Here is a quick view of the titles of the articles you will find below:
1. Time to End Gun Control
2. Anti-Gun Bigots to Blame for School Shootings
3. Overhauling the U.S. Tax Code
4. Thanksgiving a Triumph Over Socialism
5. Buckley's 'God and Man at Yale'
6. Mother
7. Ronald Reagan on War
8. C.S. Lewis Revisited
9. Before You Vote You MUST See 'United 93'
10. Look Who's Cheering the New Democrat Majority
11. What to Expect From the New Congress
12. Milton Friedman--the Loss of an Economic Patriot
13. The Legacy of Jeanne Kirkpatrick
14. Churchill and Hitler--A Lesson for Baker, Hamilton, and the U.S.
15. An Ignored American Benchmark--Dec. 15
16. The Religion Factor--the Rick Warren/Barack Obama Scheme to Redefine Christianity
17. Prosecutorial Misconduct in Durham
18. Unsealing the Holocaust Papers
19. LIBERTY ALERT!! MCCAIN SPONSORS BILL TO SILENCE BLOGGERS!
20. The Roll Call of Anti-Gun Bigots
21. A LIBERTY SPHERE EXCLUSIVE--How Environmentalists Consort to Destroy American Free Enterprise
22. A Man's Answer to the Wonderbra
Enjoy. And thank you for your support for The Liberty Sphere. Since our beginning in September of this year, over 7000 persons have visited this site. We deeply appreciate your making us a daily part of your reading.
*Time to End Gun Control, Part 2--Can the States Negate a Constitutional Right?
There is big news this evening from the blogosphere. I'm sure that anyone reading this will be astounded to know that the Bill of Rights affirms and protects no individual rights! Well, at least that is the viewpoint of one blogger I read. The problem is that this point of view is not so unusual. In many sectors of our society today, it is THE politically correct point of view, at least as it applies to the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. I have been informed that there are Harvard Law professors who advocate the very same viewpoint.
Here is the way the argument goes. The 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution does only one thing and one thing alone--establish a militia. There is no guarantee whatsoever of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, period...or so the argument goes. Are you with me so far? In the BILL OF RIGHTS, which are designed to delineate the individual rights of citizens in this country, I am not guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. So, I am afforded the right to what, exactly? A militia? How is that an individual right?
No matter. Stay with me here. Remember that one has to engage in suspension of disbelief in order to understand this horrid fiction.
The argument further maintains that the individual States have the power to regulate, limit, and restrict whatever supposed rights that are guaranteed in the BILL OF RIGHTS. In other words, the States can override and negate Constitutionally protected rights.
Remember, I never said this argument was rational....
This, according to those who advocate this point of view, can mean that any State can enact any law it chooses to take away the supposed right of any citizen to own firearms. After all, since the Bill of Rights do not protect any individual rights, the States are free to pass whatever laws they wish, including confiscation of firearms. In fact, the particular blogger I mentioned earlier stated that the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal government only and NOT to the individual States. HUH? Since all U.S. citizens live in one State or another, then why have a U.S. Constitution at all if it has no authority?
Now it's my turn.
Let's take this argument and apply it to some other rights as delineated in the Constitution. Can your State shut down a newspaper because it consistently prints editorials that are in opposition to the State Government? What do you think would happen if it attempted to do so? This is not rocket science here. We all know full well what would happen, and we all know the legal argument that would ensue in support of that newspaper, i.e., that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the protection of the freedom of the press, AS STATED CLEARLY IN THE 1st AMENDMENT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS! And the anti-gun bigots would be the very first in line raising howls of protests, citing the 1st amendment to the Constitution as their justification. It is amazing as to how this all changes by the time we get to the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights! The States must abide by the principles of the 1st amendment, but not the 2nd?
Methinks that someone has taken leave of their brain cells!
Here's another example. Can your State decide that it wishes to return to segregation? Why not? By what legal standard can we make the claim that a State does NOT have this power? The answer is Constitutional law. The States do not have the power to enact or enforce laws that stand in opposition to the principles of the U. S. Constitution.
I am still waiting for these self-proclaimed experts in Constitutional law to apply the same standard to the 1st amendment that they apply to the 2nd amendment. Undoubtedly, I am in for a very long wait.
The 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, contained in a section known as the BILL OF RIGHTS, is a two-fold statement--one, that a militia is necessary for the defense of life and property, and two, that the right of the people, the individual citizens, to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. From a historical perspective, the line of reasoning was that since a militia was needed to be ready at a moment's notice to defend this Republic, the right of the citizens to own and use guns would not be squelched since the government depended upon these citizens for its defense.
Is there historical justification for this view? One need look no further than Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, or Benjamin Franklin to find that it was their assumption that the citizens would be armed. The notion of an unarmed citizenry was totally outside their frame of reference. So why, then, are these latter day revisionists attempting to claim that there is no such right that is protected in the Constitution? Hamilton certainly believed it did. So did Jefferson and Franklin and all the rest.
The fact of the matter is the revisionist anti-gun bigots wish to disarm the citizens of this country. They wish to make you defenseless against intruders into your home. They wish to render you impotent in keeping a home invader from killing your spouse or children. They believe that this somehow makes the world safer, that in confiscating your guns we will not have school shootings such as the one in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. They do not realize it, but this is slap in the face to the 80 million LAW-ABIDING gun owners in America...to be lumped in together with the likes of a lunatic child killer that goes on a shooting spree. This kind of thinking is demented at best.
The thing that would have prevented the killings in Lancaster would be for the teachers to be armed and trained to use those firearms. The would-be child killer would have been dead before he got off a single shot. However, due to the brainwashing of the politically correct anti-gun bigots, the only person around in the school building that day who was armed was the murderer himself.
*Anti-Gun Bigots to Blame for School Shootings
As I have stated several times in a couple of earlier posts, Alabama gubernatorial candidate, Libertarian Loretta Nall, is one of the few candidates anywhere that is calling for an end to gun control. And this is one of the many reasons why her candidacy is so important--it provides voters with a clear choice between a rational, realistic, Constitutional solution to criminal violence, as opposed to the lunacy we now have, perpetrated by the anti-gun bigots. In fact, the anti-gun bigots are to blame for the school shootings.
Gun control advocates have succeeded in convincing certain sectors of the population that guns alone, and not personal behavior, are responsible for violence in our streets. This alone should highlight the sheer fallacy of their argument. Blame the gun and not the one pulling the trigger. The next time you see a murder take place with a gun spontaneously firing without a thug on the other end of the trigger, let me know. Yet many in America have bought into this nonsense, advocating for such things as 'gun free zones,' among many other proposals aimed at loading up the state laws with so many restrictions and limitations that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is rendered impotent.
Thus, with many jumping on the 'gun free zone' bandwagon we find ourselves in a situation where peaceful, law-abiding citizens are left as defenseless sitting ducks for the thugs to pick us off at will, one by one.
Take the recent tradegy in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, for example.
The school was a 'gun free zone.' All of our public schools are now 'gun free zones.' This is the result of the anti-gun bigots who have succeeded in convincing our powers that be that if we enact such restrictions on firearms, our children are much safer.
Now let me see...five dead in Pennsylvania, two dead in Colorado, and a principle dead in the Midwest, ALL WITHIN A MERE TWO WEEK TIME SPAN. It seems that the schools are 'gun free zones' only until the thugs enter the premises. And thus, with no fear of anyone in the school building having a gun to thwart their reign of terror, they can start picking off students and teachers, one by one, with no opposition.
I wonder what would have happened in Columbine if the teachers had been armed? I wonder how the scenario would have been different if the perpetrator in Pennsylvania had been met with a school principle with a firearm? A case can be made that it would have been highly doubtful that those misguided and dangerous youths in Columbine would have even attempted their reign of terror had they known that each principle and teacher were armed and trained to use their weapons. And even if they had gone ahead and attempted their shooting spree, they would have probably been shot dead long before a single student was murdered. The same can be said for Lancasster County, Pennsylvania.
The rash of shootings that we have witnessed in our schools for the last decade should be a lesson to us all concerning the dangerous and ill-fated notion of 'gun free zones.' In short, such a policy has not saved a single child's life. We are creating a society where only the thugs have the guns. As I said, a 'gun free zone' is not gun free when an armed thug enters the building and starts shooting. Citizens who are stripped of their Constitutional right to carry and bear firearms are sitting ducks for armed thugs who are NOT concerned in the least with the law. It is almost like we are allowing irrational and misguided policy makers to lead us to self-destruction. If we buy into their little social experiment and lay down our guns, we are simply allowing thugs with guns to kill us and our children. Is this what we really want as a society?
I am with candidates such as Loretta Nall who call for an end to gun control and an immediate repeal of all laws that limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The Libertarian Party is also in favor of such a policy. In light of a 'no gun zone' social experiment gun awry, this is the only reasonable approach to a major national problem.
*Overhauling the U.S. Tax Code
The time is long overdue to overhaul the U.S. Tax Code. Admittedly, great strides have been made to reign in the government's hold on the citizens through taxation under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. These tax cuts are commendable and have done much to bolster the economy and end the pervasive oppression of the IRS. However, these improvements are not enough.
I would like to suggest that we end the Income Tax entirely and abolish the Internal Revenue Service.
These proposals have been made before by Libertarians, Conservative/Libertarian Republicans, and others who are aware of the problems inherent in the present tax code. However, rarely in the history of this Republic have so many voices been raised concerning the problem of taxation, and rarely have there been so many viable alternatives proposed to replace the current system. The time is ripe for change.
