Google Custom Search

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Hillary Clinton Falters

The campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton to become President of the United States in 2008 is beginning to falter. Early indications are that she is beginning to slip in her favor among Democrat voters, and in fact, in some areas she is in a free-fall.

In Iowa Hillary is now 4th, coming in behind candidates such as Barack HUSSEIN Obama and John Edwards. In New Hampshire she has watched her impressive early lead slip away to Obama, and this was before Edwards announced his candidacy.

Many would fault the candidacy of Barack HUSSEIN Obama as the main reason for the Hillary slide. Yet this notion would be very short-sighted. Hillary's problems are deep and ominous, despite her wild popularity among Liberals and the media establishment.

Hillary Clinton has always been and remains today a polarizing figure. Very few take a moderate view of her. Voters either hate her with a passion or love her as if she were some sort of saint sent down from heaven. She would not win a single state in the South or the across the heartland. Her strength would come mainly from the peripheral of the country, except for the South--the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific coast states, and few other states scattered here and about in the Midwest. Her attempt to moderate her positions and rhetoric are old hat. She has nobody left to fool. The electorate knows her very well, and this is precisely her biggest problem.

The Obama bandwagon is going to crash and burn as well. He is inexperienced and untested. His views are as far outside mainstream America as Nancy Pelosi's and Ted Kennedy's.

Watch for a John Edwards surge. Though Edwards has his own baggage, this darkhorse candidate may well become the man to beat among Democrats. He is from the South, he makes for an attractive candidate in terms of personality, and he is very smart and articulate. This could well turn out to be Edwards' year in the spotlight.

Conyers Faces Ethics Violations Probe

U.S. Representative John Conyers, who is slated to become Chair of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, has taken responsibility for possible ethics violations. Conyers had used his staff in his campaign for re-election, a clear violation of House rules.

According to 'The Hill,' Conyers faces a possible denial in his bid to become Judiciary Chair in the new Congress. This should be the least of his woes.

Since the Democrats vilified and demonized Republicans over one wayward member--Mark Foley--and then proceeded to run on a platform of ethics reform, the bar has been set incredibly high. So far the Democrats have failed in coming up to expectation, with John Murtha's ethics problems, Nancy Pelosi's failure to live up to a campaign promise of 'open government' by banning C-Span from telecasting the opening session, and now John Conyer's obvious ethics-impairment.

Conyers had already stated that as soon as he ascended to the throne of Judiciary Chair, he would begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

This loser is also one of the very worst offenders when it comes to the 2nd Amendment as well. Conyers has stated repeatedly that he wishes to ban handguns outright, thus leaving law-abiding citizens in the compromising and dangerous position of being at the mercy of thugs who WILL have guns no matter what the law says.

Now that we know Conyers has violated House ethics rules, this is yet another opportunity to see the pure, lilly-white Democrats at work. What are they going to do with him?

At the very least he should be denied his Chairmanship. He should also face the possibility of being expelled from the House (but the Democrats who will run Congress will never do this).

As a demagogue who has no regard for Constitutional rights or ethics, Conyers should never be allowed to assume a leadership position in the new Congress. And if he IS allowed to do so, the electorate has yet one more nail to place in the coffin of Democrats in 2008.

The full story can be found here:

Urgent Prayers for Dr. D. James Kennedy

The Reverend Doctor D. James Kennedy, Senior Minister of the 10,000-member Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida has suffered a massive heart attack and is on life support at a local hospital. Dr. Kennedy was at home at the time. His wife gave him CPR until paramedics arrived.

Many urgent prayers are in order for Dr. Kennedy. He is one of the most powerful voices for Protestant Christianity in the world today.

As a young man Kennedy had been a dance instructor for Arthur Murray's School of Dance. Upon his conversion to Christianity and call to the ministry, and his subsequent education, he went to the small, struggling Coral Ridge Church which at the time had only 17 members.

Dr. Kennedy elicited the help of the lay persons to embark upon a massive, personal, one-on-one campaign to expand the church by leading persons to faith in Christ. The result was a massive explosion of growth. Within five short years the Church had reached the milestone of 3000 members. That was in 1973.

Continued growth and expansion resulted in the powerful 'Coral Ridge Ministries,' which is headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale. The 'Coral Ridge Hour,' a weekly telecast of the church's worship service, is carried by more stations than any other religiously oriented television program.

Dr. Kennedy has also been a powerful spokesman for American liberty, believing that freedom of speech and religion are central to the health of any Constitutional Republic. Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen have sought his advice.

Listening to a Kennedy sermon is an unusual experience of both intellectual stimulation and emotional involvement. His speaking style is deliberative and eloquent, but never shrill or vitriolic. As a true Christian scholar, his sermons are always well-prepared, well-documented, and based upon a strict adherence to both human logic and scriptural integrity.

Let us all remember this great man in our prayers. At 75 years of age, Dr. Kennedy still has an important voice of wisdom in modern American life.


Today The Liberty Sphere would like to present its honor roll of the good guys in the U.S. Senate. These are the Senators who are truly fighting for the individual rights of American citizens as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Last week I presented the roll call of the anti-gun bigots in Congress. That list was composed of Senators and Congressmen who were rated F or F- by Gun Owners of America. The list was not exhaustive but focused only on those with a high profile, especially those who may have designs on running for national office.

Today I wish to honor those at the other end of the spectrum. This time I will focus only on the Senate and list those that have attained a rating of an A or B by the GOA.

For a complete list of ratings of both Senators and Congressmen, visit the GOA website at--

As a matter of principle I will NOT list those Senators with an anemic rating of 'C.' While such a rating is much better than a D or F, it is still not good enough when it comes to protecting 2nd Amendment rights. Therefore, these will NOT make my honor roll.

(those Senators who are rated with an 'A' or 'B' by the GOA)












Talent-A (what a shame he lost this time)











Allen-A (another good one who lost)


As you will notice, some notable names are missing from this honor roll. Rick Santorum and Elizabeth Dole both rated a 'C.' Arlen Specter, John Warner, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, John McCain, Ted Stevens, and Bill Frist have shockingly dismal records on 2nd Amendment rights, along with such anti-gun bigots as Hillary Clinton, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Little Chucky Schumer.

