted law and present it to the Human Rights council at the United Nations. I believestrongly that they owe us an apology and certainly want them to remove it from their report.”

Adding insult to injury, Brewer learned of the United Nations report not from a White House official, butfrom a third-party, in this particular case from the Internet, similar to when Brewer learned of the JusticeDepartment’s initial decision to pursue a federal lawsuit against the state of Arizona over S.B. 1070 fromSecretary Clinton’s interview with an Ecuadorian news station. In both cases, the White House did not feelcompelled to personally contact the Arizona Governor.

“We heard that the government was going to sue us when [Secretary Clinton] was down in Ecuador. Nowwe find out that they are going to turn us over to the Human Rights council on Senate Bill 1070 and letcountries like Libya and Cuba decide if we’re doing right or wrong. It’s outrageous!”

Brewer also addressed her calling members of the Obama administration “hypocrites” in her letter,asserting that the federal government’s failure to secure the border contributes to the crime of humantrafficking.

Likewise, Brewer charges the federal government with contributing to human rights violations by allowingthe continuous invasion of illegal immigrants across the unsecured border, a journey that is potentiallydetrimental to the health and safety of those crossing the border. “If the federal government would dotheir job, secure the borders … talk about human rights? We have thousands of illegal aliens comingacross our border and suffering under inhumane conditions due to the drug cartels and due to the heatand dying out in the desert.”

Brewer addressed the federal government’s seeming “attacks” on the state of Arizona, politely calling herexperiences with the Obama administration “a real difficult time,” but calling this particular incident “overthe top.”

“They are overstepping, overreaching, it’s outrageous, it’s very offensive, and it’s wrong. Arizona has theright to enact the laws that we see fit.”

According to the latest CBS poll, it is not only the state of Arizona that sees S.B. 1070 to be “fit.” The pollshows that 59 percent of Americans view Arizona’s immigration law as “just right,” while an additional 14percent believe the law does not go far enough.

Brewer closed her letter to Secretary Clinton by contending, ”Be assured that the state of Arizona willfight any attempts by the United States Department of State and the United Nations to interfere with theduly enacted laws of the state of Arizona in accordance with the United States Constitution.”

Van Susteren questioned Brewer on the “harshness” of her letter’s closing statement. Unafraid to pack apunch, however, Brewer told Van Susteren, “We are going to do whatever is necessary to keep oursovereignty.”

To view the interview between Jan Brewer and Greta Van Sustren in its entirety, click here.

Brewer’s letter has yet to receive a response from the White House, but there may be small consolation innoting that while her candor may not be appreciated by the Obama administration, it has helped her

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

popularity to soar in Arizona, and will likely secure her reelection on November 2.

Photo of Governor Jan Brewer: AP Images

Murkowski Concedes to Miller in Alaska’s GOPPrimarywritten by Raven Clabough

After a tumultuous indecisive primary election and a week of bitter disputes, Alaska’s Senator LisaMurkowski finally conceded the GOP Senate primary victory to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. TheWashington Post called Joe Miller’s surprising victory the “biggest upset in the 2010 cycle to date.”

In her concession speech, Murkowski indicated, “I don’t see a scenario in which the primary will turn outin my favor.”

On August 24, with all precincts reported, Miller edged out incumbent Murkowski by 1,700 votes,prompting Alaska’s Board of Elections to count the 15,000 absentee ballots to determine the winner. Afterall absentee ballots were counted, Miller proved to be the victory by 1,630 votes.

Miller was a dark-horse candidate, seemingly benign and therefore largely ignored by Murkowski until itbecame too late. Likewise, Miller’s endorsement by Tea Party favorite and Alaska’s former GovernorSarah Palin proved to be the nail in the coffin for Murkowski, who attempted to rest on her family’spolitical history as a means to coast to reelection.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

As it became clear that the election results were extremely close, political ambitions morphed intobitterness. According to The Examiner, “Things turned ugly in recent days with Miller accusing

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Murkowski of vote tampering, and Murkowski saying that Miller was inexperienced and paranoid.”

Miller voiced fears that Murkowski would “pull an Al Franken,” alluding to the possibility that Murkowskiwould pursue a lengthy legal battle like that launched by Al Franken in the 2008 election againstincumbent Norm Coleman. Fortunately for Miller and the state of Alaska, Miller’s fears did notmaterialize, sparing Alaska’s citizens from a protracted and harmful legal battle, similar to that ofMinnesota.

Additionally, Miller articulated concerns that Murkowski would consider remaining in the Senate raceunder the Libertarian ticket, but those fears were quickly quelled by Alaska’s Libertarian Party, whichmade clear their decision to reject Murkowski as a candidate. Alaska’s Libertarian Party chairman ScottKohlhaas explained, “Murkowski does not reflect the values of the party.”

Despite the nature of the past week, Miller encourages Republican Alaskans to come together andprepare for November 2, when he will face off against Sitka’s Democratic Mayor Scott McAdams. “Now isthe time for all Alaskans to come together and reach out with our core message of taking power from thefederal government and bringing it back home to the people. If we continue to allow the federalgovernment to live beyond its means, we will all soon have to live below ours.”

McAdams has not missed the opportunity to seize upon the fissure in Alaska’s Republican Party to perhapsadvance his own campaign. In a statement given last night, McAdams remarked, “Lisa Murkowski is aclass act who always put Alaska first. By contrast, lawyer Joe Miller ran an unfair, nasty campaign thatdidn’t extend to Lisa Murkowski the respect she deserves.”

Still, Miller’s anti-establishment position could prove to be helpful in November, as he touts the veryideals that seem to be embraced by the American public at this time.

“The government is going bankrupt. I think the answer to this is to basically transfer the responsibilitiesand power of government back to the states and the people,” Miller contends.

Likewise, a recent poll by Rasmussen, which indicates that voters now trust Republicans more thanDemocrats on all 10 of the polled issues, does not bode well for McAdams.

Furthermore, on August 29, a Public Policy Polling poll showed Miller ahead of McAdams, 47 percent to39 percent.

For these reasons, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey has indicated that the Democrats’campaign committee will aid McAdams, recognizing the competitive race on which McAdams is about toembark, reports Yahoo News.

Photo of Joe Miller: AP Images

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Is America Headed Toward Japanese-style Economic“Lost Decades”?written by Thomas R. Eddlem

Just one week after James Bullard of the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve Bank released his August6 paper declaring that “the U.S. is closer to a Japanese-style outcome today than at any time in recenthistory” (meaning that the United States will likely have decades of economic stagnation, which Bullardblames on “deflation”), the news media have taken up a chorus against the bogeyman of “deflation” toexplain the need for further social spending by the government and more debasement of the U.S. dollar(causing consumer prices to rise through inflation).

The Japanese economy has been mired in minimal economic growth since 1989, never reaching threepercent growth per year, despite regular “stimuli” by increased government spending and borrowing.Though Japan was once a manufacturing giant, it is the service sector which now makes up three-quartersof its economy, as much of its manufacturing base has been outsourced to Korea, China, and elsewhere inEast Asia.

“The terrible trap of deflation gripped Japan for nearly fifteen years after its financial collapse in 1989,”Bullard claims. “Japan’s economy struggled to restart, but repeatedly fell back into recession. That is onedefinition of Depression — an economy that cannot get out of the ditch.” How bad is it? Per capitaJapanese income compared with that of the U.S. has shrunk by nearly half since 1995. Imagine losingnearly half of your current purchasing power.

In Bullard’s opinion, “it is conceivable to think that deflation could hurt the financial system and hamperUS growth,” as he notes that Japan has suffered two full decades of recession which happened to coincidewith some slight consumer price deflation in the most recent decade of that recession. Consumer pricescrept upward during the 1990s by about one percent and fell less than that rate during the last decade.But there’s no evidence that what Bullard calls deflation — lowered consumer prices — is the culprit forJapan’s depression.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

On Board With a Bad Theory

Media outlets such as National Public Radio, the Wall Street Journal, and various wire services havecontributed to the deflation alarmism, ignorantly warning that deflation necessarily means a terriblerecession. Of course, the entire 19th Century of American history — one of unparalleled economic growth— was deflationary (at least in the sense that it involved lower prices for consumer goods). Prices forgoods fell by almost half between 1800 and the initiation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, largely as aresult of increased economic efficiency through industrialization. And despite the deflationary century, noU.S. recession during that time period lasted more than four years.