The Income Tax and the Internal Revenue Service were not envisioned by the Founders of this Republic. These things were added much later in our history. They are not sacred institutions. However, an entire culture and industry has arisen out of the advent of both. Accountants, attorneys, law enforcement officials, investigators, and a slew of other taxation professionals depend on the present system for their livelihood. Homeowners depend on the tax deductions. Those who support various and sundry non-profit, religious and charitable organizations depend on the tax breaks they get for their donations. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Overhauling the current system would be a mammoth task that would essentially change the culture.
Yet such a change is worth pursuing. Several proposals have been put forth that hold promise. One proposal is the 'fair tax.' Another is the national sales tax. Yet another is the 'flat tax,' meaning that each citizen owes a certain percentage of their income across the board. Some of the states have implemented a policy of taxation that excludes food and medicine from being taxed.
At present I favor a national sales tax that would exclude food and medicine from the equation. Several major think-tanks are doing research on the various proposals to ascertain which would be the most feasible and cause the least disruption to the culture and economy.
What would be the benefits of such a massive change? Fairness is the major benefit. Individuals and corporations alike would owe their fair share, bar none. This would prevent corporate welfare and stop individuals who never pay income tax at all due to their income level from receiving refunds on taxes they never paid. In addition, a new system would in all likelihood lead to smaller government, one of those Libertarian ideals that always seems to get buried somewhere beneath the present talk of dubious liaisons with tax-and-spend liberals. The government would be forced to live within its means. If we cannot afford certain things due to the lower tax burden on the citizens, then so be it. Certain programs would have to go. This is a good thing.
The Founding Fathers never wished for a system of taxation that would burden the citizens to the point of rage. Many are at that point and have been at that point for years. The IRS essentially operates as a quasi-government unto itself with very little accountability to anyone in elected office. It has used bullying tactics on the citizens of this nation, often driving persons to bankruptcy or worse, imprisonment. There is a much better way.
The IRS should be abolished and replaced with a Department of Federal Collections that is accountable directly to the President. If this means creating a Cabinet post, then so be it. An agency with the power of the IRS has no business operating under the assumption that it has a free reign with no accountability to elected officials. If the Director of this new Department of Federal Collections cannot maintain adequate accountability, then he/she can be immediately fired and replaced by the President. Of course, with a national sales tax or a flat tax, there would be little or no room for fraud or tax evasion. Thus, the need for the bullying tactics of the IRS would immediately cease.
I continue to be intrigued by the various proposals that have been offered with regard to our system of taxation. I am gratified by the fact that so much time and energy is now being devoted to the concept. I offer my proposal as one more to add to the mix with the hope that in the end, Americans will be free from the present system of overburdensome taxation.
*Thanksgiving a Triumph Over Socialism
First I want to wish each of you a very Happy Thanksgiving. With all the problems we face in America at home and abroad, this is still the greatest nation on earth. We truly have much for which to be thankful.
My Thanksgiving tribute this year centers on our forebears at Plymouth. Most of us are very familiar with the story of the first Thanksgiving, when the Pilgrims gathered with their newly-formed Indian friends to give thanks to God for not only sparing their lives but giving them the blessing of abundance after nearly failing to survive their first winter in New England.
What you might NOT know, however, is the story behind the story. Thanksgiving is a testament to the triumph of capitalism over socialism, and this is one of the reasons collectivists in politics, the news media, and Hollywood all but ignore the holiday, referring to it instead as 'Turkey Day,' a name which, by the way, I loathe.
Not only do the collectivists hate the purely religious significance of the holiday, but they hate the story behind it and had just as soon keep you from knowing it.
When the Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth they embarked on an experiment the world had never seen. The brave new world that they forged was laden with mistakes early on that were later corrected. Had they not been corrected, they probably would not have survived.
The society that the first band of Pilgrims forged was collectivist in nature. They lived commune style, sharing everything with each other. Property was held in common. It is understandable that they would do such a thing, being alone in a strange land with strange natives. They felt they had to be collectivist to survive and to foster a sense of inter-dependence on each other.
The result, however, was less than desirable. There was no incentive to prosper, no personal pride in private ownership of property, no real motivation to excel and to do the things necessary not only to survive but thrive. Thus, when winter came they were ill-prepared to face the harsh realities of the climate. Over half of them died that winter alone.
All of these factors taught the Puritans a valuable lesson. What they were doing was not working. And, being the resilient lot that they were, they adjusted course. First of all, they ditched the socialistic model of living that nearly brought them to extinction. A capitalistic system was introduced that stressed individual responsibility and initiative, personal freedom, free trade, and private property. They made friends with their Indian neighbors who taught them how to plant corn. In turn, the Pilgrims helped the Indians, thus initiating that hallmark practice of capitalism--free trade. Goods were traded between the Pilgrims and the Indians. The colony began to thrive. Children were born. Plymouth grew. Prosperity began to replace abject poverty and illness.
By the following Autumn, the colony had flourished so much that they wanted to express their thanks to God for the bountiful plenty. They invited their Indian friends and trade partners to join them in sharing a meal during which they remembered that all blessings flow from the One above who loves His children.
However, God did not simply send a smile their way down from heaven and then swoop down to do all this for them. These hearty souls had sense enough to know that faith does not mean God does everything for us, but gives us the strength to do what WE must do. The Pilgrims discovered the path to prosperity and survival, and it was NOT socialism. When they implemented the capitalistic model of free trade and private ownership, their lot changed drastically for the better.
And THAT is the story behind the story of Thanksgiving.
You will not hear this story in our government-run schools nor in most of the hallowed halls of higher learning in America, which have succumbed to the scourge of socialism. You actually have to go back to the early part of the 20th century to find textbooks that tell this entire story, the whole truth. The 2nd half of the 20th century marked the beginning of the real censorship, and it was perpetrated by the Left. These facts as I just presented them have been banned from schools, ripped out of textbooks, and buried--tucked away on the back shelves of some historical library. The socialistic system of education in this country for the past 50 years has brainwashed generations of students into believing something entirely different about Thanksgiving than the truth.
But the truth is still the truth.
I truly hope that all of you reading this today will have a wonderful Thanksgiving. I hope you gather with friends or family, or both, to share a meal. I hope you will give thanks to God for your blessings. And I hope you will take time to pause to remember what our forebears had in mind when they came to this land.
May their vision of liberty never vanish from the earth!
*Buckley's 'God and Man at Yale'
In the 1950s a young man of 25 years of age wrote his first book, the subject of which was his lamentable experience as a student at Yale University. A young William F. Buckley had embarked upon his college career with high hopes and expectations for the revered University but instead found himself disappointed, disheartened, and disillusioned over what our educational system had become. Little did Buckley, or anyone else for that matter, know that this book would burst onto the scene, sending academia spinning on its heels and catapulting the young author into national prominence.
That book is entitled, 'God and Man at Yale,' and you will note that it is available at Amazon.com, one of the advertisers on this blog. Scroll down and look at the left-column ads to find the book, and click on it. You can find the book both new and used at various prices. It is well worth the cost.
This is the definitive work that launched what became known as the conservative movement in America, although the word 'conservative' at the time meant that its adherents, such as Buckley, were more in line with libertarian thought than the current neo-con thinking. Buckley challenged the overt indoctrination rampant in modern academia that propounds a philosophy that is antithetical to the principles of free markets, human liberty and free choice, the exploration and discovery of faith and the freedom to express that faith openly, and other such tenets that are found in none other than the U.S. Constitution.
Buckley, in fact, contended that what he found at Yale was a direct challenge to the principles upon which this nation was founded, and he made his case in such a compelling and eloquent fashion that the halls of academia were sent scurrying for cover in order to plan their offensive. America has never been the same.
Many believe that it was William F. Buckley who laid the modern philosophical groundwork for the triumph of conservatism under Ronald Reagan. If Barry Goldwater was the political voice that led to America's eventual acceptance of conservative principles under Reagan, it was Buckley that provided its intellectual foundation. Known as a relentless debater, he was able through sheer logic and clear rhetoric to lay to waste any argument a liberal could put forth in favor of the growing menace of big government. And he did it without the shrill bullying that is common today but used the power of a disciplined mind to deliver a detailed, logical, and irrefutable challenge to liberalism and provide alternative views to counteract it.
This book is a must-read for any libertarian or conservative.
*Mother by D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan
We lost her in the month of October as the weather grows cooler and the days shorten, as if she were beckoned to heaven by the changing color of autumn leaves. Her struggle with cancer had left her depleted and weary, her relief and permanent healing only provided by her abiding faith in One who would transport her to another realm where suffering is no more.
Welsh singer/writer/poet Donna Lewis speaks of her Mother as the one who showed her the way through 'the chosen words' of everlasting faith and hope. I can fully relate. But more about that a bit later.
My Mother was a woman of unusual strength and determination, buoyed constantly by a faith that would not flinch in the face of seeming insurmountable obstacles. But my most vivid and poignant memories of her are from boyhood, having spent many a day suffering from the frightening plight of childhood asthma.
I remember as a boy feeling as if I were smothering once the lights went out at night. I am not certain of any scientific or medical evidence suggesting that this is common among the victims of childhood asthma, but nonetheless, I remember having the distinct and frightening feeling that my struggle to breath was made worse by the darkness.
Many a night during those days I would get up and go to the den, where there was always a light. Some way, somehow, though she were sound asleep, my Mother would always sense my presence in the den, and before long she would be by my side sitting in the chair as I reclined on the sofa.
Sometimes she would hold my hand, other times she would get me medicine to help me breath. Sometimes she would hold my head as I threw up from the drugs that were given for the asthma.
