Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 125

Current Event

Published October 31, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Obama Orders FDA to Reduce Drug Shortages

Acting once again without Congress, President Obama on Monday was directing the Food and Drug Administration to take steps to reduce drug shortages that administration officials say have placed patients at risk and led to price gouging.

The president signed an executive order  — his fifth in a week –instructing the FDA to take action absent congressional approval. Last year, the FDA reported 178 drug shortages — mainly cancer drugs, anesthetics, electrolytes and emergency room drugs — and the agency says it continues to see an increase in shortages this year. The White House also announced Obama’s support for House and Senate legislation that would require drug makers to notify the FDA six months ahead of a potential shortage. Under current regulations, drug manufactures are only required to notify the FDA if medically necessary drugs are being discontinued. Notification of shortages is strictly voluntary.

In remarks before he signed the order, Obama said drug shortages have nearly tripled over the past five years while Congress has foundered. “Even though the FDA has successfully prevented an actual crisis, this is one of those slow-rolling problems that could end up resulting in disaster for patients and health care facilities all across the country,” he said. “Congress has been trying since February to do something about this. It has not yet been able to get it done. And it is the belief of this administration … that we can’t wait for action on the Hill.”

The executive action is part of an overarching push by the White House to portray Obama, who is facing re-election, as an effective counterpoint to congressional Republicans blocking his jobs legislation. Last week, he issued an executive order to help homeowners refinance at lower mortgage rates and to allow college graduates to simplify and lower their student loan payments.

On Friday he directed government agencies to shorten the time it takes for federal research to turn into commercial products in the marketplace.

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson responded to the series of executive actions by accusing the president of sidestepping the political process and “consent of the governed.” “They overstep the president’s constitutional boundaries. Obama can rhetorically dress this up however he likes, but his actions are not predicated on the consent of the governed, they are fueled by his desire to maintain and expand power. This is not the rule of law, but the rule of man,” ALG President Bill Wilson said in a statement.

The FDA says major causes of drug shortages are quality or manufacturing problems, or delays in receiving components from suppliers. Drug makers also discontinue certain drugs in favor of newer medications that are more profitable. The FDA does not have authority to force drug makers to continue production of a drug. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Peggy Hamburg joined Obama at the White House when he signed the executive order.

Also attending were a Boston hospital pharmacy manager who has regularly encountered drug shortages, and a 49-year-old San Francisco cancer patient who told an FDA workshop last month how he grappled with a shortage in his chemotherapy drug.

VS

President Obama vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

We the People:

This president is governing beyond powers listed in Article II, Section  2.  According to www.Usconstitution.net; “Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress….”

Why haven’t members of Congress called for enforcement through checks and balances?  Why don’t you call Representatives and Senators, and ask them?

For U.S. House of Representatives, go to http://www.house.gov/

For U.S. Senate, go to http://www.senate.gov/

The 2012 presidential election is poised to become the most expensive in American history.  President Obama has indicated that the he intends to rasie $1 billion for his reelection campaign.  This paper examines the implications that the decisions made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to reject public financing during the 2000 primary and 2008 general election will have on the future of presidential campaigns.  The passage of comprehensive campaign finance reform coupled with the decisions made by Bush and Obama to reject public financing, revolutionized American politics and contributed to the demise of public financing.

Public Financing, 1974-2008

The public financing of American presidential campaigns was inaugurated by the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act.  Corrado (1997) insisted that “the most innovative aspect of the 1974 law was the creation of an optional program of public financing for presidential general election campaigns and public matching subsidies for presidential primary campaigns” (p. 32).  Public financing provided candidates with one-for-one matching subsidies for the first $250 the candidate raises from each individual contributor, and it establishes spending limits for both primary and general election campaigns (Malbin, 2009; M. Green, 2002; Samples, 2006). Malbin (2009) suggested that “in the general election the two major party nominees may receive a flat grant that came to $84.1 million in 2008” (p. 1).