What particularly worries Bullard is that for more than two years now, the Federal Reserve Bank has cutthe rate at the discount window (the so-called “Federal Rate”) to nearly zero, something never beforedone in U.S. history, althougher Japan used the tactic frequently during its two-decade-long recession.Bullard concludes that “the conventional wisdom is that Japan has suffered through a ‘lost decade’partially attributable to the fact that the economy has been stuck in the deflationary, low nominal interestrate…. To the extent that is true, the U.S. and Europe can hardly afford to join Japan in the quagmire.”

In a nutshell, Bullard believes that the Federal Reserve’s near-zero lending rates lead to deflation, anddeflation destroys economic growth.

However, it’s a false post hoc ergo propter hoc argument (that an event which follows another must be theresult of the first event) to claim that deflation created the Japanese depression. To begin with,suppressing interest rates to below-market levels (as the Federal Reserve has done) is inflationary ratherthan deflationary (it increases the amount of currency in circulation by encouraging borrowing andspending). Such an action can, however, lead to suppression of consumer prices by creating economicstagnation through a painful boom-and-bust cycle and result in lower consumer prices through consumerbargain-hunting. By definition, an economy focused upon borrowing and consumption is one not focusedupon savings and investment — the latter two factors critical for economic growth.

But Bullard sees a cause-and-effect relationship between protracted suppression of interest rates anddeflation, and therefore concludes that the Federal Reserve should suppress interest rates only to abouttwo percent over a long period rather than to the current rate of zero that Federal Reserve officials havepegged.

Bullard also recommends that the Federal Reserve Bank go big with inflation to stem the supposed pox ofdeflation, suggesting that “a better policy response to a negative shock is to expand the quantitativeeasing program through the purchase of Treasury securities.” By “quantitative easing,” he means that thegovernment would float new debt and then have the Federal Reserve buy the debt, effectively increasingthe amount of currency in circulation and pushing inflation (and consumer prices) upward. “Thequantitative easing program," he explains, "to the extent it involves buying longer-dated government debt,has often been described as ‘monetizing the debt.’ This is widely considered to be inflationary, and soinflation expectations are sensitive to such purchases.”

Bully for Bullard

Ironically, Bullard’s monograph for the St. Louis Federal Reserve launches a stinging attack upon theObama Administration’s borrow-and-spend strategy for recovering from the recession, noting that thiswas precisely the same tactic used by the Japanese after their economic bubble burst in 1989:

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

The proposal might work in a model setting, but … governments that attempt such a policy in realityare surely playing with fire. The history of economic performance for nations actually teetering on thebrink of insolvency is terrible. This does not seem like a good tool to use to combat the possibility of alow nominal interest rate steady state.

Beyond these considerations, it is questionable at this point whether such a policy actually works. Japan,our leading example in this story, has in fact embarked on an aggressive fiscal expansion, and the debt-to-GDP ratio there is now approaching 200 percent. Still, there does not appear to be any sign that theeconomy is about to leave the low nominal interest rate steady state, and now policymakers are worriedenough about the international reaction to their situation that fiscal retrenchment is being seriouslydebated.

This flatly contradicts not only the current White House policy, but also that embraced by numerous leftistcolumnists, who claim the way the U.S. must solve its current debt crisis is by aggressively taking on moredebt. William Greider, for example, argued on NPR.com:

Forget the stupid deficit scare-mongering. Government must embrace more aggressive fiscalmeasures — bigger deficits, not little bitty gestures. New stimulus spending is needed to fight off thedownward pressures. That, of course, will require the President to acknowledge what he now denies.The nation is not out of the danger zone. The government must act because it is the only sector in theeconomy that can lead the way.

Likewise, Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect noted on the Huffington Post Sunday that “the appealof austerity is fading.”

Greider and Kuttner essentially argue that the United States should follow the example of Japan. For twodecades now, the Japanese government has maintained that it is the only economic actor which can leadthe nation out of recession by borrowing and spending. And Japan is now second in the world only toZimbabwe in debt-to-GDP ratio, with some 190 percent of GDP in national debt (the U.S. has increasedfrom about a 30-percent debt-to-GDP ratio in 1980 to nearly 100 percent today). Yet, the Japaneseeconomy remains mired in recession.

Still, most leftists continue to argue that spending is the only way to avoid a Great Depression — forexample, in a recent column on the Huffington Post, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich asked:

What to do? First, don’t listen to Wall Street and the Right. Forget the Neo-Hoover deficit hawks whosay we have to cut government spending and trim upcoming deficits. We didn’t get into this mess andaren’t remaining in it because of budget deficits. In fact, the only way to reduce long-term deficits isto restore jobs and growth so government revenues rise and expenses like unemployment insurancedrop.

Reich’s argument shows both economic and historical ignorance about the Great Depression. PresidentHerbert Hoover never even attempted to balance the federal budget; rather, he and his RepublicanCongress increased federal spending by 40 percent, leaving Roosevelt the two largest deficits in U.S.history, after those of World War I. During Roosevelt’s first two terms, he and his Democratic Congresscontinued Hoover’s borrow-and-spend policies by increasing federal spending some 80 percent. The resultwas the Great Depression, which lasted until the demobilization after World War II — the longesteconomic recession in U.S. history. That Depression, like the Japanese model, involved the following

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

policies over more than a decade: the suppression of interest rates by the Federal Reserve/central banks,huge government “jobs” programs, massive government budget deficits, and mounting national debt.

And those are precisely the policies currently being pushed by the Obama Administration.

The only solution for our economic woes is to let the free markets decide interest rates (and they wouldrise sharply) and to cut government spending under a balanced budget. For the time being, however, bothRepublican and Democrat politicians running Washington seem set against this policy.

— Photo: AP Images

Larry McDonald — An American Hero Rememberedwritten by Christian Gomez

Congressman Lawrence McDonald had served as a medical doctor, an officer in the U.S. Navy, a U.S.Representative from Georgia, and the chairman of The John Birch Society before being invited (along withseveral other members of Congress) to attend a celebration of the 30th anniversary of the signing of theUnited States–South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty in Seoul. McDonald was aboard Korean Air Lines flight007 en route to the event when the plane was shot down by a Soviet fighter jet — 27 years ago — onSeptember 1, 1983. Although history has all but forgotten Larry McDonald and the sacrifice he made forthis country and freedom, we here at The New American have not forgotten and never will.

Larry McDonald was born on April 1, 1935 in Atlanta, Georgia. At the age of 17, he was admitted to EmoryUniversity School of Medicine and in 1957 was graduated with his M.D. He then joined the U.S. Navy,

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

serving on active duty for four years as a Navy physician and flight surgeon. For the duration of his life,McDonald remained in the Naval Reserve and was eventually promoted to the rank of Captain.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

In 1968, while still a resident surgeon at the University of Michigan Hospital, in Ann Harbor, LarryMcDonald made his first bid for political office, running as a Democrat. During his campaign for a localcommitteeman position, McDonald ran as an “historic” or “True Democrat,” harking back to the oldDemocratic Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Grover Cleveland. Although he lost the primary race to theincumbent liberal Democrat, McDonald later told a close friend that it was in that campaign that hegained the experience to run for Congress later in Georgia.

In 1974, after a tough primary battle in the Democratic Party, McDonald was elected to Congress, slippingby his Republican challenger Quincy Collins, by a margin of 549 votes out of the more than 95,000 votescast.

On April 29, 1975, newly-elected Representative McDonald addressed the floor of the House for the firsttime. He criticized the gradualist “no-win war” strategy in the Vietnam War, strongly emphasizing theCommunist “bloodbath” that was to come to the people of South Vietnam.

