Editorials and Op-ed

A Call for Openness and Transparency 
in Gwinnett Government  
By Dave Williams, Mayor City of Suwanee 

In his press conference on Thursday, Chairman Bannister issued a call to our county’s civic and business leaders to help solve the county’s financial crisis. I trust that his invitation for others to assist the county is sincere. He can demonstrate that it is by opening the county’s books and releasing the 2009 line item budget. Only then can taxpayers learn what their taxes are funding and the value of the services provided. 

One week ago, I authored an open letter opposing the property tax increase that our Gwinnett Commissioners planned to impose on taxpayers. Despite our efforts, we had only primitive knowledge of how those taxes were to be spent, since the Commission refused to share the line items in the 2009 budget. 

But as a result of the County’s compliance with one of the several Open Records requests filed by Gwinnett cities, we have learned a few nuggets: For starters, the 2009 budget (adopted on March 3) includes an 8.25% pay hike for county employees (4% for public safety.) Another revelation: the 2009 budget shows the County socking away, not $43 million into reserve as once thought, but in fact, $81 million.

And the tax hike would have passed just fine, thank you, except for one small variable… the taxpayers who provide the revenue in the first place. They educated themselves and took a strong stand. The fact that this tax hike is likely to be reconsidered is a testament to the power of our collective voice when we participate in our community.

All Gwinnett taxpayers should call for Gwinnett to truly open its books and share its intentions on the 2009 budget , especially as changes are being made. Urge our leadership to listen to the citizens. But most of all, follow through on this rare opportunity to genuinely engage the constituents who took a stand against higher taxes and the growth of county government. After all, government belongs to the people, not the elected officials and staff.

May 29, 2009

Let’s not forget Monday May 25th is Memorial Day!!

Once upon a time, school children were taught about great Americans like Jefferson Davis whose 201st birthday is June 3rd. 

The statue of Jefferson Davis and his two sons, Joe and Jim Limber, is nearing completion and will be placed at Beauvoir, the last home of the Confederate President, on Mississippi’s Gulf Coast. Jim was the Davis’ adopted African-American son. Read more about this Sons of Confederate Veterans project at: http://www.scv.org/pdf/DavisAppeal2008.pdf 

On Sunday, May 28, 1893, a few days before "Memorial Day", in New Orleans, a story began that overshadowed all other events.

This was the day when the remains of Jefferson Davis, former president of the Confederate States of America, was taken to Richmond, Virginia for final burial.

Jefferson Davis died in 1889 and over 200,000 people witnessed his temporary burial at Metairie Cemetery in New Orleans. Four years later on a rainy Saturday, on May 27, 1893, the remains of Jefferson Davis was removed and taken to Confederate Memorial Hall in New Orleans.

At 4:30PM, May 28th, a funeral service was held for Mr. Davis and a moving memorial address was delivered by Louisiana's Governor Murphy J. Foster as thousands listened. A reverent silence fell among the people as the casket was given to the commitment of veterans from Virginia.

The procession then formed for a slow march to the railroad station on Canal Street.

Train No. 69, with Engineer Frank Coffin, waited patiently as the casket was taken to the platform and passed through an open observation car to a catafalque. 

Train engine No. 69, of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad slowly pulled out of New Orleans Station at 7:50 p.m. for the 1,200 mile trip.

After a brief stop at Bay Saint Louis, and a slow-down at Pass Christian, where hundreds of people lined the tracks, the Jefferson Davis Funeral Train stopped at Gulfport, Mississippi, near Beauvoir the Southern president’s last home. http://www.beauvoir.org 

Uncle Bob Brown, a former servant of the Davis family and a passenger on the train, saw the many flowers that the children had laid on the side of the railroad tracks. Brown was so moved by this beautiful gesture that he wept uncontrollably.

In Mobile, Alabama, the train was met by a thousand mourners and the Alabama Artillery fired a 21-gun salute. Locomotive No. 69 was retired and Locomotive No. 25 was coupled to the train. The new train's Engineer was C.C. Devinney and Warren Robinson was its fireman.

The Atlanta Journal reported, quote, "The Cradle of the Confederacy is ablaze with life and light tonight. Everything is ready for honoring the memory of Jefferson Davis. Tomorrow morning with the rising of the sun the funeral train from New Orleans will reach Montgomery.” unquote.

Church bells rang in Montgomery, Alabama when the train pulled into the city at 6:00 a.m. on May 29th. A severe rainstorm delayed the funeral procession to about 8:30 a.m. when a caisson carried the body of Davis to Alabama's state capitol. A procession carried the casket through the portico where Jefferson Davis, in 1861, had taken the oath of office as President of the Confederacy.

The casket was placed in front of the bench of the Alabama Supreme Court. Above the right exit was a banner with the word "Monterrey" and above the left exit was a banner with the words "Buena Vista." During the War with Mexico Jefferson Davis was a hero at Monterrey and wounded at Buena Vista.

At 12:20 p.m. the funeral train departed over the Western Railway of Alabama and Atlanta and West Point Railroad for Atlanta. 

At 4:30 p.m. the funeral train pulled into Union Station in Atlanta, Georgia. It is estimated that 20,000 people lined the streets as the funeral procession made their way to the state capitol. When Davis’ body lay in state at the Capitol, it was guarded by Atlanta’s Gate City Guard which had served as Company F, 1st Georgia (Ramsay’s). 

At 7:00 p.m. the train went north on the Richmond and Danville Railroad. The train traveled through Lula, Georgia, Greenville, South Carolina and stopped at the North Carolina capitol at Raleigh. 

