Op/Ed:  Benjamin Franklin wrote, “…only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”   Similarly, Daniel Webster remarked, “To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.”  

As Americans, we must not sit idly by and allow the moral decline of our society and government to destroy our Constitution nor our Republic. This is why it is necessary to assert again, with a new found vehemence, the profound words of the Declaration of Independence: “…We hold these hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Rick Santorum refers to this declaration as the Why of our nation, and the United States Constitution as the How. He acknowledges that dependence on a Higher Law, a universal absolute Truth, is what distinguishes our form of government from others and enables our nation to exist. Further he concludes that anything short of such dependence would reduce our nation to a relativistic society ruled by those who consider themselves to be elitists responsible for asserting their will on the masses.

Just as a building is incapable of standing without a solid foundation, nations likewise crumble into oblivion unless grounded on unchanging absolutes. Santorum’s explicit acknowledgement of such a foundation for our nation and the need to restore it to its prior splendor, gave credence to his agenda for taking back our nation from the hands of those who prefer an Orwellian debacle.

Included in his agenda for his Presidency are these points:

•    Repealing Obamacare – Repealing this unconstitutional law is necessary not only because it forces free citizens to purchase a commodity regardless of their freewill, but primarily because it would forever create a populace enslaved to government dependency.

•    Dignity of Human Life – Senator Santorum attests to not only the belief but the certainty that life begins at conception. In addition to defending the rights of the unborn he also defends the dignity of every human life whether elderly, infirm, or limited by other physical or cognitive impediments.

•    Job Creation – Creating a favorable environment in which the private sector is able to create and expand jobs. This reduces the unemployment rate, increase the GDP, and serves to regain our nation’s prominence in the global economy.

•    Tax Code Simplification – Simplifying the personal income tax to just two flat rates of 10% and 28% and cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 17.5% (and for business moving their operations back to the States it could be as low as 0%) can revitalize our nation’s economy and move us into economic growth rather than decline.  

I doubt anyone with a conservative political orientation questions the overwhelming significance of this Presidential election. This is why our votes in State caucuses and primaries are equally critical. In order to take back our country and return it to the principled and just nation our Founders intended it to be, we must nominate a candidate and elect a President who is committed to upholding our Constitution and the Greater Law upon which it is established. By a electing such a President, we can boldly assert with Lincoln “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”   

For a complete overview of Santorum’s plan for his Presidency, visit http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues.

1. Benjamin Franklin, Letters to Messrs. The Abbes Chalut and Arnaud, April 17, 1787.
2. Daniel Webster, Oration at Hanover, NH, July 4th, 1800.
3. The Declaration of Independence, from the Preamble, July 4th, 1776.
4. President Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863.

The untimely deaths of both Whitney Houston and Yeardley Love are consuming the public spotlight, in part fueled by media obsession.  Whitney Houston was a famous singer and actress found dead this week in the LA Hilton hotel.  Yeardley Love was a University of Virginia Lacrosse Player found dead in her dorm room in May 2010, and whose boyfriend is on trial for her murder.  How very tragic are both of these deaths, for reasons other than what is being discussed in most media.

Both of these deaths bring to the surface the number of women who get into and stay in relationships with partners who are destructive, too often ending in death. 

While Whitney Houston’s death cannot be directly linked to her bad boy
ex-husband Bobby Brown, the facts are clear that he was physically
abusive to her during their time together.  The facts are also clear
that Yeardley Love’s boyfriend had been physically abusive to her,
regardless of what happened the night of her death.  

Regardless of what these bad boys did to these two women, what the women did to themselves had more to do with their lives and in at least one of the cases, their death.  This statement is in no way intended to blame the victims, or to remove any responsibility for actions caused by anyone else, but to highlight the responsibility we each for our own health, wellness and even life.

Both of these women were accomplished and beautiful, two criteria that often equate with success in American society.  But for whatever reason, they did not live lives of fulfillment and success.  Instead, they made destructive choices that at least in part accounted for their demise.  In Houston’s case, it is reported that she struggled with drug and alcohol addiction, choices that resulted in bizarre behavior and damage to her amazing voice quality.  For Yeardley Love, her success at Lacrosse was not enough to keep her out of harm’s way with a controlling and abusive boyfriend. It is reported that both of them had more than one experience with abuse from these men, yet they did not or were not able to escape the abuse.

Why do otherwise accomplished women choose partners who aren’t just not good for them, but who are abusive?  There are likely psychological, emotional and other reasons for this, which is outside of the scope of this article.  Let’s just be practical and admit that it is possible for someone to find themselves with someone with these tendencies. 

The bigger question is what causes one to stay in a destructive relationship?  To find an answer to that question requires that we differentiate between confidence and self esteem, two words too often used interchangeably.