By the end of his first term in the House he had earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues inCongress; “Mr. Conservative” Senator Barry Goldwater said that Larry McDonald had “contributed moreto the Congress than … any other freshman who has ever come here.” Goldwater’s remark wasn’t the onlyconservative approval McDonald garnered — he was universally respected by constitutionalists inside andoutside of government.

During his tenure in office, Congressman McDonald always scored a solid 100 percent in “TheConservative Index,” then published in The Review Of The News (the predecessor to The New American).McDonald also scored a 100 percent rating from both Americans for Conservative Action and the NationalConservative Political Action Committee’s (NCPAC) “Conservative Index.”

Larry McDonald was known for his staunch constitutional conservative principles and fervent anti-Communism. He was an advocate of a constitutionally-limited government, school prayer, sound money(i.e. Austrian economics), the reinstallation of the House Internal Security Committee, and America’smutual defense alliances with the anti-Communist governments of Taiwan and South Korea.

Today, with the news of Russian espionage penetration in the United States and Communist subversion inthe State Department, Larry McDonald’s call for the reinstallation of the nation’s former internal securitystructure is more relevant today than ever.

Before voting on an issue, he always asked himself the following three questions: (1) Is it Constitutional?(2) Do we need it? (3) Can we afford it?

Given these strict standards, it should come as no surprise that he voted “No” a great many times. At the50th anniversary celebration of The John Birch Society, Congressman Ron Paul stated that there havebeen two “Dr. No’s” in the House, referring to himself and to his dear friend Larry McDonald. Dr.McDonald and Dr. Paul cast the only “No” votes for the Swine Flu Vaccination Program of 1976, signed byPresident Gerald Ford. It was later revealed that the vaccinations resulted in 500 cases of Guillain-Barrésyndrome and 25 deaths.

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

In the area of internal security, McDonald worked vigorously to reestablish the House Committee onInternal Security and many of the other internal security measures originating with the McCarran Act of1950. He also established Western Goals Foundation, a private intelligence network composed of formerFBI and other intelligence personnel, high-ranking military officers, and other qualified experts, allsharing the goal of making impossible any merger of the United States and the Free World with thetotalitarian world.

In 1982, Western Goals Foundation produced a definitive documentary on terrorism and subversionentitled No Place to Hide. In an interview from the documentary, McDonald says, “Yes we are at war —very definitely, we have been at war; it’s an economic war, it’s a war of subversion, it’s a war ofespionage, it’s a war of ideas, and it’s a war of terrorism and it’s a war of infiltration.”

The documentary also featured an exclusive interview of Larry Grathwohl, the only FBI agent ever toinfiltrate successfully the Weather Underground terrorist group. This footage was used on the Glenn BeckShow.

Aside from his political activism, Dr. McDonald was also a noted surgeon at the McDonald UrologicalClinic. He served as acting Chairman of the Georgia State Medical Board, was a charter member of theEconomic Monetary Investment Research Society, and served on the Economic Committee of theAssociation of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Almost three months before his fateful flight, McDonald succeeded Robert Welch as leader of the JohnBirch Society. Around the same time, Congressman McDonald was also appointed chairman of the SpecialOperation Forces Panel of the House Armed Services Committee.

While McDonald was en route to give his speech in Seoul, Soviet fighter jets identified and fired upon hisplane over Soviet airspace. While he and the rest of the passengers were presumed killed, their eventualfate has been the subject of several conflicting reports. For example, in the years following the shootdown,evidence has arisen suggesting that flight KAL 007 was either forced down or safely crash-landed onSakhalin Island, off the east coast of the Soviet Union just northwest of Japan.

In 1991, Robert W. Lee of The New American wrote an extensive article in which he explored what mayhave happened to the plane and its surviving passengers. Today Bert Schlossberg runs a websitededicated to the victims of flight 007, in which he also addresses the possible fate and whereabouts of thesurvivors, including Larry McDonald. Schlossberg also discusses the fate of the plane and its passengersin his book Rescue 007.

There can be no dispute, however, about McDonald’s distinguished role as one of the leading Americanpatriots of the 20th Century.

Twenty-seven years later, Larry McDonald has yet to be bestowed the recognition he deserves in history,an oversight that we hope can begin to change as more Americans continue to learn about him and takethe time to honor him on September 1st.

Photo of Rep. Larry McDonald: AP Images

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Our True Enemy, The Statewritten by Becky Akers

Controversy currently convulses that country, thanks to the author of a new book whose title translates asGermany Abolishes Itself. Thilo Sarrazin once reigned as the Finance Senator of Berlin; he is now amember of Germany’s federal bank. How a publisher decided that a career of printing and inflating moneyqualifies a guy to advise Germans on immigration, I have no idea. Perhaps it’s the same strain of insanitythat has the American Congress inviting Hollywood’s charlatans to gossip—sorry, testify against the oilindustry.

Meanwhile, German central bankers are as evil as American ones if Thilo is any measure. Among theinanities he unleashed in an interview is his assertion that “all Jews share the same gene.”

Germany’s Chancellor and assorted talking heads immediately castigated Thilo as a racist. But far moredisturbing is his ignorance and jaw-dropping stupidity, though I suppose both are requisites for federalbanking. Does this nut seriously imagine that all Jewish folks inherit identical chromosomes – even thosewho are non-Semitic converts or whose parents intermarried?

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

But Thilo has made a career of such foolishness. “In a magazine interview last year he said: ‘I do not needto accept anyone who lives on handouts from a state it rejects…’”

Like the fatuous Thilo, far too many Americans blame the recipient of those “handouts” rather than thethief who steals the money in the first place. Though they themselves live on Social Security, send their

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

kids to State U, or work for corporations rife with government’s immoral contracts, they denounceimmigrants for loafing on welfare and crowding everything from emergency rooms to public schools. Butit is government they should loathe and oppose, not the victims of its suborning.

Sadly, much of fallen humanity aspires to be leeches. Whatever their culture, upbringing, nationality, orreligion, most people delight in free rides and grab as many as they can. They pray the supermarket’sclerk will mistakenly hand them an extra buck in change; the politician who promises to deliver morefreebies than his competitor receives their vote. This explains the lying, thieving, murderous State’sotherwise inexplicable but universal popularity: as Frederic Bastiat put it, “Government is that greatfiction whereby everyone lives at everyone else’s expense.” Rarely, a hero with the rectitude andindependence to pay his own way shines, but most folks happily sponge off their neighbors — especially ifdoing so is not only easy and legal but encouraged.

And Leviathan very much encourages all of us, immigrants or descendants of the Mayflower’s passengers,to swill every meal from the public trough; indeed, the beast often makes it illegal not to do so (the Fedsautomatically enroll us in Social Security and Medicare; only recently has the State grudgingly allowedhomeschoolers to avoid public schools; etc). How will politicians and bureaucrats maintain their powerover us if we spurn their bribes?

Blaming immigrants, then, for the socialism that saturates America is as wrongheaded as efforts to kickthem out and “save” those “resources” for “our own people.” We should apply those strenuous effortsinstead to abolishing the whole Satanic system of welfare, with its bankrupting of both our pocketbooksand the human soul. (Recall as well that it’s not at all clear whether immigrants consume more “socialservices” than natives – for every study showing they do, another says they don’t. And the despised“illegals” who give employers false Social Security numbers actually “contribute” about $6 billion to thatPonzi scheme annually without hope of benefitting from it.)

Meanwhile, the more we scorn immigrants for accepting “free” money as readily as anyone else, the morewe play into Leviathan’s hands. Because democracies supposedly depend on the consent of the governed,they convince voters they’re indispensable by ginning up bugaboos, dire dangers from which only theState can save us (provided we vastly increase both its budget and powers, of course). America’s “wars”on drugs the Feds don’t like and on unelected terrorists are very expensive “solutions” to veryexaggerated threats. Joining pot and Osama as menaces that will destroy America are immigrants, or soour rulers pretend.

Why do we heed these demagogic bozos? They conquer by dividing us, deluding us into hating poor andoften persecuted people instead of the State.

