Liberty Counsel Summary of House ObamaCare Bill

Liberty Counsel is a libertarian law firm that at times also behaves as a think tank.

They have put out a summary of the House health reform bill (HR3200) which you can read at the following links.

Special thanks to IUSB Vision Editor Emeritus Jarrod Brigham for the links

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1015

PDF – http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf

HTML – http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=19319

FULL TEXT – http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

The Fourth Party Candidate

It has been said that Ross Perot handed Bill Clinton a victory over George Bush and that Ralph Nader handed George W. Bush a victory over Al Gore. This is precisely the reason that a third party candidate will never be successful.

The answer to cracking the oligopoly that is the American political system is the fourth party candidate. In the previous elections, Pat Buchanan was a tool of the Democratic Party to defeat Bob Dole and Ralph Nader was a tool of the Republican Party to defeat Al Gore.  Did you know that registered Republicans were getting petitions signed to get Nader on the ballot?  Democrats were doing the same thing for Buchanan.

This may be the year for the dawn of new era. If Obama can pull off a victory over Hillary Clinton, and all the signs are pointing to that scenario, look for Senator Clinton to run for President anyways. Her narcissism will not allow her to concede defeat to Senator Obama. Equally, there is a disturbance in the Republican Party. Many conservatives do not like John McCain. Beyond McCain, many conservative Christians are beyond frustration with the Republican Party. For too many years we have been promised an end to the Roe v. Wade decision. Put this all together and there is a perfect storm brewing in Washington. If Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both end up running for President, look for the conservatives to run their own fourth party candidate.

Neither the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, nor the Reform Party have the backing to run a competitive race.  However, if the far left, moderate left, moderate right, and far right all had a candidate, there could be a competitive four-way race. Senators Obama and Clinton have shown that they can each garner a fifty percent split of the liberal votes. If there were no Mitt Romney, Huckabee could have taken McCain all the way to the convention.

Conservative Christians, most of whom belong to the Moral Majority, could run a candidate who could gain nearly 30% of a popular vote. That would be enough to win a four-way race. Some names that immediately surface that could run as that candidate are James Dobson and Pat Robertson. Don’t count on either of them, they have a following, but I don’t think they have Presidential aspirations anymore. Gary Bauer is the next logical choice, but he has already endorsed John McCain. No, the fourth party candidate would need to be solidly pro-choice, pro-second amendment, and not entrenched in the Republican Party, which is why Mike Huckabee would not be the right choice.

I cannot honestly say who should be the candidate, but I can offer up a couple of names. At the top of my list would be someone like Jay Sekulow. So, who is Jay Sekulow? He is the head of the American Center for Law and Justice, the Conservative Christian answer to the ACLU. For years, Sekulow has been an advocate for defending the Constitution. He has the connections in Washington from many years working with conservative politicians writing up bills to be made into laws. He would fit the above mentioned profile, but name recognition would hold him back.

Another name at the top of the list would be Colonel Oliver North. Col. North is extremely popular among the servicemen and women. His credentials as being pro-second amendment and pro-Christian cannot be questioned. He also has a connection to Ronald Reagan, which anyone on the conservative ticket must have.

If you trust exit polling taken at all in the primaries and caucuses, you know that Obama supporters do not like Clinton and vice-versa. A split Democratic ticket is a real possibility this year. Senator McCain has got to be the most unpopular Republican candidate since Ford. The perfect storm is brewing over the beltway and it is going to get darker before it gets brighter. Look for Obama to head up a far left ticket, Clinton to head up a moderate liberal ticket, McCain to head up the Republican ticket, and an unknown contender to head up a conservative ticket. Eventually it will happen, why not now?

Jarrod Brigham

Can Scientific Inquiry and Religion Coexist?

Recently, the Anthropology club celebrated Charles Darwin’s 199th birthday on campus with a panel discussion on evolution and a screening of the film Flock of Dodos. As a six-day creationist, I was intrigued by the theme of the event “Can Scientific Inquiry and Religion Co-exist?”. I had the opportunity to interview Dr. James Vanderveen, professor of anthropology here at IUSB, about the creation/evolution debate.

JB: Thank you for agreeing to an interview on this subject. Giv-en the theme of your event, do you think that there is room in the educational arena for both intelligent design and evolution and at what age could they be taught?

JV: Schools and colleges succeed when they are open to the free exchange of ideas. Even if the ideas are not popular, they need to be expressed in order to be challenged. There is no single right way of thinking. Some ways are more correct than others, however. Although scientists do not know everything, we are continually testing ideas and refining the ways we seek knowledge.

The process of the scientific method should be taught as early as possible. My five-year old son is making predictions about what may happen when he slides down a hill or puts a seed in the ground, and then testing whether those predictions are right. That is science at its most basic level. If he continually tested these events and the same result always happened, and he compared his results with those of students in his day care and they all turned out the same, he could develop a theory of sledding down hills.