A brief stop was made in Danville, Virginia where a crowd of people gathered around the train and sang, "Nearer My God To Thee" as city church bells toiled.

Finally, the train reached Richmond, Virginia on Wednesday, May 31, 1893, at 3:00 a.m. It was Memorial Day. The casket was taken to the Virginia State House.

At 3:00 p.m., May 31st, the funeral procession started for Hollywood Cemetery. 

With Mrs. Jefferson Davis were her daughters, Winnie and Margaret. Six state governors acted as pallbearers. It was estimated that 75,000 people attended this final salute to President Davis. The ceremony concluded with a 21-gun salute and "Taps."

May 14, 2009

In recent times much discussion has spawned regarding President Barack Obama’s general performance throughout his first few months in office. Not only have the President’s acts been measured within this context, but also his works as they relate to the addressing of the concerns of the African American community. While the Obama administration has primarily had to contend with our nation’s economic crisis; some African Americans have still found cause to level criticism towards the President asserting that he has essentially ignored many of the communities’ issues and to some degree the group itself. 

In mid April, Obama drew disapproval from African American activists as well as the Congressional Black Caucus, as the White House announced it would not send a delegation to the international conference on racism, in Geneva, Switzerland. Obama’s decision to forgo this event was stated to be predicated on his refusal to involve the United States in any discussions that would potentially inspire anti-Semitism in addressing relations between Israel and Palestine. Obama’s pronouncement was received in some African American quarters as an act of “quasi-treason,” as many members of this group empathize with the plight of the Palestinians in their efforts to overcome the oppressive measures imposed upon them by their Israeli neighbors. Additional angst registered within segments of the African American body as sentiments emerged suggesting that Obama’s decision to skip the conference signified his willingness to acquiesce to Jewish interests at the expense of those of other ethnic populations. Further discontent regarding the Obama administration has found its expression, as some Americans of African descent have begun to call the President’s legislative intentions into question. 

In late April, a measure featured in Obama’s “Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan,” that would have allowed scores of home owners facing foreclosure (many of whom are African American and where targeted by banking institutions engaged in predatory lending practices) an opportunity to have their mortgage loans adjusted by bankruptcy court judges was rejected by the Senate. Although multitudinal indicators suggested the provision would face defeat days prior to the Senate vote, the White House made little attempt to counter the actions of banking industry lobbyists conscripted to bring about the amendment’s demise. This circumstance prevailed in the face of Obama’s prior proclamations touting his administration’s commitment to the legislation and his desire to bring it into law. While Obama has perhaps made a significant overture towards addressing the interests of the African American community by the appointing of Eric Holder to the position of United States Attorney General, conceivably little else by way of action suggests that his administration is principally intent on working to remedy the societal arrangements that have perpetually hampered African American prosperity. In light of this plausible reality, one question must be asked. What actions must the African American community take to ensure that our nation’s first President of African descent (as well as the political class in general) acknowledges its issues to the extent they become integrated into the national and (where necessary) international agenda? 
The answer to this question may be revealed through an analysis of what African Americans have unfortunately failed to do for many years as it relates to “group survival,” within the political construct of our nation. To this end, Americans of African descent have not been able to effectively organize on a national level where by a comprehensive analysis of its social, political and financial condition would be realized. Resultantly, an agenda encompassing a list of prioritized, “African American interests” which political figures would be expected to consider (with the understanding that the African American vote weighs in the balance) has not been crafted. This prevailing circumstance persisted and was further exacerbated during this past Presidential election cycle as the African American public, enamored with the prospect of our nation’s first President of African descent, (as reflected by Obama’s 95% support rating among this group) intentionally sought not to make overt demands upon Obama. This approach was adopted as it was reasoned that such actions would have functioned to provide the foundation by which Obama’s opponents would have been able to portray him as the “Black Candidate,” whose ultimate allegiance was to the group to which he belonged as opposed to that of the larger society, thus potentially alienating the then Illinois Junior Senator from large portions of the electorate. As a result of this reality, Obama has not had to “make good” on any promises to African Americans, as none were ever made. 

The African American community finds itself in a precarious position. While the Obama administration has been and will continue to be confronted with a plethora of problematic occurrences and circumstances, this group must find a way to secure its seat at the table of, “political opportunity.” Although the African American vote served to help propel Obama to our nation’s highest office, efforts in this area were done so without any real expressed contingencies. Americans of African descent as a result, have essentially been left to rely on the will of the Obama administration to contend with the multitude of societal issues that function to constrict their collective advancement in an environment in which, the needs of the many are great, and political capital is at a premium. The African American community may have initially missed its opportunity to concisely specify its expectations of Obama and in so doing implicitly exercise its political girth however; it may not be too late to perform this maneuver. If such an evolvement is brought to fruition perhaps the full breadth of “Change” may be experienced within the communities of this population. 

May 13, 2009
Frederick Alexander Meade is an educator and journalist providing analysis on social and political matters. His works have appeared in news magazines and publications around the country. Meade, who lives in Atlanta, GA, can be reached by E-mail at meade1900@yahoo.com 

Over the last 30 years, Atlanta and Georgia have led the way for economic success and growth across the New South. This growth, however, has come at a cost as we have seen relentless traffic congestion not just in metro Atlanta but in other metropolitan areas around the Southeast. To ensure we do not become a victim of our own success, we must consider investing in a high-speed rail system throughout the Southeast as an innovative way to connect our cities without increasing the burden on our interstates and airports.

