The most offensive claim made during the debt-ceiling controversy is that there's a moral equivalence between cutting government spending and raising taxes. President Obama asks for "shared sacrifice" to reduce the budget deficit. In his view, if the government spends more than it takes in - it currently borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar spent - the "balanced" approach is to "cut" spending and raise taxes.

There are quotation marks around "cut" for a good reason. No one - Republican House Speaker John Boehner included - wants to cut spending in the commonsense meaning of the term: namely, reducing government spending from today's level ($3.8 trillion). No, in Washington-talk, to cut a budget is merely to reduce the rate of increase that would have occurred in the future if current law were left unchanged.

If the politicians were honest - and reporters committed to telling the public the truth - they would talk about smaller increases in spending, not "cuts," but even that wouldn't be entirely truthful, because in many cases the reduction in future increases itself is an illusion. It involves merely canceling the authority to spend money that no one expects to actually be spent.

"A person should feel secure in their own home. No matter black, white, Hispanic, Asian - I don't care who they are - they should feel secure in their own home. The police have no right to come in your house and push you around and beat you up and do the things they did on March, 15, 2009." - Ryan Deaton, defense attorney for Marco Sauceda

Too often, we elevate the events of the American Revolution to near-mythic status and forget that the real revolutionaries were neither agitators nor hotheads, neither looking for trouble nor trying to start a fight. Rather, they were people just like you and me, simply trying to make it from one day to another, a task that was increasingly difficult as Britain's rule became more and more oppressive.

Caught up in the drama of Red Coats marching, muskets exploding, and flags waving in the night, we lose sight of the enduring significance of the Revolution and what makes it relevant to our world today. Yet the American Revolution did not so much start with a bang as with a whimper - a literal cry for relief from people groaning under the weight of an oppressive government's demands.

The lowest qualified bid by the most competent contestant traditionally wins the government contract. Unfortunately, the "Change" gang now wants to fiddle with this decades-old, generally reliable formula.

President Obama hopes to throw another item onto the scale as bureaucrats weigh bids: political donations. A draft executive order would instruct federal officials to consider the political contributions of prospective government contractors. While this move is being portrayed as a matter of increased transparency, it will actually fuel unintended consequences and indirectly overturn an important Supreme Court decision on free speech.

On June 9, President Barack Obama signed his 86th executive order, and almost nobody noticed.

Executive Order 13575 is designed to begin taking control of almost all aspects of the lives of 16 percent of the American people. Why didn't we notice it? Weinergate. In the middle of the Anthony Weiner scandal, as the press and most of the American people were distracted, Obama created something called the White House Rural Council (WHRC).

Section One of 13575 states the following: "Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands."

Warning bells should have been sounding all across rural America when the phrase "sustainable rural communities" came up. As we know from researching the UN plan for "sustainable development" known as Agenda 21, these are code words for the true, fundamental transformation of America.

On May 26, 1776, John Adams - who represented Massachusetts at the Second Continental Congress - wrote exultantly to his friend James Warren that "every post and every day rolls in upon us independence like a torrent." Adams had reason for rejoicing, for this was what he and others had hoped and worked for almost since the Congress had convened in May of the previous year. It helped, to be sure, that George III had proclaimed the colonies in rebellion, and this encouraged the Americans to take him at his word. Later, George Washington proceeded to drive General Howe out of Boston. This demonstrated that Americans need not stand on the defensive, but could vindicate themselves in military strategy quite as well as in political.

However exciting to some, America was going through the difficult process of being born. In any event, the stage of history was being set. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced three resolutions calling for independence, foreign alliances, and confederation. Some wanted unity and voted to postpone the final vote for three weeks. This allowed time for debate and for the hesitant and fainthearted to come over or step out. In the meantime, Congress appointed a committee to prepare a "Declaration of Independence." This committee consisted of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson had come to the Continental Congress the previous year, bringing with him a reputation for literature, science, and a talent for composition. His writings, said John Adams, "were remarkable for their peculiar felicity of expression." In part because of his rhetorical gifts, in part because he already had a reputation for working quickly, in part because it was thought that Virginia - as the oldest, the largest, and the most deeply committed of the states - should take the lead, the committee unanimously turned to Jefferson to prepare a draft declaration.