Eventually, sleep would slowly overtake me unaware. I would awaken in the morning as the light of the sun came through the window. Invariably as I would look to my side, I would find my Mother still there, sometimes sleeping softly in the chair, sometimes watching me as I awakened.
In some indescribable fashion, the terror that the night brought to a small boy who suffered from asthma was always greatly relieved by the presence of my Mother...and the knowledge that she would be there at the dawning of the morning's light.
Her memory forever lives on in my heart, undimmed by the passage of time. And when October comes, I still feel the sadness of the day we lost her to that higher realm of being.
Donna Lewis, the Welsh singer/songwriter, burst onto the music scene in this country in 1996 with the hit single 'I Love You Always, Forever.' On that same recording is a song that also received some acclaim, though it never reached the level of success as her initial release. It is called simply, 'Mother.'
The song is profound. And it bears an uncanny similarity to my own experience and feelings associated with my Mother. In loving tribute of my Mother, I offer you these captivating words from Donna Lewis.
'Mother'
by Donna Lewis
And I can hear you calling my name
Your healing hands smooth away the pain
And I can hear you whispering
'It'll be alright'...you'll stay until the night breaks into day
You are my light ... in the dark
You stand beside me
You take my hand ... show me the way
You're here to guide me
You give me the strength ... that I need
You give me shelter
You gave me life ... you gave me love
You are my mother
And when you hear me calling your name (I hear your voice)
You touch me with your chosen words
Everlasting faith, everlasting love is the greatest gift you have
Believing understanding me
CHORUS
Closer ... closer ... closer to heaven are you
You are my light in the dark
You take my hand and show me the way
You give me the strength that I need
You gave me life you gave me love
*Ronald Reagan on War
President Ronald Wilson Reagan made many statements that will go down in history as exhibiting some of the most gripping and eloquent wisdom ever known since the beginning of this Republic. One of those statements had to do with war.
Nobody wants war, said Reagan, but if it is necessary then it must be fought to win.
The quintessential example of how not to fight a war was Viet Nam, said Reagan. In his stellar and moving tribute to the men and women who served in Viet Nam, Reagan stated in the campaign against Jimmy Carter in 1980, 'These courageous men and women fought honorably in a war that the liberals in Washington would not let them win.'
No truer words have ever been spoken, and no more relevant words could be chosen to address the present War in Iraq.
Honorable men and woman can disagree on whether or not there was adequate justification for going into Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, the best intelligence we had indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We know he was working on such a program, for his blueprints somehow wound up in the hands of Iran's government--the very blueprints which led to their development of nuclear bombs. Our intelligence, and that of Britain and Europe, indicated Saddam had the weapons. This same intelligence led various politicians such as John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton to vote to go to war.
That same intelligence led President Bill Clinton to state in 1998 that the day was quickly approaching when Saddam would have the bombs, and, to quote Clinton, 'If he gets them, we know he'll use them.'
How quickly Americans have forgotten the statements made by the very ones who today suggest that we 'cut and run.'
So why are we still in Iraq so long after our initial invasion? The short answer is that it is a difficult war like we have never fought in our history. A deeper look, however, reveals a similar scenario to the Viet Nam era--politics in Washington and the overt attempt of the 'politically correct' police to hamstring the operations of our military.
Presently we are not fighting to win. This is because we fear the repercussions of public opinion, goaded by the mainstream media, that would seize on the 'horrors of war,' the 'brutality,' the 'blood-thirsty American imperialists,' and other such nonsense.
In short, we would take a big hit in the media and in the court of public opinion that is always swayed by such things. Nevermind the images of the Islamic head-choppers who have videotaped the beheadings of dozens of hostages.
The PC police in America and throughout Western Europe would make sure America came out of an all-out effort in Iraq as the villain. They would be gladly aided by the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, and the three major networks. The slanted reports that would proceed from these bastions of liberalism would feed upon American squeamishness.
However, we are quickly approaching the day when such squeamishness and the condemnations of leftists across the globe will pale in the face of the real danger that is before us. The Islamic Jihad movement is on the march, and we, the 'Great Satan,' are its ultimate targets. We can either fight this war now in a land far away, or we will surely fight it in downtown Manhattan.
Reagan was right. We lost in Viet Nam because Washington would not let us win. If we allow the Democrat Party to control Congress and ultimately the White House in 2008, we can rest assured we will face yet another defeat. But this time we have much more to lose. Viet Nam was not involved in a global Jihad to destroy America.
The hand of President Bush must be strengthened to take on the Jihadists on their own turf, not here in America. Democrats must not be allowed to get into a position to weaken our resolve. We must fight this war to win and ignore the world court of public opinion.
*C.S. Lewis Revisited
C. S. Lewis is known around the world for three things, all of which have to do with writing. First, he was one of the leading authorities on medieval and renaissance Literature, and his many works on the subject can be found in university libraries across the globe. Second, he was a writer of children's books, the most notable of which is the series known as 'The Chronicles of Narnia.' And third, he is one of the leading authorities in the world on what is known as 'Christian Apologetics,' that discipline within Christianity that is dedicated to making the case for the Christian message in the face of skeptics who doubt its validity.
Although Lewis has received wide acclaim for his critical works in the field of literature and his children's novels, particularly with the recent popularity of the Narnia series, he is perhaps best known for his works in Christian apologetics.
In 1933 Lewis wrote a book entitled, 'The Pilgrim's Regress,' in which he details his own personal pilgrimage to the Christian faith. As a renown Oxford scholar and college professor, Lewis' monumental work shook the academic world which had already succumbed to the deep skepticism that would become rampant across Europe. His subsequent works in apologetics would bring him further acclaim, the most notable being 'Mere Christianity' and 'The Screwtape Letters.'
Prior to his embracing Christianity Lewis was an avowed atheist. Thus, his works tend to have all the greater impact, told from the point of view of one who had been thoroughly convinced that God did not exit yet who came to the conclusion over time that the very faith he had disavowed was the source of ultimate truth. Even his children's works contain theological overtones that arise from Lewis' conviction that the Christian message is the last best hope for humankind.
These works resonated with readers worldwide, as 'The Chronicles of Narnia' alone have sold over 100 million copies.
One of the more intriguing aspects of Lewis' life revolves around his relationship with an American woman, Joy Gresham. Gresham had found Lewis' books to be most enlightening and had written to him expressing her admiration. The two began to correspond, and a strong, trans-Atlantic friendship began to develop. Gresham would later travel to England to spend the Christmas holiday with Lewis and his family. The relationship was purely platonic, the two being very close friends without the complications that arise out of romantic entanglements. The fact that Gresham was married, albeit unhappily, would further preclude any romantic link between the two.
Gresham eventually divorced, and she and her two sons moved to England in the mid-1950s. Although Lewis and Gresham were still only very good friends, when the British immigration service refused to renew Gresham's visa in 1956, Lewis decided to marry her so that she could stay in the country. Being the wife of a British citizen meant that she could not be forced to return to the U.S.
Shortly after the marriage, Gresham was diagnosed with cancer. Doctors gave very little hope for her recovery. It was at this point that Lewis disclosed to Gresham that he had actually been in love with her all along. Thus, the two were married a second time, this time by an Anglican priest at Gresham's bedside in the hospital.
Gresham would recover for a season, long enough for the two to take a honeymoon to Ireland and Wales. However, her cancer eventually returned in 1959, and she died on July 13, 1960.
C. S. Lewis grieved deeply over the loss of his wife. His own health began to fail him shortly after her death, forcing him to leave his post as a professor at Cambridge. Then, on November 22, 1963, Lewis died a quiet death that barely made a ripple in the Press.
Yet, generations of persons all over the world have enjoyed his splendid works which continue to influence the course of lives today.
*Before You Vote You MUST See 'United 93'
The film 'United 93,' which details the bravery of the Americans who were aboard the ill-fated airline that was headed for the White House on September 11, 2001, is not for the faint of heart. In fact, it is excruciatingly draining. Yet it is a MUST-see for all Americans, especially before Election Day next Tuesday.
As a living testament to the men and women aboard that plane who were willing to die before allowing the aircraft to crash into our nation's capital, the film is stark. One passenger, Todd Beamer, after telling his wife on his cell phone that he loved her, whispered to his fellow patriots, 'Let's roll,' just before they stormed the hijackers, burst through the door to the cockpit, and attempted to wrest control of the plane from the hijacker pilot before the aircraft plowed into the Pennsylvania countryside.
The four hijackers, all young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent, stabbed one passenger in the neck with a long knife before butchering the pilot, the co-pilot, and a stewardess. As the events unfolded the passengers became aware through their phone contacts that the Twin Towers had been hit and that another plane had crashed into the Pentagon. They each tearfully bid their loved ones goodbye.
My reason for highlighting this film now, at this point in time, is very simple. Americans have either a short memory or a bad case of denial. A mere five years after that horrific day many of us have forgotten why we were attacked, who did it, and the task that is before us. Some of us conveniently allow ourselves to be lulled to sleep by politicians who are so brain-damaged by the 'politically correct' movement that they refer to terrorism as merely a 'law enforcement issue' rather than a war.
The attackers and the masterminds behind them had already declared war on America. It is called 'Jihad' or 'Holy War.' In the name of Allah and while mindlessly repeating Islamic gibberish these blood-thirsty barbarians proceeded to take 3000 American lives and blow to smithereens the hopes and dreams of their families in one single morning.
So when the mainstream media hits us with the total count of American soldiers killed in Iraq, remember it has taken us five years to get there. The Jihadists mangled 3000 Americans in one day.
