Google Custom Search

Saturday, December 16, 2006

NCAA Charges Steve Spurrier's WIFE in Rules Violations!

Well, my fellow college football fans, the NCAA has given us yet another reason to believe that its rules emanate from either the Twilight Zone or some long-forgotten loony bin in the old USSR. South Carolina Gamecock coach Steve Spurrier's WIFE has been charged with rules violations by the NCAA.

Her crime? Sending Christmas cards to the recent recruits that have signed with South Carolina.

Get out the handcuffs, boys, this hardened Ma Barker should be sent up the river to the big house!

If there were ever any doubt that the NCAA is an organization raging out of control, those doubts are now dispelled. For years coaches, boosters, college presidents, sports commentators, and even attorneys have warned that the NCAA is a ticking time-bomb just waiting to implode, taking many honorable college sports programs with it. The NCAA Gestapo has even gone after individual citizens for exercising their free speech in merely criticizing the organization.

Just ask Montgomery, Alabama attorney Tommy Gallion about the infamous NCAA's dubious reputation for operating as a pseudo-KGB. Gallion has been investigating the organization for over 20 years, and recently represented the University of Alabama in a flap over the NCAA's sanctions against the school, coming close to discontinuing the school's famed football program. Gallion maintained that the NCAA does not fairly apply its rules across the board but exhibits an alarming partiality in doling out its 'justice.'

In the South Carolina case, made public today, the NCAA charged Mrs. Spurrier for rules violations in doing what the Coach says she has done for many years--sending Christmas greetings to new players.

What makes this action even more incredible is that Steve Spurrier has always been a stickler for adhering to NCAA rules. The venerable Coach has a long history of tolerating no rules violations on the part of his staff. This is not to say that Spurrier agrees with all of these rules but that he has never wanted his reputation tarnished by any hint of scandal.

When asked about the charges brought against his wife, Spurrier stated that she has made it a practice of doing this for several years, and that 'I guess now that's against the rules.' The implication of this statement is that apparently neither the Coach nor his wife were even aware that such an innocuous act could be construed in any way as a rules violation.

That is a dangerous assumption to make when dealing with the NCAA.

Let me get down to the nitty gritty here. This rule stinks. It is stupid and petty. And stupid and petty men do stupid and petty things.

If I were Mrs. Spurrier, I would hire a lawyer and sue the NCAA. Sooner or later this rogue organization needs to be stopped. Now is as good a time as any.

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.

Friday, December 15, 2006

It's About Time--The Illegal Alien Roundup

Despite protests from Labor Unions, Democrats, and others among the Leftwing, the recent roundup of illegal aliens employed by Swift at their meatpacking plants is a good thing. For much too long, this nation has essentially abdicated its responsibility to enforce immigration laws that are already on the books.

The problem has NEVER been exclusively a border control issue but a law enforcement issue. The INS has not been doing its job.

As much as the President and others would like for us to believe that a border fence is going to solve the problem, such bandaid approaches are bound to fail. However, the President and his administration can be heartily commended for finally getting around to enforcing the nation's laws.

The neglect of the growing problem of illegal aliens is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The problem has spanned several Presidencies and several configurations of Congress. Rather, the crisis the nation faces can be laid squarely at the feet of politicians in BOTH parties who have failed to enforce laws that rational people placed on the books in days past.

Granted, the arrest of a few thousand illegal aliens at Swift is only a small step, but it is an important FIRST step. This country needs a major overhaul of its immigration policy, or else things will quickly get totally out of control, such as we find in France today.

In fact, I call for a complete moratorium on immigration for a period of years until this nation decides how to devise a more realistic and manageable immigration program. Until that time, as things now stand, we are vulnerable not only to the nation being overrun by people who couldn't care less about its laws, language, and culture, but we are at great risk for terrorist infiltration.

A moratorium on immigration will give allow the nation to catch its breath, stop the rapid, chaotic change brought about by the inability to adequately assimilate the numbers of immigrants flooding into the country, and give us the opportunity to examine a prudent course for future immigration...a course that can be adequately enforced.

France on Brink of Being Lost to Islamic Jihadists

As I have been reporting to you on The Liberty Sphere for several months, France is in a state of civil war, a war that is carefully downplayed and swept under the rug by the French press and government. Yet the head of the country's police force has stated unequivocally that France is in a state of civil war and the government has done precious little to help his officers fight the perpetrators.