According to Malbin (2009) the purpose of federal financing is threefold: allowing the underdog candidates to remain competitive; generating more competition in presidential primaries; and encouraging candidates to broaden their fundraising bases. The public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check-off on individual tax returns (Fleishman, 1975; Malbin, 2009).  The number of citizens donating to the presidential election fund has steady declined since the 1980s (Malbin, 2009).  In 2008 less than six percent of American taxpayers contributed to the voluntary presidential campaign fund (Malbin, 2009).  The remainder of this paper examines the impact that the decisions made by George W. Bush in the 2000 primary and Barack Obama in the 2008 general election to reject public financing, will have on the future of presidential campaigns; and the role fundraising will play in the 2012 presidential election.

Bush, Obama, and the demise of public financing

In 2000, George W. Bush became the first presidential candidate to reject public financing for a presidential primary campaign.  J. Green and Corrado (2003) insisted that President Bush’s decision to reject public financing for his 2000 Republican primary campaign revolutionized American politics.  Bush (2010) posited that accepting public financing would have limited the amount of money he could spend on his primary campaign, and prevented him from winning the Republican nomination.  Public financing forced candidates to abide by spending caps and limited the amount of money they could spend on their campaigns (J. Green & Corrado, 2003; Malbin, 2009; Abramson, Aldrich, & Rhode, 2003).  Rejecting public financing allowed candidates to raise unlimited amounts of money and exponentially increase their chances of capturing their party’s nomination (J. Green & Corrado, 2003).

George W. Bush’s decision to reject public financing for the 2000 Republican primary transformed American politics.  Parti (2011) found that four years later, George W. Bush, Howard Dean, and John Kerry all rejected public financing for their primary campaigns.  What is more, in 2008, Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul all rejected public financing during the primaries (Parti, 2011; J. Green & Kingsbury, 2011).  If candidates intend to compete in future presidential primaries or general election campaigns, it will be imperative that they reject public financing (Ceaser, Busch, & Pitney, Jr., 2009; Parti, 2011).  Nothing has done more to transform political campaigns than the decisions made by the aforementioned candidates to reject public financing during the primaries.

History was made in 2008 when Senator Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to reject public financing for the general election campaign.  Barack Obama’s decision to reject public financing allowed him to raise more money than any other presidential candidate in history: 742.6 million (Ceaser et al., 2009; Heileman and Halperin, 2010).  Had Senator Obama accepted public financing, the amount of money he would have been allowed to spend on his campaign would have been capped at $84.1 million (Ceaser et al., 2009).  Ceaser et al. (2009) found that in the final week of the campaign, Obama outspent John McCain, who accepted public financing—by a colossal $100 million.  Being that Senator McCain was constrained by public financing, the amount of money he could spend on the get-out-the-vote efforts and television advertisements in key swing states was severely limited (Corrado, 2011; Ceaser et al., 2009).  As the reader can discern from the myriad statistics provided, the 2008 presidential election contributed to the demise of public financing.

Barack Obama’s ability to raise nearly $750 million during the 2008 presidential election indicates that public financing is no longer viable (Malbin, 2009; Haynes & Pitts, 2009).  If the Republican nominee intends to compete with President Obama in 2012, it will be imperative that they reject public financing (Roarty, 2011).  In addition to the demise of public financing, the 2008 presidential election was symbolic in another regard: it proved that candidates will need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars if they intend to win the presidency (Ceaser et al., 2009; Kenski, Hardy, & Jamieson, 2010; Edwards & Wayne, 2010).  The profound emphasis placed on fundraising runs counter to the intentions of the Federal Elections Campaign Finance Act of 1971: to limit the influence of money in politics (Magleby, 2010; Boatright, 2009).  It is evident from Barack Obama’s near-landslide victory in the 2008 presidential election, that fundraising will be of paramount importance in future presidential elections.