Of course, you are aware of these high profile members of Congress who rate an 'F,' as I published last week.

You will also notice that many of the states of the union are totally missing from the honor roll. This is because they have elected to office those who are anti-gun bigots, and that includes most of the states of the Northeast and the Pacific coast. It is a shame that these and other states do not have a single Senator who supports the 2nd Amendment.

Why do we make such a big deal out of these ratings? For one simple reason. If the 2nd Amendment is so easily expendable, then so are ALL of our individual rights. If they can negate one Constitutional right that has been sacred since the founding of this Republic, then they can do the same thing with FIRST Amendment rights as well.

Do not take this issue lightly. ANY politician who would support legislation that robs you of your guns is highly suspect as one who exhibits a complete disregard for ALL of the rights of individual citizens.

And that goes for legislation that severely limits the use of firearms by law abiding citizens as well. The modus operandi of the rights-robbers is to pass laws that are so restrictive of the use of guns that it renders the 2nd Amendment null and void for the simple reason that if it is impossible to buy firearms, ammunition, and to carry these legal weapons FREELY, then the 2nd Amendment is of no practical use.

This is precisely what the gun-grabbing, rights-robbing politicians have been doing for years.

NOW is the time for this sick practice to STOP. We must elect to office ONLY those who will oppose any legislation designed to hamstring law-abiding citizens in their purchase and use of firearms and ammunition.

We cannot wait until the 2008 campaign begins. We must lay the groundwork for this NOW. So, stay alert!

Friday, December 29, 2006


Saddam Hussein has been executed in Iraq, a fitting end to one of the most brutal and barbaric chapters in human history. Saddam takes his place along side of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot as one of the most dangerous tyrants ever to rule a nation.

In the 35 year history of the Hussein regime, nearly 2 million Iraqis were killed. That amounts to 10% or so of the Iraqi population. When Hussein first came to power there were 15 to 20 million Iraqis. Today there are 30 million. 2 million out of a relatively small population would translate to roughly 30 million American deaths.

Thus, justice has been done. The only thing I can say concerning those who claim Iraq was better off with Saddam is that they must have been endowed by their Creator with only a half a brain.

Make no mistake. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right thing to do. Now the world is rid of an intolerably brutal man.


Pamela Geller Oshry over at Atlas Shrugs has written quite an eye-opening piece today on how Islam uses the legal system to silence its critics. In short, they sue people's mouths shut, thus proving that Islam is one of the biggest enemies to free speech in the world.

As I have mentioned before, Oshry is, in my opinion, a modern-day heroine, a patriot, and a formidable force in the fight for liberty.

In today's article she demonstrates one of the reasons why I have come to view her as an important ally in the modern war against those who are intent on destroying not only freedom but the West as we know it.

The following is an excerpt from Oshry's article entitled, 'Islam Will Sue Your Mouth Shut.'

'Suing your mouth shut is a form of cutting off your head, metaphorically. But silencing free speech is a key component to Islamic domination. The servitude, the dhimmitude. Islam has perfected the use of the American judicial system in its attempt to shut its critics up - just ask Rachel Ehrenfeld, Charles Jacobs, Steve Emerson, countless others.

'The worst thing the West has done and continues to do is appease, stoke and acquiese to the ridiculous demands of Islam. It empowers the monster and the line in the sand keeps moving. Check out this latest "action plan" on their war on our way of life. Hat tip Helen

'Muslim World League Wants Lawsuits for Abuse of Islam and the Prophet Arab News

'JEDDAH, 28 December 2006 — A two-day conference organized by the Makkah-based Muslim World League yesterday called for a consultative commission in order to take legal action against those who abuse Islam and its Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Islamic sanctities, at local and international courts of justice, the Saudi Press Agency said.

'The conference titled “In Defense of the Prophet” called upon Islamic countries and governments to stand united to defend the Islamic faith and its Prophet. It denounced the smear campaigns to tarnish the image of the Prophet and urged Muslims to make all-out efforts to project the true picture of Islam and the great divine teachings of the Prophet.

'Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, who presided over the conference, called upon Muslims to follow the Prophet’s teachings.

'“Our enemies are exploiting Muslims’ weak adherence to the Prophet’s Sunnah,” said Al-Asheikh. “We should not be ashamed of implementing his Sunnah. On the other hand, all Muslims must observe his teachings in all walks of their life.”

'MWL Secretary-General Abdullah Al-Turki said the attack on the Prophet was an expression of enmity toward Islam.

'“The whole Muslim Ummah, including its leadership, scholars and ordinary people was outraged by such attacks and this again shows the lofty position the Prophet has in their hearts,” he said in reference to the Muslim response to cartoons depicting the Prophet.'

Posted by Pamela Geller Oshry on Friday, December 29, 2006 at 12:50 AM

Those of us who value our freedoms MUST, I repeat, MUST stand firm against the march of Islam across the globe. The only reason we have freedom in this land is that they are a tiny minority. Look at the nations that are dominated by Islam, and without fail you will find societies where women are subservient, non-Muslim religions are outlawed, 'infidels' are browbeaten and sometimes beheaded. Even children are beheaded for being Christian.

We MUST NOT allow adherents of Islam to silence their critics and detractors. And believe me, they will if given the chance.

Remember Salmon Rushdie? When he published his expose of Islam called 'Satanic Verses' he was forced into hiding because every Muslim nation on earth was out to kill him.

These people must not be allowed to rob citizens and nations of the right to call attention to Islam's savagery and barberism by the threat of legal action or through death threats.

Let freedom of speech prevail, and that includes the freedom to call Islam what it really is--a danger to liberty all over the world.

Homeowners Fight Back--Use Guns to Prevent Crime

Homeowners across the country are fighting back against crime. It's about time. From Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Longview, Texas, to Tuscon, Arizona, stories of homeowners using firearms to stop robberies, home invasions, burglaries, and even murder, are being reported in the local hometown newspapers.