As election day approaches, Americans need to remember what happened. We need to watch 'United 93' before voting. The mantra of 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11' is like saying Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack on the Twin Towers. That entire area of the world is infested with the barbarism of the Islamic Jihadists, from Afghanistan to Iran, to Iraq, to Syria, to Lebanon, to Saudi Arabia and beyond. Iran has nuclear weapons that they demonstrated could reach Israel, and they are financing and fueling the Islamic insurgency in Iraq.
The naive and cowardly statements and views of the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Conyers, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and many more are totally unacceptable. It is no accident that the Jihadists want a Democrat-controlled Congress.
As a matter of fact, any American who is worth his salt will hang his head in shame for even THINKING about voting for these befuddled clowns.
Am I angry? You bet I am. This nation is involved in a war that will determine the future of civilization and western culture. When I hear the cowardly, putrid rhetoric coming from the Democrat leadership concerning the dangers we face, I want to ask them, 'Who's side are you on, anyway?'
Yes, I question their patriotism. They want us to lose. Our politically-motivated, yellow-bellied defeat in Viet Nam was not enough. They want us humiliated all over. It is interesting that some of the very same players that figured into our loss in that war are now the major players in the Democrat Party who, once again, believe that the only option for America is to play the role of the weakling.
Thus, when you are ready to vote next Tuesday, before pulling that lever or marking that box beside a candidate's name, quietly ask that candidate in your mind's eye, 'Just who's side are you on anyway? Are you one of the ones the Islamic Jihadists want to win? Or are you a true American patriot?'
We owe it to the men and women who lost their lives on United Flight 93 and the other aircraft, as well as those who died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, to vote for those who have made it clear that nothing less than a decisive victory over Muslim Jihadists is acceptable.
*Look Who's Cheering the New Democrat Majority
Interesting. Very, very interesting. It never ceases to amaze me as to the allies of the Democrat party that come crawling out of the woodwork at critical times. Such is the case today, the day after the big change-over of Congress.
Hugo Chavez, that great statesmen and guardian of human rights and liberties, hailed the Demos' win but saved his most inspiring words for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Hugo stated, 'The resignation of Rumsfeld is further evidence that American government is disintegrating.' Chavez, of course, referred to President Bush as 'the Devil' in a speech before the United Nations.
The U.S. Communist Party is celebrating the Democrat win, since they have stated repeatedly that the Party's goals are similar to theirs.
Middle Eastern terrorists, most of whom are Islamic Jihadists, are dancing in the streets as they contemplate the prospects of a Party coming to power in Congress that falls right into their desire that we retreat from our resistance to their openly stated push for world domination. Nothing will embolden terrorists any more than to adopt a policy of appeasement toward those who will not stop until they see the West smoldering in a pile of rubble.
If left unchecked, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Feinstein, Boxer, Reed, and company will help them get closer to realizing their dream.
*What To Expect From the New Congress
In spite of all the conciliatory talk between the White House and the new Congressional leadership, don't expect this upcoming Congressional session to be a game of 'let's play nice in the sandbox.' The Democrats today fired the first shot across the bow by issuing nothing less than a 'warning.' First they warned the White House not to send up judicial nominees that may revisit Roe v. Wade. Naturally they couched this warning in carefully-chosen inflammatory words, never mentioning Roe v. Wade specifically but warning the President not to send them 'extremist nominees' for the Court. Second, the Democrats sent a not-so-subtle reminder to Republicans that they run the show now in Congress.
In other words, if I may paraphrase this warning, taking out the spin, they said, in effect, 'Sure, Mr. President, we will work with you cooperatively, provided you do it our way.'
So much for conciliation and bipartisanship. It took the Democrats all of 48 hours to show the country that all their election night talk about 'reaching across the aisle' was nothing more than talk. Today they showed us their real intentions.
The Democrat-controlled Congress will block any nominee to the Supreme Court that adheres strictly to the U.S. Constitution. 'Strict constructionists' who show serious respect for and adherence to the principles of Constitutional law as the Founding Fathers intended will be 'Borked.' To merely hint that there is no Constitutional guarantee for the right of a woman to have an abortion will be viewed as judicial blasphemy. The next step is the excommunication of any judicial nominee who dares challenge the hallowed dogma of the religion of the Left--a woman's right to an abortion under practically any circumstance. The only thing missing from such an excommunication that separates the modern Left from the medieval Crusaders is that there is no actual burning at the stake...at least not literally.
Don't be surprised if the new Congress also unleashes a new assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as well.
Judges are supposed to be the ecclesiastical guardians and enforcers of Leftist dogma. If the Constitution is silent regarding some of precepts of this dogma, then the Judges are supposed to either make it up and insert it by judicial fiat, or 'command' the legislative branch to do so.
Let's not forget that in our system of government the judiciary has no more power than the executive branch or the legislative branch. Due to the inroads the Left has made in this country over the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has come to be seen as the final great authority in the land, forgetting that each of the three branches of government are EQUAL in authority and power, and possessing a system of checks and balances on the other two.
In addition, the 'warning' from the Democrats that they are the ones in control is meant to send a signal. They have a full agenda that goes far beyond blocking good Judges from the Supreme Court or micro-managing the war in Iraq. We can expect taxes to go up. That is a given. Democrats have always hated the Bush tax cuts, and they have promised to end them. This, along with other tax hikes they plan to unleash will mean the average American family will pay roughly an extra $1200 per year to the government. They will also raise the minimum wage, which will force businesses, especially small, family-run enterprises, to cut jobs. This, of course, they will blame on Bush when the unemployment rate goes up. They are going to attempt to garner and solidify government power in the country's healthcare system. Since Hillary's failed socialized medicine plan in the early 90s cost the Democrats dearly in public opinion, the Party has walked gingerly around this issue, choosing not to mount a frontal assault on the present system but gradually increasing government oversight and control.
All of this, among other things, will be topped off by an attempt to pass measures that will prevent citizens from having control over their Social Security investment. Democrats have always hated the notion that the citizens who pay this money into the plan should have the ultimate control over how they want those funds invested. They do not trust the citizens to make these decisions, and thus, they must make it for us. Big Brother has never trusted the intelligence or wisdom of the underlings in the citizenry. Big Brother has to force us to do what's best for us since we are too stupid to control our own destiny.
We can also expect this Congress to produce a scandal to put in the news during the last two years of the Bush presidency so that they can enter the 2008 Presidential campaign with the charge of 'corruption' against the Republicans. Such a manufactured scandal will be complete with investigations, hearings, charges, accusations, etc, etc.--all in the attempt to cause voters to link the words 'sleaze' and 'Republican.'
Who knows, we just might have a few scandals to scare up ourselves. Let's start with Harry Reid, for example, who has yet to explain how illegal campaign contributions wound up in his coffers, all while he was blasting the Republican leadership over supposed corruption. Merely stating that he will 'give the money back' is not enough. That should have been done before he was caught with it.
Since the Democrats decided to take the first shot across the bow a mere 48 hours after the kind and gentle talk of making nice on election day, I decided I would fire one back at them. In other words, we are ready. We will meet them head-on on each and every issue, eyeball to eyeball, toe to toe.
*Milton Freidman--the Loss of an Economic Patriot
The death of Milton Friedman is a monumental loss for the American system of economics and government. Friedman held to the Jeffersonian mandate of free markets in a free society when practically everyone else had succumbed to European styled socialism. His landmark writings were thus ignored by the intelligentsia in modern academia.
Yet his theories caught the attention of one Ronald Reagan, who made Friedman a member of his council of economic advisors. Nonetheless, Friedman was still the subject of scoffing and disdain among the mainstream media, leftist politicians, and academia who routinely condemned his views.
Three of Friedman's works became best-sellers and helped propel the famed economist into the consciousness of the general public, in addition to launching an entire new generation of economists who subscribed to the Friedman school of thought.
The country is infinitely better off with these Friedman disciples now teaching in some of the best schools of economics across the land. They are, however, in a distinct minority.
Friedman lamented this fact in a 1994 interview he granted to C-Span, which was rebroadcast during the past week to commemorate Friedman's death. His low-keyed, charming, yet sharp indictment of modern America society was stark.
Having graduated high school in the year 1928, Friedman stated that at that time the government consumed roughly 20% of the GNP. By the year 1994, that figure was up to over 50%. Friedman sounded the alarm that a free society cannot long sustain an economic system where the private sector is responsible for only 50% of the GNP.
The reason, according to Friedman, is not far to find. The private sector alone is responsible for ALL, 100% of the innovations that make life better. The government has produced nothing, zilch, ZERO. In short, the imbalance created by a government that consumes over 50% of the GNP yet produces absolutely nothing to contribute to the economy, to create wealth and capital, is a trainwreck that will eventually doom the society to economic failure.
Friedman cites the evidence that proves that every single recession, including the Great Depression, was not created by free markets but by government forces interfering with the markets.
When asked whom among the Presidents best exemplified the economic policies envisioned by the Founders of the Republic, Friedman named Ronald Reagan at the top of the list in modern times. By far the most exemplary was Thomas Jefferson, the quintessential libertarian. Bill Clinton, says Friedman, is a socialist because he believes that the greatest good is accomplished by government programs. This, of course, would include persons like Hillary, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Conyers, Pelosi, and even Biden.
Socialism is a creeping nightmare that is gradually overtaking American society as more and more of our resources are consumed by a large government bureaucracy that confiscates wealth from its citizens in order to disperse it to those who are non-producers.