I am glad President Barack Obama has chosen to focus on high-speed rail because I have been a big believer for years that high-speed rail will complement the Southeast’s transportation infrastructure, reduce congestion on the interstates between the region’s economic centers and increase our competitiveness around the world.

What we must avoid at all costs, however, is a rail operation built on subsidies. That is a model that has not worked and never will. We need to fundamentally alter our method of capitalizing rail transportation and put it on a footing similar to that of airports, freeways and seaports.

Governments —- a combination of state and federal —- should acquire the right of way and build tracks with user fees to pay for upkeep, levied by private rail corporations that would succeed or fail on their own performance. Passenger rail lines should be privately operated on publicly funded infrastructure. Private operation will lead to a competitive and efficient passenger rail industry.

Have you ever thought about the difference between railroads and airlines? With passenger rail in the United States, you subsidize everything. With air travel, you and I as taxpayers pay for the runways at Hartsfield and the infrastructure at Hartsfield, but that’s where the public investment ends.

Delta, AirTran and other airlines risk capital and compete to deliver the services to move people from one city to another.

High-speed rail can succeed when projected ridership can support proposed operating costs. In 2000, Amtrak launched its high-speed Acela Express trains with service between Washington, New York City and Boston. At the time, 37 percent of travelers in the Washington-to-New York corridor took Amtrak while the remaining 63 percent traveled by other means. Today, those numbers are reversed. In addition, passenger rail ridership from New York to Boston has grown from 20 percent of travelers to 49 percent.

High-speed rail only works when trains go where passengers want to go and the number of passengers is large enough to support the operation. I believe the corridor from Washington to Richmond to Raleigh to Charlotte to Greenville, S.C., to Atlanta to Birmingham possesses the projected ridership to support rail service on a profitable basis, much like the Boston to Washington corridor.

There are estimates we could take 15 percent of the traffic off I-85 between Atlanta to Charlotte, and I view that as a very good utilization of federal investment.

With the presence of high-speed rail, Atlanta has the potential to be an anchor for multimodal transport. It could serve as the backbone off which other forms of transit such a light rail would connect regional communities. We have to think outside the box. We have to think intermodal. There is no reason why, in high-traffic areas, Georgia cannot take advantage of both light and heavy rail to make sure that people move smoothly and efficiently.

Republican Johnny Isakson represents Georgia in the U.S. Senate.
May 10, 2009

Sunday, April 26th, is Confederate Memorial Day in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas and Mississippi.

The Constitution of the Confederates States of America will be exhibited
from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm on Monday, April, 27, 2009, in the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library (on the 3rd floor of the Main Library) at the University ofGeorgia in Athens.

See details at their website: http://www.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/speccoll.html

The Confederate History Month Committee of the Sons of Confederate Veterans encourage all Americans—Black, White, Jewish, Hispanic, Native American, Arabic, Oriental—men, women and children, to attend Confederate Memorial activities throughout Georgia and the nation and learn more about the role the Confederacy played in our nation’s history. To find a Confederate Memorial Day event near you please log on to: http://confederateheritagemonth.com

Confederate Memorial Day has been a legal holiday in Georgia since 1874 by an act of the Georgia General Assembly and bill signed by then Governor James Smith, who also served as Confederate Colonel, Lawyer and Congressman and………….

for over 100 year’s the members of the Ladies Memorial Association, United Daughters of the Confederacy and Sons of Confederate Veterans have held annual Confederate Memorial Day services on or near April 26th and in other states on May 10th and June 3rd.

June 3rd is the 201st birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his last home and Presidential Library is owned and operated by the Mississippi Division Sons of Confederate Veterans. Please log on to: www.beauvoir.org to read information about Beauvoir’s April 25th Confederate Memorial Day Service.

The Georgia General Assembly recently passed a bill officially designating April as Confederate History Month that now waits for Governor Sonny Perdue’s signature. 
April 21, 2009

Did you know that Confederate Memorial Day is observed during the months of April, May and June in the north and south? For Confederate Memorial Day event information please see: http://confederatehistorymonth.com 

Let me tell you a story about Arlington National Cemetery where this nation honored the men who fought for the Confederacy, the Union and those men and women who fought our nations' wars since the War Between the States. 

Did you know there are 245,000 service men and women, including their families, are buried at Arlington? 

The world famous Arlington National Cemetery is located in the shadow of the Custis-Lee Mansion (Arlington House) that was home to General Robert E. Lee and family until 1861 and the beginning of the War Between the States. This cemetery is on the Virginia side of the Potomac River across from the nation's capital. 

In 1864, Union soldiers were first buried here and by the end of the war the number rose to 16,000. 

The Union burial site at Arlington National Cemetery is at section 13. Also buried in Arlington include: President John F. Kennedy, General Jonathan M. Wainwright and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. 

Around the start of the 20th century this country also honored the men who fought for the Confederacy. This site of men who fought for " Dixie" is located in section 16. 

There is an inscription on the 32.5 foot high Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery that reads, "An Obedience To Duty As They Understood it; These Men Suffered All; Sacrificed All and Died”!

Some claim this Confederate Monument at Arlington may have been the first to honor Black Confederates. Carved on this monument is the depiction of a Black Confederate who is marching in step with the White soldiers. Also shown is a White Confederate who gives his child to a Black woman for safe keeping. 

In 1898, President William McKinley, a former Union soldier spoke in Atlanta , Georgia and said, “In the spirit of Fraternity it was time for the North to share in the care of the graves of former Confederate soldiers.