But intelligent design is not in any way, shape, or form, a theory.  It can’t be as it is not based on testing. A theory is an explanation that is based on facts. It has been tested over and over again until all other explanations have failed. Intelligent design is not comparable to evolution as a theory (to use the term as we do in science).

I have no problem with talking about intelligent design in my anthropology courses, because we discuss all kinds of creation myths from many varied cultures. ID should be discussed in political science courses because it has an influence on what people are saying and how they are voting even now. It can be part of philosophy, sociology, or religion courses. Yet ID is not part of the science curriculum. Science is dynamic – it is always seeking the truth from what is not known. ID is part of one particular branch of religion (although it can be dressed up to appear otherwise). It is static and based purely on trying to support claims that are already thought to be known. This is a fundamental difference between evolution and creation ideas.

JB: Given the way you diagramed the scientific method with your son, how does one test evolution without the ability to watch it happen and record results and without the ability to compare it with non-terrestrial life forms?

JV: We can, and do, watch organisms change. Viruses mutate and bacteria alter their structure, which is why doctors tell you to take all the antibiotics. Scientists have recorded evolution in the wings of crickets in Hawaii (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061003-silent-crickets.html). We see change all around us, happening today as it has happened in the past.

As for finding out what happened in the past without directly observing it, that is what I do as an archaeologist. I study a people known as the Taino, but I am not able to ask them questions about how they made their pottery or what food they ate. Instead I observe the existing pottery in the archaeological record, I form a hypothesis about how they were constructed, and then I test that hypothesis by looking at thin sections of the ceramic or trying to make it myself. I am able to determine what they ate not because of the food that is left — there is none — but the organic residue absorbed within the walls of the pot. This residue, once extracted, suggests the particular species of plants and animals that were utilized. I didn’t see them eat the fish, but I can find out the fish type due to previous experiments and the recovery of associated data.

Astronomers may not be able to “see” the distant galaxies, but they can collect radiation of specific sorts that indicates the presence of those galaxies. Researchers in countless fields are regularly able to learn about subjects too small, too distant, too fast, or too extreme to directly measure. Their results are infrequently challenged, why is it that evolutionary science is not rigorous because the research does not directly observe the processes discussed? 

JB: Evolution and Creation are two very polarizing theories. What I mean is that there is not a whole lot of room for middle ground. Not many people can both believe in the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth and believe in the Evolution of the species. What steps need to be taken in order bring these two groups closer together to become more tolerant of each other?

JV: Actually, many people believe in both. Gallup has often polled the American public and has regularly found that about 40% of people believe that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.” This is how my wife reconciles the two ideas in her head as well, by picking something along the lines of a compromise. It is the two most extreme ends of the debate that are intolerant. These two camps, the “no God” evolutionists and the “young Earth” creationists will never convert the members of the other side. They need to stop trying, as it only makes for ugliness that attracts the press. Everyone likes a good fight, and that is what people like Dawkins and Ham provide.

The two groups can be brought to a table to discuss their differences, though, and that is what I have been trying to do with the Darwin Day events presented here on campus.

JB: How would you address the issue of the Creation vs. Intelligent Design debate? Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing. If religion and scientific inquiry are to co-exist; is there room at the table for Biblical Creation as well?

JV: From what I have heard, read, and understand, creationism is exactly the same as ID. ID doesn’t have a specific deity directly associated with it, but it is proposed by Christians and not Buddhists, so one can easily see between the lines. Judge Jones, who ruled on the recent Dover case, calls ID the “prog-eny of creationism” and is nothing more than creation science in disguise. I would have to agree.

Religion and science can easily coexist. They are not usually looking at the same things. Science can also be used to study religion. There are faculty in the community that scientifically study the sociology and psychology of religion and its influence on people. There are many ways in which the two ideas can be combined. Student in my archaeology courses often research the ways in which the Maya practiced religion, for example.

In anthropology, we are open minded to all ways of thinking.  There is the room for Biblical Creation at that particular table, but sitting there with it is the idea that all humans were created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Taínos thought humans were produced through a wad of phlegm blown on to the back of a culture hero, and the resulting lump turned into a turtle. Who is to say they can’t believe that? There are many creation myths, why should one be given precedent over the others as the true story? There is only one successfully tested theory, though, and that is evolution.

JB: What made you decide to show a documentary video known more for its light-hearted, comedic approach to the Evolution/ ID debate as opposed to showing serious programs putting forth the evidence both sides present such as PBS’ 2001 Nova program Evolution and a pro-creation film such as Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution by Dr. Jobe Martin?