Fundraising and Public Financing in the 2012 Presidential Election

As noted in the introduction, the 2012 presidential election is poised to be the most expensive in American history.  Barack Obama has made it abundantly clear that he intends to raise and spend in excess of $1 billion, on his reelection campaign (Allen, 2011; Cillizza, 2011; Kavangh, 2010).  According to Open Secrets (2011), Barack Obama has already raised $150 million for his 2012 presidential campaign.  In 2008, Barack Obama raised more money than any other candidate in presidential history: $742.6 million (Ceaser et al., 2009; Heileman & Halperin, 2010).  Of that total, nearly $600 million came from contributions by individuals (Corrado, 2011; Magleby, 2010; Sabato, 2010).

If Barack Obama is able to raise $1 billion in 2012, it will be difficult for the Republican candidate to compete in pivotal swing states.  As aforementioned, in 2008, Barack Obama outspent John McCain in key swing states by $100 million (Boatright, 2009; Schier & Box-Steffensmeier, 2009).  If the Republican nominee intends to compete with Barack Obama in 2012, it is imperative that they place a profound emphasis on fundraising.

Roarty (2011) posited that if the Republican nominee intends to defeat Barack Obama in 2012, it is imperative that they reject public financing.  By accepting public financing in 2008, the amount of money John McCain could spend in the general election was capped at $84.1 million (Magleby, 2010; Malbin, 2008; Parti, 2011).  What is more, Ceaser et al (2009) found that by accepting public financing, McCain was outspent in key swing states (Indiana, 7-1; Ohio, 2-1; North Carolina, 3-2; and Virginia, 4-1).  By rejecting public financing, the GOP nominee will be able to raise an unlimited amount of money, and compete with President Obama in each of the aforementioned states.

Perhaps the most important fundraising strategy for the Republican nominee to employ is raising money in small increments.  According to Rove (2010), both the Bush and Obama campaigns received copious amounts of money from small donors.  Research by Malbin (2008) found that Barack Obama raised $452 million in donations of $200 or less.  Four years earlier, George W. Bush raised $256 million from contributions of $200 or less (Ceaser & Busch, 2005; Coffey & Green, 2007; Malbin, 2008).  Online fundraising is paramount in American presidential campaigns (Johnson, 2007; Winograd & Hais, 2008).  Gingrich (2010) found that in order to defeat President Obama in 2012, the Republican nominee must develop an online fundraising presence, and be able to raise large sums of money in small increments.

By adhering to the three pronged fundraising strategy outlined in this section, the Republican nominee will be able to compete with Barack Obama, and increase their chances of winning the presidency. As the reader can discern from the myriad information provided, Barack Obama’s ability to raise $750 million during the 2008 presidential election, contributed to the demise of public financing.  It appears certain that all future presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, will eschew public financing.  In order to prevail in contemporary presidential campaigns, candidates must raise copious amounts of money.

Concluding Remarks

The decisions made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to reject public financing, contributed to its demise.  It is evident fro, this paper that money is the driving force behind political campaigns and American public policy.  The findings of this paper, it is hoped, have provided valuable new insights into the influence of money in politics.  Furthermore, the author sought to provide an extensive analysis of fundraising in the 2012 presidential election.  The 2012 presidential election will be the most expensive in American history.  In order to compete with Barack Obama, conservatives will have to rally behind a candidate, and place a profound emphasis on fundraising.  An anemic fundraising campaign by conservatives will guarantee an Obama victory in 2012.

References

Abramson, P.R., Aldrich, J.H., & D.W. Rohde. (2003). Change and continuity in the 2000 and 2002 elections. Washington, D.C: Congressional Quarterly.

Allen, M. (2011, August 25). Obama 2012 launches project vote. Politico. Retrieved from             http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html

Armstrong, J., & Moulitsas, M. (2006). Crashing the gate: Netroots, grassroots, and the rise of  people-powered politics. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Boatright, R.G.(2009). Campaign finance in the 2008 election. In Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., & Schier, S. (Eds.), The American elections of 2008 (pp. 137-161). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Bush, G.W. (2010). Decision points. New York: NY, Crown Publishing.