Who harms us more, the government that robs us for Aid to Dependent Children, food stamps, andMedicaid or an immigrant, legal or otherwise, harvesting fruit because “local residents just won’t pickapples, regardless of the unemployment situation…”? (And that’s according to “John Rice, president ofGardners, Pa.-based Rice Fruit Co.” He added, “… packing apples, like picking a lot of crops, is toughwork…”) Who costs us more, the immigrant at the emergency room (where an average visit consumed$1000 in Austin, TX, in 2009 – and where “Just nine people accounted for nearly 2,700 of the emergencyroom visits in the … area during the past six years at a cost of $3 million to taxpayers and others…” Allnine parasites appear to be natives) or the legislature forcing hospitals to treat everyone who staggersthrough the doors, no matter how many times? Who makes a better American, immigrants seekingfreedom or politicians stripping it from us?

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

It’s time we repudiated our true enemies and their web of welfare. Let’s work at eliminating both whilewelcoming the newcomers they demonize.

Becky Akers, an expert on the American Revolution, writes frequently about issues related to security andprivacy. Her articles and columns have been published by Lewrockwell.com, The Freeman, MilitaryHistory Magazine, American History Magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Post, andother publications.

Big Brother’s Eye in the Skywritten by Robert Confer

Many Internet users look at websites that share aerial imaging technology as a novelty, a fun way to seewhat their house and community look like from the air. Little do they know that various levels ofgovernment around the world are using it for less amusing means. Sites like Google Earth and Bing Mapsare being used as a tool to find so-called "tax cheats" and individuals and businesses that willingly orunwillingly sneaked past the building permit process.

In the nation of Greece the government has used the technology to enforce its absurd wealth tax byscanning suburbs and homes of doctors, lawyers, and businessmen in an effort to find pools, villas, andvehicles that, according to Greek officials, certainly cannot be afforded or maintained by recorded incomelevels. In its initial round of searches for swimming pools the government found just under 17,000 poolswhen only 324 had been claimed by taxpayers. Enforcing the tax code through such investigativemeasures has netted the nation 1.8 billion Euros in back taxes and fines in just the first 6 months of thisyear alone.

A little closer to home, many municipalities in the United States are following Greece’s lead. In Riverheadon Long Island, Google Earth is also being used to find swimming pools, specifically those that wereerected without town notice or do not meet the town’s building code. In that town of 27,000 people, about250 unregistered pools were discovered. The homeowners were forced to make their pools compliant and,

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

of course, pay Riverhead for their permits. That one simple task brought in $38,000 of revenues for thetown.

With nations like Greece (whose financial descent is being mirrored by the United States of America) andcommunities like Riverhead (the size of which is similar to many communities across the country) seeinggreat success with aerial surveillance, many more government entities are following suit, playing aroundon the computer and subsequently playing hardball with property owners.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

To see this in action, you need only to refer to Pennsylvania’s springtime ad campaign in which they ran30-second spots on television brazenly playing the Big Brother card. In the commercial, satellite imageryzoomed-in on a typical Pennsylvania home and a robotic narrative voice cited the homeowner for his taxevasion, noting they know where he lives and that he has a “nice car” and a “nice house." The ad endedwith a threat to Pennsylvania taxpayers that read “find us before we find you.” It was meant to put fearinto commonwealth residents — and no doubt for many it did.

The Tax Man of the Modern Age tells us a great deal of what our government has become. America wasintended to be a truly unique nation –— a government by and for the people — and with a government itscitizens of were never to fear. It doesn’t matter if one is a tax evader or not. With these developments intechnology and the abuse thereof, even the most law-abiding and straight-laced Americans must worrythat the government could be watching our every move or analyzing the details of our last bastion ofpersonal liberty, our homes and lands, places once rightly thought to be private and free of governmentintrusion.

Unlike socialist Greece, which is a very poor example for America to be following in the first place, ourGod-given rights are recognized and protected by a Constitution that should be preventing such anintrusion on our lives. The Fourth Amendment, which addresses this matter, so eloquently says “The rightof the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searchesand seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported byOath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to beseized.”

It’s obvious that through these practices our government is exceeding the limits imposed on it. No one’sprivacy is secure because aerial intrusion is, without a doubt, unreasonable. Under normal circumstancesthe government needs just cause to enter a domain, some sort of belief that a crime has been or may becommitted. With Google Earth, that has been thrown aside: Tax collectors and building inspectors don’thave any inkling whether a supposed crime is being committed or not yet are allowed to search a propertyunabated in hopes of finding a broken law. In this case, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

As aerial imagery technology advances even further (widespread real-time satellite surveillance is not outof the question in the coming years) and more municipalities and agencies jump onto the currentbandwagon, the misuse of Google Earth and Bing Maps by tax collecting entities will hopefully see asignificant struggle in the courts as more people are stung by it or wake up to Big Brother’sunconstitutional and immoral abuses of its people.

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

“The Kangaroo Touch” Revives Australian Preemiewritten by Mary McHugh

Called “the kangaroo touch” in Australia and also “kangaroo care,” the method used by Kate Ogg inSydney last spring worked almost like a miracle. She had just given birth prematurely to twins, and whileEmily’s birth was uneventful, her twin brother, Jamie, was not as fortunate.

After a 20-minute struggle with the difficult delivery, the doctor saw no apparent vital signs, and declaredhim dead. According to his mother, “His little arms and legs were just falling down away from his body.”That was when Jamie’s parents decided to try kangaroo care, though they also thought it might well betheir goodbye embrace to their new little son.

Said Kate according the New York Daily News:

“I took my gown off and arranged him on my chest with his head over my arm and just held him.”

She and her husband, David, spoke to the child as she continued to embrace him for nearly twohours. During that time, she said, the two-pound infant showed signs of life.

“I told my mum, who was there, that he was still alive. Then he held out his hand and grabbed myfinger,” Ogg said.

“Oh my God, what’s going on?” was Kate’s thought. The doctor dismissed the development at first, butwas shocked when he put a stethoscope to Jamie’s chest. “I don’t believe it — I don’t believe it!” heexclaimed. The kangaroo touch — named after the manner in which mother kangaroos carry their youngagainst their warm bodies in their pouches — had caused little Jamie to stir after a few minutes, and thenopen his eyes.

Continued the Daily News:

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

According to Dr. Pinchi Srinivasan, director of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Neonatology atNew York Hospital Queens, the procedure consists of positioning a premature baby on its stomach— clad only in a diaper — against a woman’s chest and between her breasts with “skin-to-skincontact.”

“The care helps the baby maintain body warmth.” It also “regulates their heart and breathing rate,”and is believed to contribute to weight gain and improved sleeping habits.

Fathers can also use “kangaroo care,” the doctor noted. The key to the method, he explained, is notthe gender of the person, but the skin-to-skin contact.

According to the Gather.com website, after the baby has been placed in contact:

Generally the infant is covered with a hat and blanket next. According to Dr. Karen Hendricks-Muoz,the Chief of Neonatology from New York University Medical Center, this technique hasn’t been useda lot but is very effective. It was first developed in Bogota back in the late 70’s. Since 1999, themethod has been endorsed and used not only to help the survival, but also for enhancingbreastfeeding and the baby’s growth. It can be mostly used in the instances of pre-term bab[ies] inunderdeveloped countries.

In such countries where modern hospital equipment is scarce, the kangaroo touch is more common. It wasstudied in both Europe and the U.S. through the 1980s, and is becoming a better-known option for thetreatment of premature infants. Dr. Srinivasan stated, “It is credited with helping to shorten the amount oftime a baby spends in the NICU.”

Kate and David Ogg told their story on CBS’s The Early Show for Saturday, August 28. They feel blessedthat their twins are healthy and doing well five months after little Jamie’s dramatic entrance — and thesuccess of that day’s kangaroo care.

Chinese Central Bank Head Defection Rumor:Communist Power Struggle?written by Thomas R. Eddlem

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Japanese Financial Services Minister Shozaburo Jimi confirmed that China’s central bank governor ZhouXiaochuan had not defected to the United States, something rumored from Chinese-based sources forseveral days over the weekend. But the question now being asked is why the rumor started in the firstplace.