JV: Your question also provides the answer. I wanted to show the film last year because we had the rare opportunity to provide its Michiana premiere, and I continue to screen it for Darwin Day this year because of its light-hearted, comedic approach to a typically dry subject. We want to attract an audience and not make going to the event seem like homework. After the film, I was happy to see students continue to discuss its issues and themes. One of the roles of the Anthropology Club is to facilitate conversations between different people on this campus and in the community. The film helps to do that.

JB: Flock of Dodos seems to have the main thesis that proponents of ID are dodos because they place faith before science, but that scientists are also dodos because they have been unable to put their findings into a message that the layperson can understand. Do you agree with this?

JV: Absolutely.

JB: Next year would be Darwin’s 200th birthday. Do you have anything special planned for the bicentennial?

JV: The campus theme next year is “Revolutions in Thought”.  I hope there will be many events planned to commemorate evolutionary theory and other great changes (political, artistic, and otherwise) in our world and our history.

JB: It is a common argument that Creationism does not belong in a science class; it belongs in a philosophy class. How would you respond to a creationist who says that both creation and evolution are matters of faith: faith in God and faith in randomness? If the creation/ evolution debate really comes down to one faith (Biblical Christianity) vs. another faith (Secular Humanism), does evolution belong in a science class?

JV: Faith is a belief that is not based on evidence or proof. Science is the opposite, it is grounded on discovering data and testing predictions based on those data. Creation science and ID do not put forth new positive evidence. No hypotheses have been proposed to test the idea that creation is guided by a supernatural intelligence. It is for that reason that ID shouldn’t be in science classes.

JB: Recently, the Cobb County School District in Georgia lost a court battle over a science textbook sticker that read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered”. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove the sticker?

JV: If the sticker existed in a social vacuum, without the context of religion and politics, I would have no problems with it being placed on a textbook that discusses evolution. Every statement on the sticker is true, in the strictest sense. Evolution is a theory, and it may even yet be proven wrong, but that appears less likely as time passes and evidence mounts. All subjects, regardless of the discipline, should be studied carefully and critically considered. This is what I am trying to teach my classes. The social context of the sticker, however, is what made it such a problem.

JB: In a 1995 Time Magazine article The Evolution Wars, Dr. Richard Dawkins, a biologist teaching at Oxford University stated, “If there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian [Period], that would completely blow evolution out of the water.” What evidence would you need to see in order to leave evolution and become a creationist?

JV: If only we could test for the presence of a supernatural creator. We could then just ask him/her/them. I would like to know why, if the creation took place in a specific manner, do we have so many myths that differ? Why, as Edward Wilson has written, “would God have been so deceptive as to salt the earth with so much misleading evidence”? Until we ask those questions directly, I will continue to follow the research done by scientists that are now providing details about subjects previously unknown.

JB: Other than “we cannot see him”, how does one scientifically eliminate the possibility of a supernatural Creator?

JV: Scientific inquiry doesn’t entirely eliminate the presence of a supernatural force or amazing phenomenon. There are some researchers looking for Bigfoot and a Yeti. We haven’t found them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Discoveries and the testing of discoveries are the bread and butter of science. Shifts in current thinking based on new evidence is the way scientific fields work. Do you think that a scientist wouldn’t jump up and shout from the rooftops if he or she found evidence of a supernatural intelligent force that guided the evolution of life? That would be the greatest discovery of all time and would change all of our ideas and even our history. But creation science and ID don’t have the qualities of science. They can’t be tested. They may be right, but how are we to know?

Jarrod Brigham

Alan Keyes: The Best Candidate You Don’t Know

If you are a conservative, looking for the next Ronald Reagan, and disappointed with the current crop of candidates, why not support the man selected by Ronald Reagan himself?    

Some people believe that John McCain is the best option  for a terror warrior. While, McCain may have been a soldier, and may have supported President Bush, McCain does not have the endorsement of Ronald Reagan. Alan Keyes worked hard to fight state-sponsors of terrorism, but you don’t have to take my word for it. Read the words of Reagan, “Alan… as my Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations you opposed with every ounce of strength in your body all those who have served to foster and legitimize state-sponsored terrorism.” – Ronald Reagan.    

As important as terrorism, for social conservatives are the candidate’s moral standing. Unlike flip-floppers such as Romney and McCain or candidates that roll with the polls like Clinton and Obama, Alan Keyes believes in basing his positions on economic and social issues from a moral perspective.    

Keyes understands that we cannot solve poverty, mis-education, abortion, or any other of the controversial issues until we figure out a way to fix the American family. This is why I support Alan Keyes, above all else, Alan Keyes is the candidate for the American family.    