While Friedman never mentioned Ayn Rand by name, it is clear that Rand's philosophy was prominent in Friedman's thinking in that he insisted that as individuals looked out for their self-interests, they ultimately work for the good of everyone else. It is selfish pursuit that leads to prosperity for all.
Said Friedman, 'No society in history ever survived or excelled by sending wealth to the bottom sector and then expecting it to propel upward. It always moves from the top down. As the top rung--the wealthiest--prosper, that prosperity moves downward to those below. Societies eventually collapse when they attempt to thwart to ability of those at the top to produce wealth and instead confiscate wealth to give to those at the bottom.'
Lest anyone think Friedman's views harsh toward the poor, he had an answer for his detractors. Instead of welfare, aid to dependent children and the like, Friedman advocated a negative income tax program, where the poor would benefit from tax credits and refunds.
One of the more interesting aspects of the 1994 interview was Friedman's take on the labels we often use to designate political philosophy--conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. Often referred to as a 'conservative,' Friedman insisted that he was no such thing. In actuality he thought of himself as a Jeffersonian Liberal, which at one time denoted individual and economic liberty, unlike liberals of today. Today, he said, he would be considered a libertarian who belongs to the Republican party. The only two labels that really matter anymore, he said, are libertarian and socialist. Those who promote more government action in the economic sector are socialists. Those who advocate for small government and more action in the private sector are libertarians.
Presently, the socialists are winning, according to Friedman. Despite the attempts of those like Reagan to reign in the gargantuan government bureaucracy, it continued to creep forward. People who are elected to office buy their re-election by giving to their constituents the taxpayers' money that the government confiscated. Thus, government becomes a self-perpetuating entity the growth of which is almost impossible to thwart.
The most recent election is a perfect case in point. Voters decided to elect those persons who would advocate for more government confiscation of wealth, money that would be given to individuals in their districts in some form of federal redistribution, which will then, in turn, buy the re-election of their socialist representatives.
A great vacuum has been created by the loss of Milton Friedman. His voice, like a lone voice for liberty crying in the wilderness, was an oasis in the middle of the desert of government control over our lives.
Our freedoms today are precious few compared to that of our forefathers. Friedman's was a voice of warning that unless the electorate wakes up to what's happening, we are going to wake up one day to a complete communist society where there are no individual freedoms, no private property, no free markets, and no private enterprise.
My only hope is that other American patriots will rise to take up the mantle where Friedman left off. May this great American patriot rest in peace.
*The Legacy of Jeanne Kirkpatrick
It is with sadness that I note the passing of Jeane Kirkpatrick, President Ronald Reagan's outstanding Ambassador to the United Nations. When Reagan appointed Kirkpatrick to the post in 1981, she was a Democrat. Kirkpatrick came of age back when Democrats stood for liberty, patriotism, anti-communism, and strong defense.
In the 1970s Kirkpatrick increasingly became disillusioned with the Democrat Party and grew harshly critical of their foreign policy decisions, particularly under ex-
President Jimmy Carter who oversaw a great weakening of our national defense in an era when to do so put America at great danger.
These were the days of the Cold War. For at least a decade prior to the 1981 election, the word that best described our foreign policy toward the Soviet Union was 'detente,' that ominous concept that accepted the fact that both the U.S. and the Soviets had nuclear weapons, that any first strike would ignite a nuclear war that would result in the destruction of most of the globe, and thus, neither nation would seek to outright win the Cold War.
Enter Ronald Reagan.
Reagan rejected detente and the inherent pessimism in its precepts. Rather than becoming resigned to the fact that we would forever be held in a standoff with a superpower that was shooting down airliners and murdering its own political dissidents, Reagan insisted that America build up its military resources in such a sweeping manner as to make it impossible for the Soviets to keep up.
With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981 the United States embarked on a course to win the Cold War outright. Reagan would accept nothing less. Defense spending skyrocketed. Reagan also proposed his now infamous 'star wars' plan, which was ridiculed at the time but has proved to be an idea ahead of its time which sent the Soviet Union into a frenzy of frightened fury.
With the Soviet Union increasingly losing the support of its citizens due to a disastrous economic policy that left most of the country impoverished, Soviet leaders could hardly keep with the demands created by Reagan's massive military buildup. Thus, within a few short years the Soviet Union collapsed.
At the center of the Reagan revolution, which had every bit as much to do with foreign policy as libertarian domestic policy, was one Jeane Kirkpatrick. At the U.N. Kirkpatrick became a formidable spokesperson for American interests and anti-communist ideology. She took the Soviets to task on the floor of the U.N. for failing to inform their own people of their decision to shoot down a domestic passenger airliner.
In 1984 Kirkpatrick delivered a speech before the Republican National Committee which would be hailed as a masterful rhetorical vehicle by which she would introduce into the modern vernacular the terms 'San Francisco Democrat' and 'blame America first.' Even then Kirkpatrick recognized the danger of the growing tendency of certain sectors within the country that would blame America first for every single woe of the world while failing to call foreign governments to accountability. At the forefront of this dreadful movement were, as Kirkpatrick called them, 'San Francisco Democrats.'
As a lifelong Democrat, Kirkpatrick felt she had every right to issue such scathing indictments against her own party. However, by 1985 she had had enough. She became a Republican.
Following her resignation as U.N. Ambassador, Kirkpatrick would continue to serve her country as an advisor to Senate Republicans and as a professor at Georgetown University.
It is not to be overlooked that John Bolton, our most recent U.N. Ambassador, looked to Kirkpatrick as his beloved mentor. Kirkpatrick's unabashed, patriotic, pro-American philosophy could be readily seen in Bolton. It is a disgrace to the country that Democrats blocked a vote on Bolton by filibuster and then indicated that the new Congress would not allow a vote on the nomination, resulting in Bolton's resignation.
Joseph Biden's claim that Democrats did not filibuster to block a vote on Bolton is a lie. The record is there for anyone to see.
My feelings grow melancholic as I contemplate Bolton's departure from the U.N. at roughly the same time as the death of Jeane Kirkpatrick. Not only is the country itself now deprived of the unsurpassed wisdom and courage of Kirkpatrick, but a void is being created at the U.N. as the voice of Bolton is silenced.
Be assured that those of us who remember Jeane Kirkpatrick with great fondness and who value John Bolton's courageous stand for liberty will not allow to be forgotten the principles that guided both of these remarkable American patriots.
*Churchill and Hitler--a Lesson for Baker, Hamilton, and U.S.
The present situation with America's involvement in the Iraq War remarkably resembles England in 1938 just prior to WWII. The Baker Gang's recommendations are eerily reminiscent of British Prime Minister Chamberlain's policy of appeasement toward Hitler. This makes the report of the Iraq Study Group even more baffling, given either the inability or unwillingness of the Baker-Hamilton gang to learn from history.
In 1938 Chamberlain went to Munich to meet with Hitler. No one in Parliament wished to face the prospects of war. British citizens overwhelmingly resisted any suggestion that the country engage in yet another war in less than 20 years after the first World War. Hitler's march through Europe was none of their concern. Thus, Chamberlain went to Munich to offer Hitler a piece of property in exchange for his commitment to cease invading European nations. He would offer a piece of Czechoslovakia that was called 'Sudentenland.' Nevermind that he already had Austria.
Winston Churchill, who at the time was a member of the House of Commons in Parliament, warned Chamberlain, AND British citizens, that Hitler could not be trusted and that his signature on any accord would not guarantee his compliance. Churchill had warned Britain before about such foolish notions, insisting that if the British refused to take him on early, they would pay a heavy price later as the Nazi army marched into London. As early as 1930 the record shows Churchill's increasing wariness of Hitler, long before anyone else was paying attention.
For this Churchill was essentially exiled within his own country. As friends in Parliament fell by the wayside and the citizenry as a whole turned a deaf ear, Churchill found himself increasingly isolated. When he warned Chamberlain of the trap Hitler had made, there were a mere five other voices in Parliament that stood with him.
Chamberlain went to Munich, Hitler accepted the offer of appeasement, and Chamberlain returned to Britain a hero. Hitler had assured Chamberlain that the Sudentenland would be his last venture. In Parliament, Churchill made the following statement concerning that ill-fated deal--'How could honourable men with wide experience and fine records in the Great War condone a policy so cowardly? It was sordid, Squalid, sub-human, and suicidal...The sequel to the sacrifice of honour.'
A mere five days later Hitler violated the terms of the agreement he had signed with Chamberlain.
As expected, Churchill rose to his feet in Parliament, issuing a scathing message to the effect that Britain had just suffered a most agonizing, dastardly defeat.
Shortly after Chamberlain's utter humiliation at the hands of the Nazis, Churchill issued an urgent plea to the Americans. Stung by the refusal of his fellow countrymen to stand up to the Nazi menace, Churchill was convinced that the only way Hitler could be stopped would be for the U.S. to join the effort.
As history shows, Churchill was right about Hitler all along. No amount of appeasement or negotiation would stop his relentless march toward world domination. With the eastern front solidified under Nazi rule, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. Churchill succeeded in convincing Parliament that Britain must honor its treaty agreement with Poland, and thus, the country declared war on Germany.
Today, we are in a similar state of affairs in the United States of America. The Democrat Party, the mainstream media, and the Baker-Hamilton committee are all in one accord on the policy of appeasement. Convinced that America cannot, and SHOULD NOT, win this war, they tell us to negotiate with state sponsors of terror. Rather than face off against Syria and Iran, they tell Israel that they should be willing to give away the Golan Heights and then, to add insult to injury, they refuse to include Israel in a proposed regional summit of nations in the Middle East.