And where were the loved ones of these women?  Did no one know, or was it too easy to turn the other way?  Was it because others were just too busy, or too selfish to get involved?  

What could have saved these women?  Not confidence, which is externally driven.  Confidence is often the result of external factors, such as success, personal beauty and acclaim from others.  Whitney Houston and Yeardley Love both had success and personal beauty that likely resulted in confidence at different points in time.  But what about the issue of self esteem?  

Not knowing either of these women, I am unable to definitively evaluate their levels of self esteem or confidence.  At this point, they are only possible examples of the premise.  The premise is that people with high self esteem do not do damage to themselves, such as that which results in addictive and destructive behaviors.  Nor do people with high self esteem allow themselves to remain in relationships with others who are destructive or abusive.  The person with high, or healthy, self esteem has a core of self worth that does not allow others to destroy that.  

This article is not for Whitney Houston or Yeardley Love, for whom it is too late to do more than mourn their passing, but for the countless women who are in similar circumstances, who still have the time and ability to save themselves.

It is too late for Whitney Houston and Yeardley Love to recover from their bad choices.  It is also too late for my mother.

My mother was in an abusive and destructive relationship, and also died an untimely death, involving choices and addictions that ultimately destroyed her.  Therefore, this issue is more than an esoteric one for me; it is much deeper than that.

It is too late for Whitney, Yeardley and my mother, but it isn’t too late for many others in these same circumstances. 

Will they and we do what isn’t popular, but may be lifesaving? 

About the author: Patti Fralix inspires positive change in work, life and family through speaking, consulting and coaching.  She is the author of the book “How to Thrive in Spite of Mess, Stress and Less.”  She can be reached at www.fralixgroup.com.
 

“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it’s justice; that is it’s morality.” – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 19th century French philosopher

Imagine a robot hovering overhead as you go about your day, driving to and from work, heading to the grocery store, or stopping by a friend’s house. The robot records your every movement with a surveillance camera and streams the information to a government command center. If you make a wrong move, or even appear to be doing something suspicious, the police will respond quickly and you’ll soon be under arrest. Even if you don’t do anything suspicious, the information of your whereabouts, including what stores and offices you visit, what political rallies you attend, and what people you meet will be recorded, saved and easily accessed at a later date. It is a frightening thought, but you don’t have to imagine this scenario. We are only a few years away from the realization of this total surveillance society.

Congress has just passed a bill, the FAA Reauthorization Act, mandating that the Federal Aviation Administration create a comprehensive program for the integration of drone technology into the national air space by 2015. The FAA predicts that there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year. This mandate is yet another example of the political power of the military-industrial complex, Congress’ disdain for the privacy of American citizens, and the rampant growth of government. With this single piece of legislation, Congress is opening the floodgates to an entirely new era of surveillance, one in which no person is safe from the prying eyes of the government. This may prove to be the final nail in the Fourth Amendment’s coffin.

Attempts to integrate drone technology into the national air space were underway long before Congress put its stamp of approval on the FAA Reauthorization Act. In fact, the FAA authorized 313 certificates for drone operation in 2011, 295 of which were still active at the end of the year, although the agency refuses to say which organizations received the certificates and for what purposes they were used. However, we do know that the FAA had already approved drones for use by the Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Patrol (which uses the drones to conduct surveillance and counternarcotics missions), and certain state and local law enforcement operations. For example, in June 2011, a family of cattle farmers accused of stealing some cows were spied on with a Predator drone before being apprehended by police.

The fact that drones—pilotless, remote controlled aircraft that have been used extensively in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to assassinate suspected terrorists, as well as innocent civilians—are coming home to roost (and fly) in domestic airspace should come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention. The US government has a history of commandeering military technology for use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers, sound cannons and assault vehicles, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being deployed against civilians at home.

Thus, while 83% of Americans approve of the use of drones abroad, and 65% approve of using drones to assassinate suspected terrorists abroad, even if they are American citizens, it remains to be seen how those same Americans will feel when they are the ones in the sights of the drones. Needless to say, they won’t have to wait too long to find out.

While there are undoubtedly legitimate uses for drone technology, such as locating missing persons, there is no legitimate reason for the government to collect a constant stream of information on the whereabouts of Americans. However, if this drone program is implemented in the way that Congress intends, we will have drones armed with “less-lethal” weaponry, including bean bag guns and tasers, flying over political demonstrations, sporting events, and concert arenas. Eventually, these drones will be armed with the lethal weaponry that is currently being used overseas in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The power of these machines is not to be underestimated. Many are equipped with cameras that provide a live video feed, as well as heat sensors and radar. Some are capable of peering at figures from 20,000 feet up and 25 miles away. They can also keep track of 65 persons of interest at once. Some drones are capable of hijacking Wi-Fi networks and intercepting electronic communications such as text messages. The Army is currently developing drones with facial recognition software, as well as drones that can complete a target-and-kill mission without any human instruction or interaction. They are the ultimate killing and spying machines.

