 The way back home. Send this page from You Don't Say to a friend.For those using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Select the "Mail" icon at the top of this window, then "Send Page." For those using Netscape: Select "File" at the top of this window, then "Send Page." |
 For starters, just what are the so-called "greenhouse gasses"? I bet you'd say they're carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and ozone, and a couple of others. And all we have to do is follow Al Gore's plan and phase out the automobile's internal-combustion engine, and our "delicate" planet will be safe and live happily ever after. What "greenhouse gas" is in greatest abundance? You might be surprised to learn it's water vapor. Yes, nasty, dangerous water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas floating around in the atmosphere. It is responsible for -- brace yourself -- 98 percent of all greenhouse "warming".(1) Let's say we follow the eco-maniacs' recommendations to the extreme. Let's say we not only curtail automobiles that produce carbon monoxide, we completely eliminate them. Has that solved the greenhouse gas problem? Well, of course not. We've only "solved" a small portion of 2 percent of the "problem". Only those in Rio Linda (Rush's reference) would conclude that "fixing" less than two percent of a problem would solve the problem. And besides, what about all the non-man-made "pollutants" that are unleashed into the atmosphere -- by Mother Nature? In just seven months in 1980, Mt. St. Helens released 910,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, 220,000 metric tons of sulfur dioxide, and who knows what amount of aerosols into the atmosphere.(2) Many other gasses, including methane, carbon monoxide, and a variety of sulfur compounds were also released, and they continue to be released from fumaroles and crevices around the volcano.(3) Another fact conveniently ignored by the chicken-littles: during a 100-year period some 300 years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 parts per million around the world. Moreover, the peak concentration of carbon dioxide -- many times more than anything measured since -- occurred 130,000 years ago!(4) It's tough to blame that on man-made pollutants. Many environmentalists are apparently letting their agendas get in the way of their science. They have adopted, it would seem, Niccolo Machiavelli's advice: "An hypothesis is always more believable than the truth, for it has been tailored to resemble our ideas of truth, whereas the truth is just its own clumsy self. Ergo, never discover the truth when an hypothesis will do."(5) (1), (5):Environmental Overkill, by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, Regnery Publishing, Incorporated, an Eagle Publishing, Incorporated, Company, 422 First Street, SE, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20003, 1993, pages 17 and 207. (2), (3), (4):Trashing the Planet, by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, Regnery Gateway, 1130 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, 1990, pages 37, 37, and 41. Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited . . . What a paradise would this region be! -- John Adams, 1756.Yet, the ACLU and its ilk continue to proclaim our country had (and has) nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Perhaps they should take another look at the Declaration of Independence (1776): We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Source of quotes: "The Historical Record Is Clear . . . American Was Built on Christian Principles!" a sheet published by Traditional Values Coalition, PO Box 5020, Hagerstown, Maryland 21741-5020.) Roosevelt partisans inevitably point to him as leading us to victory in World War II. Sure enough. But it was with the help of many allied forces. Reagan led us to victory in the Cold War and he did it unilaterally, almost single handedly. And by the way, U.S. casualties in WWII totaled 962,403 (291,557 battle deaths, 670,846 wounded), while casualties in the defeat of the USSR totaled: zero. Yes, FDR enthusiasts say, but our 32nd president saw us through the Great Depression. That he did . . . over a period of some eleven years or so, and only as a result of going to war. Reagan got us out of a pretty nasty economic slump, too, thanks to specific economic policies (principally tax cuts) which he championed despite strong opposition by Democrats. And it didn't take eleven years! Roosevelt provided encouragement to the people and lifted their spirits, but so did Reagan, changing the national attitude from "malaise" to confidence, optimism, and patriotism, something FDR never quite pulled off. While Reagan set the stage for the collapse of USSR communism, Roosevelt allowed (encouraged?) communist influence in the good old USA. Prominent roles in his administration were played by Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and other communist sympathizers. In a 1940 Oval Office conversation, FDR stunned Democratic Congressman Martin Dies by telling him, "Several of the best friends I have are Communists." Additionally, Roosevelt's principal contribution to WWII was getting us in it. Reagan's principal contribution to the Cold War was getting us out -- as victors. FDR's leadership was setting policy to win WWII -- a rather easy choice. On the other hand, Reagan's leadership was setting policy that directly contradicted years of a MAD strategy based on the idea that if the USSR sent missiles to destroy us, we'd send missiles to destroy them. Mutually Assured Destruction was a MAD idea indeed, but it was endorsed by the State Department, by the