In consequence to his speech, by Act of the United States Congress, a portion of Arlington National Cemetery was set aside for the burial of Confederate soldiers. At this time 267 Confederate remains from and near Washington were removed and re-interred at this new site. 

In 1906, the United Daughters of the Confederacy asked permission from William Howard Taft to erect a monument. Taft was at the time serving as the United States Secretary of War and was in charge of National Cemeteries. 

With permission the Arlington Confederate Memorial Association was formed and the United Daughters of the Confederacy were given authority to oversee work on the monument. 

An agreement and contract was made with Sir Moses Jacob Ezekiel who was a Jewish Confederate Veteran by the record of his service at the Battle of New Market while he was a Cadet at Virginia Military Institute. Work started at his workshop in Italy in 1910, and upon his death in 1917, the Great Sculptor, was brought back home and buried near the base of the Arlington Confederate Monument . 

On June 4, 1914, the Arlington monument was unveiled to a crowd of thousands that included former Confederate and Union soldiers. 

The Memorial Event was presided over by President Woodrow Wilson and the people applauded the stirring speeches given by: General Bennett H. Young- Commander In Chief of the United Confederate Veterans; General Washington Gardner-Commander In Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic and Colonel Robert E. Lee - grandson of General Lee. 

The Confederate monument unveiling was concluded by a 21 gun salute and the Arlington monument was officially given to the United Daughters of the Confederacy and was given back to the U.S. War Department for keeping and accepted by President Woodrow Wilson who said: 

"I am not so happy as PROUD to participate in this capacity on such an occasion, Proud that I represent such a people." 

Lest We Forget!! http://confederateheritagemonth.com 
April 16, 2009

What must be done to recover from this financial crisis? Barack Obama rightly stresses that we first must understand how today’s problems emerged. It is “only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament."

Unfortunately, Obama (along with most of the Washington establishment) has created only misunderstanding. In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy, he has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government.

For example, Obama’s core explanation of all the destructive behavior leading up to today’s crisis is that the market was too free. But the market that led to today’s crisis was systematically manipulated by government. Fact: this decade saw drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets--via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows, and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s size and influence. Fact: through these entities, the government sought to “stimulate the economy” and promote homeownership (sound familiar?) by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers. Fact: most of the (very few) economists who actually predicted the financial crisis blame Fed policy or housing policy for inflating a bubble that was bound to collapse.

How does all this evidence factor into Obama’s understanding of “how we arrived at this moment”? It doesn’t. Not once, during the solemn 52 minutes and 5,902 words of his speech to Congress did he mention the Fed, Fannie, or Freddie. Not once did he suggest that government manipulation of markets could have any possible role in the present crisis. He just went full steam ahead and called for more spending, more intervention, and more government housing programs as the solution.

But a genuine explanation of the financial crisis must take into account all the facts. What role did the Fed play? What about Fannie and Freddie? To be sure, some companies and CEOs seem to have made irrational business decisions. Was the primary cause “greed,” as so many claim--and what does this even mean? Or was the primary cause government intervention like artificially low interest rates, which distorted economic decision-making and encouraged less competent and more reckless companies and CEOs while marginalizing and paralyzing the more competent ones?

Entertaining such questions would also mean considering the idea that the fundamental solution to our problems is to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation. It would mean considering pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises, and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates. 

But it is not genuine understanding the administration seeks. For them, the wisdom and necessity of previous government intervention is self-evident; no matter the contrary evidence, the crisis can only have been caused by insufficient government intervention. Besides, they are too busy following Obama’s chief of staff’s dictum, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” by proposing a virtual takeover of not only financial markets, but also the problem-riddled energy and health-care markets--which, they conveniently ignore, are also already among the most government-controlled in the economy.
While Obama has not sought a real explanation of today’s economic problems, Americans should. Otherwise, we will simply swallow “solutions” that dogmatically assume the free market got us here--namely, Obama’s plans to swamp this country in an ocean of government debt, government controls, and government make-work projects. But alternative, free-market explanations for the crisis do exist--ones that consider the inconvenient facts Washington ignores--and every American should seek to understand them.

Those who do will likely end up telling our leaders to stop saying “Yes, we can” to each new proposal for expanding government power, and start saying “Yes, you can” to Americans who seek to exercise their right to produce and trade on a free market.

April 8, 2009

Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

In dealing with AIG, why are people pussyfooting around? They believe that the bonus money was stolen from the public and must be retrieved by any means possible. So why not bypass the niceties and just send in some well-armed “enforcers” to confiscate the bonus recipients’ cars and houses and bank accounts? 

If this raises fear about ushering in mob rule, it’s too late. AIG employees have been crudely vilified, they have been targets of death threats, a U.S. senator has urged them to kill themselves, protestors “tour” their homes, they have had to hire security guards and AIG has removed its name from the front of its Manhattan offices. 

This mass hysteria is being fueled by the government, which is proceeding on the premise of: “Get the money back first, rationalize later.” The House passed an extraordinary piece of punitive--and unconstitutional--legislation to tax away almost all the bonus money. New York’s attorney general, abetted by the threat of making their names public, has gotten many of the recipients to “voluntarily” return their bonuses. Perversely, the rights of captured Islamic jihadists generate greater concern in Washington.

All these actions are tantamount to rule by mob action.
A mob is driven by rampant emotionalism, with no concern for facts--facts such as: Are these particular recipients guilty of anything? Are they competent individuals, necessary to keep the company operational? Would they have resigned without the inducement of the bonuses? Didn’t Washington consent to the bonuses at the time of the bailout? Aren’t the recipients entitled to the bonuses by contract? 