Ceaser, J.W., & Busch, A.E. (2005). Red over blue: The 2004 elections and American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ceaser, J.W., Busch, A.E., & Pitney, J.J., Jr. (2009). Epic journey: The 2008 elections and  American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Cillizza, C. (2010, December 12). Obama’s reelection campaign could hit billion-dollar mark. The Washington Post. Retrieved from  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html

Coffey, D.J., & Green, J.C. (2007). The state of parties: Change and continuity in 2004. The state of parties: The changing role of contemporary American politics (5^th ed.), (pp. 1-15).   Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Corrado, A. (1997). Money and politics: A history of campaign finance law. In Corrado, A., Mann, T.E., Ortiz, D.R., Potter, T., & Sorauf, F.J. (Eds.), The new campaign finance sourcebook (pp. 27-60). Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute Press.

_________ . (2011). Financing the 2008 presidential election. In Magleby, D.B., & Corrado, A.   (Eds.), Financing the 2008 election (pp. 127-166). Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute     Press.

Edwards, III, G.C., & Wayne, S. (2010). Presidential leadership: Politics and policy making (8^th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Fleishman, J.L. (1975). The 1974 Federal Elections Campaign Act Amendments: The        shortcomings of good intentions. Duke Law Journal, (4), 851-899. Retrieved from  http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/pdfplus/1372084.pdf?acceptTC=true

Gingrich, N. (2010). To save America: Stopping Obama’s secular-socialist machine. Washington, D.C: Regnery.

Green, J.C., & Corrado, A. (2003). The impact of BCRA on campaign finance.  In Malbin, M.J.   (Ed.), Life after reform: When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act meets politics (pp.      175-199). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Green, J.C., & Kingsbury, D. (2011). Financing the 2008 presidential nomination campaigns. In   Magleby, D.B., & Corrado, A. (Eds.), Financing the 2008 election (pp. 86-127).  Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute Press.

Green, M. (2002). Selling out: How big corporate money buys elections, rams through legislation, betrays our democracy. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Haynes, A., & Pitts, B. (2009). Making an impression: New media in the 2008 presidential nomination campaigns. PS: Political Science and Politics 42(1), 53-58. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/224982207/fulltextPDF/131DB1B          049D794D9313/13?accountid=11243

Heilemann, J., & Halperin, M. (2010). Game change: Obama, the Clintons, McCain and Palin,                 and the race of a lifetime. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Johnson, D.W. (2007). No place for amateurs: How political consultants are reshaping American democracy (2^nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kavangh, T. (2010, December 13). Obama’s 2012 campaign fundraising could top $1 billion. Politics Daily. Retrieved from

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/13/obamas-2012-campaign-fundraising-could-top-  1-billion/

Kenski, K., Hardy, B.W., & Jamieson, K.H. (2010). The Obama victory: How media, money, and message shaped the 2008 elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Magleby, D.B. (2010). The change election: Money, mobilization, and persuasion in the 2008 federal elections. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Malbin, M. (2008, November 24). Reality check: Obama raised about the same percentage from   small donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004. Retrieved from http://www.cfinst.org/press/PReleases/08-11-24/Reality_Check_-            _Obama_Small_Donors.aspx

________. (2009, April 5). Small donors, large donors and the internet: The case for public financing after Obama. Retrieved from http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/PresidentialWorkingPaper_April09.pdf

Open Secrets (2011). 2012 presidential candidate fundraising summary. Retrieved from              http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/summary.php

Parti, T. (2011, August 5). Will 2012 be the end of the presidential public financing system? Retrieved from

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/08/the-end-of-presidential-public-financing.html

Roarty, A. (2011, April 21). Campaign finance will go largely unregulated in 2012. National Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/872165804/fulltext/131DB288BA  E7A498734/6?accountid=11243

Rove, K. (2008, December 3). McCain could not compete with Obama’s money. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835139848377873.html

_______. (2010). Courage and consequence: My life as a conservative in the fight. New York, NY: Threshold Editions.

Sabato, L.J. (2010). The year of Obama: How Barack Obama won the White House. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman.