Apparently the geniuses of the Baker Gang did not learn anything from the Chamberlain policy of appeasement toward Hitler. In attempting to appease tyrants, despots, and barbarians who exhibit little rationality, does the Baker gang actually expect any other consequence than our ultimate humiliation?
Had Great Britain heeded the words of Winston Churchill in the early to mid 1930s, perhaps the Holocaust could have been prevented. Instead the Nazi army went marching into Austria, Holland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, and France. Ultimately the bombs rained on London.
Interestingly, frightened Brits turned to none other than Winston Churchill in 1940, electing him Prime Minister.
It is 1938 in America. We are on the brink of making the same colossal mistake as Prime Minister Chamberlain. Democrats already have been meeting with Hamas. Their mouthpieces in the mainstream media have already proclaimed our defeat. Iran's barbarians are dancing in the streets over the prospects of the Baker-Hamilton report being accepted by Democrats who will then pressure the President to implement its provisions. Syria boasted that the report was proof that Islam reigns supreme. If we go through with the Baker Gang recommendations, we are insuring many more 9/11 attacks on our soil. Far from being a deterrent to war, appeasement only increases the appetite of the power-hungry.
Rest assured that if this country does not resolve to win this war, we will have hell to pay.
Sadly, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the only thing that will change American public opinion is to suffer the same fate as the Brits. This time, however, the bombs that rain on New York City and Washington, D.C. will be nuclear or biological. The weapons of terrorists have far more potential for doing massive harm than the bombs of Hitler.
Before that dreaded day befalls us, we can only hope and pray that Americans wake up and fight. We still have time to avert a catastrophic national disaster.
*An Ignored American Benchmark--Dec. 15
On December 15 we mark one of the most important dates in American history, yet it is one with which I am sure many of you may not be familiar. The 'Bill of Rights Day' is celebrated on December 15, and the fact that this date in history is one of the most unnoticed and ignored speaks volumes about the U.S. educational system.
Since 1941 the ratification of the Bill of Rights has been commemorated in this country on December 15. Yet today, I am sure that the average guy on the street has no clue that one of the most significant events in human history happened on that day...thanks to the dumbing down of the educational system and the failure of modern politicians to give proper recognition to the basic rights we all are guaranteed in the United States of America.
The original Constitution, ratified in 1788, had no Bill of Rights. The fledgling young Republic had just managed to fight off the British for their independence and declare themselves a new nation united by a commonly accepted rule of law--the U.S. Constitution. Yet long before the Constitution was ratified many of the Founders insisted that the document would be woefully incomplete without protecting certain individual rights. One of these was James Madison, who was elected by Virginia to the first Congress upon the promise that he would work for a Bill of Rights.
George Mason, also of Virginia, refused to sign the original Constitution precisely because it contained no Bill of Rights. Mason had written a Bill of Rights for the state of Virginia which many other states used to adopt their own Bill of Rights.
Patrick Henry had originally opposed the inclusion of the Bill. Revisionist historians often use Henry as some sort of proof that the Founders were not in agreement about the rights that should be guaranteed to the citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. Henry also opposed the Constitution. But this was not due to anything other than his opposition to a centralized government of any kind, believing instead that such power should be reserved for the states.
It is also to be noted that in spite of Patrick Henry's initial opposition, he would later change his mind and work for both the U.S. Constitution and for the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Having succeeded in getting a Constitution approved by the states, the Founders went to work on a document that would protect the rights with which each citizen had been endowed by their Creator. The Bill does not 'grant' or 'give' rights. The rights are automatically inherent in our very existence. The Constitution PROTECTS these basic, inherent rights.
In 1789 the Bill of Rights was written in Federal Hall in New York City, which at the time was the capital of the U.S. The first Congress was made up of 26 Senators and 65 Representatives from the 13 states. On September 25, 1789, Congress passed 12 amendments to the Constitution which would be called the Bill of Rights. In October of that year President George Washington sent a copy of the 12 amendments to the states for their approval.
From October of 1789 until December of 1791 the thirteen states debated the amendments. By the time the amendments had made their rounds the original 12 amendments were whittled down to 10. On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the eleventh state to ratify the 10 amendments, and thus, according to the provisions of amending the Constitution, the Bill of Rights became part of the supreme law of the land.
During these days when collectivist revisionists see no inherent individual rights in the Bill of RIGHTS, it is vitally important to note that the sole motivation of the Founders in insisting on the Bill was the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. It is impossible, for example, for someone to make a valid philosophical argument claiming that the 2nd Amendment does nothing but establish a militia, when the whole idea of the Bill to begin with was to protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of citizens.
Thus, on this December 15 let each of us as Americans give thought to the basic philosophical premise that motivated the Founders--that each individual American is free, and as such, we are guaranteed the protection of certain specified individual rights. If no such guarantee exists, then the whole notion of establishing a free Republic was in vain.
*The Religion Factor--the Rick Warren/Barack Obama Scheme to Redefine Christianity
Rick Warren is a Southern Baptist minister who went to the Saddleback community in California 20 years ago or so to start a new congregation. This would not be a typical Baptist church, however. Warren's novel approach would be to build a fellowship of Christians based upon the local culture.
Demographical studies were undertaken that indicated the income level, interests, musical preferences, etc., of most of the residents of the Sattleback community. This information enabled Warren to devise a plan to attract people to his new kind of congregation based upon their preferences.
Thus, there would be no choir and no 'sanctuary.' Worshippers or 'seekers' as they were called, would be greeting to the music of a jazz band upon entering the premises, which more often than not would be a school building that the Warren team had rented. Warren would wear no vestments, no robe, no stole, or anything else that gave the impression that anything 'religious' would be occurring. Rather, he often preached in shorts and a t-shirt, and he encouraged 'seekers' to dress casual.
There would be no 'sermon' as such but a teaching session during which Warren would give a positive, inspirational didactic on topics of interest to most people in the Sattleback community, such as personal development and growth, child-rearing, finding meaning in a seemingly meaningless world, etc.
At the end of the sessions seekers were invited to a special meeting afterward, if they wanted more information about the topic at hand, or if they had questions about the new 'church.'
Thus, the Saddleback Community Church was born. By the way, Warren insisted that the term 'Baptist' not be used because in his demographical surveys he found that the word had a very negative connotation.
Today, the fast growing congregation is one of the largest in the world, and Warren has found himself considered to be one of the new 'stars' within the evangelical movement. He has appeared on CNN, Meet the Press, and Fox News. His latest book, 'The Purpose Driven Life' is one of the top selling books in history.
Recently Warren created quite a stir within the evangelical community by inviting U.S. Senator Barack Obama to Saddleback to participate in an AIDS conference. It seems many of the brethren were none too pleased that a liberal would be invited to speak before a group of predominately conservative Republicans.
Obama, apparently, was able to work his magic on the crowd as he does just about anywhere he goes.
But a deeper look will reveal a dangerous set of presumptions.
Barack Obama often speaks of the fact that he is a Christian. What he fails to say is that he is a very liberal one. His faith group is one of the most extremist leftwing organizations in the country...the United Church of Christ. Barack's point of view is that since Jesus taught us to care for the poor, then that means government must confiscate money from its citizens in order to care for other citizens. Thus, people like Obama, and organizations like the United Church of Christ, support every single program of confiscation and redistribution that has ever been proposed.
Yet nowhere did Jesus ever say that government should be involved in this.
The message of Jesus is that the compassion of individual Christians toward the poor and needy should lead them to voluntarily give of their abundance. This was NEVER mandated as a government program in any of the Gospels.
As Walter Williams recently stated, 'To reach inside my pockets voluntarily to help the needy is one of the most worthy endeavors with which one can be involved. But for government to reach into my pockets and TAKE my money to give to the needy is stealing and is to be condemned.'
Amen, brother!
The United Church of Christ is a participant in an endeavor called 'The Jesus Project,' which is the attempt of ultra-liberal theologians to essentially rewrite the New Testament. Their premise is that there is a mammoth gap between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith as presented in the New Testament. The Jesus of history, so these 'scholars' claim, was a political radical who sought to overthrow Roman rule within the Jewish colony and implement a system where the ultimate good is expressed in giving to the poor. The scholars then go through the New Testament and rate each supposed statement of Jesus according to the likelihood that Jesus actually stated those words attributed to Him.
Not surprisingly, the Jesus Project maintains that Jesus never said over three-fourths of the statements attributed to Him. The 'scholars' of the Jesus Project believe that only those statements in the New Testament that show a radical Jesus condemning the evil Roman imperialists and advocating for the poor are actually His statements. The rest were added later by a Church that wished to make the message of Jesus more palatable to the masses.
And this brings us back to Barack Obama and Rick Warren. Speculation has been spread far and wide as news pundits opine on a potential new liaison between evangelical Christians and Democrat liberals. There is no doubt that Obama is part of a movement that would redefine Christianity and the message of Jesus to advocate for a massive expansion of government social programs. The fact that Rick Warren would lend his name and the prestige of his church to such a travesty of Christianity is unconscionable.
It is not to be forgotten that Judas Iscariot was the one among the disciples who simply didn't get the message of Jesus. In paying no heed to Jesus' statement, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' Judas set his sights on the overthrow of the Roman government and the task of helping the poor. He even castigated Jesus for allowing a woman to anoint His head some expensive oil. Judas maintained it should have been sold and given to the poor. Jesus rebuked the misguided disciple and said, 'The poor will always be with you. But you will not always have Me with you.'
As it turned out, this very disciple turned against Jesus PRECISELY because the focus of the message of Jesus was NOT about political upheaval or social issues.