The gratifying thing is that not in a single one of these cases were the homeowners charged with manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. In fact, in one city local law enforcement officials praised the initiative of the homeowners, stating that, 'Hopefully the criminals will get the message.'

The District Attorneys and local law enforcement officials in each of these areas of the country are to be heartily commended for their support and recognition of the right of law-abiding citizens to possess and use firearms in the defense of life and property.

In one case, an 80-year-old man shot two burglars who had broken into his home and were loading their vehicle with the man's property while he slept. One died as a result of the homeowner's self-defense. Thankfully, he was not charged with any crime. And should the local DA change his mind, a howl of protest should arise far and wide all over the country. Responsible citizens are fed up with government regulation and limitation of our right to self-defense. We are not going to take it anymore. The latest cases from Albuquerque, Longview, and Tuscon portray a refreshing movement among the citizenry to take back their Constitution from liberal revisionists who would rob us of our rights.

These are the kinds of stories you will never read about in major newspapers such as the New York Times or see on network evening news broadcasts. The anti-gun bigot establishment is dedicated to burying such stories that portray law-abiding gun owners in a positive light. Instead we are treated to propaganda pieces that claim the ownership of handguns is the reason for crime.

Remember, it is never the perpetrator's fault in the minds of these Einsteins.

In order to understand the way of thinking on the part of these gun-grabbing rights-robbers, you must engage in 'suspension of disbelief.' Rationality is not a prerequisite. One must engage in pure fantasy. Here is the scenario.

The availability of guns leads to a mysterious urge of human beings to go buy them, almost inexplicably. Some of these human beings, a small minority in fact, commit crimes with these guns (less than 1% of gun owners engage in crime). But it is not due to any decision on criminals' part. The guns just find themselves in their hands, and in a magical, dreamlike state, the perpetrators find themselves carried along by the dreaded weapon whereupon it discharges on its own, regardless of any action on the part of the one carrying it. Therefore, guns must be banned and the criminals pitied as victims of an evil 'gun culture.'

Do you understand this yet?

While the gun-grabbers blame inanimate objects for crime and murder, their co-conspirators in the press and in politics vilify anyone who owns a gun legally and uses it responsibly.

Once again, suspension of disbelief is required to understand this 'logic.' When a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime, it is the gun's fault. This is why guns must be banned. Yet when a law-abiding citizen uses a gun in self-defense of life and property, it is not the gun's fault but the citizen's. Countless citizens have found themselves charged with crimes resulting from the defense of their lives and property with guns, not to mention the asinine lawsuits brought against such citizens by the families of the criminals, or even the criminals themselves.

Somewhere in the land of tweetie birds and looney tunes, this makes sense, I'm sure.

Despite the all-out war of the Left on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use guns, responsible, sensible people are doing what anyone with a lick of sense would do for self-protection. They purchase firearms and learn to use them. Each year thousands of crimes are stopped by dedicated citizens who use their guns. Scores of Americans who are violated as they sleep in their beds by home invasions are spared an agonizing death because they are armed. Rapes are prevented because pistol-packin' Mammas pulled out their handguns and dared the thugs to lay a hand on them.

Yet NONE of this is reported by Katie Couric or her colleagues in the liberal media establishment.

Thus, I raise my glass in a toast to the news reporters on the local level who WILL report these courageous acts of citizens in the prevention of crime. Congratulations for a job well-done. Keep up the good work, and encourage your brothers and sisters of the press across the country to do the same thing. We need much, much more of these kinds of reports, showing beyond any doubt that owning a gun is a valuable, life-saving deterrent to crime.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

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.

In Memory of President Gerald R. Ford

President Gerald R. Ford was much more formidable a force in American politics than that for which he is given credit. Known as a lightweight who was not particularly eloquent nor adept at communication, Mr. Ford was nonetheless one of the major movers and shakers in government during the 20th century.

The mainstream media portrayed him as a bumbling simpleton who was forever falling down, bumping his head, hitting stray golf balls into the gallery, and the like. To this day I believe that this portrayal was a deliberate scheme. It was clear that by the early to mid 1970s the media and the eastern political establishment wanted a Democrat in office (they never got over Nixon winning twice). Ford didn't help himself by failing to take more care in not getting caught in compromising mishaps that would surely wind up on the evening news.

I distinctly remember Bob Sheiffer at CBS providing the lead story on Ford one evening by telling Walter Cronkite, 'The President bumped his head on Air Force One as he was leaving the plane,' and of course, the video camera was there to catch the dreaded act.

To this day I still wonder why that was news.

Nonetheless, Mr. Ford helped to shape the political landscape during the 20th century as a powerful member of Congress who was respected on both sides of the aisle. It was no fluke that Nixon chose Ford to replace Spiro Agnew when Agnew was forced to resign over a scandal during the time he was a Governor. Nixon felt that Ford's skills as a consensus-builder would be a welcome addition to the White House team.

Little did Nixon know that within a few short months he would be involved in his own scandal, resulting in his resignation and leading to Mr. Ford ascending to the Presidency.

Mr. Ford's 'regular guy' image, his impeccable sense of ethics, decency, and fairness, and his clean reputation were exactly what the nation needed in the aftermath of Watergate.

Ironically, it was that very sense of fairness and decency that led to his pardon of Nixon, which brought him the wrath of the electorate. The public never brought itself to forgive him for an action that today is viewed as the right thing to do. Ford at the time was convinced it was the right thing to do in spite of public opinion. Unfortunately he was part of a small minority.

And this is the enduring legacy of the man--decency, fairness, integrity that could not be swayed, not even by the threat of losing the support of the electorate.

I admit that I was never in the Ford camp, with the exception of the 1976 campaign against Jimmy Carter. I had been a Reagan man right from the beginning. My view was that Ford's support of the Nixon/Kissinger doctrine of 'detente' with the Soviet Union was a big mistake and that only Reagan's insistence that we outright win the Cold War was the only course of action that would result in the fall of the USSR. History proves Reagan to be correct.

