Category Archives: Elites

How Are We So Easily Fooled?

We Won’t Get Fooled Again

Starting When?

Stella Morabito recommends a couple of books, to explain mass delusions.

Item: When the Occupy Wall Street / 99% movement was getting into high gear, I publicly speculated that the force behind the agitations was George Soros, the man who made $1 billion betting against the British Pound. I searched for the term “George Soros Occupy Wall St”, with no meaningful results. Three days later, “George Soros Funds Groups Behind Occupy Wall St” could be found on some media outlets.

So how do we get so thoroughly fooled, so long and hard? Here’s a clue: We are being manipulated by opinion manufacturing specialists who have an extremely insightful understanding of human foibles. Here’s a diagram that perhaps oversimplifies the issue, but at least it can get us started talking about it:


General Smedley Darlington Butler was a soldier’s soldier, he cleaned up a WW1 army camp in Belgium that was a death trap. (This was when influenza took millions of lives.)

So I ask my old Aunt Mary what she remembers about him. “He’s a bum.” This was when Philadelphia was more corrupt than Chicago, Butler was appointed police commissioner, he was “no good Texas toiler paper (wouldn’t take crap off anyone).”

The mass-brainwashing propaganda machine flooded the press, nationwide (Aunty had never been near Philly) with negative stories.

He was a Friend (a Quaker). When he’d go home & talk with his Dad (a Congressman), it was all “thee” and “thou”. But in khaki, he was one tough s.o.b., “Old Gimlet Eye” was what the men called him.

My old sister Sheila watched President Lyndon Baines Johnson give a speech about The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. She says “he was gripping the pedestal so hard his knuckles were white, I knew he was lying”.

Myrna Lee Opsahl, December 13, 1932 – April 21, 1975

‘Death to the Fascist Insect’ Proclaimed the Revolutionary Cohorts of the Symbionese Liberation Army as they Bravely Murdered the Humble Christian Woman, Myrna Lee Opsahl This Day Forty Years Ago.

A photographic exhibition once featured the resolute face of a late 1930s murder suspect as he was marched into a paddy wagon. I’ve often searched for that image as an example of dedicated unrepentance.

No more. We have the face of Emily Harris and her colleagues in domestic terrorism, waiting in court.


Dr. Trygve Opsahl received news of his dear wife Myrna’s murder at his surgical practice at American River Hospital in Carmichael, California that Monday morning in April, 1975, forty years ago today.

We can see arrogant unrepentance, and yet hidden fear in the faces of Myrna’s murderers.

Let it be a warning to us. Let us strive not to leave this world with such an attitude, in the least, little measure, toward anyone in this world.

A Lioness in the Streets

What’s to Account For Hillary’s Astonishing Fall from Official Media Grace?


In the 1930s, someone heard Adolph Hitler being screamed at behind closed doors by the head of the German Central Bank, Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht. Who could get away with screaming at Hitler and live?

Someone fronting from a group so powerful, it could have ordered that Hitler be made into Hoffaburger. It turns out that when Hitler first assumed power, he went with hat in hand to make his case to the heads of German industry that his gangster militias could deliver labor peace.

The big talking heads are mum about all this, so let this little talking head provoke you to wonder about it yourself.This arrangement was to become upended when Hitler’s prodigious rhetorical power, amplified by the then-new media of broadcast radio and public address systems, moved him from maitre d’hotel to guest of honor at the devil’s banquet. Schacht was interned in Dachau but mysteriously survived to found a post-war Dusseldorf bank.

Above conventional distinctions of “left” and “right”, the power coalitions which sponsor political front-men, must account for the inner character and predicted future actions of those they entrust to implement their dictates.

This core principle must be centrally involved with Hillary Clinton’s astonishing fall from grace in the “liberal” media, led by the flagship NY Times. The big talking heads are mum about all this, so let this little talking head provoke you to wonder about it yourself.

After all the posturing is dispensed with, George Soros gets along just fine along the bottom line with the Koch Brothers.

Nothing like the 1933 overthrow of the House of Morgan by the House of Rockefeller, with the LionessInTheStreets2Glass-Steagall Act,  is currently underway; the big fish aren’t especially urgently jostling one another to see who will eat whom.