The essence of mob rule is arbitrary and unchecked force, in disregard of all rights. If so, then when the government spends our money with virtually no limits--then trillions of dollars are gleefully disbursed through unrestrained horse-trading and arm-twisting among members of Congress--when trillions more are poured down the rat holes of failing companies at the uncontrolled discretion of bureaucrats--when government “czars” can select a company’s CEO and dictate its product line--then what we have is government by mob rule. That is, we have government with arbitrary, unchecked power to do as it wishes--which means: government unconstrained by the principle of individual freedom.

Like any mob, Washington desires a scapegoat. It blames capitalism for the mortgage and credit crisis, in order to divert attention from the real culprit: government intervention. Every housing-related measure taken by Washington has made the standards for homeownership looser than they would be in a free market. Government has stepped in to override private companies’ aversion to undue risk. Regulators criticized banks for turning down too many mortgage applications. FNMA and FHLMC were created to encourage the issuance of mortgages that would not be prudent in a free market. The FDIC anesthetizes depositors against risks taken with their funds. And the entire Federal Reserve exists to pump paper money into the economy, and to keep interest rates artificially low--often below the rate of inflation--so that more lending occurs. Yet when this house of cards collapsed, it is capitalism that was denounced, and more government power that was demanded. 

The administration’s latest proposal, for a “systemic risk regulator,” should leave little doubt that it seeks carte blanche in ruling the economy. This is a plan for an economic dictator, an “enforcer” who will have the frightening authority to oversee every decision that, in his opinion, significantly influences the economy.

Of course, once the mob-rule mentality takes hold, everyone becomes a potential target. If you obtain a mortgage or a college loan, the government may subject you too to “risk regulation.” You may be told that you can’t buy a plasma TV or take a vacation or quit your job, because the risk to your finances is “unacceptable.” But isn’t that a purely private decision?--you will indignantly demand. If government power keeps expanding, however, there may no longer be any private decisions.

Peter Schwartz is the author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America. He is a distinguished fellow, and former chairman of the board, of the Ayn Rand Institute.

April 6, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Remembering the Great Locomotive Chase
By: Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

Are children still taught American History in the public and private schools?

The Georgia State Senate, on Friday April 3, 2009, approved the changes the House made to SB No. 27 that officially proclaims April as Confederate History Month. It now goes to Governor Sonny Perdue for signing. April 26th, Confederate Memorial Day, has also been recognized as a legal Georgia holiday since 1874.

2009 marks the 53rd anniversary of Walt Disney Pictures great movie classic "The Great Locomotive Chase" starring Fess Parker and Jeffrey Hunter.

When it comes to old locomotives, we are all children at heart. Many of us love a story from the bygone era of passenger trains that was once the fastest way to travel.

Our nation's most famous locomotive "The General" is now home at the Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History in Kennesaw, Ga. Kennesaw is about 45 miles north of Atlanta on the Old Highway 41. http://www.southernmuseum.org 

April 12, 2009, is the 147th anniversary of the "Great Locomotive Chase" that made "The General" famous. Jefferson Cain, an employee of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, was Engineer of The General. At 4:15 on the morning of April 12, 1862, Cain pushed the throttle of The General and drove the engine out of Atlanta, Georgia for Chattanooga, Tennessee as a cool spring rain fell on the city.

During the spring of 1862, the peaceful town of Big Shanty (now Kennesaw) was paid not so peaceful a visit by Union spies led by James Andrews, who brought with him plans to disrupt Confederate supply lines. Andrews and his men boarded the train at Marietta, Georgia. They had spent the previous night at the Fletcher House now (Kennesaw House). Twenty boarded the train while two were left behind.

The next stop was the Lacy Hotel in Big Shanty for a twenty minute breakfast break. That's where The General was stolen in full view of "Camp McDonald" a drill camp and home to many Confederate officers and enlisted men. There was no telegraph there, which was one reason Andrews chose the site.

Andrews, A Kentuckian, had made a name for himself by smuggling much needed quinine through Union lines for the benefit of Confederate soldiers and civilians. There were with him three experienced engineers, William Knight, Wilson Brown and John Wilson. When asked where they were from, they replied by saying, "I am from Fleming County, Kentucky." They also said that they were on their way to join the Confederate Army.

The official plan to steal The General was approved by Union General Ormsby Michael. The plan was to take the locomotive north on the Western and Atlantic Railroad and destroy tracks, bridges and tunnels along the way. General Michael agreed that he would take Huntsville on April 11, 1862, and then would wait on Andrews before moving into Chattanooga, Tennessee.

"Someone.....has stolen my train,” William Fuller, conductor on the General said in amazement as the train was pulling away from the Big Shanty train depot. Men of the Western and Atlantic railroad almost immediately began the chase with engineer Jefferson Cain, William Fuller, and machine foreman Anthony Murphy close behind.

With no telegraph at Big Shanty, the men ran north along the railroad tracks to Moon Station and procured a platform handcar; then went on until they found "The Yonah." The next train used was the "William R. Smith."

The last locomotive used in the chase by William Fuller was the famous "Texas" that was heading South. The Texas is now housed in Atlanta, Georgia's Cyclorama at Grant Park. With no time to spare, the Texas was run in reverse through the entire chase.

James Andrews and his Raiders were slowed down by southbound trains that had to pass before they could continue. With the telegraph out of service, Fuller was fortunate to catch telegraph operator Edward Henderson. Fuller gave the young Henderson a hand up on the train, as it was in motion, and gave him a message for General Ledbetter that Henderson sent from Dalton.