The perpetrators are Muslims who have immigrated to France in alarming numbers.

5 million Muslims now live in France--the most of any country in western Europe. At the present rate the current influx of Muslims into the country will turn France into an Islamic state within a decade, perhaps even less. The Arab Union's Vision and Philosophy statement says the following: 'We believe in a multicultural society and strongly reject for any Muslim any idea of assimilation or integration into European society. We don't want to assimilate and we don't want to be stuck somewhere in the middle . We want to foster our own society and culture where we live. We insist on teaching Arab language, Arab history and Islamic faith.'

This being the case, why would they wish to do this in a non-Muslim country? There are many Islamic states in the world where Sharia law holds sway, under the authority of the Koran. Thus, one can only assume that since the move to immigrate to France is precalculated, and that the ultimate goal is to set up the Arab language, religion, and culture, then the entire process is part of the Islamic plan for world domination.

Muslims view countries with 'open borders' as vulnerable. Thus, it is easiest to start with those countries that are most lax in immigration policy. France has been an easy target with its emphasis on multiculturalism and Jacques Chirac's 30-year history of playing cozy footsies with Muslim dictators.

The result? Within the past year 10,000 cars have been torched, 300 buildings have been firebombed, an average of 15 attacks on police and fire units occur nightly in predominantly Muslim areas, and an average of 100 vehicles per night are set ablaze. Police reports indicate that the violence is perpetrated by Muslim youths, both black and Arab, who live in the small towns surrounding larger French cities, primarily Paris.

The attitude of violence is a growing mindset among young Muslims worldwide.

The following is a report, found on, concerning the growing phenomenon of Muslim unrest all around the world:

'The new threatening component of Muslim discourse now espoused by Islamic militants war against the whole human race for totalitarian control. They aspire to coerce the entire world into conversion to Islam or to accept the humiliation of "dhimoni status". This is beginning to appear in areas from England to Indonesia, Canada ti India. and from the U.S. to Spain. All of this is based upon the fact that the Koran teaches that all the world must accept conversion to Islam or face the humiliation of dhimma status in which status a tax(jizya) is extracted from all non-Muslims for protection.

'A "Front Page Symposium" recently held a panel to discuss the status of "Eurabia" in European countries. The panel was a large gathering of European authorities on the subject. Some of the participants were Bat ye'or, Clara Berlinski, Leon de Winter, Bruce Bowers, and Lars Hedguard. The opinion varied from "we are in the beginning stages of a world wide war of Islamofascism against Western culture an Christianity and Judaism to the theory that we can avoid this conflict if we can get to the mothers of Islamic youths,and convince them to accept assimilation.

'All participants agreed that the "Muslims view multiculturism and the inability or unwillingness of Western Nations to uphold their borders is a symbol that Western Nations are weak and ripe for conquest!" The panel disagreed but many felt that a time line of 15-20 years was the Islamists time table for conquest. They concluded that a world war was inevitable. Hot or cold war is yet to be determined. The jihad riots in France which continue as noted above, is the beginning stages of a civil war. Western Cultural weakness more than Islam strength is allowing this world war to begin.

'The conclusion was that Europe, "if it wants to stay free of Muslim control, must stop Muslim immigration and any speech about "jihad" should result in deportation. Europe should withdraw from the United Nations where the panel believes this problem started with the passage of "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This proclamation states, "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion." Radical Islamists use this to declare anyone speaking against Muslims as an Islamophobe!

'This despite the fact that the Koran, Hadith and Sira deny that a person has basic freedom of conscience.

'They state that a persons conscience comes directly from the Muslim controlled community they live in.This philosophy was approved by the 57 member states of the OIC. This could be one reason no American Clerics have spoken out against the Muslim terrorist bombings.

'Beginning in 1453 when the Ottomans captured Constantinople through the Greek war of Independence in 1828 the Ottomans killed 11 Ecumenical Patriarchs, 100 bishops and several thousand priests and deacons. So much for their professed belief in religious freedom.'

My friends, the situation in France is dire, and the rest of western Europe is at high risk. The time is NOW for the U.S. to move to stop the march of Islam. We can start by expelling the Muslim elected to Congress. He is not fit to serve since his allegiance is to Allah alone and NOT the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Roy Moore on the First Muslim Elected to Congress

The following was written by Judge Roy Moore of the state of Alabama. Judge Moore was the center of controversy when he was removed from office as the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from the justice building.