So the hidden tectonic rumblings to account for Hillary’s lightning fall to earth, must involve the recognition that she didn’t know her own limits and had to be de-fanged.

People knew that the old Soviet press was riddled with lies, Loz’  rather than  Pravda, but they still paid attention to subtle currents in the fabric of factual inaccuracies, to detect the rise and fall of various power-wielding personalities.

Not so here. Fat if not happy American media consumers, Joe People Magazine and Sally Entertainment Tonight, have not the slightest clue about what’s going on in the penthouses of power.

But as the servants manning the levers of power slowly adjust their comfort level downward, they will dodge and sway like schools of fish or flocks of birds reacting instinctually but unknowingly to the movement of the predators among them.

There’s no question about who will be in charge, it’s only a matter of whether any of the high servants will be allowed to overcome their masters.

Miss Livinia: “Black people know Obama is hurting them but they’ll always support ‘one of our people’ “

LenaHorneMiss Livinia (not her real name) is a Black steel magnolia, not just upper middle class, but in personal comportment, a positive Princess. She resembles Lena Horne facially, in her speech and attitude. I’ve never seen her look less than stunning, at well past 80.

Livinia was an inner city school principal. She formulated her own early childhood reading pedagogy, which she used to great success getting little Black kids to read.

At one time she was more in the political mainstream. I think she was shocked at the effect of Maafa 21, the worst of which is that spiritual influence behind the population control movement understood since black women would smother their own children in the time of slavery that the greatest success would be to get Black people to kill themselves off, as if Black is Beautiful, the greatest thing to come out of the 60s, never even happened.

She has since sworn off the cool aid, but I was shocked at her pronouncement:

  • Black people know that Obama is hurting them, but they will always support him because ‘he is one of “our people” ‘.

That’s quite an admission, for a lady who has hobnobbed with the elites.

There’s nothing about this on the internet.

Deny Government Employees the Vote

VogonsDuring fifteen years in civil service, I only found out after being laid off from a government jurisdiction whose tax base collapsed, that it was an unreal world.

“Civil Servants” aren’t servants at all, they are de facto superiors of the citizenry whose lives they regulate.

Their government union representatives, feel free to hijack compulsory union dues, promote socially destructive, sexually-radical policies, in the meantime, corrupting the political process that is supposed to regulate government employment.

The only solution is to politically disenfranchise public employees–deny them the vote. Let’s set up the brouhaha this invites, by contrasting some of the disadvantages with the advantages.

A large proportion of the electorate is in government employment. Arbitrarily denying political representation to such a large group, would invite its own set of abuses.

Why not emulate the French system, La Legion Etrangere, the French Foreign Legion, which gives elite privileges to foreigners–many with criminal backgrounds֫–but denies them any say in political decision making?

Sound somewhat familiar? We’re already at that stage. Legions of non-citizens, many of them grievously criminal, already tip the balance in national, Presidential elections.

Why not merely institutionalize the present status quo?

Guarantee civil servants yearly “cost-of-living” pay increases well beyond the rates granted to private sector workers.

Make it impossible for them to be fired; give them lifetime employment security.

Enhance their already considerable reputation for high-handed treatment of the powerless citizenry–the very definition of officious.

But to counterbalance those exorbitant benefits, deny them any say in political decision making, and take back your country.

The Cost to “Affordable Care” of Progressives’ Anti-Democratic Urge

‘Although [Jonathan] Gruber has sought to play down his remarks, the danger to the law from the unclear language is still very real: The section in question mentions exchanges “established by the state,” but not the federal government. One former staffer involved in drafting the legislation attributes the vague wording to a rushed process in the Senate: “When there’s a rapid process, sometimes things aren’t worded as precisely as you might like when you have more time. … I see it more as, you didn’t find all your cross-references.”

‘That explanation, however, makes Michael Carvin laugh out loud.’