Samples, J. (2006). The fallacy of campaign finance reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago  Press.

Schier, S.E., and Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. (2009). The general election campaign. In Schier, S.E., & Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. (Eds.), The American elections of 2008 (pp. 55-79).  Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Semiatin, R.J. (2008). Voter mobilization—into the future.  In Semiatin, R.J. (Ed.), Campaigns    on the cutting edge (85-103). Washington, D.C: Congressional Quarterly.

Trent, J.S., & Friedenberg, R.V. (2007). Political campaign communication: Principles and  practices (6^th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Vargas, J.A. (2008, November 20). Obama raised half a billion online. The Washington Post. Retrieved from                  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/20/obama_raised_half_a_billion_on.html

Walensky, R. (2007, November 6). Ron Paul sets online fundraising record with $4.2 million in    one day.  Retrieved from

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308404,00.html

Winograd, M., & Hais, M.D. (2008). Millennial makeover: MySpace, YouTube, & the future of      American politics. New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers University Press.

Rep. David Craig interview, part 2

This interview features Representative David Craig of Wisconsin’s eighty-third Assembly district.  Representative Craig won a special election in 2011 and is currently serving his first term in the state legislature.  The interview was conducted by PAI Commentary Associate, Ken Van Doren, who can be reached at commentary.associate@paxamericanainstitute.org.

This holiday weekend we stand proudly as Americans, knowing that their commitment and their sacrifice has been offered with the purest and most honest of intentions—to advance the causes of liberty and natural law for all mankind.  Memorial Day is a time for recollection, remembrance, and unity.  What is more, it is a time for Americans to put their political, religious, and cultural differences aside, and unite behind the principles we all cherish: freedom, liberty, opportunity, and natural rights.  This weekend, we are not Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, Lutherans, Catholics, Jews, or Baptists, we are Americans.

Abraham Lincoln, arguably America’s most beloved president, opined in his now infamous House Divided Speech, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Today, fellow Americans, if we allow our political views to interfere with our love of country, the United States of America, will cease to exist. The greatest challenge facing America in the twenty-first century is quelling internal strife and preventing the demise of our republic.  This Memorial Day it is imperative that we refrain from incendiary rhetoric and criticizing those with opposing viewpoints; and, instead, reflect on what it means to be an American.

This weekend is a time to honor the brave men and women who have devoted their lives to defending freedom and preserving the way of life each of us has come to cherish.  Since the time of our founding America has been the greatest bastion of hope, freedom, opportunity, and liberty in the world.   Today, thanks to the gallantry of American servicemen and women, these principles remain the bedrock of our society.   Millions of citizens worldwide have slipped the bonds of oppression and tyranny, as a result of America’s commitment to expanding freedom, opportunity, and liberty.

We hope that you will join us in thanking the men and women of the armed forces for their service and willingness to protect freedom at all costs.  In particular, we salute those who, even now, are walking post on the front lines of real wars against the enemies of liberty.  We promise that we will always remember our brothers who have given their lives in the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of freedom.

In summation, Pax Americana Institute encourages you to join us in remembering and honoring the countless men and women who have given the last measure of devotion to ensure that the United States of America remains the greatest beacon of freedom the world has ever known. Honoring the men and women who have died for the cause of freedom should be our foremost priority this holiday weekend.  So long as our people remain united, America will remain the greatest and most robust nation in world history.

Denigrated, vilified, rights infringed upon? That is indeed a bold statement from a president, who, since the day he was elected, has infringed on the freedom of the people of the United States, even when the majority of the American people have said do not infringe on our rights. Does ObamaCare, government overspending,and  sharing the wealth come to mind?