Despite the controversy surrounding Moore and his views, he is actually a brilliant jurist. In the following article Judge Moore talks about the inherent danger of seating a Muslim in Congress and what Congress can do about it. Of course, we can expect them to do nothing since the Democrats now control the place.

Special thanks to WorldNetDaily News for this commentary.

Muslim Ellison should not sit in Congress
Posted: December 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Judge Roy Moore

© 2006
Last month Keith (Hakim Mohammad) Ellison of Minnesota became the first Muslim elected to serve in the United States Congress and shocked many Americans by declaring that he would take his oath of office by placing his hand on the Quran rather than the Bible. Can a true believer in the Islamic doctrine found in the Quran swear allegiance to our Constitution? Those who profess a sincere belief in Allah say "no!"

In 1789, George Washington, our first president under the Constitution, took his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God." Placing his hand on the Holy Scriptures, Washington recognized the God who had led our Pilgrim fathers on their journey across the Atlantic in 1620 and who gave our Founding Fathers the impetus to begin a new nation in 1776. Soon after Washington's oath, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which required all judges of the federal courts to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties" incumbent upon them "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." Placing their hand on the Bible, the members of Congress had already sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States ... So help me God."

Thus began a long tradition that extended both to state and federal government of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the source of our law and liberty. Today, some believe that it does not matter what we believe or before Whom we take our oath. But as Keith Ellison is demonstrating, it does matter.

To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document, liberty of conscience, which is the right of every person to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, without interference by the government. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" in 1833, observed concerning the First Amendment that "The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as revealed religion." Justice Story echoed the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson in his Bill for Religious Freedom in 1777 in which he stated that "Almighty God" (El Shaddai in Hebrew) "hath created the mind free and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint." It was a specific God who endowed us with a freedom of conscience with which government could not interfere.

The Islamic faith rejects our God and believes that the state must mandate the worship of its own god, Allah. Last week, the Associated Press reported that the Islamic Court in Bulo Burto, a small town in southern Somalia, had ordered that residents would be beheaded "according to Islamic law" if they failed to pray five times a day. Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, chairman of the Islamic court, stated, "As Muslims, we should practice Islam fully ... and that is what our religion enjoins us to do." In other regions of Somalia, Islamic courts have introduced flogging, public execution and other punishments for those who deny Quranic law or refuse to worship Allah.

Islamic law is simply incompatible with our law. Jaafar Sheikh Idris, founder and chairman of American Open University, a radical Islamic school that has received funding from suspected al-Qaida sources and which supports Islamic law, recently stated that "Islam cannot be separated from the state," and that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the United States Constitution and still be a Muslim, because the law of Allah as expressed in the Quran is supreme. Idris was recently deported for his illegal activities. While we certainly disagree with Idris' radical extremism, he at least knows what Islam is all about!

According to a Dec. 6, 2006, WorldNetDaily article, Keith Ellison's campaign was not only backed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which shares the views of American Open University, but he also spoke to the North American Islamic Federation in November in Minneapolis with American Open University on the same program. Perhaps Ellison is confused about what he believes, or else he has another agenda. In either event, according to Idris, Ellison cannot swear an oath on the Quran and an allegiance to our Constitution at the same time.

Our Constitution states, "Each House [of Congress] shall be the judge ... of the qualifications of its own members." Enough evidence exists for Congress to question Ellison's qualifications to be a member of Congress as well as his commitment to the Constitution in view of his apparent determination to embrace the Quran and an Islamic philosophy directly contrary to the principles of the Constitution. But common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine. In 1943, we would never have allowed a member of Congress to take their oath on "Mein Kampf," or someone in the 1950s to swear allegiance to the "Communist Manifesto." Congress has the authority and should act to prohibit Ellison from taking the congressional oath today!

Judge Roy Moore is the chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala., and the author of "So Help Me God." He is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge God.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

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.

More on Barack Obama

Several days ago I wrote an article about the similarities between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter's rise to prominence in the mid-70s. The only difference, in essence, is the bigger than life star quality with which Obama has been tagged. The Obama phenomenon is largely a creation of the mainstream media that loves a person who has 'star quality.' We can fully expect Hollywood to eventually jump on the Obama bandwagon.

Americans, as it turns out, are increasingly wary. In November the candidate garnered the support of 19% of Democrats. In early December that number was down to 15%. The latest poll shows only 12% of Democrats supporting the inexperienced Senator.