“That’s another way of saying, ‘we didn’t read it,’ ” he said. “The question is what Congress enacted, not what staffers, quote unquote, ‘thought.’ ”

Will Jonathan Gruber Topple Obamacare? – David Nather, Politico, December 7, 2014


“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.– Nancy Pelosi, March 9, 2010, address to the 75th anniversary Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties (NACo)

Isn’t that supposed to be the strength of the democratic legislative process, having many more eyes watching what’s going on, so mistakes like this can be caught before they commit a nation to such an expensive proposition?

Liberal Anti-Democrats

Economics, Politics and Public Opinion, Society and Culture

Steven F. Hayward | October 11, 2011 | American Enterprise Institute

Liberalism has been schizophrenic about democracy for about a century.

It is always amusing to watch the contortions liberals put themselves through when things aren’t going well for them. At the end of the dismal Carter years, liberal intellectuals blamed their failures on the defects of the presidency itself, claiming the office wasn’t powerful enough for modern times. This argument was necessary because Democrats enjoyed large majorities in Congress and couldn’t blame their failures on obstructionist Republicans, unlike today. So our Constitution itself had to be blamed for the “gridlock” that prevents “progress.”

Liberalism has been schizophrenic about democracy for about a century, alternating between deploring anti-majoritarian features of our system such as the electoral college and the filibuster, or maligning populist democratic majoritarianism when it delivers uncongenial results, such as California’s Proposition 13 or last fall’s midterm election beat-down of the Democratic Party—an election that increasingly looks to be a harbinger of more wipeouts ahead at the hands of ingrate voters. So right now liberals are in one of their periodic anti-democratic moods, most remarkably expressed by North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue’s thought experiment last week about suspending congressional elections for two years so that Congress can “help this country recover.”

The heart of the matter is that liberals are incapable of questioning their presumption of being the force for Progress.

She’s hardly an isolated example of this strain of liberal thought. President Obama’s first director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, took to the pages of The New Republic recently to make the case that “we need less democracy,” saying “we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.” And need we even mention Thomas Friedman’s periodic “China is awesome” columns envying Beijing precisely because of its authoritarian capacities? On the other hand, Harold Meyerson argues in the latest cover story of the American Prospect, “Did the Founders Screw Up?” that “The problem isn’t that we’re too democratic. It’s that we’re not democratic enough.” Following the spinning liberal compass on democracy can give you a headache.

Liberalism has been unable to decide whether it is for or against more democracy for nearly a century now, ever since it underwent a radical transformation from a creed believing that advancing the cause of individual liberty meant limiting government power and protecting individual rights into the creed we know today of believing that larger and more powerful government is the primary means of securing the realization of individual liberty.

None of the liberal complaints about “gridlock” are new; Progressives like Woodrow Wilson deplored the separation of powers and other limiting features of the Founding as obsolete years before he tried to ignore them as president.

None of the liberal complaints about ‘gridlock’ are new; Progressives like Woodrow Wilson deplored the separation of powers and other limiting features of the Founding.

At the core of “Progressivism,” as it was called then and is again today, was the view that more and more of the business of individuals and society was best supervised by expert administrators sealed off from the transient pressures of popular politics. So at the same time that Progressives championed “more democracy” in the form of populist initiatives, referendum, and recalls, they also developed a theory deeply anti-democratic in its implications. As the famous phrase from Saint-Simon had it, “the government of men is to be replaced by the administration of things.” But this undermines the very basis of democratic self-rule. No one better typifies the incoherence of Progressivism on this point than Woodrow Wilson, an enthusiastic theorist of the modern administrative state who couldn’t clearly express why we would still need to have elections in the future. In Wilson’s mind, elections would become an expression of some kind of watery, Rousseauian general will, but certainly not change specific policies or the nature of administrative government.

The heart of the matter is that liberals are incapable of questioning their presumption of being the force for Progress, and as such always repair behind arguments about process when their policies are unpopular. Meyerson gives away the game when he writes that reform is necessary to enable “decisive legislative action and sweeping social change,” because apparently “sweeping social change” is what government must be doing at all times.

Here’s an interesting thought experiment to try out on a people-loving liberal: If we had a national referendum, and a majority voted to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, would it be legitimate in the eyes of “Progressives”? If you think the liberal compass on democracy is spinning fast now. . .