U.S. mainstream media, and by much of the rest of the world. That's leadership: boldly changing course -- in the face of massive objections -- and having the confidence and perseverance to "turn the world around" and then be proven right! What did FDR do that was comparable? Nothing except transform our government into a nanny state -- all, by the way, in contravention to the U.S. Constitution. Oh, but there's one factor that counts more than anything else in the determination of who was our greatest 20th Century president. Roosevelt was a Democrat, so in the eyes of many, that's enough to give him the prize. And since Reagan was a Republican -- worse, a conservative -- the left has decided he doesn't even qualify for the competition. Apparently George Bush issued direct orders to the idiots at the Abu Ghraib prison to mistreat the Iraqi prisoners, so he should resign immediately. I guess Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice were also in favor of bad U.S. behavior at the prison and they should resign, too. Bush and his administration have been warning us about possible terrorist attacks here in America, because and only because GW will get more votes in the upcoming election as a result. There's really no threat at all and the whole thing was just made up. George Bush is reprehensible because he didn't go over to Saudi Arabia and pump more oil so our gas prices could come down. Significant increases in demand for oil from third world countries has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of oil. That no new oil refineries have been built in the U.S. for the past twenty years has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. That liberals won't allow drilling in oil-rich areas of the U.S., like remote, frozen, isolated sections of Alaska, has nothing whatsoever to do with oil prices. All Bush does every day is lie. He never tells the truth. Not once. Never. (I would think Democrats in particular would know a lier when they see one). And Bush is a disgrace and a dishonor to this country because he's so insistent that terrorists should be eradicated and our country should protect itself. Obviously the United Nations is the best agent to solve all our problems because the UN loves us so much. Why should we look out for our own interests when the UN can do it for us? If the stock market goes down, it's GW's fault. If interest rates rise, it's GW's fault. If unemployment increases, blame it on GW. If any of these parameters go the other way, it's not his fault. Bush knew all about 9-11 long before it happened and he did nothing to stop it. He hates American and wants it destroyed. If there are more terrorist attacks, they will all be Bush's fault. Bush hasn't done enough to prevent terrorism, except in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he's done too much. W's an absolute idiot. He doesn't know anything. He can't speak three words without mispronouncing two of them. Democrats are all geniuses. They're as smart as Bush is dumb. Oh, and he's not only stupid, he's evil. He's as bad as Hitler. His administration is worse than the Nazis. He's the devil incarnate. That's what Democrats have been saying over the last few months. Imagine what they'll say when we get close to November and the campaigns really hear up. So I can believe all their claims and hysteria and vote for John Kerry, or I can use a little common sense and reach some different conclusions. Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Kerry. Here’s something I sent off last night to the LA Times, we’ll see if it gets printed!I knew he was liberal, but I was surprised he didn't see that his words would encourage and embolden terrorists around the world. I wrote back: Of course it will be printed. Send it to the New York Times. It'll be printed there, too. They love stuff that helps our enemies.I was worried I might never hear from him again, but in a few days he sent me this: [G]lad we can remain friends even while our president is flushing the country’s future down the toilet. BTW, the torture that was inflicted was heinous, not a fraternity rush prank, and many prisoners have now not been able to be accounted for altogether, with others killed by our own troops. And, regardless of what . . . you think, I am just as big a patriot, and just as concerned about terrorism as . . . you.What's frustrates me is that these sentiments eminate from many on the left, ergo: much of the mainstream media. These folks want Bush and his fight (our fight) against terrorism to be eradicated. These folks want to "negotiate" with the terrorists. They seem to think bad treatment of prisoners by a few bad-apple Military Intelligence men and women is worse than 9-11. They want to "solve" the terrorism problem by dumping it into the lap of the UN. If the bulk of Americans agrees with this Neville Chamberlain view of this life-and-death struggle, that will be the policy after election day. So, if one of our military men steps forward and bravely states: "I committed . . . atrocities . . . I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare," then we want that individual to stand trial for all his actions that were contrary to the Geneva Conventions. Well, we do, unless that brave soldier happens to be John Kerry, in which case the left wants him to be President of the United States. The words above are a direct quotation from John Kerry's comments during the April 18, 1971 "Meet the Press" program on NBC-TV. He said, "There are all kinds of atrocities . . . I committed . . ." For the left, such admissions are excusable. Kerry served "honorably" in Viet Nam. He's a war hero. He's not one of