In his own words, Keyes states, “We need to start addressing the real underlying cause of these challenges and to recapture a sense of the moral foundation, so that we can restore the moral discipline, restore the sense of commitment to true family life that then provides the basis for economic strength in our communities, for better performance for our children in our schools, for a greater sense of responsibility on the part of parents toward those children, and so forth and so on. We know that these are the keys to real progress, and it’s time we got out and voted like we know.” Until Americans are ready to face that fact that we have a moral problem, not an economic problem, we will not begin to solve our problems.     My voters speak of a candidates ability to work with other nations. Senators do not work with the leaders of other nations, neither do Representatives, Governors, or even first ladies; but Ambassadors do. In 1983, Alan Keyes was appointed by Reagan to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.    

If you are a Reagan conservative, ask yourself this: what positions did Reagan appoint John McCain to? What positions did Reagan appoint Mitt Romney to? What positions did Reagan appoint Ron Paul to? If we want a return to the conservative glory years, we need to elect the only person who served in the Reagan administration: Ambassador Alan Keyes.    

Some fans of MSNBC might remember Keyes from his show “Alan Keyes is Making Sense”. Why is his show no longer on air? He was a victim of MSNBC caving in to  pro-Palestinian activists and homosexual activists. Imagine a candidate taking heat for standing up for Israel and traditional marriage. Compare that with John McCain’s endorsement from the New York Times. There is a reason why liberals fear voices like Keyes and bolster the message  of John McCain.    

Imagine a candidate who wants to end abortion, not end pro-life advocates freedom of speech. Imagine a candidate that wants to end income taxes, instead of voting against the Bush tax cuts. Imagine a candidate that is pro-immigration, yet against colonization.    

In Alan Keyes, conservatives have a candidate that is pro-life, not just for fetuses, but he is against Euthanasia and stem-cell research. We have a candidate that will fight against a kindergartener’s “right” to sex education and their “right” to view pornography in the school library. We have a candidate that wants to enforce the immigration laws already on the books, not create new laws that aren’t going to be enforced anyways.    

I cannot say it any better than Reagan, “Alan reflects the values and bedrock principles of this great nation—the values of family and home and community and church. Our greatest treasure is our precious moral heritage, the basic values of faith and family that makes ours… a great nation.” 

Jarrod Brigham 

Ignorant People Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

A person’s vote is the most powerful weapon the individual has against the government. However, should this great power come with great responsibility? I believe so, which is why I believe that ignorant people should not have the right to vote.
There is historical precedence for this line of thought. After the Civil War, polling exams were used to keep uneducated people (primarily former slaves) from voting. If one could remove the racist element from the polling exams, there is some wisdom within the exam itself.

Have you ever wondered why in Indiana, we seem to elect politicians whose names are close to the beginning of the alphabet (fmr. Gov. Birch Bayh, Evan Bayh, speaker B. Patrick Bauer)? In the past, candidates were always listed alphabetically and election after election, the candidate whose name came first on the ballot was elected.
We can see this here at IUSB. A case in point is our student government. In previous elections, we have had Mike Renfrow defeat Teresa Santos; Mike Renfrow was defeated in his first campaign by Audra Ammerman; our current president is Ivan Blount. Previous to Ammerman, the president was Michael Drain, after Ammerman, it was Bladecki. This is not to take anything away from any of these SGA presidents, but there is more than a coincidence here. Blount, Ammerman, Renfrow, and Drain all appeared first on the ballot and they won.

When someone is faced with a multiple choice decision and they don’t know, they typically select the first answer. This is why “A” is the most commonly selected answer in multiple choice exams, even though statistically “B” is most often the correct answer. We carry this same line of thinking into the polling exams.

When Indiana finally randomized the names on the ballots, suddenly Hoosier voters were able to vote straight ticket. Straight ticket meaning they could push a button and vote entirely for Republicans or Democrats. This creates an environment for elections to be decided by a bunch of ignorant people who would not know their candidate if he came into the room with a shirt saying “my name is …”.

This is where the wisdom of the polling exam comes into play. Now, I am not calling for an exam asking who is fifth in line for the presidency or what is the role of the minority whip in the House. I would, however like for a voter to at least know the name of the candidate for whom they want to vote.

I do not think it is too much to ask of a voter to know the name of the candidate they want to vote for. They should not be able to vote for “the Republican” or “the Democrat”.

Understandably, there are obvious problems of policing this. A “fill in the blank” polling machine would harm someone who wanted to vote for Sen. Voinavich. Spelling and handwriting would be big problems. And it would create a tremendous bottle-neck at the polling stations if voters had to tell the worker at the station the name of the candidate before they could vote.

I would be willing to compromise by just eliminating the straight ticket ballot and eliminating the practice of placing the party affiliation next to the candidates name.