Unless you are a public employee, it seems okay to President Obama that the rest of us can have our rights denigrated, vilified or infringed upon.  It is evident by President Obama ordering his Attorney General to drop charges on the New Black Panthers, who were caught on videotape intimidating voters during the 2008 Presidential election. If the intimidated voters were public employees the Black Panthers would have stood trial. If any of the voters were public employees they may have a new lawsuit to bring.

Public employees should keep their rights, President Obama says so. The debate over public employee rights, specifically collective bargaining, continues in Wisconsin and across the nation. This debate is perpetuated by the total corruption of the terms “rights” and “privileges” by the unions, liberals, politicians and the liberal media.  This is an “educational moment”, to coin a term used by President Obama. Lets define a “right”, as is illustrated in the writing, WHAT IS A RIGHT by Fulton Huxtable; Fatal Blindness (FR archives) ^ | 06/14/99 |

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a “right” for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special “rights” unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft…

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech…

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas…

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these “rights”—which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property…

Statists declare you have a “right” to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on. These “rights” are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others. These “rights” impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others. These “rights” force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages…

Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of independence. A statist “right” is their declaration of your dependence on others and other’s dependence on you. Until these bogus “rights” are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear.

The willingness to misuse or misstate the meaning of “rights” happened by 14 Democrat State Senators, supported by the unions and their members, who fled the state of Wisconsin to prevent passage of a budget repair bill. Their claim is they are fighting for the “rights” of public employees. This has created a constitutional crisis in the state of Wisconsin, ignoring the right of the taxpayers to a representative republic.

May all who read this, and it is your right to do so, come away with a better understanding of what a “right” truly is. It is time to regain our liberty and freedom, whether a public sector employee or private sector employee. We are Americans.

Dave Swarthout, Commentary Associate, Pax Americana Institute. commentary.associate2@paxamericanainstitute.org

REACHING NEW HEIGHTS- PAI 2010 Annual Report (Abridged for Public)

Review the above report for succinct insight into the operations and foci of PAI.

For additional Reaching New Heights highlights, please visit the bottom of the About Us page.

The House vote was largely ceremonial because its chances of becoming law are slim to none.  Democrats in the Senate have pledged to prevent the repeal legislation from being enacted into law.  Today’s vote does not change the law or dismantle the ObamaCare legislation.  In order for that to occur, Senate Democrats would have to concur with the House vote and President Obama would have to sign the repeal legislation into law—both of which scenarios appear highly unlikely.  Tomorrow, January 20, 2011, House Republicans will begin laying the groundwork for their alternative to ObamaCare.  At the time of this writing, the specifics of that proposal have yet to be unveiled by House Republican Leaders.

Shortly after today’s House vote to repeal ObamaCare, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told media outlets that he will not even take up the repeal measure in the Senate.  Even though Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had pledged to bring ObamaCare repeal to the Senate floor, with just 47 members in the Republican caucus, McConnell’s pledge is highly unlikely to be fulfilled because 60 votes are needed to bring legislation to the floor.  Despite Senator McConnell’s optimism, it appears highly improbable that the Senate will vote to repeal ObamaCare.

This past weekend, our brothers and sisters in Arizona and our entire nation suffered a terrible tragedy at the hands of a murderer.  Today, a U.S. Representative continues to fight for her life, and other victims also face a long road to recovery.  Some of our fellow citizens were taken from us, including a young girl born on the very day in 2001 when foreign villains committed another atrocity against our people.  We mourn the fallen, and our prayers are with the wounded, the families of the departed, and all others affected physically and emotionally by this horror.

We are disappointed, however, by the conduct of those who have coopted the aftermath of the incident and attempted to gain by it.  Already, there have been numerous moments of absurdity in the race to point fingers and assign blame.  Among the most ridiculous have been accusations—even from the highest ranks of the liberal left—that certain conservative statesmen encouraged the gunman to violence; that insufficient government regulation of weapons contributed to citizens’ deaths; and that the current climate of political intensity in our country, partly driven by renewed commitment to conservative ideals, somehow emboldened the perpetrator.  There is hardly a shred of credible evidence to support this outrageousness, but this has not dissuaded the left from issuing weak and desperate attacks in what should be a time of national renewal.