those wimps, like Bush, who only served in the Reserve. (Don't Reserve people resent Kerry's bashing of the President's service in the Reserve?) But that "Meet the Press" program was over thirty years ago. Can't we just "move on"? Last month Tim Russert asked Kerry about those admissions. Kerry said he made the remarks in "anger". "I think it's an inappropriate word," he said. "I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in our life, sure, I think some of the language I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, it was in anger, but it was a little bit excessive." Either Kerry committed atrocities in Viet Nam or he didn't. If he did, he should be held responsible for them. If he did not, he should be held accountable for thirty years of lies. Oh, I forgot, lying is OK if you're a liberal. [Source of quotations: Human Events, April 26, 2004, page 1.] But second, and more interestingly, I contend a state devoid of religious connections is unattainable. If we ignore all of its trappings, religion, fundamentally, is a set of values, so even the unreligious have "religion". Even the atheist or agnostic embraces principles which moderate his thoughts and actions. He practices his own kind of religion, for religion is at core a philosophy of life. And that's the problem in the government schools. The "separation of church and state" soldiers have cast out all Christian elements, but the result is not a religious vacuum. The result is simply the empowerment of a "replacement" religion, such as humanism or pantheism or something else. And then school officials are puzzled when parents object to school programs and teaching that promote anti-Christian dogma. When Christian values are replaced with cheap substitutes, the new "values" will then establish the new religion, which will manifest itself in the curriculum and attitudes the students will consume. And of course, this has been the objective all along. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that the government schools today are more dedicated to the "values" business than they were 25 to 50 years ago. As Alan Caruba states in his article in the November 2003 DeWeese Report (page 4): [T]he real [public school] curriculum is about instilling government-approved attitudes about a range of topics that parents often find appalling. These include environmental, spiritual and sexual issues." The UN's Biodiversity Treaty states: "Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand of nature's web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature's rhythms." This is the essence of pantheism, and it is being taught today in government schools all across the country. My bet is the next attack will be sometime in the last week or two of October, just before the election. The explosions in Spain were so successful, from the terrorists' perspective, our enemies will probably conclude they can pull off a similar hit here and swing a whole bunch of votes to the more terrorist-friendly candidate: John Kerry. When the next assault comes, it won't be a few exploded railroad cars. It won't be a couple of planes flown into buildings. My guess is it will dwarf the twin-towers disaster. I fear loss of life will be ten times, perhaps a hundred times greater. A small nuclear detonation in Chicago, L.A., or any large U.S. city is all that's needed. Our borders have been so porous, even after 9-11, a nuclear weapon -- heck, several nuclear weapons -- could have been smuggled in very easily. No doubt biological agents would be even easier to bring across the border. The good news is that I've been wrong before. Totally wrong. I thought an attack was likely last year on the Fourth of July, at Christmastime, or during this year's Superbowl. I hope more than anything I'm wrong, but it seems inescapable that if terrorists can, they will launch their biggest attack ever right before election day. Between 1915 and 1916 in the Armenian Genocide, Turks killing ethnic Armenians resulted in the mass killing of about 1.5 million people.But here's a statistic you won't find on the "mass killing" websites, at least not the websites I looked at: between 1973 and the present, the actions of a certain group has resulted in the mass killing of more than 40 million people! (Source.) Do you know where that mass killing took place? Do you know what group is responsible for it? It was in 1973 that the Supreme Court wrote its decision in the Roe v. Wade case, legalizing the murder of a baby before he or she is born. Or, in the case of partial-birth abortions, during the birth process. Arguably one of the most atrocious mass killings in the history of mankind has occurred right here in the good old U.S.A. At the express wish -- no, demand -- of liberals. So, you go about your work. First you estimate and catalog the damage and casualties that could result from the discharge of each conceivable WMD. Then comes the hard part: planning a response to each such attack. Let's say your projections suggest that for a Catagory "A" biological "event" in a large metropolitan area, a million citizens would be infected. Let's say the biological agent is very contagious. Let's say of the million people affected, 30% would die within two days, 20% more would die within two weeks, and the remaining 50% would recover. So, Mr. Grand Under-Secretary, what's your "recovery" plan? It goes without saying that hundreds of thousands of attack victims would want more than anything to flee from the attack zone, but if they were allowed to do so, the biological pathogen would spread quickly across the country, infecting millions, maybe tens of millions more. So, it would