If the ultra-leftist, extremist view of Christianity presented by Barack Obama begins to take root within the evangelical world, we could well be on the brink of the worst schism in this nation's religious history. And Rick Warren may well come to attain the unintentional dubious honor of being the very one to help spearhead such a schism.
Obama's background should be closely scrutinized. Both his father and his grandfather were devout Muslims (by the way, his full legal name is Barack HUSSEIN Obama), and his mother was an avowed atheist. Many Obama watchers in Illinois claim that the Senator is actually a Muslim who has been running from his faith. Even if that turns out to be false, it cannot be denied that his brand of Christianity draws more from liberal secular progressivism than Christianity. This is a mindset that clearly imposes a modern interpretation on an ancient document, i.e., the Bible. True scholarship insists that it be the other way around.
My strong hunch is that the Christian rank and file will come to outright reject Barack Obama once they begin to look more closely at his actual views, statements, and record, as well as the extremist philosophical school of thought that led to them.
*Prosecutorial Misconduct in Durham
Durham, NC (TLS). The District Attorney that charged three Duke University students with rape should be removed from office. In a case that has been plagued by negligence, scant evidence, and incompetence, the latest news is that the DA withheld key DNA evidence that clears the names of the three suspects.
The bottom line? The evidence shows that the DNA does not belong to any of the three who have been charged.
This begs the following questions--why were the charges against the Duke Students not dropped? Why did the DA withhold evidence from the court and from the defense? And finally, why does the DA persist in prosecuting three innocent young men?
These questions need immediate answers. But at the very least, District Attorney Mike Nifong should be investigated for prosecutorial misconduct, gross negligence, and incompetence. If he deliberately went after three men he knew to be innocent, then the possibility of criminal charges against the DA should be reviewed.
In order for our criminal justice system to work, the men and women who prosecute cases against citizens should be persons of honor and integrity. If this is not viewed as a minimum requirement, then the entire system of justice fails. All too often in recent years we have seen aggressive prosecuting attorneys and police departments incriminate innocent people with a vengeance. Apparently it is all about winning and not about real justice. This presents a dangerous scenario in which ALL Americans are at risk from having their lives ruined by being charged with crimes they never committed, and then either having evidence buried or manufactured.
The mindset that prevails is 'let's just get a conviction.'
This is a travesty of our criminal justice system.
The Duke students should be set fee, the charges dropped, and their names cleared. But that's not all. They are due monetary damages for having their names dragged through the mud and their lives nearly brought to ruin.
If the state of North Carolina buried its head in the sand over this case, then citizens in this fine state should take to the streets. This is a stain on the system from which emanates a rank stench of corruption. It needs to be corrected quickly.
*Unsealing the Holocaust Papers
Bad Arolsen, Germany is home to the International Tracing Service (ITS). The ITS possesses 50 million pages documenting the Holocaust. 'The Holocaust Papers' represent the world's most extensive documentation of the Nazi-perpetrated slaughter of 6 million Jews and 6 million others who were political dissidents, mental patients, and others deemed to be 'undesirable.'
Within these 50 million pages are references to 17.5 million individuals--by name.
The ITS has kept much of the information under lock and seal for a half a century, out of respect for the family members of the victims. Many of these families, however, have maintained that the greatest good can come from opening the books to public view, that the memory of their loved ones who suffered horrors beyond human comprehension is best served if the world can see, up close and personal, the whole story of tyranny unleashed.
Gradually, the ITS is releasing more and more information. Today, the modus operandi is for ITS officials to travel to Washington, the Hague, and other major governmental centers to consult with officials about unraveling the untold stories of the victims.
Some of that information has already been made available.
For example, there is the story of a 21-year-old Russian who sat in the office of the clerk of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate, detailing the the furnaces of Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp where he had been a prisoner a few weeks earlier.
He stated, 'I saw with my own eyes how thousands of Jews were gassed daily and thrown by the hundreds into pits where Jews were burning. I saw how little children were killed with sticks and then thrown into the fire. Blood flowed in gutters, and Jews were thrown in and died there. Even more were taken off trucks and cast alive into the flames.'
This is but one story among millions. A visitor to the archives can find a bound book containing a list of names of the Jews who were rounded up in Holland and transported to the death camps. Within this list is the name of one 'Frank, Annelise M.' Her date of birth is June 12, 1929. Her last known Amsterdam address before she went into hiding is listed. The date she was sent to the death camp is also listed--September 3, 1944. She died an anonymous death at the age of 15 in the camp.
'Annelise' is none other than Anne Frank.
After the war her diary, which became known as 'The Diary of Anne Frank,' was discovered and has become one of the most widely read books on the Holocaust. The diary covers Ms. Frank's 25 months of hiding in a tiny apartment with seven others, prior to her arrest and detention in the Nazi death camp.
The Holocaust Papers have identified over 20,000 detention camps throughout Europe during the war, roughly 15,000 more than what was first thought. But, as communist Eastern Europe fell, more and more records were discovered that detailed the fact that not only did the Nazis operate 5000 or so death camps in Western Europe, but 15,000 more in Eastern Europe.
The process of releasing these valuable historical records should be accelerated. Today more than ever before, the world needs to see, hear, and read the complete story of the Holocaust. With Iran stating unequivocally that it wishes to conduct another Holocaust against the Jews and anyone who supports them, the Holocaust Papers are as relevant today as they ever were.
And, as Winston Churchill warned as early as 1934, for a free society to merely negotiate with and appease tyrannical governments only invites more of the undesired behavior.
If the West refuses to wake up and fight to WIN against Jihadists in the Middle East and dictators in North Korea, we will one day wake up to the bombs falling on Washington as they did on London during WWII.
*LIBERTY ALERT!! MCCAIN SPONSORS BILL TO SILENCE BLOGGERS!
U.S. Senator and potential Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has taken aim at independent bloggers. The Senator has introduced legislation that will make bloggers legally responsible for comments and copyrighted material posted on their websites, including fines up to $300,000.
In an obvious attempt to silence the voices of individual, private citizens on the Internet, McCain has once again thrown his weight behind legislation that enhances the power and influence of the wealthiest among us while robbing individuals of their right to free speech. The Senator has been down this road once before. As a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, which was passed into law, McCain became a champion of robbing citizens of free speech, creating a 'zone of protection' for political candidates in the days leading up to an election.
This has prevented groups such as the NRA from running ads prior to elections that inform the citizens of the voting records of incumbents with regard to 2nd Amendment rights. Yet a handful of organizations with deep pockets, underwritten by billionaires such as George Soros, have found a loophole in the law allowing them to funnel millions of dollars to organizations that run campaign ads through what is known as '527 groups.'
In short, McCain-Feingold has done nothing but silence the voices of citizens while giving more power and influence to the wealthiest among us who can do their damage through 527s.
And now, McCain is at it yet again. Perhaps the Senator fears the voice of the people. Why else would he wish to make vulnerable individual bloggers, the majority of whom are not paid? To threaten an individual citizen who makes no money from blogging with the possibility of a $300,000 fine will do nothing but silence the voices of Americans who exercise their free speech on the Internet.
Yet groups that are bankrolled by the likes of George Soros will not blink an eye at the new legislation due to the fact that, one, a fine of $300,000 is chump change, and two, they have the means to adequately protect themselves legally from any charge of false accusations, character assassination, or any other infraction.
An individual, independent blogger usually has neither the time, money, nor the resources to provide themselves with such protection. The net effect of this legislation will be individual bloggers being hauled to court by frivolous lawsuits, potentially bankrupting us.
The fact that John McCain has now 'outed' himself as the enemy of free speech is quite disturbing. Many believe that he is one of the most viable candidates to face Hillary Clinton in 2008. But his stance on this issue, plus the McCain-Feingold debacle, raises serious doubts about the Senator as a Presidential candidate.
My fellow independent bloggers, if you value your right to free speech and your freedom to share your viewpoints on the Internet unhindered by stupid legislation, the time is NOW to contact Congress. In fact, contact John McCain's office and tell them how despicable this legislation is.
If you were considering supporting John McCain for President, the time is NOW to let his office know that as a blogger who values liberty and free speech, you cannot in good conscience support his Presidential bid UNLESS he withdraws support from this asinine legislation that is in clear violation of every known Constitutional principle.
Even if you are not a blogger, this attack on our First Amendment rights should send chills up the spine of any red-blooded American.
*Roll Call of Anti-Gun Bigots
My friends, it's time for the calling of the roll. Here are the anti-gun bigots who are intent on robbing the citizens of the Constitutional right to own and use firearms.
According to the GOA (Gun Owners of America), which rates every single Senator and Congressman on gun rights issues, the following are some of the most dangerous rights-robbers in the country today. F- is the lowest rating possible.
John McCain--F-
Hillary Clinton--F-
Little Chucky Schumer--F-
Barack Hussein Obama--F-
Nancy Pelosi--F-
Barbara Boxer--F-
Diane Feinstein--F-
Chris Dodd--F
Joe Lieberman--F
Ted Kennedy--F-
John Kerry--F-
Harry Reid--F
Carl Levin--F
John Conyers--F-
Patrick Leahy--F
Charles Rangel--F-
Joe Biden--F
Bill Nelson--F
I was shocked, absolutely SHOCKED, to find that Rick Santorum received an anemic rating of 'C.' But it's better than the those on the list above.
You will note that Rudy Giuliani is not rated. This is because he was neither in the House or the Senate. But he has stated publicly that he is in favor of more gun control, which entitles him to a rating of 'F' in my book.
There are many more ratings you can find at the website for the GOA:
www.gunowners.org.