Apparently Americans have matured somewhat since the 1970s when they eagerly jumped on the Jimmy Carter bandwagon in the aftermath of Watergate. Contemplating the utter trainwreck of the Carter Presidency may be the thing that is fueling the growing uneasiness among some within the Democrat party.

Obama has of yet to appear on major news talk shows to face the tough questions. Of course the exception is the 3 major networks, which have consistently failed to press the candidate on ANY issue. The result is the unexpected general impression that Obama is all fluff and no substance.

Now let's look a bit deeper.

Obama does have a record on the issues, albeit scant. Yet on those issues on which he has voted, it is interesting that he is straight liberal all the way. One by one his votes portray a leftist partisan who votes straight down the line on issues that the Left perceives as vital.

Remember that Obama was a four-term state legislator before he became a U.S. Senator.

We know that he is pro-abortion. But that's not all. He supports more gun control, a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. He is for Affirmative Action, a concept that is racist at its very core. He created quite a stir in Illinois for his defiant opposition to the Iraq War. He is also opposed to so-called 'racial profiling'--a practice that has probably saved the country thus far from another terrorist attack perpetrated by young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent.

Obama also became known for his rabid support of the labor union movement. He has consistently criticized Wall Street for 'not looking out for the best interests of American workers.'

Pray tell, Mr. Obama, how is that Wall Street doesn't care about workers when the very corporations represented on the various stock exchanges are responsible for providing millions of Americans with jobs? Or is it that in your ultra-leftist/marxist mindset it is considered immoral for a corporation to make a profit, which benefits stock-holders and ultimately benefits workers?

Finally, Barack Obama broke with many of his Democrat colleagues in voting against Bush nominee John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. People on both sides of the aisle praised Roberts as an excellent jurist with an impeccable record of integrity and painstaking precision in interpreting the Constitution in a manner consistent with the intent of the Founders.

Yet Obama voted 'NO' on Roberts.

What is emerging as time progresses is a politician who has every bit as much of the leftist mentality as Ted Kennedy but with a pleasing personality...not exactly the type of person who is fit for public office of any kind, much less President or even vice-President.

Americans can do themselves and the country a big favor and nip this ominous Obama bandwagon in the bud.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

An Ignored American Benchmark--December 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.

Happy Hanukkah to Our Jewish Readers

December 15 marks the beginning of Hanukkah--the Festival of Lights. I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of our Jewish readers a Happy Hanukkah. We thank you for your support of The Liberty Sphere.

As a Christian, I think it is important for me to commemorate and highlight our Jewish roots. The Christian tradition is heavily steeped in the Hebrew tradition, and it is not to be forgotten that Jesus was a Jew. This is the group through which God chose to reveal His plans and purposes to the world.

I have always said that as a Christian I am a Jew first. So many of our values are held in common. It is no accident that the values and precepts that undergird American society are referred to as 'the Judeo-Christian' tradition. I believe it is vitally important for Christians and Jews to stand in solidarity, particularly in the face of the growing danger and threat of world-wide Islamic Jihad. I also strongly believe that it is crucial for Christians to express unwavering support for the nation of Israel.

Thus, during this Festival of Lights, may each of you be blessed with the presence, protection, and advocacy of God Almighty.

Top 10 Reasons Why It's Good Riddance to Kofi Annan

Finally, the United Nations is rid of Kofi Annan. It is with a great sense of relief that I contemplate not having to hear the former U.N. Secretary-General drone on and on about America's failures. In fact, I am almost at the point of doing cartwheels. The only thing that prevents such a display is the prospect of getting someone as bad or worse. Time will tell.

Thus, good riddance, Mr. Annan! Don't let the door slam your rear on your way out.

Here are the top ten reasons why it's good riddance to Kofi:

1. He is ultimately anti-American.

2. He presided over the single largest scandal in the history of the world--the now-infamous food-for-oil program that squandered billions of dollars in a debacle that overshadows Enron, Healthsouth, and Global Crossing combined. Annan's son was knee-deep in the scandal, and much of the truth of what actually happened was covered up. To date, neither Annan nor anyone else has been held to accountability.

3. He is responsible for the Iraq War, period. The U.N. repeatedly refused to enforce its demands on Saddam Hussein that, if properly enacted, would have made our invasion unnecessary.