According to STRATFOR, a private global news and intelligence advisory group, the “rumors appear tohave started following reports on Aug. 28 which cited Ming Pao, a Hong Kong-based news agency, sayingthat because of an approximately $430 billion loss on U.S. Treasury bonds, the Chinese government maypunish some individuals within the PBC, including Zhou.” But the alleged $430 billion loss appears to beas fictitious as Zhou’s defection to the United States.

The rumor may have been a result of a Communist Party leadership political hit on Zhou, who was one ofthe last top political operatives who have retained his position from the last administration of PresidentJiang Zemin. According to STRATFOR, “Zhou was rumored to be under ‘shuanggui,’ a form of house arrestadministered by the CPC, during the massive crackdown of Shanghai Party Secretary Chen Liangyu in2006, which was perceived in the country as a crackdown of the Shanghai Gang and part of President HuJintao’s effort to consolidate power ahead of the 2007 power transition.”

STRATFOR, which circulated the rumor in the United States, has stressed that “STRATFOR has receivedno confirmation of the rumor, and reports by state-run Chinese media appeared to send strong indicationsthat Zhou is in no trouble at the moment.”

China will be choosing a new President in 2012, as current President Hu Jintao will no longer be eligiblefor reelection under China’s 1982 constitution. The rumor could be seen as a means of political jockeyingin advance of the election. Had the Chinese defection been genuine, the fiscal policy impact on the UnitedStates could have been enormous. China is currently America’s largest foreign creditor, and until recentmonths was the largest buyer of U.S. federal government debt securities.

Photo of Zhou Xiaochuan: AP Images

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Progress and Problems: The Passing of E-6written by Dennis Behreandt

Recently, I received an e-mail from Chromatics, a photo lab used by professional photographers inNashville, that they will be discontinuing the developing of color slides and color transparencies ingeneral, after September 9th. This was sent to me as an old customer of theirs.

The passing of E-6 is the passing of an era, because it means that so few professional photographers areusing color slides and transparencies these days, in this era of digital photography, that a major photo labdoes not get enough of this kind of film to develop to make it worthwhile to stock the chemical that isused.

The films used to make color prints– as distinguished from slides– are processed in a different developer(called C-41), and the market for that is still good. But the biggest reason for the decline of color slides isundoubtedly the rise of digital cameras.

The fact that Chromatics will no longer process color slides in E-6 does not mean that nobody will bedoing so. No doubt other photo labs in some other cities will continue to develop color slides and colortransparencies– at least for a while.

But the handwriting is on the wall.

To those of us of an older age (80 in my case), this passing of one more icon of our era makes us feel likewe are relics of a bygone time. I can remember when I used to develop my own color slides in E-3, a longago predecessor of E-6.

Another photographic icon that vanished in recent years was Kodachrome, the film that put color slides onthe map. A few years ago, Kodak announced that it was being discontinued. For many years, Kodachromewas the finest color film in the world.

Even after other color films caught up with it, and even surpassed it in some respects, it was still a greatfilm to have, because it did not require refrigeration, as other color films used by professional

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

photographers do. It is a big nuisance to have to take a cooler with you when traveling with professionalcolor film.

The reason for the differences was that Kodachrome did not have dyes in it, like other color films, and it isthe dyes that are so vulnerable to heat. Kodachrome was actually three layers of black-and-white film,each layer sensitive to different colors, with the dyes being added later, during the developing process.

It was a more complicated process than developing slides in E-6, and Kodak preferred to developKodachrome itself, rather than risk having other processors do a second-rate job that would harm the highreputation of Kodachrome.

For years, Kodak sold Kodachrome with the processing included. When you finished taking your pictures,you simply put your 35mm film cartridge in a mailer that came with the film, and mailed it to the nearestKodak photo lab.

Unfortunately, our saviors in Washington decided that it was illegal for Kodak to do that. Why? Because itgave Kodak a “monopoly” on processing Kodachrome.

Any photographer who did not like this arrangement was free to use some other color slide film, one thatcould be developed in E-6. As so often happens, the government was solving a non-existent problem– andcreating a real problem in the process.

Most photographers who used Kodachrome still preferred to have Kodak develop it. So we had to buy themailers separately — and keep track of how many mailers we had, to make sure we had enough for all therolls of Kodachrome we had.

When Kodachrome was discontinued, I was left with mailers that cost money but were now worthless.

Fortunately, only the U.S. government had this ridiculous ban on selling the mailers and film together.When I was traveling in other countries, I bought the combination together and could mail myKodachrome to be developed in London, Paris or wherever.

Now that E-6 seems to be following Kodachrome on the path to oblivion, we relics of the past are left withcolor print film, but the time may yet come when we will just have to cope with digital.

Someone once called me “the last of the Luddites.” The passing of E-6 makes me feel that way.

Thomas Sowell graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958) and went on to receive hismaster’s in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the Universityof Chicago (1968). He is the author of 28 books including his most recent, Intellectuals and Society.Currently he is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Web site iswww.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 20010 CREATORS.COM

Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to see the Thomas Sowell column in yourhometown paper

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Groups Asked EPA to Ban Lead in Hunting Ammowritten by Bruce Walker

The Environmental Protection Agency, which has authority to ban toxic substances under the ToxicSubstance Control Act of 1976, was petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity to ban traditionalhunting ammunition, which contains lead as a toxic substance. Another petitioner, the American BirdConservancy, had noted in its petition that annually 10 to 20 million animals died each year from leadpoisoning, either by being shot or by being eaten by another animal after having been shot. Otherpetitioners included Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Association of AvianVeterinarians, and Project Gutpile.

The purpose of hunting, of course, is to shoot and kill animals. State governments for some time haveplaced restrictions on the number of animals that may be harvested in hunting season, the age and genderof animals that may be hunted (generally the young and their mothers are protected), and other broadrestrictions on hunting. This has long been recognized as both needed to maintain animal populations andto prevent the much starker alternative that many animals, like deer, face if men do not hunt and killnumbers of them during hunting season: slow starvation, particularly for young fawn. Sportsmengenerally have not complained about this sort of targeted regulation and, indeed, many private huntingorganizations contribute to well-conceived conservation efforts (as well as supporting gun safetyprograms.)

After some consideration, the federal agency determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitions toban the lead content in hunting ammunition. It is, however, now considering whether it may ban lead infishing sinkers. It is difficult to know how seriously these groups are attacking the means of hunting andfishing by raising environmental concerns. People have a wide range of private opinions about huntingand fishing. Some fishermen “catch and release.” Some sportsmen prefer to track animals with a fieldcamera rather than a gun. The right of people to kill and to eat animals, however, smacks at the very heartof the moral difference between man and animals. And that seems to be the object of attack by theseenvironmental groups.

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

No serious issue of declining animal populations is at issue. By all accounts, wild-life preservation efforts,supported by voluntary help from sportsmen, have brought back once-endangered species like the BaldEagle. Nearly every animal in the wild faces natural predators, and the quick kill of a hunter is much moremerciful than the way animals kill other animals in nature. The lead that kills a buck is a fast and painlessdeath compared to what wolves or hunger would do to that animal.

Opposition to the requested EPA ban came swift and sure. The National Rifle Association in a letter said:“Simply put the Act [Toxic Substance Control Act] does not grant the EPA the authority to regulate thecomposition of any ammunition.” The National Shooting Sports Association also challenged the authorityof the EPA to regulate ammunition. Perhaps the key to understanding the EPA’s quick decision that itlacked jurisdication to consider the petition to ban lead hunting ammo is that, if it had determinedotherwise, it would have had to render a decision on the petition by October 31 — not long before theNovember elections. (It could reasonably be assumed that the EPA will take the same position on therequest to ban lead in fishing tackle.)

Like most federal agencies, the EPA seems to find the borders of its authority creeping outward all thetime. In this one instance, the issue seemed to politically too hot to handle.

(Supposed) End of U.S. Combat Role in Iraqwritten by

Speaking in a television address broadcast nationally just hours before the formal end of U.S. combatoperations in Iraq on August 31, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the nation it was a "bright day forthe people of Iraq."