seem, the "recovery" plan would probably be "containment": the blockage of all means of entry into and exit from the contaminated area. No one would be allowed to leave, and no one, including those with food, would be allowed to enter. All those infected and also those not infected would have to take care of themselves . . . until the food ran out. Then they'd . . . die. You can imagine what affect such a strike would have on our economy and the world's economy. It would probably produce economic ruin. Thus: today's terrorists have unimaginable power at their command to wreak unimaginable destruction. Yet, liberals would rather negotiate with terrorists than bring them to account. Liberals would rather cede our fate to the United Nations than take steps to protect our interests. Liberals would rather choose to "understand" the terrorists than take aggressive and swift action to remove them from the scene. Idealism is dandy, but realism requires our full attention in this age of WMD and those who wish to use such weapons against us. That's what seems to be going on in the dialog between liberals and conservatives. We may listen to each other, but we don't understand. It's like we're speaking different languages. In the language of "Liberal", "freedom" means the right to kill an unborn child, it means it's okay for the government to fund "art" that is repulsive to a large segment of citizens, it means what's stated in our Constitution (our fundamental laws) is fungible rather than absolute, it means government should be free to take your money and other personal property to serve a "greater good" (as defined by liberals), it means "marriage" can be redefined to be the "union" of any desired combination of men and/or women, it means teaching secular humanism or perhaps pantheism in the public schools, it means women should be allowed to fight in the front lines of this country's wars, it means unlimited government, it means world government, it means it's okay to lie if it's for a good cause (as defined by liberals), it means conservatives must be silenced, and of course it means a whole lot more. In the language of "Conservative", "freedom" means the right to keep and use weapons to protect oneself, it means the right and necessity for the government to protect citizens from terrorist attack, it means a society in which moral and ethical standards should prevail, it means allowing people to practice the religion of their choice and, if they wish, to display religious symbols in public places, it means the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude homosexuals as scout leaders, it means giving man more importance than animals or nature, it means limited government, it means patriotism should be encouraged, it means people should be allowed to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, it means the U.S. is sovereign and should not bow down to the U.N., it means we must say "no" to the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court, it means individual rights rather than group rights should prevail, and of course it means a whole lot more. But even if liberals and conservatives speak the same language and understand the same language, how can we live together in harmony when our philosophies are so much at odds? The election four years ago defined pretty well the two sides in this battle. We are a nation split in half over a number of fundamental issues. About half of us voted for the candidate who supports the Kyoto Protocol, which, if approved, would decimate our economy and drastically reduce the standard of living of all Americans. About half of us voted for the candidate who debated with Bill Bradley over which one considered the U.S. Constitution more malleable. They said it was a "living" document which should be "revised" frequently to bring it more in accord with their leftist vision of America; phooey on the Founders. About half of us voted for the candidate who prefers to defer to the United Nations regarding all national and world issues, in spite of its record of ineptness and irresponsibility, rather than assert U.S. sovereignty to protect U.S. interests. About half of us voted for the candidate who considers Alaska tundra -- which is seen by more caribou than people -- more important than drilling for oil and developing greater U.S. energy independence. (Gore likes the idea this country is dependent.) About half of us voted for the candidate who favors government takeover of vast areas of this country, including countless plots of private property. About half of us voted for the candidate who believes a mother-to-be has the right to kill her baby up to and including the time the infant begins to emerge from the birth canal. About half of us voted for the candidate who wants to raise taxes. About half of us voted for the candidate who favors removal of all mention of "God" from the public square, in spite of the fact our founding documents make reference to Him several times. About half of us voted for the candidate who likes the idea of the International Criminal Court, the jurisdiction of which would shatter our sovereignty and shred many protections guaranteed by our Constitution. About half of us voted for the candidate who believes group rights should overwhelm individual rights. About half of us voted for the candidate who is quite sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage, which will undercut the "family" and will rewrite what has been the definition of marriage since the word was conceived. About half of us voted for the candidate whose party has numerous activists who hate America. It is the liberal left that wishes