We live in a country where less than fifty percent of the population votes and I would imagine there is a significant portion of those voting rely on the party affiliation to make their selection.
The cure for the latter is the polling exam, even if the exam only consists of insisting the voter know the name of their candidate. The former will never be solved, we cannot drag citizens to the polls, but if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about who gets elected.

I understand that the Constitution gives us all the right to vote, but there should be some personal responsibility involved in pulling the levers to elect the most powerful people in the world.

It is not too much to ask that we know the candidates’ names before we are allowed to vote for them.

Jarrod Brigham

Is The Smoking Ban A Victory for Safety or Big Brother?

As of January 1st, our campus became smoke free. Some of us, who could not understand why smokers did not understand what “No smoking with 10 feet of entrance” meant, see this as a victory for clean air, clean lungs, and general well-being.
However, there is a flip side to this decision, as there always is. There are those of us who see this policy as one more freedom that is being taken away by “big brother”

As an asthmatic, I was happy to see this policy enacted, not just on campus but throughout our county. It is nice to walk into a restaurant and not have to walk through the smoking section in order to reach the non-smoking section, I never could figure that one out. It is also nice to walk into a building on campus and not have to hold my breath as I passed by all the inconsiderate people who felt the need to share their carcinogens with the rest of us.

I can remember champions of individual liberties encouraging me to join their crusade to stop “big government” from taking away another individual liberty. Sadly, while I support freedom and individual liberty, I sat that particular fight out because I was not going to stand up for the rights of smokers. Similar to the way proponents of free speech are not often up for volunteering to fight for the free speech rights of the Klan to use an extreme example.

It does seem ironic that the majority of the people clamoring for the smoking ban (government intrusion on individual rights) also are up in arms about things in the Patriot Act (government intrusion on individual rights).

Thankfully or regretfully, depending on your position, here on our campus, enforcement does not seem to be an issue.
The official policy reads, “Violations of the policy will be addressed through existing processes already in place for students, faculty, and staff”. It goes on, “Tobacco users are expected to voluntarily comply with the policy.”

Apparently the authors of this policy did not see how well tobacco users on this campus complied with the “10 feet from the entrance” policy. The most laughable part of the policy is how the university calls for student enforcement. “Anyone who observes a possible violation may courteously and without confrontation inform the individual of the tobacco-free policy (and here is the best part) and attempt to offer an information sheet [about the policy]. Are they kidding? Who is going to confront (without confrontation, mind you) a fellow student blatantly ignoring the policy?

Our campus security guards have more important things to do than be campus nannies. This policy will not be enforced unless the punishment becomes a fine, which will make the campus money, the same way parking tickets do.
In answer to the question posed in the headline: The new smoking ban is a victory for big brother, not safety. We have again, ceded liberties for someone’s notion of the common good. Maybe Judge Andrew Napolitano was correct, we are a nation of sheep and eventually we will give up all individual liberty in the name of the common good.

In our case, this is another example of a policy without teeth that no one has any intention of enforcing. I hope that I am wrong for the sake of rules and order. On the other hand, I hope I am right since all I really want is for individual people to just be left alone.

Jarrod Brigham

It’s Not Too Late To Get On The Bandwagon.

You may have missed it over the Christmas break, but our Titans and Lady Titans have made vast improvements over last season. Both the men’s and women’s teams have already eclipsed their win totals from last year.

Most recently, the men  defeated McKendree University of Lebannon, Illinois 93-91 on a three-pointer by Qdar Owens with 6 seconds left. The win, their 12th on the season, places them in third place in the Chicagoland Collegiate Athletic Conference, just three games behind Robert Morris College, who the Titans will play on Feb. 9th. Last year, the Titans finished with an 11-18 record.

The Lady Titans have also been equally successful over the Christmas break. The women have won 7 of their last 9 games including a 63 point beat down of Mt. Marty College and a 36 point victory over the University of Michigan-Dearborn in the Marian College Classic.

Katie Hacker led five Lady Titans with double figures, scoring 21 in the victory over Mt. Marty. Jennifer VanderZanden scored 24 to lead the Lady Titans over UM-Dearborn.

The Lady Titans have won 10 games on the season putting them into third place in the CCAC, just two games back of Olivet Nazarene and St. Xavier whom the women will play on January 19th and February 5th respectively.

It is not too late to jump on the Titan bandwagon. The Titans still have plenty of time to win the conference in both the men’s and women’s divisions.

Jarrod Brigham

The Progressive War on *Censored*

The Progressive War against God really heats up this time of year. Local school districts across the nation are brought to their knees as the well-government-funded American Civil Liberties Union demands they take out all references to the Almighty in their school programs. Christmas programs are changed to Holiday programs, Christmas break has become winter break, and Christmas cards are now friendship cards.

The battles between the ACLU and school districts will be fought out in the courts. As long as the judges follow the Constitution, the good guys will win.