The Middle East-based al Jazeera news network quoted al-Maliki’s statement that the drawdown of U.S.troops "restored Iraq’s sovereignty." Al-Maliki called the reduction and designated mission change of thetroops a victory for Iraq, saying: "It’s a day that Iraq gained back its sovereignty. Iraq is now its ownmaster. Our forces will take the lead and command combat operations after this withdrawal."

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Al Jazeera noted that the 2008 status-of-forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraqi governmentsrequires all American forces to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011 and cited a statement from al-Maliki that he expects the United States will meet that timetable.

"We were sure … that the withdrawal will take place, and we are committed to implement the final andcomplete withdrawal by the end of next year," he said.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

Reuters news reported that U.S. troop levels were cut to 50,000 before the August 31 deadline and thatthe six remaining U.S. brigades will concentrate on training Iraqi police and troops to prepare Iraq to takecharge of its own defense by the time all U.S. troops withdraw by the end of next year. The reportcontinued:

Obama promised war-weary U.S. voters he would extricate the United States from the war,launched by [former President George W. ] Bush with the stated aim of destroying Iraqi weapons ofmass destruction.

No such weapons were found. Almost a trillion dollars have been spent and more than 4,400 U.S.soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the 2003 invasion.

An article in the Los Angeles Times for August 30, “U.S. troops in Iraq go from shock and awe to ‘adviseand assist’” interviewed troops stationed with the Army’s 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rdInfantry Division about the new designation:

For this combat unit, many of whose members stormed into Baghdad seven years ago, a war thatbegan with shock and awe is ending with "advise and assist."

That’s the new label being given to the six brigades that will be left in Iraq, even if all of them aremade up of combat soldiers.

"It sounds like it’s semantics, but it’s not," 2nd Battalion commander Lt. Col. Gregory Sierra said ofthe name change. "What we do is completely different. I am an infantryman. We are a combatbrigade. But we’re assigned as an advise and assist brigade."

Troops offer Iraqi soldiers advice, and assist them, but only if asked. "Gone are the days where wehad to grab three [Iraqi] soldiers and say, ‘We’re going outside the wire.’ That does not happen,"Sierra said.

In an August 31 report, CNN quoted from a column written for the Wall Street Journal by Noah Feldman,identified as an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior adviser tothe Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Feldman wrote: "Iraq faces a raft of difficulties if it is tobecome an effective, self-governing nation, and all of them point to the need for a continuing U.S. role insecurity and beyond."

Feldman’s analysis, entitled “A Very Long Engagement,” carried an ominous subhead: “It took 35 yearsfor democracy to take hold in South Korea, and U.S. troops could be in Iraq just as long. Noah Feldman onwhy the draw-down is a beginning and not an end.”

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

After recounting that following the cessation of hostilities on the Korean peninsula in 1953, PresidentEisenhower left tens of thousands of troops behind, and signed a treaty with the South Koreangovernment to formalize their presence, Feldman repeated the 35-year timeframe required for SouthKorea to emerge “as a stable democracy.”

Feldman did not explain how these actions (or a U.S. presence in Korea in the first place without acongressional declaration of war) were among the powers granted to any presidential administration byour Constitution, but this is not surprising, given his association with the internationalist-minded Councilon Foreign Relations (CFR). Members of the CFR have dominated U.S. foreign policy since World War II,an influence to which many observers attribute our 60-years-plus history of involvement in one undeclaredwar after another.

Among the CFR members instrumental in formulating U.S. policy from Korea through Iraq were Trumanadministration Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and George Marshall; President Eisenhower and hisSecretary of State, John Foster Dulles; John Kennedy and his Secretary of State, Dean Rusk; Bill Clintonand his Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright, both CFR members; George W.Bush administration: Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary ofDefense Robert Gates, who has continued on in the Obama administration. Under the leadership of theseindividuals, and others, the United States has sent troops without a congressional declaration of war toKorea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Considered in this historical context, Noah Feldman’s following words are not surprising:

The situation in Iraq today bears some intriguing similarities [to that at the time of the cease-fire inKorea]. The reduction of American forces in Iraq to 50,000 is thus good news — but not because it isa step closer to complete withdrawal. In the coming year, the Iraqi government (once it is formed) islikely to ask the U.S. to keep some significant number of troops in the country after the pullout dateof summer 2011. If so, President Obama may well agree, because it is just about the only way toavoid a resurgence of civil war and continue Iraq’s tenuous progress toward consolidatingdemocracy. As in South Korea — where nearly 30,000 U.S. troops remain today, almost 60 yearsafter the war ended — patience may pay off. Then there is the ethical side of the issue: If the electedIraqi government asks for help, the U.S. owes it to them to continue its commitment.

Feldman’s history is impeccable; his conclusions based on that history are indefensible. First, in whatsense would the almost unlimited patience of the American people “pay off”? What does our nation have toshow — in its own interests — for having lost the lives of over 53,000 of its finest soldiers in Korea and forthe cost of maintaining thousands more troops for almost 60 years?

What — again in America’s interests — was achieved by having lost another 58,000 lives in Vietnam?

And what has been achieved by the loss of 4,400 more lives in Iraq and 1,100 in Afghanistan, with moreadded as we write?

And Feldman writes: “If the elected Iraqi government asks for help, the U.S. owes it to them to continueits commitment.” (Emphsis added.)

Where, exactly, in the U.S. Constitution, does it state that the government of the United States has theobligation to protect any entity other than the states against invasion?

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

In the meantime, maybe all IOUs signed by government officials connected with the CFR should be mailedto Feldman and his associates at the CFR’s headquarters in New York.

Read also:

In Defiance of the Constitution, 49,000 Troops Still Deployed in Iraq

First U.S. Soldier Killed in Iraq Since “Withdrawal” of Combat Troops

Iraq “Withdrawal”: Building Hillary Clinton an Army

Photo: U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, left, walks with Gen. Ray Odierno, right, as he arrived in Baghdad,Iraq on Aug. 30, 2010.: AP Images

Michelle Obama’s Federal Fat Farmwritten by Michael Tennant

ObamaCare makes every American’s health the government’s business, but Barack Obama is not the onlymember of his family interested in employing the federal government as our national nanny. His wife,Michelle Obama, is equally concerned with using her own bully pulpit and her husband’s power as ameans of whipping Americans into shape — for our own good, of course.

Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move!” campaign (www.letsmove.gov) has as its stated objective to “solve thechallenge of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at ahealthy weight.” This is indeed a worthy goal; no one wants kids to grow up overweight and ill.

However, Obama’s method of addressing this issue consists of an array of Washington-issued mandates,government-corporate collusion, federal spending, and, most disturbingly, the use of government schoolsas food police. This would be unsettling enough if she were just some think-tank guru spouting off a wish

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

list; but since she is married to the President of the United States, it is within her reach actually to imposeher agenda — and much of it is already in progress.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

Food Deserts

Among the in-progress initiatives in Obama’s agenda is the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, the purposeof which is to eliminate so-called “food deserts,” defined on the “Let’s Move!” website as “low-incomeurban and rural neighborhoods that are more than a mile from a supermarket.” The idea is that the lack ofa large grocery store limits a community’s food choices, often forcing them to shop at convenience storesand other small retailers who offer few fresh fruits and vegetables but plenty of processed, unhealthfulfoods.

The Healthy Food Financing Initiative is, according to the website, “a partnership between the U.S.Departments of Treasury, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services to invest $400 million a year toprovide innovative financing to develop healthy food retailers to underserved areas and help places suchas convenience stores and bodegas carry healthier food options.” How generous of them to “invest”hundreds of millions of other people’s dollars!

Obama has named the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Initiative, a Keystone State program that combines publicand private funding to provide grants and low-cost loans to grocers that operate in low-income areas, asan example of what the federal program should look like.