to retreat in the face of terrorism, that now hopes our economy will deteriorate so their guy will be elected president, that favors foreign interests over U.S. interests, that takes pride "leaders" like those in North Korea, Iran, and the U.N. endorse their guy. About half of us voted to move away from capitalism toward socialism and communism. About half of us voted for secularism to triumph over religious values. The culture war is intensifying and we'll shortly have another opportunity to take sides in this battle -- in the voting booth. The trend line seems to suggest the side for morality may not triumph. That being said, what would have happened if Ronald Reagan had not been reelected president? Of course we can't say for sure, but I think it's likely that with Mondale in the White House, and without Reagan's fixation on conquering the "evil empire," things would be a lot worse today. Reagan's unwillingness to tolerate aggression against the U.S. sent a clear message to all nations: we will defend our interests. Along came Bill Clinton. His "message" soon became clear: we won't defend our interests. Our enemies were foolish enough to conclude this was United States policy -- rather than Democrat policy -- and 9-11 was the result. Now it's 2004 and we're facing another election. Whom do our enemies want elected? There's no doubt: John Kerry. And if he is elected, I think it's safe to say not only will our enemies rejoice, they will be energized to continue and accelerate what 9-11 started: death to the infidels. I believe the upcoming election is as simple as that and as pivotal as that. Horse feathers! There's only one reason the hearings are underway and one reason they're getting such prominent coverage in the mainstream media. That reason is to destroy George Bush. I think Rush Limbaugh is absolutely right: liberals, in their mad determination to retake the White House, have decided that attacking Bush weaknesses is not getting them anywhere, so they're attacking his strengths. Those strengths, liberals have concluded, must be portrayed as weaknesses, and the only way to do so is to turn fact into falsehood and fantasy into "fact". And that's the real purpose of the 9-11 hearings. If Americans can be deceived into thinking Bush has been weak fighting terrorism, then Bush's greatest achievement will be erased. Further, since protecting the people and the country is perhaps a president's prime responsibility, Bush can be shown to be derelict in his duties and thus a monumental failure. This is a clever, audacious strategy, but like so many liberal strategies, it is founded on lies. It remains to be seen if liberals are able to pull off such a grand deception; if indeed, Americans are willing to buy into such a scandalous rewriting of the truth. It is instructive, I think, to note to what lengths liberals will go to retake political power. If their morality is absent in the days and weeks and months leading up to election day, why would anyone conclude it will be regained thereafter? Naturally, a lot of people are outraged over this assertion. Many think it's another Kerry equivocation, prevarication, fabrication, or more simply: another lie. Some wonder if there may be some truth to his statement. My first impression is: just when was the politician speaking with "world leaders"? With all his round-the-clock campaigning, how did Kerry have time to chat with them about who ought to be elected president in November? Heck, he has been so busy smiling for the cameras and bashing Bush, he hasn't even had time to fulfill his obligation to the people of Massachusetts -- namely, being there in the U.S. Senate and representing Massachusetts citizens during legislative votes. However, that said, I'm convinced there are indeed "world leaders" who want Kerry to be elected president. Certainly, Osama bin Laden is one of them. Certainly, all terrorist leaders want Kerry to win, for when he wins, they win, too. My bet is that Kofi Annan wants Kerry to be president. In the past Kerry said he'd like all U.S. military forces under the command of the United Nations. John Kerry is Kofi Annan's kind of guy. Any "world leader" who wants a weaker United States wants Kerry to win. Any "world leader" who wants the U.S. to be embarrassed, humiliated, and defeated wants Kerry to win. As you know, Kerry voted against a vast array of legislation for new U.S. weapon systems, critical systems Congress voted for. In summary, it's clear to me there are numerous "world leaders" who want John F. Kerry sitting in the White House. It's just that these "leaders" are enemies of the United States. Fast forward a couple dozen years. Some Republican staffers find they have access to Democrat e-mails that reveal outrageous -- it could be said scandalous -- Democrat strategy and plans. The staffers did nothing illegal, but they made the e-mails public. What penalty was paid for breaking no laws? The staffers lost their jobs. Florida law is quite unambiguous with regard to voting procedures and specifications for certifying the election count. When following the procedures to the letter of the law was preventing their guy, Al Gore, from being elected, the liberal Florida Supreme Court decided to change the procedures. Never mind that only the legislature can make and change laws. Out of the blue the Supreme Court invoked new rules that contradicted Florida law. Then when even that failed to get their guy elected, Democrats charged that Republicans threw the election. The charge has been repeated again and again, to the point where I"m sure many Americans believe it. Liberals are afraid the Bush administration will nominate