In addition to the privacy concerns, the safety of drone technology has been called into question. There have been a handful of high-profile crashes involving American drones abroad, including in Iran, the island nation of Seychelles, and most recently in Somalia. The Iranian government claimed they brought down the drone flying in their territory via a computer hack. This is two years after Iraqis were able to hack into the live feed of a few drones using “$26 off-the-shelf software.” Mind you, back in October 2011, the US military admitted that their drone fleet had been infected by a ‘mysterious virus.’  The faultiness of the drone technology and the fact that amateur hackers can access the controls and camera feeds are reason enough to ground these devices indefinitely.

Unfortunately, with the wars abroad winding down, America has become the new battleground in the war on terror, to the delight and profit of the military-industrial complex. In fact, with companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin making their influence felt among members of Congress (Boeing spent over $12 million lobbying in 2011, and Lockheed spent over $11 million), you can be sure that their technologies will continue to be purchased by the government, even when there is no need for them. Thus, in the same way that our domestic police forces are now armed with mini-tanks and grenade launchers taken from the military’s armory, it was simply a matter of time before drone technology made its way back home.

While most Americans are unaware of the electronic concentration camp which is slowly enveloping our society, a select few groups are working to push back against government control. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit against the FAA, demanding the records of the drone certificates which the FAA has issued to various agencies, but it is unlikely that the implementation of this technology can be stopped. Based upon the government’s positions on wiretapping, GPS tracking devices, and Internet tracking technologies, it is also unlikely that our elected officials will do anything to protect the American people from the prying eye of the American government.

We can sit around waiting for some member of Congress with a conscience or some judge concerned about the coming tyranny to push back against the drone empire from within. However, until the American people succeed in raising their collective voices against this technological tyranny, the powers that be will continue on the path to total control, and the condition of our civil liberties will become more dire with every passing day.

About the author:  Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The Freedom Wars (TRI Press) is available online at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Editor’s Note: A lengthy review by Max Hastings published by The Mail Online makes the case that years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of brutalized youths.  While the focus is England, the tail reflects both sides of the Atlantic. 

A few weeks after the U.S. city of Detroit was ravaged by 1967 race
riots in which 43 people died, I was shown around the wrecked areas by a
black  reporter named Joe Strickland.

He said: ‘Don’t you believe all that stuff people here are giving
media folk about how sorry they are about what happened. When they talk
to each other, they say: “It was a great fire, man!”’ 

I am sure that is what many of the young rioters, black and white, who have burned and looted in England through the past few shocking nights think today.

It was fun. It made life interesting. It got people to notice them. As a girl looter told a BBC reporter, it showed ‘the rich’ and the police that ‘we can do what we like’.

If you live a normal life of absolute futility, which we can assume most of this week’s rioters do, excitement of any kind is welcome. The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame.

Most have no jobs to go to or exams they might pass. They know no family role models, for most live in homes in which the father is unemployed, or from which he has decamped.

They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.

They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong.

Click here to read the full story at The Mail.

Editor’s Note:  While this report reviews last summer’s riots, the final paragraph has a compelling message for the future: 

Unless or until those who run Britain [or America] introduce incentives for decency and impose penalties for bestiality which are today entirely lacking, there will never be a shortage of young rioters and looters such as those of the past four nights, for whom their monstrous excesses were ‘a great fire, man’.

Editor’s Note: As disgraced former-Governor David Hall is appearing tomorrow to promote a book on his life and times; Mike McCarville reviews a bit of observed history.  McCarville was a reporter for the Tulsa Tribune in 1965-66 responsible for covering Tulsa County Attorney David Hall.  In 1968, McCarville became press secretary to Governor Dewey F. Bartlett. In mid-1970, he moved to Bartlett’s reelection campaign, In 1972, McCarville was press secretary in Bartlett’s successful campaign for the U.S. Senate. In 1977, he was named manager of Bartlett’s reelection campaign, which ended with Bartlett’s increasingly debiliating lung cancer.

I’ve always liked David Hall, although I never trusted him.

I saw him daily for about 18 months when he was Tulsa County Attorney,
wrote extensively about him and admired his prodigious memory for names
and the recall of events while noting his ambition often interfered with
his judgment.  Hall and I shared one connection; his wife, Jo, is a
native of Morrilton, Arkansas, 20 miles from Conway, where I spent 10 of
my youngest years.  I found Hall to be ambitious and devious.

I served Governor Dewey Bartlett off and on for almost 10 years. When I was his press secretary in the Governor’s Office, I also was his constant traveling companion and chief letter writer and his most trusted confidant (I have been told). From January 1971 through December 1972, I spoke with Bartlett hundreds of times, in person or on the phone. He often called to ask my opinion on topics, or to discuss politics in general and his political future in particular.
 