Steven F. Hayward is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His article, “The Liberal Misappropriation of a Conservative President [Ronald Reagan]


The comments that really have Democrats blowing cartoon smoke out of their ears:

(Will Jonathan Gruber Topple Obamacare? – David Nather, Politico, December 7, 2014)

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. … Yes, so these health insurance exchanges … will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law it says if the states don’t provide them the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting up its backstop in part because I think they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.

– Jonathan Gruber at Noblis – January 18, 2012

Senate Joint Resolution 19 ‘intended to limit free speech’

 US Senate to Protect the Media Monopoly’s Exclusive License to Corrupt Presidential Elections 


Amateurs Not Allowed to Speak

 An apocryphal story from the good old 1960s tells of $3 million found under the bed of a deceased congressman, with the question automatically asked, at that time, “how does an honest, $50,000 per year congressman accumulate that kind of money?” These days, newspapers don’t blink at the President’s $10 million net worth—chump change compared with the $100s millions accumulated by the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, remuneration for—speaker’s fees

 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, slumming at only $3 million to $10 million, made hay clamoring for public release of the tax returns of 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney—one of those baldfaced patricians like Presidents “Dubuya” Bush 43 and George Herbert Walker 41 who got their money “the old fashioned way”—they inherited it

 A political operator who raked his in by more direct means, is former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who plead guilty in 2006 to mail fraud, conspiracy to bribe public officials, and tax evasion. A devout Jew, Abramoff underwent a spiritual conversion while in prison. When he got out, he blew the whistle on the best little civic bordello, in Washington DC—the richest counties in the nation are not in New York, Texas or California, they’re suburbs of Washington DC. 


Now we hear the vestal virgins in the Senate Democrat Majority bemoaning the Supreme Court’s dereliction of duty in the Citizens United ruling, so egregious because it supposedly gives the green light to the evile Koch Brothers to corrupt the common weal—Senator Reid makes not a peep at rainbow-progressive billionaires Tim Gill and Jon Stryker spreading corruption in the body politic. 

 The Senate’s siren song against dirty money is titled “Senate Joint Resolution 19” (103rd Congress) with only sporadic opposition from Evangelical and anti-abortion foundations. Senator Reid recently said of the resolution, “We’re going to push a constitutional amendment so we can limit spending because what is going on today is awful.” The proposed amendment would “protect freedom of the press”—the freedom of the Media Monopoly (NYTimes, WaPo, Gannett and Big 3 TV) to continue corrupting presidential elections, meanwhile little John Q. Public better keep his mouth shut

 Legal scholar Professor Ronald Rotunda notes “Section 3 of S.J. Res. 19 makes clear that its intention is to limit free speech. It says, ‘Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’ The First Amendment prohibits Congress from ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ Tellingly, the Senators cosponsoring the ‘improved First Amendment’ left out the phrase ‘freedom of speech.’ ” 

 The teapot tempest that started all this was something called Hillary: the Movie, a 2008 political documentary coincidentally about frontrunning presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Produced by Citizens United, the film was scheduled to be offered as video-on-demand on cable TV right before the Democratic primaries in January 2008, but the federal government blocked it. Senators Reid and Udall conspicuously fail to wonder how a simple, country woman lawyer accumulates $100 millions, or just exactly what the people who gave it to her expect in return. 

 This good-natured gamesmanship is all thoroughly in the grand tradition of politics running back hundreds of years in the US and Britain. You can read all about it in a series of stories a century old by GK Chesterton, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and a non-fiction book by his brother Cecil with Hilaire Belloc, The Party System, both free on Kindle, the app itself free on most platforms.

G.K. Chesterton’s Prophetic Look at National Health Care

ChestertonCommonSense101Dale Ahlquist | 2-20-2012 | American Chesterton Society Blog

G.K. Chesterton considered himself a member of the Liberal Party until 1912. As he would later say, he did not leave the Liberal Party. It left him. He believed in something called liberty, the idea that people should be able to make most decisions for themselves, especially the most basic and most important decisions, and not have such decisions made for them by anyone else, especially by the government. He believed, as a liberal, that the State’s role was to preserve liberty, not take it away.