and the Senate will confirm judges who will carefully and honestly adjudicate cases in strict accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Well, they can't have that! A fair interpretation of the Constitution will undo what liberal judges have spent years doing: overriding the rule of law. So the Democrats decide to unilaterally change Senate rules. Not with a proper vote; oh no. They decide among themselves that for the first time in the history of the United States, a minority of senators -- 40% -- will determine what judges will be confirmed. A liberal mayor in San Francisco decides "fairness" and "equality" -- as he defines them -- are sufficient cause to ignore very clear and concise state law that allows marriage only between a man and a woman. So he starts marrying homosexuals by the thousands. If you or I are caught speeding or breaking the law, there are consequences. We have to pay a fine or go to jail, but liberals, particularly powerful liberals, seem immune to laws they don't like. Nixon was hustled out of office for, among other things, lying to the American people. He was a Republican, so he was held to a high standard than Bill Clinton, for example, who not only lied to the American people, but lied to a grand jury; a clear breech of the law. We seem to have reached the point in American history where liberal anarchy is allowed, even celebrated. The Declaration of Independence states we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ." But liberal judges decided that the right to life would be denied in cases where the mother wanted to kill her unborn child. Those liberal judges now have the blood of some 40 million babies on their hands. They show absolutely no remorse. Liberals cheer such tyranny. In a country that has proudly recognized its religious underpinnings for hundreds of years, liberal judges have ruled speaking two words, "under God", in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The irony is overwhelming: The Constitution states (in the First Amendment) that Congress shall enact no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But now liberal judges "enact" such laws. If the rule of law is not sacrosanct, tyranny is the result. Today, the rule of law is not sacrosanct. Note that in an effort to discredit and disparage the movie, the elites choose to discredit and disparage the producer thereof. It's a vicious attack on a law-abiding individual with intent to demonize him and destroy him. My guess is that the producers of "their" movies, would be shown to be far less gentlemanly and honorable than Mel Gibson if they were only held to the same scrutiny. I think the inflamed insults directed at Gibson tell us much more about the critics than about Mel. These are the same outspoken "overseers" of our culture who tell us we must be sympathetic and understanding of "art" such as the "piss" Christ and the picture of the Virgin Mary with dung flung upon it. They demand not only the expression of tasteless and obscene "art", but the public funding of it as well. Along comes Mel Gibson who coughs up $25 to $30 million of his own wealth for a movie, and because it isn't in tune with their agenda, the critics in unison trash it. Sympathy and understanding for "art" as demanded for pornographic or "hate" displays simply don't apply when it comes to an expression of conservative values or religion. This incident also gives us insight into the character of what could be called the national conversation. We recognize the bias and disdain exhibited by liberal movie critics, but we still give credence to the biased and disdainful liberal reports that flow nonstop from the mainstream media. "The Passion of the Christ" may be a godsend to the religious community. It should also alert us to the fact that a great majority of those in positions of great influence in this country are those with a set of moral values totally at odds with the great majority of the rest of us. "Elect me president of the United States.Would you vote for this candidate? Would you support her platform? Would you contribute to her cause? Clever readers will recognize this "candidate" has already been "voted" into office. The "agency" is the United Nations. Its strength is growing and its influence is becoming ever more insidious. And liberals in this country appear to be among the U.N.'s strongest supporters. (You'll recall that not too many years ago Ted Turner announced he'd give one billion dollars to the world bureaucracy.) Liberals in power almost without exception want to defer to the U.N. even in matters of U.S. national security. They wish to engage the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, even at the cost of U.S. economic calamity. They favor the U.N. International Criminal Court in spite of the fact its judicial procedures conflict sharply with U.S. jurisprudence. They embrace the U.N. and its unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic procedures, because they embrace causes the U.N. champions: socialism and communism. The United Nations began ostensibly as an international debating society and in that limited capacity it was performing a useful service. Now, however, the U.N.'s sights are set on world domination -- probably the actual target from its inception -- and liberals are among its strongest cheerleaders. Those who love America, however, will never vote for Madam Handbasket. Fairness is a very flimsy argument, for what's considered fair by some (high taxes for the rich, for example) is considered totally unfair by others (like: the rich). Now, the rule of law is what ought to arbitrate the issue, because the rule of law