Yet I voted for Ford in 1976 (Reagan lost to Ford in the Republican primaries) and believed that his decency and sense of fairness were of great value to the country.

The United States of America is a better place because Gerald R. Ford was part of its governance.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Time for U.S. Attorney General to Intervene in Duke Lacrosse Case

The situation in Durham has reached dire proportions. It is time, unfortunately, for the Attorney General of the United States to intervene in the Duke Lacrosse rape case.

This is a most unfortunate state of affairs for American jurisprudence. Under normal conditions local governments, including presiding judges within the local judiciary, would take appropriate action to prevent such a fiasco as we are now witnessing.

However, in the Duke case no one seems willing to step up to the plate to take the steps necessary to preserve justice for the accused and to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system in the state of North Carolina. Neither the presiding judge, nor the judicial system, nor any person in authority over such matters seem willing to intervene in a case that oozes corruption.

The reason for this is not far to find. The system itself in Durham is corrupt.

The mere fact that no one in the judicial system, nor local or state government, nor the Democrat Party has been willing to address the glaring problems, errors, and misconduct of the prosecutor's office implicates the entire lot in a shocking display of graft the likes of which has rarely been seen since the days of Huey Long in Louisiana.

Thus, it has come to down to federal intervention. This is the worst of all possible answers when it comes to judicial integrity, yet it is the best possible course to insure that a prosecutor and a case gone bad are overruled so that justice prevails in the lives of the innocent young men falsely accused. In the best of all possible worlds, it would never get as far as the U.S. Attorney General's office. The local judiciary (beginning with the presiding judge) could solve the problem in one sentence by dismissing the charges immediately and initiating its own investigations into Nifong's prosecutorial misconduct.

Since this very simple solution has been avoided by the local authorities, it becomes necessary for the U.S. Attorney General to step in to end a tragic circus, a travesty of justice that paints a dark cloud over the entirety of the American judiciary.

This is not merely a local problem any longer. It is an American problem.

Thus, the federal government must intervene, snatching the judicial system of Durham and the state of North Carolina from the jaws of graft so deep that the very foundation of justice itself is imperiled.

Justice may finally be done if this is, indeed, the outcome. However, the Democrat Party of Durham, the state of North Carolina, and the local and state judicatory will carry dark stains on its reputation for some time to come.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Editors Beware! We Mean Business!

So, the 'freedom-of-information' wars have begun! Not one to run from a fight, I will lend my aid to the cause.

You will remember the scathing piece I wrote on a newspaper in New York that published the names of all gun owners in that county? Well, gun owners protested, to which such editors cite 'freedom of information' as their right to publish such names.

In that article I suggested that gun owners get the names, addresses, and plot and parcel numbers for these editors and news writers, available to the public from county courthouse records, and then publish THAT info.

You see, this too, is freedom of information...perfectly legal, available in every county courthouse in the U.S. to the general public. has published the name, address, and courthouse records on the property of one such newspaper editor in South Dakota, who insists on making the names of gun owners public. Here is the full information on the writer who is engaging in this conspiracy aimed at attempting to humiliate firearms owners.

Let the editors beware! We plan on doing the same thing to ANY news writer and/or editor who continues to publish the names of gun owners. Tit for tat.

'The Argus Leader in South Dakota has published "Printing names is part of upholding First Amendment" in response to complaints. So, in the interest of educating the public on who a media player is, I provide the following information:

'The name of the writer is Jeff E. Martin. At 38 years old, he is the Metro Editor for the Argus Leader.

Work number (605) 331-2373
Home number (605) 371-9764
Home address 4308 S Florence Ave
Sioux Falls, SD

'GoogleMaps show a nice but unremarkable house on the SE side of town. It looks to be 2000 - 3000 square feet. Neighbor houses seem to be within ten feet on either side. The width of Mr. Martin's driveway indicates that he probably has a three car garage. In sum, Mr. Martin seems to have a solidly middle class life.

'Previous addresses include: SIOUX FALLS, SD

'Given his status at the paper, I am fairly sure he is well compensated. Given his apparent stand on guns, I am sure his house is without any form of defensive measures, beyond a cell phone, that is.

'With rights come responsbilities. As gun owners, we know this.

'The ability and right to publish random information is not questioned. The appropriateness of publishing that information is.

'Update: Just so I don't lose any credibility by leaving a name off, Jeff's wife is the former Sheila Roll, a 1993 journalism graduate of Iowa State.'

KUDOS to the blogger at GunLawNews for taking a stand.

Now that we are showing just how inappropriate it is to publish info that may be legal but idiotic for all the world to see, perhaps these slightly mentally-challenged newspaper editors and writers will stop with their stupid practice of publishing the names of gun owners.

If they don't stop, we don't plan to stop publishing complete information on ALL editors who engage in this lunacy.

Party Girl Fuhrer To Launch 4-Day Bash to Celebrate Takeover of Congress

It seems that Madame Fuhrer, I mean, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is set to inaugurate her ascension to the throne in Congress with a bash that would put most Presidential Inaugurations to shame. Pelosi will launch a four-day bash, beginning on Jan. 2, to celebrate not only the Democrats taking control of Congress but her own ascension to power, that is, if she wins election as Speaker.

Gun Owners of America and many concerned Americans and bloggers, such as myself, have called on Democrats to defeat Pelosi for the post. Her arrogance is nauseating and her socialist views are so far outside mainstream America that if most citizens actually knew what she stood for, they would be shaking in their boots.

It seems the new Fuhrer is a party animal. Well, peachy.

Sieg Heil!

2007 Shocker! Dems Set to Hand Over Our Sovereignty to U.N.

Well, my friends, as the day draws closer to the time the Democrats take over Congress, the worse the news gets, day by day. Word comes today that the Democrats, who are well-known for their unswerving support for the United Nations, are set to sign agreements that will essentially sign over our national sovereignty to the U.N., essentially rendering the U.S. Constitution null and void.