There is a battle that is currently being fought in the free market. This is the fight that is to be fought by a simple majority. Apparently some retailers do not understand why it is that their sales skyrocket in the weeks between Thanksgiving and December 25th.

Some retailers have started instructing their clerks to only use Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Some retailers have gone so far as to not allow their employees to use Merry Christmas or risk disciplinary action. The mega retailer Lowe’s has stopped selling Christmas Trees and now sells Holiday Trees. Tell me something, Lowe’s, what holiday do you think that tree is for? In some catalogs, you can find Family Trees instead of Christmas Trees.

It is too early to tell what retailers will be welcoming the CHRISTMAS dollars with their right hand while fighting the name Christmas with their left hand. In addition to asking you to be diligent with your Christmas shopping, I can remind you of the retailers that made the naughty list last year. Of course, if you are among the four percent of Americans who claim to be offended by the name Christmas, you can use this list to find the stores at which you will want to shop.

In 2006, a spokesperson for Best Buy, whose advertising rejected any reference to Christmas said, “We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period and we certainly need to be respectful to all of them.”

A spokesperson for Crate & Barrel stated, “Crate & Barrel has Jewish, Muslim, and atheist customers. We would definitely not say Merry Christmas. It’s all about holiday shopping, getting together with friends and family.”

On Barnes & Noble’s website, they advertised a holiday gift guide, holiday gift baskets, holiday sleds, and holiday delivery, but nary a mention of Christmas. Making matters worse, the stores are not allowed to put up Christmas trees and employees are not allowed to say Merry Christmas, even if the customers wishes the employee a Merry Christmas.

Pet smart, Eddie Bauer, Bloomingdales, KB Toys, Home Depot, Radio Shack, and J.C. Penny all replaced Christmas with Holiday in their stores, online, and in their advertising in 2006.

Some stores have gone above and beyond helping the Progressive War on Christmas. Christmas Charities have seen the full brunt of their attack. Some retailers, such as Target, Kohls, Toys R Us, Best Buy, Home Depot, Circuit City, and Barnes & Nobles have all banned the Salvation Army’s bell ringers. This should be compared with Wal-mart, which not only allowed the bell ringers, but encouraged their employees to participate by ringing bells themselves.

In the department store, Macy’s, one could find a Holiday Lane instead of a Christmas lane. Hanukkah did have its own section. Maybe this year, they will have an atheist aisle. If Macy’s did not do it for you, Bloomingdale’s showered its customers with the holiday spirit, but not the Christmas spirit.

There were plenty of companies who understood what holiday was the real driving force for their fourth quarter profits.
For example, M&M Mars candies made bags of red and green M&M’s complete with pictures of angels and Christmas Trees. Tractor Supply Company, T.J. Maxx, and Ace Hardware all had Christmas sales.

Kudos to Starbucks, whose owner is one of the primary benefactors for Moveon.org, for keeping Christmas in their stores.
Department stores, K-Mart and Sears also made sure to showcase the Christmas season as opposed to the generic holiday season.

Openly Christian stores, Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-a made sure to go so far as to put up Nativity scenes in many locations.

So the question remains, why should it matter whether a store uses Christmas instead of holiday? It matters because Christmas is a Federal holiday. It matters because America is forgetting that it is a Christian nation. The Progressive movement to remove God from our culture is gaining momentum. They have infiltrated our schools and indoctrinated our children. That fight is for the courts. This fight is for the free market.

This is very exciting because it is a battle that is being fought where it should be fought. Traditionalists rally behind the free market and now it is the free market that can protect Christmas or destroy it. The question is whether or not Christians, Traditionalists, and Conservatives will put their money where their mouths are.

I encourage you to pick up the torch and join the rest of us in the crusade to save Christmas. Look at the retailers as you do your Christmas shopping this season and look at their advertising. Purchase Christmas trees, not holiday trees or family trees. The progressive assault is more subtle than any beast of the field, don’t let Christmas die on our generation. Use your Christmas break to take advantage of Christmas sales to give away Christmas presents. Ignore the holidays, celebrate Christmas.

Jarrod Brigham

Christmas Charities Need Your Help

Tis the season to be jolly, yes, but ’tis also the season to be giving. Christmas gives us an excellent opportunity to show that we really indeed are interested in giving to those less fortunate.
Right here in South Bend there are very serious needs that can be met with just a little effort on our part.
Women’s shelters are always in need of clothing and bath towels. There are distribution points here on campus that you can use to help others.

Anyone who really understands what the Christmas season is all about, understands that it is about giving, not receiving.
Take the Hope Rescue Mission for example. Multiple times students have donated a Saturday afternoon and braved the cold to collect food for the mission. These students, from this campus, had a wonderful time knocking on doors and asking for food. One might be surprised how generous the people of this town can be if someone just takes the initiative to ask them. For these students, there is no greater joy than seeing the expression on the faces of the people at the Hope Rescue Mission when they know that there are people out there who care about them.