is (or at least is supposed to be) applied equally to all. So, the homosexuals cry out: "We're not being treated equally! We want to marry, but we're not allow to." Of course sensible people would respond: "Of course you can marry -- as long as one partner is a man and the other is a woman. The law is uniform, just, and it is equally applied to all." The gays squeal in protest, "That's not fair!" Well, if it's fair for a man to marry another consenting man and for a woman to marry another consenting woman, why isn't it fair for a brother to marry a consenting sister? Why not allow a son or daughter to marry a consenting mother or father? Why not permit a 30-year-old man to marry a 10-year-old kid? Why not allow people to marry deceased people? And what about bigamy and, hey, polygamy, too? Why isn't it fair for a man to marry 50 consenting women? (And just wait 'til the PETA people and other "animal rights" kooks join the debate. You can expect them to raise the question: Why isn't it fair for someone to marry their pet dog or cat? Or perhaps a goldfish. Or maybe Bessie the cow out in the pasture.) It becomes rather clear rather quickly that you can imagine all sorts of combinations, and if it's fair for each of them to "marry", then the only thing accomplished by allowing such "marriages" is the subversion of marriage itself. I like the analogy I saw recently: If you call grape juice "wine", you haven't enhanced grape juice, you've corrupted the word "wine". Thus, the whole homosexual marriage thing isn't about glorifying gay partnerships, it's about destroying marriage. Marriage is a serious and solemn institution that usually includes oaths (e.g.: "'till death us do part") and carries a heavy mantle of religious overtones and implications. Liberals don't like any of that, particularly the religious element. Whether the eager participants realize it or not, part of the objective of their homosexual attack on marriage is an attack on religion. Liberals wish to remove God from the classroom, government, and the public square. They wish to impose their pantheistic or humanistic view of the world on all America, in spite of their constant chant of "we love diversity". They believe their religious cleansing is only . . . fair. . . . when conservatives and liberals alike, and our allies and enemies all agreed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? I was surprised to see that curmudgeon Robert (KKK) Byrd (who has every building in the state of West Virginia named after him, it seems) has a lifetime rating of 31! I'm surprised it's that high. A rating of 1 equals totally liberal; 100 equals totally conservative. As best I could tell, all the well-known liberals are much lower. Joe Lieberman, for example, who has often been described as moderate, scores 19. I would think a "moderate" would be in the range of perhaps 35 to 65. Joseph Biden rates 14. Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt, and John Dingell are 13. John Edwards is 12. Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein are 11. Tom Lantos and Chris Dodd come in at 8. Charles Schumer, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Alcee Hastings rate 6. John Kerry is tied with Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, and John Conyers at 5. Jerrold Nadler and Maxine Waters are 4. Ted Kennedy and Major Owens are 3. And the lowest score I found (I only looked at senators I thought would have low ratings) was 2, shared by Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. So, at least according to the ACU, Kerry is not the most liberal senator on Capital Hill. But he is very liberal, nevertheless. Being tied with Waxman, Frank, and Conyers is not much of an endorsement, I would say. How's this for a campaign ad: "Vote for John Kerry and you'll get Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, and John Conyers." That's going to be the Democrat candidate for president of the United States? But liberals are ironically silent when it comes to a religion many of them support: pantheism -- the religion that ignores God and substitutes for Him: Nature. It's probably safe to say that most bureaucrats in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are pantheists, and also the vast majority of federal employees who attend to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). When these bureaucrats practice their religion, it isn't on Sunday in a house of worship, it's Monday through Friday, 9 to 5. They spin the wheels of government to the benefit of their "god", but sadly, to the detriment of U.S. citizens and America's future. They proclaimed the sucker fish and Coho salmon endangered. Then, "to save" the fish, they cut off water to the farmers in the Klamath basin, even though this action violated water rights guaranteed to the farmers by the U.S. government. The farmers were devastated. Subsequently, we found the fish weren't endangered in the first place, and raising water levels actually hurt, not helped, sucker/Coho populations. The pantheists were just practicing their religion as best they could: trying to help the animals, at the expense of the citizens. Wild animals are reintroduced (sometimes introduced for the first time) into areas where they are bound to "interact" with people. Harm one of these beasts, as Richard Mann did when he shot a red wolf, mistaken to be a large dog threatening his cattle, and you'll probably be fined or jailed or both. (Mann's fine was $2,000, and he had to perform "community service" by building "wolf houses" and feeding the wolves.) Private property is a "sin" to pantheists, so they've launched a plethora of plans to subvert