4. He is a sorry excuse for an administrator, failing repeatedly to account for U.N. resolutions, financial discrepancies, and personnel matters. Many within the administrative staff of the U.N. are woefully ignorant of the history, mission, goals, and procedures of the organization. Instead they are prone to spout the anti-American propaganda they heard from their leader.

5. He has repeatedly sided with Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Iran, and others in their despicable hatred for the Jewish state. Israel got NOTHING from Annan.

6. He sided with France in the days leading up to the Iraq War, serving as a puppet and mouthpiece for Jacques Chirac, who, as it turned out, was merely attempting to cover up a decades-old policy of providing Saddam Hussein with nuclear capability, including the country's first nuclear reactor, in exchange for oil. Rather than condemn Chirac, Annan chose to condemn President Bush.

7. He has consistently exhibited a penchant for promoting Communists, dictators, and terrorist states to positions of leadership, the climax of which was Cuba and Syria being allowed to serve on the U.N.'s human rights commission.

With logic such as this, I'm sure he would have allowed Hitler to head a commission on human rights for Jews.

8. Rather than depart gracefully, he chose to use the occasion of the end of his tenure to take yet more potshots at George Bush and the United States.

9. He is an apologist for increasing U.N. power and diminishing national sovereignty.

10. He is a liar. At his farewell address in Harry Truman's Presidential Library, Annan took occasion to contrast Harry Truman and George Bush. In doing so, he flat-out told several major falsehoods. True, President Truman was instrumental in the founding of the United Nations. But Annan claims Truman recognized how important it was to gain international consensus in the U.N. before taking military action.

Wow. I suppose Annan hopes that most Americans have forgotten that Truman ended WWII by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. He did not consult with any international body before doing so. His only concern was the security of the United States of America, having sworn to serve, protect, and defend its Constitution.

Based upon Annan's response to Bush's invasion of Iraq, I am certain that he would have resoundingly condemned Truman for his use of nuclear weapons in a war. Yet we heard nothing of this in the address. Surely Annan knows Truman remains as the only U.S. President to use the atomic bomb.

The disingenuousness of this clown is astounding.

Thus, good-bye, Mr. Annan, and good riddance. The U.N. will be much better off without your presence on the world stage.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The Problem with Jimmy Carter--A Foreshadowing of Barack Obama?

Jimmy Carter came along when Americans were weary with government scandal. Fresh from our defeat in Viet Nam due to political restrictions in Washington, plus the fallout from the Watergate scandal, Americans were ready for a fresh face of innocence.

They thought they had found it in Jimmy Carter.

Here was a man who loved to smile, who seemed cheerful, affirming, and warm. He was a Sunday School teacher, a Baptist who didn't shy away from stating upfront that he had been 'born again.' He had been a peanut farmer in the South and later served the state of Georgia as its Governor. But he was also very intelligent...educated as a nuclear physicist.

The fact that Carter's presidency was a failure was not due to any lack of intelligence or ability, or even congeniality. Everyone generally agreed he was a 'good guy.' Rather, Carter's presidency failed because of a fundamental flaw in the Carter psyche--a deep-seated belief that somehow America is at fault for the world's ills and that if only we could demonstrate to Communists, dictators, and other political thugs that we were really and truly 'good,' then they would forgive us for our supposed sins and there would be peace.

It is not to be forgotten that Carter's fate was sealed in the 1980 presidential race, not because he failed to get our hostages in Iran released but because of a televised address to the nation in which he accused the citizens of being sick with a 'malaise.' He seemed to forget the fact that his policies brought on an economic malaise which resulted in skyrocketing interest rates and runaway inflation that brought the construction and real estate markets to a grinding halt.

Carter has never failed to be among the first to blame America while letting tyrants off the hook, such as his penchant for cozying up to Yasir Arafat. Ronald Reagan had to do very little to provide a distinct contrast. Reagan's natural gift of putting people at ease with his extraordinary communication skills, along with his belief in the ultimate greatness of America, inspired millions of citizens, even Democrats, to move America forward by reaching back to recapture the essence of what motivated the Founders to make this country 'that bright city on a hill.'

Without doubt, Mr. Carter would have been much better off doing what he did best--spearheading Habitat for Humanity, leading the Carter Center which he founded in Atlanta, and other such worthy pursuits. But it is as if he never could accept the fact that Americans rejected his political point of view, and thus, he has continued to meddle in American foreign policy, often placing national interests at great peril.