When we arrived with a van full of food, many times the words “thank you” and “God bless you” are returned. I truly hope this does not come across the wrong way, but my Christmas wish is that everyone can give just a little of their time to help others. The joy that comes over one is a magnificent reward in itself.

Many people ask, which is better: time or money? The answer is both. All the money in the world, cannot be put to use if there are not volunteers to staff the projects. Conversely, all the volunteers in the world cannot distribute food, clothing, and medicine if the funds are not there.

Even the U.S. Armed Forces are getting into the action. Toys for Tots is a wonderful charity all about the children. How many times as a child did you open up presents that you did not like? Even the gift that was hated the most is more than what some children get. When you are out shopping this Christmas season, stop by the dollar store and pick up a toy for a child in need. Contrasted to the hundreds spent on friends and family, that dollar for a stranger means so much.

There is also the Salvation Army. Remember those bell ringers at the entrances of the malls who too many usually try to avoid making eye contact with? Give them a few coins even if only to make yourself feel good. Imagine how tough it must be for them standing for eight hours ringing a bell in the face of apathy. Be a blessing to them; it only costs fifty cents.
If you don’t have the funds to financially support one of the many local charities, a jolly Christmas attitude can make a difference. Opening doors for ladies, smiling at people when making eye contact and simply saying hello. Simple gestures can lift the spirits of someone else who may be able to then go on and do something wonderful for someone else.

No matter what your social, ethnic, economic, or political background, helping others is something we all can do.

Jarrod Brigham

IUSB Titans 2007-2008 Campaign Now Underway

The IUSB Titans men’s and women’s basketball programs are underway for the 2007-2008 season.
There is a new man calling the plays for the men’s basketball program. Head Coach Dennis Parks takes over for Micah Shrewsberry after leading the Niles High School team to two divisional championships. Shrewsberry resigned in April in order to take the position of Coordinator of Basketball Operations at Butler University. Coach Parks takes over a Titan team that went 11-18 last year.

Head women’s basketball coach Steve Bruce returns for his second year this season. The Lady Titans are looking to rebound from an 8-22 season last year.

Both teams will need players to step up and fill roles left by productive seniors who graduated last year. The women’s team will need to replace the 9.1 points and 3.9 rebounds and steals per game provided by two-team all-CCAC honorable mention award winner, Stacy Spurgeon. Bruce will probably look to senior Jennifer VanderZanden to take up the slack. Last year Jennifer made the first team all-CCAC team for the second straight year.

The men’s team will need to replace all-CCAC first teamers Hubert Gentry and Jeremy Herring. Gentry and Herring were responsible for over 25 points and 11 boards per game. Keep your eye on senior, Dewey Brown who won honorable mention honors in the CCAC while scoring 13.4 points per game last year.

This season will be challenging for the Titans as they only have three upperclassmen, one senior and two juniors. The Lady Titans roster is bit more top heavy with nine upperclassmen including five seniors.

Jarrod Brigham

Why I’m Willing to Throw Away the ‘08 Election

Anyone who knows me cannot doubt my conservative credentials. I am a card-carrying member of the RNC, but I am willing see President Hilary Clinton before I will vote for Rudi Giuliani.    

I know the phrase President Hilary Clinton sends evil chills down the spines of anyone who supports a strong military, free enterprise, and low taxes. However, should the election come down Rudi v. Mrs. Clinton, I will vote third party, preferably for former Gov. Mike Huckabee.    

There are multiple reasons why, and none of them are because Dr. James Dobson said so. I cannot bring myself to vote for anyone who is pro infanticide, also known as pro-choice. I know that Rudi has promised not to appoint liberal activist judges, but he has also told three wives “til death do us part”. His promises do not mean very much to me.    

Many conservatives do not trust Mitt Romney because he has flip-flopped on abortion and the exclusive right of marriage for homosexuals (heterosexuals have no such right). But, those same conservatives ignore the fact that as Mayor of New York, Rudi was for gun control, government payment of abortion up to the moment of birth, and special rights for homosexuals. Why is Romney a flip-flopper but Rudi is the candidate who can beat Hilary? Rudi is not trustworthy. The only conservative value that Rudi brings is leadership on the war on terror. There are other conservative candidates who also bring this and they are true conservatives, not a liberal in sheep’s clothing.   

Second, there are two main philosophies when it comes to voting in an election. One can vote for the lesser of the two evils or one can vote the person that you want to win. When social conservatives pull the lever for Rudi because they do not want Hilary, they are not voting for who they want to win. I am a proponent of the second philosophy.      