Andrews and his men failed to destroy the bridges over Georgia's Chickamauga Creek, Etowah River and Tunnel Hill. They also failed to slow down the pursuers by setting up the cars of The General on fire and sending them back down the railroad tracks. The end came when they ran out of wood and lost power about 18 miles south of Chattanooga.

It took about two weeks for the Confederates to capture the Union spies. Some of them made it as far as Bridgeport, Alabama. Eventfully, all 20 of Andrews Raiders were captured. James Andrews and six of his men were hung in Atlanta, eight escaped, and others were paroled.

The United States Congress created the Medal of Honor in 1862 and it was awarded to some of the raiders. James Andrews was not eligible because he not a part of the military service.

William Fuller, who is buried at Atlanta's Oakland Cemetery, was recognized by the Confederate Government, Georgia Governor Joseph Brown and the Georgia General Assembly for his act of heroism.

Learn more about Confederate History Month and the events of this memorial month at” http://confederateheritagemonth.com and http://confederatehistorymonth.com 

April 6, 2009

The Confederate History Month Committee of the National and Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans proudly recognizes the signing of many proclamations by Southern governors, mayors and county commissioners since 1995 designating the month of April as “Confederate History and Heritage Month.”

Georgia’s Governor Sonny Perdue and Mississippi’s Governor Haley Barbour have both signed a proclamation designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month for 2009 and city mayors and county commissioners will follow and;

The Georgia Senate also recently passed SB Bill 27 officially proclaiming April as Confederate History Month and the Georgia House rules committee voted 5-0 sending it out of committee for a full house vote. Supporters of the bill say quote, 

“The measure would be a boom to the state’s tourism industry, encouraging visitors to come to Georgia’s Civil War Battlefield sites.” Unquote

America will celebrate the 150th Anniversary of the War Between the States from 2011 through 2015 and the Confederate History Month Committee encourages all Americans to make it a family affair to learn more about this time of our nation’s past.

Confederate History Month commemorates the men and women of the Confederate States of America who came from all races and religions that include: Irish-born General Patrick R. Cleburne, Black Georgia Confederate drummer Bill Yopp, Mexican born Colonel Santos Benavides, Cherokee Born General Stand Watie and Jewish born Confederate Nurse Phoebe Pember who was the first female administrator of Chimboraza Hospital in Richmond, Georgia where she served until the end of War Between the States.

Confederate Memorial Day became a legal holiday in Georgia by act of the Georgia legislature in 1874. For over 100 year’s members of the Ladies Memorial Association, United Daughters of the Confederacy and Sons of Confederate Veterans have held annual Confederate Memorial days on or near April 26th. Other states celebrate Southern Memorial Day on May 10th and June 3rd--the birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis whose 200th birthday was celebrated last year at Davis’ last home Beauvoir www.beauvoir.org and other places throughout the nation.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans encourage all Americans and people throughout the world to learn more about the roll the men and women of the Confederacy played in the history of the USA and to take part in Southern Memorial Day and April’s month of events. A historical information brochure and “I Support Confederate History Month” stickers will be made available to SCV members and the public.

For further information check out: http://confederateheritagemonth.com and http://confederatehistorymonth.com. 

On Saturday, March 28, cities around the world will turn off their lights to observe “Earth Hour.” Iconic landmarks from the Sydney Opera House to Manhattan’s skyscrapers will be darkened to encourage reduced energy use and signal a commitment to fighting climate change.

While a one-hour blackout will admittedly have little effect on carbon emissions, what matters, organizers say, is the event’s symbolic meaning. That’s true, but not in the way organizers intend.

We hear constantly that the debate is over on climate change--that man-made greenhouse gases are indisputably causing a planetary emergency. But there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claims of climate catastrophe. And what’s never mentioned? The fact that reducing greenhouse gases to the degree sought by climate activists would, itself, cause significant harm.

Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions--as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of world energy), and because the claims of abundant “green energy” from breezes and sunbeams are a myth--this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy use.

People don’t have a clear view of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don’t consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of every day. Driving our cars to work and school, sitting in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that proposed climate policies would force upon us.

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without anyform of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.

Those who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe. What we really need is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life (including, of course, to our ability to cope with any changes in the climate).

It is true that the importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.

March 24, 2009

Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on science and environmentalism. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

The latest wrinkle in Georgia’s budget saga emerged Thursday when the Governor warned legislators that rising unemployment could cause a nine percent increase in Medicaid enrollees. When workers lose their jobs, they often also lose job-based health insurance and join the ranks of the uninsured. Medicaid is the state health plan for the uninsured. House Speaker Glenn Richardson added to the bad news by revealing that among other cuts, teacher furloughs and the closure of universities and state parks may be added to the already sizeable mountain of cuts to healthcare, corrections, education and other critical services. Further, the prospect of a special legislative session in order to make still deeper cuts to meet the ever-dwindling budget projections looms over the capitol as we speak. 

Recently, Georgia unsuccessfully considered raising the tax on food and hospitals to cover the budget shortfall. Conspicuously absent from this conversation however, was the much more attractive prospect of a tobacco tax increase. It generates significant and predictable revenue, enjoys very high support in polls, and impacts only the 20% of Georgians who smoke. Are our Georgia legislators really telling us that cheap tobacco is more important than funding teachers? That we would close universities before we would raise cigarette taxes? That we would tax food, but not tobacco when many Georgians are struggling to buy groceries, and when so many are losing their jobs and healthcare benefits? 