All the available evidence suggests that the assassin acted alone and that he likely suffered from mental illness.  There was no hidden agenda, no conspiracy, and little reason to believe that the perpetrator acted with any sort of rational plan.  Nor would even the most powerful system of legislation have prevented or deterred this madman, bent on evil and apparently remorseless even after the fact.  Thankfully, we live in a nation of peace and prosperity in which such conspiracies are rare, and there is no cause to believe that this was any exception.

Dreadful though this incident was, there is no reason to abandon the principles that we treasure.  Indeed, if anything, this occasion proved that there remain many heroes among us and that the cause of liberty is just as powerful as ever.  A quick-thinking intern helped save the life of Representative Giffords.  Several bystanders exhibited great courage under fire—at their own grocery store—and, selflessly risking their own safety, prevented greater loss of life.

With these patriots and all others who love the Republic, we are honored to stand together in love.  By this, we mean what the ancient Greeks (the founders of democracy) called philia: we love what is good, what is just, and what is virtuous.  Our institute has always remained above the partisan fray of unwarranted malicious metaphors and remains committed to producing the most professional and productive policy solutions and commentary possible.  We reject as meaningless the desperate attempts by the selfish to compromise the principles of liberty, and we remain unashamedly committed to advancing the philosophy and the policies that have made America a special place and that promise to make our people flourish for generations to come.

With our greatest sincerity,

The Officers of the Pax Americana Institute

In the face of the Great Recession, The Pax Americana Institute launched its new P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Initiative in 2010 to honor the effort of American companies to strengthen the American economy.  PATRIOT is an acronym that stands for Patriotic Advertising Theme Reflecting Innovation Or Truth.

First-year finalists naturally came from one of America’s hardest hit, though most symbolic, economic sectors–-the car industry. Both finalists were subsidiaries of The Chrysler Group, LLC, and had produced remarkably adept ads in terms of timing, inspiration and American values.

Finalists included: The Chrysler Group’s Dodge  Company for their 2010 Dodge Challenger Freedom Commercial and The Chrysler Group’s Jeep Company for their 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee “The Things We Make, Make Us” Commercial.

Mike Manley, CEO of the Jeep Brand at Chrysler Group, said the work “has been carefully designed to communicate the Jeep brand’s commitment to American craftsmanship, the return of personal pride and dedication to producing a vehicle that is truly well made and beautifully designed.”

Both ads were produced by Wieden + Kennedy, a renowned full-service, creatively driven advertising agency based in Portland, Oregon, whose clients include Coca Cola, Old Spice, EA, and Target.

You can view the Dodge Challenger and Jeep Grand Cherokee commercials here.

First-year finalists naturally came from one of America’s hardest hit, though most symbolic, economic sectors–the car industry. Both finalists are subsidiaries of The Chrysler Group, LLC, and have produced a remarkably adept ad in terms of timing, inspiration and encouragement.

Finalists include: The Chrysler Group’s Dodge  Company for their 2010 Dodge Challenger Freedom Commercial and The Chrysler Group’s Jeep Company for their 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee “The Things We Make, Make Us” Commercial.

Mike Manley, CEO of the Jeep Brand at Chrysler Group, said the work “has been carefully designed to communicate the Jeep brand’s commitment to American craftsmanship, the return of personal pride and dedication to producing a vehicle that is truly well made and beautifully designed.”

PAI will solicit the input of the public to assist the Institute’s officers in deciding on the grand winner of the Triple A Award.

Both ads were produced by Wieden + Kennedy, a renowned full-service, creatively driven advertising agency based in Portland, Oregon, whose clients include Coca Cola, Old Spice, EA, and Target.

View the Dodge Challenger and Jeep Grand Cherokee commercials and then SUBMIT YOUR VOTE for the winner by emailing  Submissions@PaxAmericanaInstitute.org with Dodge or Jeep in the Subject Line.