Ridiculous, you say? Think again! The following expose' written by Olivia St. John at WorldNetDaily reveals the shocking details of the ominous plans the Democrats have for the country when they seize control of Congress.

This is no joke, my friends. Get ready for the fight of your lives.

U.N. threatening to trump U.S. Constitution

Posted: December 26, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Olivia St. John

As the political cauldron heats up for the coming 2008 presidential election, few Americans seem to realize that their personal freedoms secured under the Constitution are perilously close to being trumped by the United Nations.

Preposterous, you say? Not if a Democrat Senate and Democrat president ratify U.N. treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, aimed at dangerously weakening national sovereignty.

A case in point is the European Convention on Human Rights, an offshoot of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is currently being used by the German government to ban homeschooling and to indoctrinate public and private school students into fully embracing a socialist state. Recently, almost 40 German families have endured imprisonment, heavy fines, state seizure of children, and in some cases the serious hardship of seeking asylum in neighboring countries, all because they have chosen to homeschool their children due to concerns over hedonistic exposure to sexually explicit materials in the German public school system. Incredibly, Sven-Georg Adenauer, a Christian-Democrat governor joined at the hip with the Socialist party, demanded the prison sentences.

According to, the European Court utilized Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and concluded that "Parents may not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of their convictions" adding that the right to education "by its very nature calls for regulation by the State."

Furthermore, "the Court agreed with the finding of Germany's Federal Constitutional Court which stressed 'the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.'"

The fiasco in Germany is only a sample of what might happen in the U.S. if the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is ratified by a future socialist Democrat government. If such were to occur, parental rights over the moral and educational guidance of their children would likewise be seriously endangered. And who is to say that this can't happen, with over 60 Democrats at the federal level holding membership in the House Progressive Caucus, which has been called a socialist front group, and with Democrats dominating both chambers of Congress, openly embracing tenets of socialist philosophy along with our globalist-minded Supreme Court?

Indeed, has not the predominantly socialist-minded Democrat legislature in California already attempted to enact the same power? Within the past year they have passed four bills aimed at indoctrinating public school children into acceptance of promiscuous lifestyles such as homosexuality. Only Governor Schwarzenegger's refusal to sign prevented three of those bills from passing. Ironically, the actor-turned-politician signed off on a fourth bill discriminating against religious colleges that refuse to endorse homosexual behavior.

Some think that what happened in Germany couldn't happen in America. But think again. According to the Home School Legal Defense Association, our lower courts have issued rulings for over 25 years negating parental rights to "make medical decisions, discipline, and direct the education and religious training of their children." All this in spite of numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions clearly recognizing "parents' rights as fundamental and thus protected by a higher standard of review." And also in spite of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants parents the basic right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

We only fool ourselves to our nation's detriment if we think that continuing to vote socialist Democrats into office will not result in the hedonistic brainwashing of our children through State mandate, as is now occurring in Germany.

And as Democrats continue to increase their power in pushing to enact hate crimes legislation, do you who place your children in American government schools believe the day will not come when you will be fined or imprisoned because a school official discovered that you taught your child that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong? Could a time ever come where you cannot, within the confines of your own home, teach your child right from wrong due to fear of reprisal by the State?

If such a weakening of U.S. sovereignty comes to fruition, the State will finally become Hillary's Village in deciding the spiritual, moral, and educational fate of your children, whether they are homeschooled or not.

The three branches of government ostensibly keep checks on one another, yet a change towards socialism in the executive branch could transform American government into one tyrannical socialist State controlling its citizenry.

The time of decision is now: Do we want a socialist village or a sovereign nation built upon families and under God?

If you believe the latter, then heed the wise words of Samuel Adams: "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather a vigilant and tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

Olivia St. John is a freelance writer with almost 20 years of experience as a home educator. Her work has been featured in several online publications and she is currently working on a book promoting home education.

BREAKING NEWS AP Picks Up Story on OKC Bombing-Terrorist Link

The AP is running a story today that conveniently leaves out key aspects of the doubts swirling around the OKC bombing. While the AP is reporting a Congressional study that condemns the Justice Department and the FBI for failing to adequately investigate overseas links to McVeigh and Nichols, the report fails to identify those links as terrorist in nature.

Scroll below to read the full story on The Liberty Sphere, as reprinted from WorldNetDaily.

As you scroll to the story, you will find today's Liberty Sphere headline stories that include:
*Nancy Pelosi's plan to refuse to seat a Republican who won his district
*The covert plan to take away our rights is revealed
*Why Muslim Keith Ellison, D-MN, is unfit for public office
*How Muslim Doctors and Nurses are placing lives at risk!

Sieg Heil, Fuhrer Pelosi!

Perhaps it is now time to begin referring to incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as 'Fuhrer.' Not only has she banned C-Span from the House chamber during the opening session of the new Congress, thus robbing the citizens of the right to open government despite promises to the contrary during the campaign, but as you will see in the article below from WorldNetDaily, she is now refusing to seat the certified Republican winner of a Congressional seat in Florida.

Sieg, Heil!

From WorldNetDaily News:

'The certified winner of an office in the U.S. House of Representatives may not be seated with other members of Congress by incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi next month for one reason.

'He's a Republican.

'In an extremely close race in Florida's 13th District, Republican Vern Buchanan defeated Democrat Christine Jennings by 369 votes. But ongoing legal challenges by Democrats are putting Buchanan's claim to the seat in jeopardy, now that the party in control of the majority has shifted away from the GOP.

'"The bottom line here is that nothing's off the table," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

'The paper reports Pelosi has refused to shut the door on Jennings, until all audits, lawsuits and a House investigation are completed.

'Aides for Buchanan say the Republican will be in the nation's capital next month despite the threat from Pelosi's office.

'"Historical precedent is that when there's a contested race the certified winner be seated," said Buchanan spokeswoman Sally Tibbetts. "Therefore, we fully expect Vern Buchanan to be seated on Jan. 4."