In early June, as a prelude to an expansive study of the Fortune 500 due later this summer, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) published an analysis of "the current corporate tax debate." Anarchists oppose taxes on principle as an exalted form of theft, but the fact that the most profitable firms in the country aren't paying up raises other important questions.

Arguing that the "tax code has ... become overburdened with loopholes, shelters, and special tax breaks," CTJ's study demonstrates that 12 of America's largest companies currently pay, in effect, a tax rate of negative 1.5 percent. That means that some corporations - among them Boeing - are in fact making money through the tax system as it is currently operating.

Debt is slavery ... or at least indentured servitude of the worst kind. That looming mortgage, the high-interest credit-card debt, the short-term car loan - these are the forces that keep people from breaking free and taking action.

Ironically, debt begets more debt. According to FinAid, the average U.S. student-loan debt for a four-year-private-university graduate is nearly $36,000, and $24,000 for a public university. Throw in that first car loan and maybe a mortgage, and suddenly you're staring at hundreds of thousands of dollars in demoralizing claims on your future income.

At this point, most people figure: Hey, I'm already in debt up to my nose; might as well get in up to my eyeballs and buy a new plasma screen on credit.

Since the embattled former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Dominique Strauss-Kahn, occupies the headlines with some consistency as of late, it seems as good a time as any to note the perfectly legal crimes the IMF perpetrates daily.

Established by the world's most powerful states as an agency of empire, the IMF is an inflationary machine designed to make cash all too accessible for the West's corporate titans. The White Mountains of New Hampshire are the radix of the IMF, having hosted the Bretton Woods conference of nations in the wake of World War II. That summit, conceived to reconfigure the global financial system for the demands of the post-war framework, positioned the United States as a global hegemonic authority.

If America's corporate neocolonialism was to function, then the "developed" world would need an effective way to funnel money to its new outposts, the countries that would host its subsidiaries and sweatshops. The loans, of course, were - and have ever since been - channeled to infrastructure projects that dilute currencies and cheat the taxpaying common man to benefit a handful of oligarchs.

The Fourth Amendment, which assures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," was included in the Bill of Rights in response to the oppressive way British soldiers treated American colonists through their use of "Writs of Assistance." These were court orders that authorized British agents to conduct general searches of premises for contraband. The exact nature of the materials being sought did not have to be detailed, nor did their locations. The powerful new court orders enabled government officials to inspect not only shops and warehouses, but also private homes. These searches resulted in the violation of many of the colonists' rights and the destruction of much of the colonists' personal property. It quickly became apparent to many colonists that their homes were no longer their castles.

Fast-forward 250 years and we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts. Indeed, two recent court decisions - one from the U.S. Supreme Court and the other from the Indiana Supreme Court, both handed down in the same week - sound the death knell for our Fourth Amendment rights.

Do parents have a right to control the upbringing of their children, especially when it comes to what their children should be exposed to in terms of sexual practices and intimate relationships?

That question goes to the heart of the battle being played out in school districts and courts across America right now over parental rights and whether parents essentially forfeit those rights when they send their children to a public school. On one side of the debate are those who believe, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, that "the child is not the mere creature of the state" and that the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the U.S. Constitution. On the other side are government officials who not only believe, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields V. Palmdale School District PSD (2005), that "[s]chools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral, or religious concerns of every parent," but go so far as to insist that parents' rights do "not extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

A recent incident in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, clearly illustrates this growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the public schools, are wards of the state, to do with as government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the children's constitutional rights and those of their parents. On two separate occasions this year, students at Memorial Middle School in Fitchburg were administered surveys at school asking overtly intimate and sexually suggestive questions without their parents' knowledge or consent. Students were required to complete the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) at school, a survey that asks questions such as "Have you ever tried to kill yourself?", "Have you ever sniffed glue, or breathed the contents of spray cans, or inhaled any paints?", and "With how many people have you had sexual intercourse?" Older students were also given the Youth Program Survey, which asks true/false questions about a student's beliefs about contraception ("I feel comfortable talking with any partner I have about using a condom") and sexual activity ("I have had oral sex at some point in my life").

Pages