Indeed, tough times call for tough decisions, but I don't see enough of our legislators making the easy decision either: Raising tobacco taxes. In fairness, I may not be entirely impartial. I am a cancer doctor and I routinely see the impact that tobacco use has on my patients health. But as a doctor, I am also a business owner. And I think its time that Georgia started operating more like a business. For example, what does the private insurance market do to insurance premiums for smokers? They raise them. Because smokers represent a much higher risk, and higher risk equals higher premiums. Georgia should take a page from the private market playbook and do the same by increasing the state tobacco tax. In doing so, the state would be asking smokers to take personal responsibility for the increased health costs they place on our strained Medicaid and healthcare system--just as the private market does. 

And in addition to improving health, we could avoid closing universities and parks, furloughing teachers and spending even more taxpayer dollars to fund a special legislative session to make even deeper cuts to such important causes. 

I keep hearing that there are no easy solutions to the budget predicament, but I have to disagree. We just may not be looking in the right place.

March 20, 2009

Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?

The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society--particularly its dominant moral ideas.

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand said this message is wrong--selfishness, rather than being evil, is a virtue. By this she did not mean exploiting others à la Bernie Madoff. Selfishness--that is, concern with one's genuine, long-range interest--she wrote, required a man to think, to produce, and to prosper by trading with others voluntarily to mutual benefit.

Rand also noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism--and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention--and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest.
Rand offered us a way out--to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today.
March 14, 2009

Dr. Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Newport Beach is considering banning smoking in a variety of new places, potentially including parks and outdoor dining areas. This is just the latest step in a widespread war on smoking by federal, state, and local governments--a campaign that includes massive taxes on cigarettes, advertising bans, and endless lawsuits against tobacco companies. This war is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

According to the anti-smoking movement, restricting people’s freedom to smoke is justified by the necessity of combating the “epidemic” of smoking-related disease and death. 

Cigarettes, we are told, kill hundreds of thousands each year, and expose countless millions to secondhand smoke. Smoking, the anti-smoking movement says, in effect, is a plague, whose ravages can only be combated through drastic government action.

But smoking is not some infectious disease that must be quarantined and destroyed by the government. It’s a voluntary activity that every individual is free to abstain from (including by avoiding restaurants and other private establishments that permit smoking). And, contrary to those who regard any smoking as irrational on its face, cigarettes are a potential value that each individual must assess for himself. Of course, smoking can be harmful--in certain quantities, over a certain period of time, it can be habit forming and lead to disease or death. But many understandably regard the risks as minimal if one smokes relatively infrequently, and they see smoking as offering definite value, such as physical pleasure.

Are they right? Can it be a value to smoke cigarettes--and if so, in what quantity? This is the sort of judgment that properly belongs to every individual, based on his assessment of the evidence concerning smoking’s benefits and risks, and taking into account his particular circumstances (age, family history, etc.). If others believe the smoker is making a mistake, they are free to try to persuade him of their viewpoint. But they should not be free to dictate his decision, any more than they should be able to dictate his decision on whether and to what extent to drink alcohol or play poker. The fact that some individuals will smoke themselves into an early grave is no more justification for banning smoking than that the existence of alcoholics is grounds for prohibiting you from enjoying a drink at dinner.
Implicit in the war on smoking, however, is the view that the government must dictate the individual’s decisions with regard to smoking, because he is incapable of making them rationally. To the extent the anti-smoking movement succeeds in wielding the power of government coercion to impose on Americans its blanket opposition to smoking, it is entrenching paternalism: the view that individuals are incompetent to run their own lives, and thus require a nanny-state to control every aspect of those lives.

This state is well on its way: from trans-fat bans to bicycle helmet laws to prohibitions on gambling, the government is increasingly abridging our freedom on the grounds that we are not competent to make rational decisions in these areas--just as it has long done by paternalistically dictating how we plan for retirement (Social Security) or what medicines we may take (the FDA).

Indeed, one of the main arguments used to bolster the anti-smoking agenda is the claim that smokers impose “social costs” on non-smokers, such as smoking-related medical expenses--an argument that perversely uses an injustice created by paternalism to support its expansion. The only reason non-smokers today are forced to foot the medical bills of smokers is that our government has virtually taken over the field of medicine, in order to relieve us inept Americans of the freedom to manage our own health care, and bear the costs of our own choices.

But contrary to paternalism, we are not congenitally irrational misfits. We are thinking beings for whom it is both possible and necessary to rationally judge which courses of action will serve our interests. The consequences of ignoring this fact range from denying us legitimate pleasures to literally killing us: from the healthy 26-year-old unable to enjoy a trans-fatty food to the 75-year-old man unable to take an unapproved, experimental drug without which he will certainly die.

By employing government coercion to deprive us of the freedom to judge for ourselves what we inhale or consume, the anti-smoking movement has become an enemy, not an ally, in the quest for health and happiness.

Don Watkins is a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

March 6, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

In his address to the joint session of Congress, President Obama said that “We cannot shun the negotiating table” in conducting our foreign policy. He’s previously elaborated that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” And Iran’s president Ahmedinijad tentatively welcomes “talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere.”

The shared idea, evidently, is that our conflict with Iran stems largely from a past failure to use so-called diplomacy to settle disputes. Alluding to George W. Bush’s supposedly tough policy, Obama has said he wants to restore “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years” ago. 

Really? Thirty years ago this November, followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, who spearheaded Iran’s Islamic revolution, stormed the U.S. embassy in Teheran and took the personnel hostage. President Carter gently admonished Iran, but ruled out military retaliation. Instead his advisors spent months dreaming up schemes to bribe Iran into releasing the hostages--while bending over backward to enable the regime to save face. In the end Khomeini’s Islamist theocracy collected a handsome payoff for its aggression, and concluded, rightly, that if attacked, America would crumple to its knees. 