'But Pelosi's office says seating a certified victor is more of a Republican interpretation and not a concrete rule. For instance, in 1984, a Democrat-controlled House refused to seat Republican Richard McIntyre, the certified winner by 418 votes after a state-ordered recount.

'Two weeks ago, national Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Buchanan should "absolutely not" be seated Jan. 4.

'But not all Democrats appear to be jumping on the bandwagon to keep out the Republican.

'"At most, he should be seated provisionally," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., a close ally of Jennings. "In my mind, I can't really justify leaving the constituents of the 13th District without representation during the House Administration and the court's review."

'At this point, neither a state audit of the touch-screen voting machines nor lawsuits by Jennings and voting groups have produced any evidence to suggest malfunction on Election Day.

'The contested election is now in the political realm as Jennings has taken her challenge to Congress, filing a contest with the House Administration Committee seeking an investigation and, possibly, a new election.

'Such a move could take months to resolve.

'If Buchanan is indeed seated next week, history would be on his side for keeping it. Out of 105 contests filed since 1933, only twice has someone been unseated, with the last occurrence in 1967.'

How They Take Away Our Rights

The following poignant article was found at This is an excellent clearinghouse site on the state of 2nd Amendment rights in this nation today. The site provides articles from a variety of sources, all intended to inform the citizens of infringements of our firearms rights and the fight to take back our country from the rights-robbers.

This article is entitled, 'How They Take Away Our Rights.'

'The attacks on our Second Amendment rights have been ongoing for decades and represent a multiprong strategy. These attacks have the goal of decreasing gun ownership as a norm for American life leading to ending gun availability.

'The first goal has been worked by:

--demonizing the idea of gun ownership in the eyes of nonowners
--demonizing all gun owners
--restricting hunting
--moving the citizenry to a condition of victimhood
--promoting the police as the only legitimate opposition to crime

'Success on this goal means that fewer and fewer people will fight for their rights as the decades go by.

'The second goal is the end game. It is being attempted through:

--attacks on gun availability, such as the FN-57 bans, .50 caliber bans and the assault weapon bans,
--attacks on gun ownership, such as you see in DC, Chicago, San Francisco and the Huges Amendment, etc.,
--attacks on ammunition ownership - reference Kennedy's 'Armor Piercing Ammo' Bans,
--expanding the group of prohibited persons such as Terrorist Watchlist ban and the Lautenberg Amendment.

'What they did not envision is the success and expansion of concealed carry laws across the country. In one action we:

--got good publicity on the positive aspect of firearm ownership
--divested the movement of just being a 'hunting thing'
--and put the gun rights movement on the offensive.

'The situation in New Orleans only drove home the point that you can't rely on the government for your well being. Help may be days or weeks in coming, even in a large city. Self reliance is the mature response to objective threat analysis.

'So now that S.397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has passed, now is the time to continue the fight to roll back decades of Second Amendment infringements. Whether it be the DC gun ban or nationwide ccw reciprocity, we need to move now.

'Remember New Orleans.'

Ellison Unfit to Hold Public Office

Today, on Christmas Day, the first Muslim elected to Congress, Keith Ellison, spoke at a national convention of Muslims that drew 3000 persons from across the country. During his address to the assembly Ellison stated, 'We must have faith in Allah,' and that he had no intention of scrapping his plans to take his oath of office on the Koran.

The Muslim convention provided workshops on American policies and civil rights, and how to spread Islam in the United States.

The Detroit Free Press provides the following quotes from Ellison during the convention:

'"We had faith in Allah," Ellison said. "And we patiently endured this adversity. And facing adversity bravely and with patience in the faith in Allah is an Islamic value. That's what it means to be a Muslim."

'He cautioned though that there might be more anti-Muslim attacks in the future.

'"We're going to continue to face them," Ellison said. "They're not going to stop right away. But if you, and me too, stick together, if we believe in Allah, sallalahu aleyhi wasallam, if we turn to the Koran for guidance, we'll find an answer to the questions we have. And we will find that we are an asset and a plus not only to our own community, but to this country, and to this whole world."

'Ellison vowed to use the Quran during his swearing in ceremony next month.

'"On Jan. 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I'll place my hand on the Quran," Ellison said while placing his hand on the lectern, to loud applause and cries of "Allahu akbar."

'He urged Muslims to thank God for testing them over the past several weeks. "Before you begin to think that some hardship has befallen you, you need to stop and thank Allah," Ellison said. "Because this controversy has...made people dust off their Constitution and actually read it."'

Perhaps Ellison should dust off his copy of the Constitution and read its entirety and not just the portions he lifts out of it. The Founders had little tolerance for those whose ideology was rooted in taking liberty away from others.

The modus operandi of modern day Muslims is to use the liberties of free societies to benefit the spread of Islam. Yet Islam by its very nature does not allow any liberty apart from Allah.

Thus, the Koran is antithetical to human liberty. 'Allah' allows no liberty except to his followers, as long as they do his bidding.

Congress should refuse to seat Ellison on the principle that he is unfit to hold public office.

Reports--Muslim Doctors/Nurses Placing Lives at Risk

According to news reports received from a variety of sources, most notably in those countries where there is a diverse religious population, Muslim nurses and physicians sometimes place lives in danger due to their refuasl to perform necessary and life-saving procedures.

The latest of these incidents has occurred in Turkey, the result of which has created a medical scandal within the Turkish Parliament.

As you will read in the following news report, a 17 year old male was forced to have a testicle surgically removed due to the refusal of 'turban-wearing medical personnel' to treat the condition before it reached critical proportions.

The incident has thrown Turkey into turmoil concerning the state of its heath care system:

Medical scandal in Konya makes waves in Turkish Parliament

'A medical scandal surrounding a 17 year old male shepherd from Konya who was unable to receive proper attention at the Konya Testing Hospital due to the fact that two of the attending radiology doctors were women wearing headscarves, has grown.