And let's not forget that it was Carter whom Bill Clinton tapped to lead the ill-fated scheme to supply North Korea with nuclear power upon nothing more than a promise from Kim Jong-il that the material would only be used for energy. We all know now that Kim duped the Clinton administration and that America in essence supplied him with the capability to build and deploy nuclear weapons.

We can thank Messrs. Clinton and Carter for that one.

Carter's latest debacle may well be the one to do him in for good. His latest book, which suggests that Israel is guilty of apartheid, is woefully lacking in insight, judgment, and even factual information. He has deftly rewritten history to make himself look better, in spite of the fact that the record is still there for all to see. He has been accused of plagiarism by a former Clinton administration official. One of his closet longtime friends and colleagues resigned over some of the blatant misstatements in the book.

It is a shame that in the sunset of his years Mr. Carter has chosen to pontificate on matters about which he is woefully ignorant. The result is that a furor of controversy has been ignited, with Jews charging him with anti-semitism along with all of the other scandals surrounding the book.

The problem with Jimmy Carter goes far beyond the shortsightedness of his views. There is a fundamental danger inherent in Americans voting against something rather than FOR something. When we cast votes based upon a disgust with the present situation, we tend to make gargantuan mistakes. In electing an unknown in 1976, Americans were voting against the 'thugs in office that gave us the Viet Nam War and Watergate.' Carter's election was almost purely a Watergate fallout vote.

This phenomenon is relevant today because there is yet another untested, unknown political novice waiting in the wings--Barack Obama. After a mere two years in the Senate, he has become the darling of the mainstream media. Cameras follow him wherever he goes as if he were some sort of Hollywood leading man. Democrat Party operatives seem to melt in his presence. Yet he has essentially no record on the issues. We know he is pro-abortion, but that's about it. Yet some voters do not care. In the rush to choose someone who has no political baggage, we may well be on the brink of making another major mistake in electing to the top office in the land a person with no experience, particularly in the realm of the ever-important foreign policy issues.

We have no idea how Obama will react to pressure. We have no clue as to how he will handle the growing threat of terrorism. We don't know if he has staying power, if there is substance behind the style. For all we know he is all fluff.

Even Jimmy Carter had more experience than Obama. Carter had been a chief executive, serving as the Governor of a state.

Excuse-driven Democrat Party operatives and some within the mainstream media offer the lame observation that experienced politicians 'got us into this mess,' the implication being that perhaps inexperience can get us out of it. This is tantamount to saying that since a brain surgeon with 25 years of experience botched a procedure, then clearly a surgeon with ZERO experience in brain surgery could do much better.

Carter's present woes are indicative of the perilous course of choosing a President who lacks the basic qualities necessary for the job. Americans should think long and hard before rushing headlong into joining the Obama bandwagon.

Monday, December 11, 2006

MUSIC! Legacy Five--Carrying the Legacy

When Roger Bennett joined the Cathedral Quartet in 1979, little did he know that he would one day become the quintessential piano accompanist in Gospel Music, neither did he know that twenty-seven years later he would be carrying on the great Cathedrals tradition in a group he co-founded, Legacy Five. Bennett became nearly an overnight sensation when he joined the famed Cathedral Quartet, which retired from the road in 1999 after dominating Gospel Music for over 30 years.

Bennett is quick to give credit to his beloved mentors, Glen Payne and George Younce, the now-deceased patriarchs of the Cathedrals. When Payne was lying on his deathbed in 1999 after being diagnosed with terminal liver cancer at the age of 72, Bennett describes his last visit with Payne prior to his death, a conversation in which he told Payne, 'Had it not been for you I would have never been given a chance in this business.'

Upon the Cathedrals' retirement Bennett and another overnight sensation from the group, baritone Scott Fowler, embarked upon a new adventure for which they had spent the previous decade training, being schooled under the able guidance of Payne and Younce. They started a brand new group called 'Legacy Five.'

Immediately the group was a hit with the names of Bennett and Fowler at the helm. Their very first concert was at the famed megachurch in Georgia, Atlanta's First Baptist Church. During the concert the guys were surprised by an unexpected phone call which was piped into the sanctuary for all to hear. It was none other than George Younce, who had called to wish the guys well. Although too sick to attend, Younce wanted to give the guys his moral support.

Younce brought the house down, though, when he told Bennett and Fowler, 'You better do good because if you don't, I'm gonna come down there and kick your butt.'