Was Obama thinking of the 1980s? In April 1983 Iran’s jihadist proxies in Lebanon rammed a truck bomb into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut; the Reagan administration responded by doing nothing. Months later, encouraged by Washington’s inaction, Teheran issued a kill order--via its ambassador in Syria--to its allied groups in Beirut. Early one morning, an Islamist suicide bomber set off a massive explosion at the barracks where U.S. marines were sleeping and killed 241 of them. 

Reagan spouted hot air about not backing down--and soon after ordered the U.S. troops to bug out. The jihadists wanted America out, they slaughtered our troops, and we caved in and gave them what they wanted. 

Osama bin Laden, like jihadists in Iran and elsewhere, viewed our response to the Beirut bombings as further proof that their ideologically driven war was a viable cause. And so, inspired by Iranian aggression, the anti-American jihad kept ramping up. 

Maybe Obama meant the fabled halcyon days of the 1990s, when President Clinton tried to mend fences with Iran? 

In 1996 a team of jihadists--financed and trained by Teheran--blew up the Khobar Towers building in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen. Clinton’s administration learned that Iran was behind the attacks. But Washington brushed aside any notion of retaliating against Iran, in order to facilitate a “reconciliation” with that murderous regime. In an eerie parallel with today, Iran expressed its openness to U.S. groveling--an opportunity Clinton seized.

So, Clinton attended a speech by Iran’s leader at the U.N.; the administration also permitted the sale of much-needed aircraft parts to Iran, among other sweeteners. Granted the cover of respectability, Iran was emboldened to continue fomenting Islamist aggression and avidly pursue its then-embryonic nuclear program. 

Obama’s appeasing diplomacy re-enacts the disastrous policy of the past. Our policymakers evaded Iran’s character as an enemy, and by rewarding its aggression with bribes and conciliation, they encouraged a spiral of further attacks. 

No. Bush was no exception to this trend. After 9/11 his administration invited Iran--the leading sponsor of Islamist terrorism--to join an anti-terrorism coalition(!). Talk of an axis of evil was quickly abandoned, and Washington backed the European scheme to bribe Iran to halt its nuclear program. By late last year, there was talk of opening a U.S. Special Interests Section (a step down from an embassy) in Iran. Meanwhile Bush’s welfare mission in Iraq negated U.S. security and left Iran untouched to grow more powerful and resolute. 

A genuinely new, rational policy toward Iran would turn away from the last 30 years and begin by facing up to Teheran’s ongoing proxy war against us.
Elan Journo is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on foreign policy. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

March 3, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

   In response to recent articles on the Public Service Commission’s regulation of household goods movers, I would like to point out some inaccuracies and relay some facts the writers have omitted. 

   First, some have incorrectly stated that the Public Service Commission does not verify insurance for licensed movers. The fact is that all licensed Georgia movers must present and maintain insurance coverage. The PSC strictly monitors and enforces this regulation. 

   Reports also state that movers must complete a safety training class prior to issuance of a license. Motor carrier safety falls under the purview of the Georgia Department of Public Safety not the PSC. 

   Let me also provide some insight into the PSC's regulatory challenges. In 2001 the PSC had a transportation division staffed with approximately sixty employees. Under the leadership of then Governor Roy Barnes, the state legislature approved legislation that transferred the entire Transportation Division to the new Department of Motor Vehicle Safety. There were approximately 20 employees then who handled household goods movers as well as limousines. When the Governor Sonny Perdue and the legislature returned regulation of household goods movers to the Commission in 2005, we gained exactly one person to handle the job. Today we have a staff one tenth the previous size yet we are expected to provide the public with the same level of service. Is it really any wonder that rogue movers keep rolling?

   This one employee and a staff attorney recently spent an entire day conducting a field audit of one illegal mover, pouring over paperwork and documents at the mover’s office. This mover purported to hold a certificate from the Commission. This one investigation consumed the entire day of our one employee as well as a staff attorney who handles not only Transportation issues but also issues for our Utility Facilities Protection and Pipeline Safety Units.

   Once the Commission finds out that a mover is operating illegally, the Commission will issue an order telling the mover to cease and desist and provide documentation to become Commission certified. If they ignore this order, the Commission will institute proceedings to bring in the mover and fine them. However, many illegal movers will simply stop operating under one name and set up shop under another name elsewhere, operating only with a cell phone and a mail box. Chasing down these illegal scofflaws again requires considerable Commission time and resources. 

   While these reports correctly point out that until 2007 the Commission had no authority over movers who operated solely within the boundaries of a municipality, what they fail to mention is that the Commission initiated legislation (House Bill 316) to correct this deficiency and pushed for its successful passage during the 2007 session of the General Assembly. 

   We have also attempted to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Public Safety to assist us in tracking down unlicensed movers but to date those negotiations have been unsuccessful. We will continue those efforts in order to find and put rogue movers out of business. 

   Most of the household goods movers in the state are reputable firms but there are some disreputable movers. The public needs to know that if they are planning a move they need to call the PSC at 404-656-4501 or check our web site, www.psc.state.ga.us , to find out if the mover is licensed by the Commission.

   I assure you that the Public Service Commission will continue to do all it can within its current budget and resource limitation to pursue illegal movers.

Doug Everett
Vice-chairman
Georgia Public Service Commission
September 11, 2008

                                            Front Page