'The shepherd, referred to only as "A.G." in reports, arrived at the Konya Testing Hospital complaining of swollen testicles, and was sent to get ultrasound tests, but was refused service by two female doctors wearing headscarves. The shepherd later had to have one of his testicles removed by operation. Yesterday the Turkish Parliament debated the case, with opposition CHP Party members asserting that they would be following the case. Meanwhile, the Konya hospital's head of urology, Doctor Celal Tutuncu, said yesterday that he felt that the case was very "black and white," and that as soon as documents showing exactly which doctors had refused service to the shepherd were made clear, action would be taken.

'A top CHP lawyer, Atilla Kart, spoke to Hurriyet yesterday, noting he was not "surprised" by the case, saying "This is the destruction wrought by religious references spilling over into public adminstration."

'He went on: "This is the point at which Turkey's public administration has arrived. It is clear that that turbaned doctor was working with the full knowledge of the hospital administration.....But in fact the incident is not limited to the administration of the hospital; I believe it is also linked to the regional administration too. We see now what can happen when religious exploitation and religious references are carried over into our government....Konya is a photograph of the general situation in Turkey."'

Monday, December 25, 2006

The Christmas Story


The Christmas Story

'And there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxes, everyone into his own city.

'And Joseph also went up from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, unto the City of David, which is called Bethlehem, to be taxed with Mary, his espoused wife, being great with child.

'And while they were there the days were accomplished that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born Son, wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the Inn.

'And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And lo, the Angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid.

'And the Angel said, "Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

'And this shall be a sign unto shall find the Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."

'And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the Highest, and on earth, peace, goodwill toward men."

'And when the Angel was gone away from them into Heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us now go even unto Bethlehem and see this thing which has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us."

'And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.'

'And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

'But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.

'And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told to them.'
(adapted from the Gospel of Luke 2: 1-20)

CHRIST IS BORN (Words and Music by Father Domenico Bartolucci and Ray Charles)
Recorded by Perry Como

It is "He", Christ who is born today
See Him crying in the manger
King of Heaven
Son of God
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

There He lies
there with the lam’kin
Only swaddle for his garment
With his Holy Mother Mary
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Glory, Glory, Almighty God!
And on Earth,
Peace to All Men
Hear the joyful angels singing
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

He is born,
let us adore Him
Christ the Lord
King of Kings
Prince of Peace
for All the Universe
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Sunday, December 24, 2006


In a bombshell revelation made in a book soon to be released by the chief investigator of the Oklahoma City bombing, federal officials were obstructed from pursuing leads in the case that linked the bombing to Islamic terrorists.

Clinton Administration officials in the Department of Justice obstructed the attempt of the Congressional oversight committee to follow leads that indicated the bombing was actually a terrorist attack perpetrated by members of Al Qaeda.

Apparently this is yet another case where the Clinton Administration and the Federal Government chose to use two citizens of ill repute as a cover for a much more sinister scenario which they feared would incite the public to retaliation.

Here is the WND report below:

Probe of Islamic ties
'obstructed' by feds
Congressman who chaired panel says public
'would be outraged if they knew the extent'

Posted: December 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2006

Federal officials were "outrageously obstructive" during a congressional probe examining possible Islamic terrorist and foreign ties to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, according to a congressman who disclosed to WND some of the highlights of a subcommittee report scheduled for release next week.

"The public would be outraged if they knew the extent of obstruction, or lack of cooperation, that has been given to this investigation," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who led the probe as chairman of the International Relations' Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

One example was the Justice Department's handling of a lead Rohrabacher received from an independent investigator concerning a Muslim figure with suspected ties to the Oklahoma City bombing whose name curiously shows up on the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. The New York City bombing was attributed to Muslim terrorists connected to al-Qaida.

The report will document a series of correspondence between the subcommittee team and Justice officials that concluded with a refusal to turn over information about the suspect – for no apparently legitimate reason, according to Rohrabacher.

"This may well reflect the way the Justice Department deals with legislative branch investigations in general, which is very disappointing," Rohrabacher told WND. "In this case, however, we're talking about the investigation of the mass murder of 168 Americans and how that relates to the threat we face today from al-Qaida, and we find that to be rather alarming."

As WND reported, International Relations Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde, R, Ill., scheduled a hearing to look into a possible "foreign connection" to the bombing, but it was canceled, Rohrabacher said, due to an inability to secure witnesses. Rohrabacher initiated the probe after examining evidence gathered by independent investigators such as Jayna Davis, author of "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing." Davis asserts Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were not the lone conspirators but part of a greater scheme involving Islamic terrorists and at least one provable link to Iraq. The explosion April 19, 1995, at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killed 168 people, including 19 children, and injured another 684.

But Davis, who previously criticized Rohrabacher's investigation as a "sham," wrote a letter in July to the subcommittee panel, declaring she would not participate in the hearing for a number of reasons, including concern that he gave equal credence to a "debunked" theory involving neo-Nazis.

Rohrabacher, who noted the limited resources available, said the probe pushed the understanding of the issue forward but could not conclusively prove a foreign connection.

"We have laid to rest a number of issues and a number of theories while at the same time we have concluded that all the questions have not been answered," he said. "There are serious issues to be resolved before this book is closed."

Rohrabacher concludes it was not good judgment on the part of the federal government to execute McVeigh – the primary witness – while questions remained and rumors of other conspirators persisted.

"We call into question the thoroughness of the FBI investigation," he said.

Rohrabacher said federal officials were unreasonably uncooperative. For example, armed with new evidence, he wanted to interview Nichols in prison in Colorado but was denied.

"We were told he didn't want to see us," Rohrabacher said. "I don't know if that's true, but what difference does it make if he wanted to see us or not? Does a person serving time for the mass murder of Americans get to decide which investigator he will or will not see?"

Rohrabacher said he also was denied access to others with suspected ties to the Oklahoma City bombing, including al Qaida-linked terrorists Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad, who reportedly has said Yousef was responsible for the Oklahoma City attack.

Yousef, incarcerated in Colorado's super-max prison with Nichols, was a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and convicted plotter in a plan to blow up a dozen airliners over the Pacific. His uncle is the senior al-Qaida leader and 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

"Federal authorities were outrageously obstructive in our attempts to see these prisoners," Rohrabacher said.