What happened in 1912? The Liberal Party, which held power in Parliament, passed The Health Insurance Act. Every working man was required to have part of his wages withheld to pay for a national health insurance. The funding was to be further supplemented by a tax on every employer. Sound familiar?

Chesterton’s objections to the Insurance Act were threefold. First, it was anti-democratic in practice. The vast majority of the English population was against it. It was being passed against their will, but—so the argument went—for their own good. Second, it was anti-democratic in principle. It divided the populace into two permanent castes: those who labor, and those who pay for the labor. Chesterton called this what it is: slavery. Third, Chesterton saw the Act as paving the way to the State seizing more power, more influence, more interference in everyone’s daily lives. Sound familiar?

About a century later, here in America, we are looking at essentially the same thing that Chesterton was looking at. We watched as a National Health Care program was passed in utter defiance of public support, rammed through the legislative process by one party rather than by any sort of consensus. We have also watched the reinforcement of a system comprised of employers and employees, of wage-earners rather than independent, self-sufficient and truly “self-employed” citizens. And we have also watched the unimaginable growth of government as it has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives.

One of Chesterton’s strongest objections to the Insurance Act was the increase in taxes to those who could scarcely afford to have any of their income taken from them, even if it was to be used for something specific like health care. The tax prevented a man from paying for other needs he had that might be just as important as medical care. He was being forced to pay for medical care that he might not need. What other things that he did not need would the State decide he must also pay for?

Chesterton pointed out that a compulsory Health Insurance Act was first passed in Germany. It followed another compulsory act that was also first passed in Germany: compulsory education. Chesterton was a vocal opponent of state-sponsored compulsory education, for the same reasons he was against a national health insurance. It was an attack on freedom. It gave the government too much power, and it took away a basic freedom from the citizen. The liberal argument was that the State was providing a valuable service. Chesterton’s counter-argument was that though the State was providing education, it was the State’s education. Though it was providing medicine, it was a forced medicine. With a compulsory insurance, he argued, people were being forced to pay to be protected against themselves. People are often willing to trade freedom for security. But the problem is that it is usually someone else trading our freedom for our security.

Although Chesterton found himself allied with the conservatives on the issue of health care, he might point out now that one of the reasons we have gotten into the present mess was that health care became an industry, controlled by large corporations rather than independent practitioners, and every industry tends to grow till it forms an alliance with big government. When health care started becoming too expensive, the solution was supposed to be health insurance. But insurance quickly made health care even more expensive. On the one hand, the medical industry stopped worrying about being affordable; on the other, a new layer of private bureaucracy and overhead was added that also needed to be paid for. Is there a solution? Yes. There is one drastic solution.

But sometimes issues of health require drastic measures. The health care system needs radical surgery. The honest thing to do is do away with health insurance. Doctors and hospitals and clinics should start selling a product that people can afford, and that they should not have to buy unless they actually need the product. It should not cost a thousand dollars to treat an ingrown toenail. But it does. It should not cost $30,000 to set a broken arm. But it does. Ours is a system that cannot be sustained. That is why the government feels justified to step in.

Chesterton prophesied this very scenario. He warns that the State cannot become a Universal Provider without becoming just another big shop. The one thing we’ve seen about big shops is that they collapse. We can avoid the big collapse if we start getting small again. We might even get healthy again.

GilbertMagazine—Dale Ahlquist for the editorial board of Gilbert Magazine

*This editorial appeared in the April/May 2010 issue of Gilbert Magazine, which you can read in its entirety right here.

Our First Fourth of July After Our Freedom is Over

shackledFlagWhat will our first Fourth of July be like, once we have completely lost our freedom?

It won’t matter which pet cause of the Disinformational Elites is then-currently mandatory.

Gay Marriage won’t have any special favor over the long run.

As soon as the Elites have determined that our population is waning too much, they could just as easily forbid any sterile sexual relations, where now fruitful sexual relations are severely sanctioned.