We are facing dire consequences in the 2008 presidential election. Unless a different candidate comes forward, NONE of those in EITHER party who have stated they are candidates have a favorable rating on 2nd Amendment rights.
This is a dangerous omen for the country.
*A LIBERTY SPHERE EXCLUSIVE--HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS CONSORT TO DESTROY AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE
The responsible stewardship of the environment is not up for debate in modern times. Every responsible, thinking person is forced to consider the world around us and the impact the activity of man has upon the earth's ability to sustain and renew life. The debate, therefore, centers upon one single issue--globing warming and its cause.
Global warming itself is not really the issue at all. It is a fact. In the earth's long and sometimes violent history, there have been patterns of warming and cooling that run in cycles, usually in response to the sun's activity. As the sun increases in volatility with solar storms, the impact on earth is quite predictable. Earth's temperatures increase.
For example, during the Middle Ages, long before the burning of fossil fuels, the earth experienced a warming that is well-documented among feudal societies where written descriptions of the climate are preserved from the era. In reading those documents we are struck by the descriptions of various writers who describe warm temperatures in areas that are generally known for the cold.
During the modern industrial era, however, particularly at its infancy in the 18th and 19th centuries, we see descriptions of a much cooler climate than that of the Middle Ages. In fact, there was a mini ice age that occurred early on during the period where unusual cold and snowfalls were described by novelists and historians.
These periods of global cooling occur simultaneously with a leveling out of the sun's activity. As solar storms decrease, the earth responds by a cooling of global temperatures.
Presently we are in the midst of an increase in the sun's activity. This activity has been documented for quite some time, resulting in a slight but observable increase in the earth's temperatures.
Thus, the issue of global warming is not up for debate. It is a fact at present, just as it has been a fact many times throughout the cyclical life of the planet. The debate centers on man's role, if any, in the warming that is occurring.
The 'environmentalist movement' has come down on the side of man's culpability in the warming of the earth's temperatures. With a dogmatism that would put Medieval
Catholicism to shame, those who belong to the movement insist, adamantly, that the blame for global warming lies squarely with human beings. Human activity, according to the environmentalist dogma, is the single largest contributor to the increase of the earth's temperatures, and thus, steps must be taken to curb man's activity.
The activity in question, of course, is free enterprise, capitalistic industrialism, and entrepreneurship that supposedly 'rapes the precious environment.' This, according to the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement, must be stopped cold.
At the opposite side of the spectrum lies conservatives, libertarians, and those who adhere strictly to 'hard science.' It isn't that these persons deny the possibility of global warming, or global cooling either, for that matter. Rather, these persons question man's contribution to the process. They are not convinced that human activity has much of an impact one way or the other on changes in the earth's temperatures.
Hard science definitely appears to confirm the notion of the latter group of persons.
Take the example of the mammoths in the North Pole region of the earth. Millions of years ago it is clear that the polar region was warm, blooming with plant life, and inhabited by life forms that fed on the plants that were abundant in the region. Hard science proves that this was the case.
Scientists discovered large mammoths frozen in the ice of the polar region that still had undigested green plants in their mouths. These majestic gargantuan creatures roamed the polar region during an era of the earth's history when there was no ice but plant life, grasses, and trees.
The startling discovery of the frozen mammoths in the polar ice region forced scientists to consider one basic fact--there are times when the earth's climate changes suddenly, unpredictably, and violently.
These mammoths had obviously been feeding on the plant life in the polar region, yet they froze to death so quickly that the plants they had just taken into their mouths were frozen along with them. Preserved in the ice for eons of time, these animals provided hard scientific proof of three basic postulates.
First, the polar region was not always frozen but teeming with plant life. Second, this plant life sustained animal life that in today's climate would not survive the cold of the region. And third, the earth is often unpredictable in its wide variances of temperatures, sometimes resulting in sudden, violent, and catastrophic shifts in temperature.
In short, the mammoths froze to death within seconds or minutes while munching on the plants that once grew in the Arctic.
In addition, the mere fact that the Arctic region contains some of the world's most abundant oil deposits is ample proof that the region was once inhabited by numerous animals that left behind fossils that eventually led to the 'fossil fuel' of oil. Such animals could not survive the harsh climate the region has today.
Thus, observable, documented hard science is in unanimous agreement concerning the earth's climate. In the grand scheme of things, mankind has little to do with it. The dramatic shift of the climate in the Arctic region occurred long before man appeared on the earth. The Ice Age was ushered in by forces totally outside the activity of human beings. The warming that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age began long before humans began burning fossil fuels.
It can be documented without dispute, for example, that the earth has been warming for centuries. In actuality, taking the long view, the earth has been warming gradually ever since the end of the last Ice Age, long before there was any industrialization.
Why, then, do the dogmatists within the environmentalist movement insist so vehemently that global warming is a man-made phenomenon? Why are those who present an alternative view to the notion that man caused global warming presently referred to by these dogmatists as 'Holocaust deniers?' These are shockingly harsh terms.
This is not all. PBS was scheduled to do a documentary on global warming. They were planning to utilize the expertise of a world-renown scientist at the University of Oklahoma. However, when the scientist explained to the producers at PBS that he planned on basing his views solely on hard science, they told him in no uncertain terms that he MUST lay the blame for the phenomenon on human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. When the scientist protested that such a view is based upon speculation and opinion rather than hard scientific evidence, he was politely told his services would not be needed on the program.
Why? Why is the dogma of the environmentalist movement so important to its adherents that scientists must be browbeaten into submission and the documented scientific evidence ignored?
The answer is that today's environmentalist movement is not a scientific movement but a political one. The movement is a front for those with a definite political agenda.
Consider this. The scientists who belong to the environmentalist movement claim that their basis of authority on the subject of global warming is 'by consensus.' They have arrived at their viewpoint that man is responsible for global warming by consensus, that is, most of the scientists in the movement adhere to a viewpoint that is not universally held by the best minds within the scientific community.
And this is the source of the problem. If science is determined by consensus, it ceases to be science. It then becomes conjecture, opinion, and theory. Hard science is based upon one thing alone--the observable facts. Anything that cannot be verified with observable facts remains in the realm of opinion and theory. But it is not science.
Thus, the environmentalist movement has outed itself as a purely political movement. By admitting to the notion that scientific fact can be determined by consensus rather than hard evidence, the movement has immediately taken itself totally outside the scientific realm.
This leaves only one dire conclusion. The environmentalist movement is nothing more than a political movement that is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise industrialism. Thus, Americans are told how horrible they are for driving SUVs. We are told how wicked are the oil companies. We treated to diatribes about how awful are the chemical companies. To express a belief that nuclear-powered energy sources are an acceptable, clean alternative is to commit the unpardonable sin. This is enough to get you excommunicated by the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement. You will surely go straight to hell.
Thus, the environmentalist movement is today the single largest threat to liberty in the world outside of terrorism. In the name of saving the planet from us wicked human beings, its adherents would dismantle American capitalism and free enterprise. Under the guise of 'doing good' the movement would destroy the basis of the American economy and totally change our way of life.
It is for this reason that many of the ex-Communists and Socialists from the Cold War have joined the environmentalist movement. When the old Soviet Union fell as a result of the policies of President Ronald Reagan, who brought them to the brink of economic disaster with our massive military buildup, the comrades were caught without a cause and with no place to go.
These people always have to have a subversive 'cause' to justify their existence.
Thus, they chose the environmentalist movement as the perfect vehicle by which to push toward their goal of destroying capitalism, dismantling the American economy, burying our prosperity, and eventually bringing the complete demise of a Republic that is dedicated to human liberty.
To buy into environmentalist pronouncements as the musings of concerned scientists is a big mistake. The practice of environmentalists to ignore hard science and smear the good names of respected scientists who do not subscribe to their views is ample proof of the subversive nature of this movement.
Thinking people can see right through the ruse. When science is decided by 'consensus' and not factual evidence, it is clear that anything the man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming crowd has to say is to be viewed with a grain of salt. They are not to be taken seriously, except for their massive and single-minded desire to dominate politics and alter the course of a free society.
As for their anti-American and anti-liberty scheme, we should quickly and forcefully repudiate their statements in the public arena whenever we have opportunity to do so.
*A Man's Answer to the Wonderbra
It was only a matter of time. The 'Wondercup' has arrived. Those men who have felt duped by women who artificially enhance their size now have their chance at revenge.
An Australian company is manufacturing and marketing a line of men's underwear called 'The Wondercup,' which, according to their slogan, 'lifts, separates, and extends.' The product is sold in top stores worldwide and is marketed to over 70 countries via the Internet.
Sales of this most interesting item have exploded, fueled by the marketing slogan, 'The new Wondercup technology in these attention-grabbing, all-cotton Patriot briefs will have you seriously looking bigger and feeling better.'
Well now, this is splendid news. It's about time that we men had a socially acceptable method of making our genitalia look bigger without having to stuff bananas, socks, or cucumbers down our shorts.
Can you imagine the embarrassment of having an intimate encounter during which at a most crucial moment a zucchini falls out of your shorts? Well, those days are now gone. We have now moved up in the world, joining the ranks of our female counterparts who have long enjoyed the luxury of underwear that lifts and separates.
I can just hear the snide remarks of some women who will claim, 'But real men don't need the Wondercup.'
Of course they don't. And real women don't need the Wonderbra.
What do ya say we just go back to being who we are and accepting ourselves as we are without all the artificiality? There is nothing wrong with paying attention to one's appearance, but enough is enough!
No comments:
Post a Comment