There is little evidence that Pennsylvania’s program and other similar initiatives have any significanteffects on produce consumption and obesity rates. Noting that several studies have documented a linkbetween easy access to healthful foods and both better eating habits and decreased obesity, David C.Holzman wrote in an article for Environmental Health Perspectives:

However, the actual health toll from living in a food desert environment has not been tabulated in apeer-reviewed study. Moreover, the only 2 studies that examined diets before and after grocery storeswere installed in food deserts — rather than comparing neighborhoods with grocery stores to similarneighborhoods without — are not encouraging, says Steven Haider, an associate professor ofeconomics at Michigan State University. Neil Wrigley et al. wrote in volume 35, issue 1 (2003) of BuiltEnvironment that people consumed an extra half a serving of fruit and/or vegetables daily, whileSteve Cummins et al. reported no change in the Winter 2005 issue of Planning Healthy Towns andCities. And global nutrition professor Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillsays a January 2009 workshop he chaired at the Institute of Medicine on the public health effects offood deserts “could find no evidence that adding new retail stores to depressed areas changed whatpeople consumed.”

In other words, the Healthy Food Financing Initiative is nothing more than a feel-good program that usestaxpayers’ money to help politically favored businesses locate in areas that are otherwise unsuitable fortheir operations. As with most public-private partnerships, profits will be privatized and losses socialized.

Federal Food Monitor

In a July 13 web chat in which Obama answered questions from concerned Americans, she said, “I thinkwe’re living in a time when a lot of people in communities don’t know what healthy should look like…. I’m

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

sure that most parents think that they’re making the right decisions for their children only to find thatwhat they’ve been buying for lunch is full of added sugars and salts, and we’ve got to make it easier forfamilies to do the right thing.”

Her means of making things easier for families is, not surprisingly, more government regulations.Specifically, she wants “things like improving front-of-package labeling so that parents don’t have tosquint and figure out big, unusual words to determine whether something is healthy or not.” She lateradded that the Food and Drug Administration is working on “agreements” with food producers to changetheir front-of-package labeling. Similarly, she said that the government has “gotten some significantcommitments from retailers that have committed to reducing the amounts of sugar, fat, and salt in ourfood.”

Of course, “agreements” and “commitments” with the government are about as voluntary as those madewith the local mob boss. Companies agree to “voluntarily” regulate themselves to Washington’s liking inan effort to stave off harsher government regulations with actual penalties attached. The FDA has alreadysent out “warning letters” to 17 manufacturers of food products, giving them 15 business days to informthe FDA of how they intend to correct such violations of federal law as “unauthorized health claims,unauthorized nutrient content claims, and the unauthorized use of terms such as ‘healthy,’ and others thathave strict, regulatory definitions,” according to a March 3 FDA press release. Commissioner of Food andDrugs Margaret Hamburg had previously warned companies to get with the FDA’s program or facepenalties.

Big businesses, too, take the opportunity to work out such agreements in an effort to prevent smallercompetitors, who do not have the resources to meet the new requirements, from becoming serious threatsto them. Not for nothing did Obama receive a standing ovation when she spoke to the GroceryManufacturers Association in March, seemingly to harangue food producers about improving their labelsand making their foods more nutritious. In fact, she tipped her hand when, near the end of her speech, shesaid:

So I hope all of you will help support our efforts. I hope that you’ll embrace this future, because reallythat’s what this industry has always done. Just think back to the early part of the last century whenfood manufacturers helped pass the first major federal law establishing basic standards for our food,beverages, and drugs. Back then, consumers had little protection against unscrupulousmanufacturers who tainted their products with all sorts of chemicals and fillers. When these abusescame to light, Congress responded, drafting the 1906 Food and Drug Act. And instead of opposingthat law and instead of viewing it as a threat, many manufacturers decided to embrace it.

The fact of the matter is that many food manufacturers got behind the Pure Food and Drugs Act becausethey saw it as a way to eliminate their competition, as Jim Powell documented in his book Bully Boy: TheTruth About Theodore Roosevelt’s Legacy.

Powell maintains that “there was no food crisis.” He points out that the food supply had been gettingsteadily safer for decades because of private entrepreneurs’ advances in canning, preserving,refrigeration, and transportation.

However, that did not stop the Bureau of Chemistry’s chief chemist, Harvey Washington Wiley, fromlaunching a crusade for a pure-food law on behalf of his political allies, including straight whiskeyproducers, one of whom sent him a complimentary case of rye whiskey for his efforts; sugar producers, for

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

whom he lobbied for high sugar tariffs and who protected him from political enemies; and even the H.J.Heinz company, for whom Wiley promoted a ketchup monopoly. Once the law was passed, Wiley used itespecially to benefit sugar producers, going after saccharin, corn syrup, and Coca-Cola (because Cokebought its sugar from a rival to one of Wiley’s close allies).

Powell cites a report by economists Clayton A. Coppin and Jack High, which concluded that Wiley’senforcement of the act “did not improve the health of the consumer, the plane of competition amongproducers, or the honesty and integrity of government officials. If anything, Wiley’s enforcement worsenedthe ability of consumers to make informed judgments about food and drugs.”

Are the current efforts by the federal government to change food labeling and contents any more likely tosucceed in improving consumers’ ability to determine the healthfulness of food? No, but they will succeedin raising the cost of doing business and in giving the government another bludgeon with which to beatcompanies that don’t play ball with the Washington political class.

Private Endorsements

In her web chat Obama said, “Kids are malleable, and they’re also open to learn.” With that in mind, she isseeing to it that her message is communicated to them in a variety of ways.

For example, she said, “We want to see every major sports league in this country finding a way to invest inthe health of our kids. I want to see every athlete, every Olympian in a school.” To that end, she appearedat a baseball clinic at the home of the Baltimore Orioles and “announced that [Major League Baseball] andthe MLB Players Association will team with the White House in the Let’s Move campaign,” according to aJuly 20 Associated Press report. Thirty ballplayers have agreed to appear in public service announcementsfor Obama’s initiative. The New York Mets have already sent players to local schools, where, according toa press release, “players joined students in fitness programs in support of First Lady Michelle Obama’sLet’s Move campaign to combat childhood obesity through exercise and nutrition.”

Another of Obama’s means of getting the word out is through television shows with juvenile audiences. “Ihope that we’re seeing more marketing of healthy foods to our kids so that we start seeing some of ourpartners like Disney and others taking a step and ensuring that we’re having conversations with our kidsin the venues that they love best, those Disney shows, and we’re talking about nutrition,” Obama said inher web chat.

Disney has, in fact, already gotten on board, using its media juggernaut to spread Obama’s message. AFebruary 9 Disney press release explained:

Disney will create a series of PSAs [Public Service Announcements] featuring the First Lady andleading Disney Channel stars to inspire healthier eating habits, physical activity and more. Themessages will be featured across Disney’s kid and family targeted media platforms, including DisneyChannel, Disney XD, Radio Disney, and Disney.com and will begin airing later this year….

At least one episode of each [Disney Channel] series currently in production — including “HannahMontana,” “Wizards of Waverly Place,” “Sonny With a Chance,” “Zeke and Luther,” “Phineas and Ferb”and “The Suite Life on Deck” — centers on a healthy lifestyle theme. In addition, over 100 interstitialshave been dedicated to encouraging healthier lifestyles. They include “Pass the Plate,” a global effort toboth inform and empower viewers, showing them how kids just like them around the world enjoy and

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

benefit from healthy foods, and “Get’cha Head in the Game,” an interstitial series that inspires kids tofollow their dreams through physical activity.

This is not just a few harmless PSAs to show that the company supposedly cares about its audience; it’s amajor media campaign requiring a great deal of trouble and expense. Even if it does center solely onnutrition and fitness, it shows the lengths to which big media corporations will go to indoctrinate kids withthe government’s message, especially if they think there’s good publicity in it for them. What mightDisney, Major League Baseball, and other corporate entities with great influence over children do topromote other government priorities, even those explicitly opposed by those same children’s parents?Vigilance is required.

Nutrition and Nonsense

Furthermore, how valid is the nutritional advice the government has to offer anyway? Federal nutritionalstandards have always been subject to political pressure. Powell mentions that Wiley — who, again, had avested interest in seeing the sugar industry prosper — “encouraged Americans to consume more sugar….‘Childhood without candy,’ he remarked, ‘would be Heaven without harps.’”