But the congressman said he could not assess motives.

"This may just be a case of bureaucratic arrogance that carries over into all such investigations," he said, but added it's "completely unacceptable" in investigating a crime of the magnitude of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

'Blood and mayhem on his mind'

Rohrabacher's probe took him and two staff members to the Philippines to follow leads suggesting a tie between Nichols and al-Qaida operatives.

The report, according to Rohrabacher, will provide new evidence that during Nichols entire time in the Philippines he was trying to learn how to make a bomb.

Nichols claims his numerous trips to the Southeast Asian nation – home to the al-Qaida-connected Abu Sayyaf terrorist group – were related to his mail-order bride, Marife Nichols.

But Rohrabacher says that on at least one trip, Nichols even took a book with him on bomb-making.

"There is ample evidence to prove that Terry Nichols went to the Philippines with more on his mind than sex," Rohrabacher said. "The sex thing is certainly a good cover. He may well have had sex on his mind when he went, but he also had blood and mayhem on his mind."

The congressman said his team has pinpointed Nichols and Ramzi Yousef in Cebu City at the same time and found a connection between where Nichols and his wife hung out and the location of a suspected sidekick of Yousef's.

"We put a lot of facts in a row that would lead to a reasonable conclusion, but there are several missing links in every chain," he said.

Rohrabacher noted Abu Sayyaf co-founder Edwin Angeles signed an affidavit claiming he met in Davao City on the Philippine island of Mindanao in 1991 with Nichols, Yousef and other co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The meeting, he said, included discussion of "bombing activities; providing firearms and ammo; training in bomb making and handling."

Angeles was murdered shortly after giving that testimony, however.

"There are no names we have been able to discover to verify what [Angeles] said," Rohrabacher said. "Because he was an unscrupulous character, we have concluded what he said was significant but inconclusive."

Rohrabacher said he talked to relatives of Marife Nichols about what happened when her husband visited.

White supremacists

Rohrabacher also followed the leads of investigators who believe McVeigh was connected to a German national in the U.S. illegally in 1995, Andreas Carl Strassmeier, and domestic white supremacists at a compound in Oklahoma called Elohim City.

Nichols, in fact, claimed last month he had information about the complicity of white supremacists, issuing an affidavit from his cell at the Colorado prison. In the 10-page handwritten document, he boasts of "substantial evidence and information that clearly reveals" the involvement of others beside himself and McVeigh and of a "federal government cover-up."

Rohrabacher believes it's plausible American white supremacists collaborated with Muslim jihadists because of common goals and sentiments, including a shared hatred of Jews and the U.S. government.

Rohrabacher lamented he was hampered by a tiny staff – two workers on his subcommittee who also were involved in other investigations – and limited resources.

"I obviously had to fight in order to have a very limited investigation and got very limited cooperation from the executive branch," he said.

Rohrabacher said he experienced the "bureaucratic complacency" that contributed to the country's vulnerability to the 9-11 attacks.

"There's no reason to think that the same type of lackadaisical attitude isn't also coming into play," he said, "in finding we weren't able to know the details of the Oklahoma City bombing and the possible connection to al-Qaida and the serious threat we face today."

Christmas Eve, 2006

Saluda, NC (TLS). Christmas Eve, 2006. It would seem that on every front the issues that face us as Americans today are insurmountable. For the first time in history, rogue extremists from rogue nations have access to nuclear weapons. Weary from the news of war and casualties, Americans seem to have lost their collective will and resolve in a fight that may well determine our very survival. Socialists who are intent on revisionism when it comes to our Constitutional rights are set to take over Congress.

It would seem there is not much to celebrate this Christmas.

Yet my mind turns to signs of hope. On the eve of the designated day on which Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, I am reminded anew of the eternal hope that springs from the One who placed the desire and the fight for liberty in the souls of human beings.

Jesus said, 'If the Son makes you free, you are free indeed!'

The birth of that Baby in the manger so long ago represented all the hopes and aspirations of generations of persons. Even today, those who claim His name are reminded incessantly that hope does, indeed, spring eternal. As the Star of Bethlehem guided the Magi to the place where lay the Prince of Peace, so today we are reminded that among the ashes of failure, strife, violence, and despots, there is the hope of freedom.

Liberty begins in the human heart through faith. From there the desire for liberty spreads to every aspect of life.

The men who penned the Declaration of Independence, devised the Constitution, and ratified 10 initial amendments that guaranteed certain individual, unalienable rights, believed that liberty as a concept was infused into the human psyche by the Creator. Such a notion has radical, broad-sweeping ramifications. No government, no tyrant, no despot, no group of persons who have set themselves up as the rulers over humanity, have any inherent right to squelch liberty. As soon as they do so, they go against the very nature of what it means to be human, and their actions are immediately illegitimate.

This was Thomas Jefferson's stunning philosophy.

Any government that attempts to remove the inherent liberties endowed to us by the Creator is to be viewed as illegitimate, tyrannical, and possessing of no authority. The very act of stripping citizens of their rights automatically negates the viability and legitimacy of that government.

And that goes for governments that are elected by the people.

Jefferson referred to tyrants who are voted into office by the people as 'elective despotism.' His view of the sweep of history was that the tendency is for government to increase power and gradually remove the rights of the people. This, according to Jefferson, would lead to war, and rightfully so. As Jefferson states, 'Liberty must occasionally be salvaged by the blood of tyrants and patriots.'

The desire to be free is an overwhelming human drive. The students in Tiennamen Square in Red China are a perfect case in point. Defying an overwhelmingly powerful Red Army, these courageous young men and woman stood in front of tanks and artillery, placing their lives in mortal danger for facing down a tyrannical government.

Freedom fighters all over the world have done the same thing.

Thus, on this Christmas Eve, my friends, I am far from despair. I am filled with hope. As the Son has made us free, so we push for, work for, long for, fight for, liberty, not only for us but for the entire world.