I vote for the person I want to win, not against the person I want to lose. This leads to partisan politics, voters vote for Republicans because they do not want to see a Democrat win. This foolishness abandons all control over the parties. Conservatives should tell the Republican Party who our candidate should be, not the other way around. What is the point of having a primary if we are going to vote only for the person most likely to defeat the other party’s nominee? The primary process is designed to pick the candidate you want to win, not the candidate that can best beat the other side.    

Third, I cannot see how any conservative can encourage the Republican Party to take a giant step left. The reason why Ronald Reagan was so popular with conservatives while losing the primary to Ford in 1976 was because he forced the Republican Party back to the right.    

Reagan’s campaign forced the Party to accept a philosophy of superior national defense, opposed the welfare system that reduced the incentive to work, and an endorsement of the Human Life Amendment. Even in his loss, Ronaldus Maximus impacted the future of the Republican Party for decades. All my life the Republican Party has stood for protecting those who cannot protect themselves and now my fellow conservatives are going to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-special rights for homosexuals candidate. They are going to do this in order to keep Hilary out of office even though she is to the right of Rudi on abortion!    

Conservatives have a responsibility to keep the Republican Party conservative.  Many years ago, it would have been un-thought of to have a nominee who would not fight to keep prayer in schools. Many years ago, it would have been un-thought of to have a nominee who would not fight against an un-Constitutional federal income tax. Those issues are now all but lost; I will not stand by and watch the protection of innocent life go down the same drain.    

I cannot bring myself to vote for any of the Republican front-runners. Rudi Giuliani is not a conservative and is barely a Republican. Fred Thompson will not support a federal amendment to support the traditional definition of marriage. I am all for states’ rights, but I do not want Indiana to have to recognize a phony marriage performed in Massachusetts. John McCain has never been a Conservative, so at least he is not a flip-flopper. I also cannot see how I can vote for Mitt Romney. As Governor of Massachusetts, he was elected by the people who have voted for Senators Kennedy and Kerry for over twenty years!    

My great hope is with Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, or Alan Keyes. I know that as it stands right now, none of them have a real chance to win the nomination, but they are true conservatives.     

As much as I loathe the idea of Mrs. Clinton as our next President, four years of socialism is a small price to pay in order to protect the future of the Republican Party. If we vote for Rudi, we are endorsing the misbehavior of the Party. If we vote for Rudi this election, who will the next nominee be: Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel? 

Jarrod Brigham 

The Illegal Employment Loophole

How many of you are currently seeking employment, but are unable to find it? Do you believe your job is currently filled by someone working illegally? Have you ever taken the time to see why it is that businesses hire illegal workers? The secret is in the fine print.

Law abiding Americans are being scammed out of jobs by loopholes in the system of citizenship and employment verification. Here is how the scam works: There are certain people allowed in this country, but are not allowed to work, international students on student visas, for example. However, when a person applies for a job, in section 1 on the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I9), an applicant can check one of three options: 1) A citizen or national of the United States; 2) Alien authorized to work; or 3) Lawful Permanent Resident.

The employer is required to ask for documentation proving the applicant’s identity. This can be any of a number of easily forged documents such as a social security card or a driver’s license, which by the way does not have “citizen” printed upon it.

However, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, under “Employee’s Responsibility Regarding Form I9”, it states, “The documentation presented is not required to substantiate information provided in Section 1. The employer must examine the document(s) and accept them if they reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee who presents them. Requesting more or different documentation than the minimum necessary to meet this requirement may constitute an unfair immigration-related employment practice.” 

This loophole allows for employers who are seeking illegal workers to hire them. As long as the documentation “reasonably appears to be genuine” then the business can hire that applicant. It is the subjective opinion of the Human Resources manager as to whether the documents reasonably appear to be genuine or not.

This loophole also allows an illegal applicant to bully the business into hiring them. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website also states, “Requesting more or different documentation than the minimum necessary to meet this requirement may constitute an unfair immigration-related employment practice.” This means that if an employer challenges the documentation, a lawsuit could be in their future!

I spoke with one former HR associate who told me that the problem is widespread and well-known in the industry. Stereotypically, many Americans immediately point to Hispanics in the factories as the guilty party in this scam. While that does happen, it is not the only place. Another source explained that the Healthcare industry in South Bend is full of employees who have used this loophole to find employment. In that source’s experience, it is international students from Africa who are taking the jobs using the loophole.

This whole issue has created some strange bedfellows. It has brought together the conservative Wall Street Journal and the liberal New York Times. It has also brought together conservative talk radio and powerful liberal trade unions. Even here in South Bend, the mainstream media has ignored this problem. The same source who came to the IUSB Vision with this information gave the names of companies and the names of employees to WNDU, WSBT, and the South Bend Tribune. Remember you heard it from the Vision first.

Jarrod Brigham