The USDA Food Pyramid, too, is hardly immune to politics. The Wall Street Journal described the lobbyingthat took place when the USDA’s dietary guidelines came up for their pentennial review in 2002 — “anexercise,” said the Journal, “that attracts not only critics from the world of medicine but industry lobbyistsand those promoting the virtues of various food groups and diets.”

Some medical researchers criticized the pyramid’s emphasis on grains at the expense of fruits andvegetables, possibly due to the influence of the grain lobby. Others complained that the pyramid waseither too critical of fats or failed to indicate that dairy products — dairy farmers have a powerful lobby,too — should be consumed in low-fat varieties.

Meanwhile, wrote the Journal, “During the last revision, the advisory committee considered changing the1995 recommendation of adhering to a diet ‘moderate’ in salt and sugar to ‘eating less salt and sugar.’The powerful sugar industry fought the change, and the guidelines now tell consumers to ‘moderate yourintake of sugars.’ (The ‘less salt’ revision stuck.)” A 2004 Journal article explained how lobbyists workedto keep sugar, potatoes, and bread in the pyramid before the next revision.

The current version of the pyramid has also been criticized for its seeming genuflections to specialinterests, such as the prominence of dairy products, which are not necessarily essential to a healthy diet(as the health of many of those who abstain from dairy products attests).

Thus, even if one trusts media conglomerates not to fill young skulls full of mush with more controversialgovernment propaganda, it still remains the case that telling kids to follow the feds’ nutritional advicecould be hazardous to their health.

Obama’s primary avenue for fighting childhood obesity is clearly the public schools. The “Let’s Move!”website emphasizes them greatly, and Obama did so as well in her web chat. Asked what progress towardher goal she envisioned in the next five years, Obama said, “In five years I hope to see us making progressin our school lunches. I hope that we have a viable and well-funded school nutrition act, child nutritionact, and that we’re seeing the quality go up in our schools, we’re seeing more education going on aroundnutrition in our schools. We want to see more schools participating in community gardens and being the

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

place where kids are gonna get their first taste of fresh fruit and vegetables and understand how thatgrows.”

The child nutrition reauthorization act of which Obama speaks was passed by the House Education andLabor Committee on July 15, an act for which Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack effusively praised thecommittee on the “Let’s Move!” website. The act, if passed, will require more nutrition education inschools and force all food sold in schools, whether in the regular cafeteria line, in vending machines, a lacarte, or even in school fundraisers, to meet federal nutrition standards.

Of course, as we have already seen, those standards are somewhat less than scientific. But evensupposing they are scientifically accurate, the policy will amount to denying kids various foods thatWashington bureaucrats deem unhealthful, regardless of the health and weight of the individual child orthe wishes of his parents.

One would hope that such a policy, onerous and unconstitutional though it is, would at least have thebeneficial effect of reducing obesity and improving health among children. However, existing schoolnutrition programs premised on the same theory have been less than rousing successes, as Harriet Brownreported in a 2006 New York Times article, “Well-Intentioned Food Police May Create Havoc WithChildren’s Diets”:

Like other misguided public health campaigns … , putting children on de facto diets at school justdoesn’t work. In a 2003 experiment involving 41 schools, more than 1,700 children — many of themAmerican Indian — were served lower-calorie and lower-fat lunches and were taught about healthyeating and lifestyles.

While the children took in fewer calories from fat at school, they experienced no significant reduction intheir percentage of body fat.

Another study, in rural Nebraska in the mid-1990s, put one group of elementary school students on lower-fat and lower-sodium lunches, increased their physical activity at school and offered more education aboutnutrition. Compared with students having no special program, the active, lower-fat group showed nodifferences in body weight or fat, or in levels of total cholesterol, insulin or glucose after two years.

Researchers concluded that pupils whose school lunches offered 25 percent fat (compared with 31percent in the control group) were compensating for the reduction by eating higher-fat foods at home.

The act praised by Vilsack and Obama, officially the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act, alsoexpands the federal school lunch program to weekends, holidays, and summer vacations, thus ensuringthat taxpayers get soaked even more and that the recipients of these “free” lunches grow up to be gratefulwards of the state, disinclined to raise a ruckus about its steady encroachments upon their liberties.

Food Police

The first lady has also proposed turning schools into food police in other ways. In her web chat shesuggested that teachers eat with their students and explained why: “And if you’re sitting down at thelunch room table and you’re talking about who’s brought what for lunch and what a balanced lunch lookslike, and you’re giving them a little encouragement to eat the vegetable that is put into the lunch or to …encourage children to ask their parents to incorporate vegetables.”

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

It’s bad enough that schools already send home lists of foods that parents are forbidden to put in thechildren’s lunches. How many parents really want their kids’ teachers critiquing the lunches they havepacked?

In England the schools, prodded by a socialized healthcare system trying to cut costs, have already takento doing this. According to a July 3 report in the Daily Mail, teachers in Gloucestershire “secretlyphotographed pupils’ packed lunches over six months and analyzed the contents,” after which “staffawarded marks to the food and then showed their findings to outraged parents, offering them advice onhow to improve nutrition.”

Some British town councils have gone even further, actually banning fast-food restaurants in the vicinityof schools and preventing children from leaving school at lunchtime for fear they might eat some of thedreaded stuff, the Daily Mail reported in June.

Public schools in the United States are no slouches at the food-police business, either. For example,Houston’s KHOU TV news reported in May that a third-grader in Brazos County, Texas, was given aweek’s detention when a teacher spotted a single piece of candy in her lunch. “The school’s principal andsuperintendent said they were simply complying with a state law that limits junk food in schools,” said thereport.

Students, therefore, are already being punished by schools for running afoul of government-imposed foodrestrictions. How long will it be until parents, as in Britain, are graded on the lunches they pack and then,perhaps, penalized for failing to meet the government’s nutritional standards?

This is where “Let’s Move!” intersects with ObamaCare and other Obama Administration initiatives.

Mrs. Obama is pushing for children’s Body Mass Index to be used as a measure of their obesity or lackthereof — “never mind that B.M.I.,” as Brown reported in her Times article, “is only a measure of heightagainst weight and does not take into account muscle mass, body type or other factors.” Some schoolsalready report on students’ BMI; Mike Huckabee made it a requirement for Arkansas schools when he wasgovernor.

Meanwhile, the 2009 federal stimulus law mandates that all Americans’ health records be storedelectronically, with BMI among the many personal details required in those records — records that, by theway, can be shared with the government with very few restrictions.

Then ObamaCare establishes national standards for obesity, with behavior-modification programs andhome visitations for individuals and families who fail to live up to these standards. (Obese persons are adrag on government-run healthcare systems, after all.) Having everyone’s BMI available to federalbureaucrats will surely aid in identifying Americans who are resistant to Washington’s diet and exerciseregimen and subjecting them to behavior modification or removing their high-BMI children into thecustody of the state.

The “Let’s Move!” website offers many other detailed anti-obesity suggestions for parents, schools,mayors and local officials, community leaders, chefs, and kids. These recommendations run the gamutfrom the relatively innocuous (asking parents to provide fruit for their children’s snacks and telling kids todo jumping jacks) to the highly intrusive (setting “goals for improving healthy behaviors among [school]staff”). Then there are standard big-government solutions, such as asking local officials to encourage

TheNewAmerican.comWednesday, February 9, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

families to get their kids into the government’s school lunch program and to offer “free” (i.e., taxpayer-funded) intramural sports. The First Nanny even tells churches to “provide healthy selections” and reduceportion sizes at congregational dinners!

Mrs. Obama’s anti-childhood-obesity campaign is far from the usual First Lady fluff. It has seriousimplications for constitutional government, individual privacy, and family stability, especially whencombined with other intrusive federal programs such as ObamaCare. With the federal government alreadymorbidly obese, it is no time to be packing on another ton of unconstitutional, wasteful, intrusive, andprobably counterproductive programs. Instead, let’s move to trim this fat from Uncle Sam’s waistlinefaster than you can say Jenny Craig.

— Photo: AP Images