Our defeat in Bartlett’s bid to be reelected governor in 1970 was a bitter pill to swallow. David Hall beat us by just 2,200 votes statewide. That’s less than one vote per precinct. During that campaign, Bartlett refused to campaign very much; he insisted that by being governor, voters would recognize his dedication and reelect him. I also suspect he felt that campaigning too much was beneath the dignity of the office he held.
 
Following our defeat, Bartlett was disappointed and angry, but not at voters or Hall; he was most upset with himself, he indicated to me. He blamed himself for not playing a larger role in the reelection campaign, managed by his former administrative assistant, Wayne Rowley. I blamed myself, because during the campaign, I was visited by old friend Mike Hammer, reporter for The Daily Oklahoman-Oklahoma City Times. We had a pleasant, personal (I thought) conversation about politics and the campaign. It didn’t occur to me we were on the record and Hammer never displayed a notebook. The next day, Hammer wrote about the governor’s race in a Page One story and quoted me as discussing how we’d handle voters “out in the sticks.” While I meant no disrespect to rural citizens, Democrats and Hall’s campaign wasted no time using my quote against Bartlett. Did the quote cost us 2,200 votes? I don’t know, but it is entirely possible.
 
Following our defeat in 1970, Bartlett began to consider seeking a seat in the U. S. Senate. He called frequently to discuss it with me, sometimes asking for insight into those he was planning to contact and to discuss who he should contact. He made one such call in the early spring of 1971. He told me he already had spoken with Oklahoma Republicans he believed essential to a run for the Senate, including oilman Lew Ward of Enid and rancher and good friend Skip Healey of Davis, a longtime party stalwart. Among those I recommended he contact were Buehl Berentson, executive director of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and those involved in President Nixon’s reelection campaign. The point person there was Attorney General John Mitchell, although I recommended Bartlett speak with Herb Klein, Nixon’s communications director who had become our friend and had made a trip to Oklahoma to attend a meeting I arranged. I suspect, but don’t know for certain, that Klein referred Bartlett to Mitchell.
 
Bartlett subsequently did talk to Berentson and Mitchell in person and Bartlett told me both were “really supportive” of his possible candidacy. Bartlett especially liked the affable Berentson, but personally didn’t care much for Mitchell.
 
So, imagine my surprise when Hall, seeking to clear his name almost 40 years after his fall from grace and a federal prison term, and claiming his innocence, alleges he was the victim of a vendetta by Bartlett and Mitchell and as proof, he cites the meeting between Bartlett and Mitchell. (I suspect Hall has deluded himself into believing his conviction was the nefarious work of those out to get him for political reasons. He’s wrong.)
 
Fiction. His political slander of  dead men who can’t speak for themselves speaks volumes of his motives.
 
In all my conversations with Bartlett, he never mentioned David Hall; he had put the unplesant chapter in his life behind him. And it would have been unlike Bartlett to carry a grudge or engage in any kind of vendetta. As his former administrative assistant, Don Cogman of Scottsdale, Arizona, told me in an email, “this would have been very much out of character for him to do such a thing.”
 
Hall, now 81 and living in California, where he located after his release from federal prison, writes in his book, Twisted Justice (Tate Publishing), that Bartlett and Mitchell conspired to persecute him. In a newspaper interview published last Sunday, it is reported that Hall “says now that Bartlett and former U. S. Attorney John Mitchell met not long after Hall took office and talked about investigating him. That is why, Hall says, federal prosecutors in the Nixon administration hounded him throughout his tenure.”
 
Hall offers no proof of his claim about what Bartlett and Mitchell discussed and I challenge him to produce any.
 
Hall says he worked on the book for years. It is published now, when those against whom he makes claims are dead and can’t speak for themselves.
 
Hall is right about one thing; Bartlett and Mitchell did meet. Beyond that, his conspiracy-to-get-me claim is fiction, the delusional allegation of a disgraced politician.

Publisher’s Point: Invited to attend David Hall’s event at the OU Center for Democracy and Culture this Tuesday, I declined for several reasons.  First, the invitation says the event is to hear "about his life after he left the governor’s office," but I don’t really care what a criminal may want to say years later to defend his crime(s).  Last time I heard, David Hall was selling automobiles in California after his release from prison.  Second, my parents owned and operated a flower shop when I was growing up and I remember them ranting for years about David Hall’s campaign ordering extensive decorations and not paying the bill.  That is why I never extend credit to a campaign – any campaign.  As a photographer, writer, communications consultant, campaign manager or for the purchase of advertising; the policy is CIA (Cash In Advance) especially if the politician is an attorney.

Yes Mr. Hall, we remember you.