it. The ESA, their weapon of choice, allowed the USFWS to designate Margaret Rector's 15 acres west of Austin, Texas as suitable habitat for the golden-checkered warbler, which was listed as endangered in 1990, 17 years after Ms. Rector obtained the land. The assessed land value plummeted from $831,000 to $30,000. Ms. Rector's compensation: zero. Such "attacks" are underway all over the country. Are they constitutional? No. Another no-no for pantheists is industrial progress. Find an endangered bug somewhere, as the ESA mavens did at a hospital construction site in southern California, and construction plans can be destroyed. When eight flower-loving desert sand flies were discovered there, long construction delays ensued, and a $3,200,000 habit for the eight flies was mandated. It should infuriate every freedom-loving American to find a religious cult is not only alive and well, but thriving, as it's anti-Christian religious creed drives federal and, yes, world policy. For you see, U.N. pantheists initiated the directives that resulted in the the ESA and dozens of other programs that infringe constitutional protections. Liberals are serious about the "separation of church of state", except when it comes to their church. (Reference: The Problems with the Endangered Species Act, by Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D, American Land Foundation, PO Box 1033 Taylor, Texas 76574.) At the heart of one of the most revolutionary and powerful documents ever written, our Declaration of Independence, is the contention that: ". . . all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. . ." If liberals demand the removal of God from all things governmental, then they clearly will not tolerate the idea that God is the source of "certain unalienable Rights." But if God is not the source, who is? I suspect good God-hating liberals, if pressed, would concede they consider government the source. Thus, the ACLU and its ilk are in effect repudiating the Declaration of Independence and its most fundamental premise. And, in effect, their staked-out position becomes the overthrow of our founding principle and indeed our government. So, as the intent or at least implication of the God-removal campaign is exposed, we see God is not the only target. The idea of God-given rights, unassailable rights, and even our freedom are also in the cross hairs. The plan tells me George Bush is not a leader anxious to do what's right for America. It tells me he's willing to pander to Hispanics to get votes. I had thought better of W. I thought he was more principled. I thought he was more patriotic. I thought he was less politically correct. While I've disagreed with many of his programs (like the education bill that spends vast amounts of money but doesn't do anything good for education, and the Patriot Act, and the government subsidy of religious programs, and the recently-announced space initiative, and on and on and on), I thought his intentions, at least, were honorable. Now I question that judgement. The Bush immigration plan is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. In the past I was willing to overlook lots of differences of opinion, but now I feel like he has deserted (or at least spurned) his core supporters, yielded common sense to political expediency, and compromised the well-being of America's future. That is unacceptable. In a Human Events article (12-5-97, page 11), Walter Williams blew that naive and dangerous idea into a thousand bits. He wrote, "While the Soviet Union has collapsed, communism is not dead. It has [been] repackaged under a new name: environmentalism. Communism is about extensive government regulation and control by elites, and so is environmentalism." And that's what makes the environmental movement so dangerous. Because it sounds so benevolent, so honorable, so gallant, it entices countless citizens into donating to "the cause," when in truth, "the cause" is the overthrow of capitalism, democracy, and the American way of life. "[I]f we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically," stated Judi Bari of Earth First!. "We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment," admitted Jim Sibbison, former EPA press officer. "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up the the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill . . . ," averred the Council of the Club of Rome. "[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment], make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have . . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest," counseled Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University environmentalist. (Note "being honest" is viewed almost as an irritant, getting in the way of "being effective".) "[Do the] 'Wild Earth' and the 'Wildlands Project' advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go!" wrote John Davis, editor of Wild Earth and the Earth First Journal. As Dixy Lee Ray, author of Trashing the Planet (1990) and Environmental Overkill (1993) summed up quite succinctly: "[W]e must recognize that the environmental movement is not about facts or logic. More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called 'New World Order' or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power. . . ." (The quotations are from my book, You Don't Say, 1999, pages 153, 159, 164, 165, and 166.) o The Dixie Chicks will go to Iraq to perform for the troops, but won't find any Iraqi troops to perform for.In other words, I predict 2004 will be more of the same.  Thoughts for 1999. Thoughts for 2000. Thoughts for 2001. Thoughts for 2002. Thoughts for 2003.The way back home. |