Or as soon as the Elites have completely broken the spirit of the people by disintegrating their national identity, they may decide that unregulated immigration is forbidden. American Government immigration policy may become so severe that it makes Mexico’s look liberal.

P.S. To: CodeToad

Re: “The right to abortions is guaranteed by law.”

That could only be, if Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton (1973) had been passed by Legistlators.

Lawmakers make laws. Judges litigate on the basis of laws passed by Lawmakers.

Roe and Doe may be the litigation of the land, but, as opposed to Left-Coast States like California & New York, which actually BOTHERED to pass laws allowing for abortion, Congress never passed any law, nor did two-thirds of the States ratify any Amendments to The Constitution mandating universal abortion.

How the Court Became Supreme by judicial scholar Robert Lowry Clinton in First Things, January 1999

The Party System (The Vicar of Bray)

The Democratic Party is jubilant … because, among other things, they are awash in cash. The millions of dollars in corporate cash that flowed to the Republican Party during the heyday of Karl Rove is now flowing to the Democrats. Now, it is just possible that Corporate America has experienced a mass conversion, a change of heart than has resulted a change of contributions.

Unsuspected by Ordinary People, Economic Ultra-Elites Command the Base Institutions that Regulate Our Fundamental Living Conditions. They Are Far Above Conventional Distinctions of “Right” and “Left”—They Grant Ruling Privileges to the Group that can Demonstrate the Ability to Deliver What They Require. If The “Conservatives” Had A More Coherent, Political Gangster Force–As They Did in 2000–The Ruling Elite Would Have Supported “Conservatism”. The function of a quasi-governmental cartel/monopoly is not to benefit consumers. It is to enforce economy of scale, raise prices and discourage competition to benefit elites.
Bankers Rule the World
This is possible, but I doubt it. Rather, the money flows on what might be called the “Vicar of Bray” principle, namely that “whatsoever king shall reign,” the corporations will still retain their power and influence. It is power, and not principle, the directs the flow of cash. The corporations treat these lobbying and political expenses like any other investment; they expect (and get) a high return on their dollars. These returns come in the form of favorable tax treatment, friendly “regulations,” subsidies, and an endless stream of the kinds of “goodies” that only a beneficent government can provide. Government becomes a contest of competing oligarchs and the will of the people—the foundation of a democracy—becomes the will of those with lots of cash.

The great enabler of this form of oligarchic government is the Party System and especially the two-party system. This system is not constitutional, but it might as well be, since it is written into the laws of every state and of the federal government as well. The two parties enjoy a position in government that is sanctioned by positive law, and in practice no candidate can run—or even get on the ballot—without their sanction. But the parties themselves stand as mere proxies, not for real principles, but for principalities and powers.

PartySystemNone of this is news, of course. Hilaire Belloc and Cecil Chesterton noted all these problems as far back as 1911 in their book, The Party System. Belloc was, of course, a member of Parliament who resigned, calling Parliament noting more than “secret government by the rich.” Well, the secrets out, and has been out for a long time. But with power vested in the parties, the people seem to have little power to change things.

IHS Press will issue a new edition of The Party System with a foreword by Ron Paul. This is appropriate, since Congressman Paul does not quite fit into the standard political categories dictated by the two-party system. Actually, few of us do, but all of us find ourselves forced to hold our noses and vote, usually for the best of a bad lot. But Ron Paul has chosen the deliberate path of the rebel, much as Belloc and Chesterton did.

Now, I am not a libertarian, for reasons I have outlined previously (“Why I am not a Libertarian”). I do not think it is a complete theory. Nevertheless, I believe that a distributist state would more resemble the libertarian ideal than it would resemble anything else. Hence, I have a certain sympathy for certain forms of libertarianism. And I have a certain sympathy for a candidate who has read at least one book of Belloc’s. And mostly, I have a great deal of sympathy for a candidate who stands on principle. …

Paul does understand that the solution is in our power, and more to the point, in our constitution. As he notes:

the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections. Ballot access is one of the few areas where Congress has explicit constitutional authority to establish national standards. So we have no excuse for not having taken care of this problem.

Continue reading