Many accolades have gone to Legacy Five during their short history. They have won the Male Quartet of the Year award from the fans. Bennett has won more favorite pianist awards than any other keyboard artist in Gospel music. Fowler switched from baritone to lead vocalist with the new group, and he has continued to win awards for his vocal skill. The group is rounded out by Frank Seamans on tenor, Scott Howard on baritone, and Glen Dustin on bass...all award winning vocalists.

Legacy Five has appeared with Bill Gaither on the popular 'Gaither Homecoming Series' and has traveled abroad, taking the Gospel in song to appreciative audiences overseas.

To read more about this exciting group, visit their website at:

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.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

New York City Bans Santa Claus?

The editorial cartoon in the morning paper today says it all. New York City cops are shown placing Santa Claus under arrest. As the bewildered Santa stands there in cuffs, the two cops discuss the charges. He was smoking a pipe--a most heinous criminal offense in the Big Apple, plus the most damning charge of all--he was caught with several grams of transfatty acids in the cookies in his sleigh.

We laugh at such over-exaggerations in comic strips. Yet, should Santa come to NYC today, would he be welcome? I doubt it. He would be given citations from the cops.

Santa is fat. The health police of the federal government and collectivist meccas like NYC have decided this is entirely unacceptable. Americans, we are told, are too heavy and out of shape. Santa dreadfully fails this test.

Santa loves to eat cookies, cakes, ice cream, and other Christmas treats that millions of parents and their young leave for him in kitchens across the country on Christmas eve. As I was growing up my Mother and Father always left Santa a sampling of whatever goodies we happened to have on hand during the holidays. It was always a treat to wake up on Christmas morning, run to the kitchen, and see the crumbs lying around as indisputable proof that Santa had, indeed, been there.

But the Big Apple has banned transfatty acids...the substance that makes treats such as cookies and doughnuts taste so good.

If I were Santa, I would fly right over the place and not leave a single gift just to punish the Big Brother apologists who believe government should meddle in our personal business. You may exercise your personal right not to eat things that have transfatty acids in them, but you do NOT have the right to stop ME from eating them if I wish. Now, dash away, Dancer, Prancer, and all...get us out of this annoying, vile, freedom-hating place! Dash away all!!

Finally, most all traditional depictions of the mythical character of Santa Claus show him smoking his pipe...a common practice of most men at one time in history. Once again, this has become a modern no-no. Not only would Santa be given a citation for smoking in New York City, but in Omaha, Nebraska he would be turned in by citizens who are encouraged to dial 9-1-1 whenever they see someone smoking in public.

GASP!! That awful, nasty Santa Claus pulled that sleigh right up into the yard while smoking on that dreadful pipe. And, he even went into some homes with it. Think of the second hand smoke! Why, arrest that dirty rascal. Let him rot in jail! He is giving cancer to our kids!

If I were Santa, I think I would think twice before even attempting to come to America at all on Christmas eve. What was once a land of freedom, inhabited by people who valued liberty above ALL, is quickly becoming an Orwellian nightmare of collectivists who wish to use the power of government to control our personal behavior.

As one New Yorker said in support of Big Brother's food police banning transfats, 'All I want to do is live longer!'

I see. Better to live a long time under tyranny than to live a shorter life with liberty. Good thinking, Einstein.

As Thomas Jefferson said, 'The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground.'

Referring to the tendency of citizens to gradually elect officials who restrict freedoms, Jefferson coined the term 'elective despotism.' According to the U.S. Constitution, we as Americans do NOT have the right to vote our liberties away. An elected despot is every bit as much a despot as an unelected dictator. In addition, Jefferson insisted that for government to assume powers not granted to it in the Constitution results in acts that are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force.'

Apparently Americans by and large simply do not care about the Constitution anymore, or else they would take to the streets decrying these acts of despotism perpetrated by elected officials in places such as New York City and Omaha, Nebraska.

The tendency of Americans to elect to office those who strip citizens of their rights is an act of ultimate tyranny, which Jefferson maintained would result in bloodshed. Said Jefferson, 'The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'

If we continue down the present slippery slope, the day is coming when 20 million or more citizens from the heartland will take to the streets with pitchforks, demanding that our government abide by the ONLY rule of law in this country--the U.S. Constitution.

Don't come here right now, Santa. The neo-commies in NYC and other places around and about will only make trouble for you. You deserve better. Come back when true American patriots finally rid the country of the freedom-haters.