 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." |
 So, where exactly is this sacred principle that keeps the U.S. government untainted by religion and religious principles? Where precisely is it in our laws, our founding documents, or our heritage? Some might be surprised to learn it's not there. Our Constitution deals with the question of religion in one place: the First Amendment, the first words of which are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." That's it! There's nothing mentioned about "the separation of church and state". That phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association, responding to an October 7, 1801 letter from some of its members, assuring them the federal government would be true to First Amendment prohibitions. No Congressional action would be taken to establish an official national church or religion. No action would interfere in any way with personal religious expression. The quest for religious freedom, after all, was a significant factor that motivated early settlers to flee England. But leftists have carefully reinterpreted the "separation" statement to mean all things religious -- correction: all things Christian -- must be banned from all things governmental. Strangely, they have no problem with references to Islam or Judaism or Kwanzaa. Only Christian allusions must be excluded. Let's look at this carefully. If school kids want to sing "Joy to the World," does that in some way establish a national religion? If a teacher explains that Christmas is an observance of Christ's birthday -- a rather indisputable fact -- does that explanation constitute the establishment of a national religion? If a student wears a T-shirt to school with "WWJD?" on the front, does this action somehow signal that government is forcing all students to accept some specific religious perspective? If the shield of a town or county contains the image of a church or a clergyman, is that tantamount to proselytizing? Only those who are foolish or are fanatical agenda-driven activists would think so. Apparently often overlooked in the First Amendment is the phrase that Congress will make now law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If a valedictorian wishes to acknowledge God in an address to students, isn't that free exercise of religion something government must not prohibit? If citizens wish to place a nativity scene on local government property, isn't that free exercise of religion to be protected and not curtailed? If a judge wishes to display a tablet of the Ten Commandments near a courthouse, isn't that free exercise of religion to be defended by government, not squelched? The very individuals and groups who chant "separation of church and state" and claim the First Amendment as rationale, are trampling on the protection of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. Besides, the First Amendment deals exclusively with the Congress of the United States, the federal government. It in no way applies to states, counties, or local municipalities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments reinforce that. The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." For over a hundred fifty years Christian principles remained a strong and vital aspect of government -- after all, the country was founded on Christian principles -- and the "wall of separation between church and state" was interpreted only as supporting the First Amendment. But in 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court for the first time announced that "a wall of separation between church and state . . . must be kept high and impregnable." Of course, aside from judicial activism, there is no basis whatsoever (in the Constitution) for such a contention. I understand that in the early days of our nation, there were state-endorsed religions. This practice was not only accepted, but encouraged. The Constitution was formulated to accommodate state-based religions. It's interesting to note that the first public schools in this country were established for the purpose of teaching Christian principles and values. By their position, those on the left not only repudiate Christian connections to government today, but at this country's founding as well. They seem oblivious of the fact that our Declaration of Independence refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and it brashly asserts as its founding principle that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ." If our rights in the view of the left don't come from our Creator, then just where do they come from? And their answer is: from government. So the left wishes to empower bureaucracies in the federal government to decide what rights we have and what rights we do not have. In other words, the left wishes to transform America, heretofore a bastion of freedom, into just another nation where an all-powerful elite rule over a powerless populous. History has shown this to be a formula for disaster. Today, to "discriminate" is to commit a crime worse than treason. But, wait a minute. Isn't "discrimination" what life is all about? Do you marry the first person you see? Do you teach your kids to accept candy from strangers? Do you think the liberals' arguments are just as valid and proper as the conservatives'? Do you think communism is just as good for America as capitalism? Do we put everyone in jail, or just the ones who break the law? Do we allow rapists and murderers to be school teachers and Scout leaders? Do we permit just anyone to perform surgery and operate on us? Do we elect vile, immoral people to public office? (Well, on that last question, yes, on occasion, we do.) Viewing discrimination as evil (a very discriminating judgement, I might add) is at the heart of multiculturalism. It's political correct to embrace everyone, to endorse every culture, to validate every life style. And it's politically incorrect to even acknowledge that the United States was founded on Christian principles. It's politically incorrect to deny marriage to sodomites. It's politically incorrect to identify terrorists as terrorists. This is utter nonsense. We don't let eight-year-olds marry. (For those not paying attention, that's discrimination!) We don't let twelve-year-olds fight in our wars. We don't allow the criminally insane to act as judges in our courtrooms (I don't think). We don't choose the weakest and most uncoordinated "athletes" to compete in national sports events. We don't permit totally inexperienced pilots to fly airplanes. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who the next president will be. Voting, you know, forces the voter to be very discriminatory. Being politically correct destroys our culture and makes a mockery of lessons learned over eons. Yet, the multiculturalists wish to do just that. They wish to break down our values, morals, and traditions, and in their place establish their own valueless, immoral, cultural-marxist worldview. Isn't it interesting that political correctness demands approval of all points of view except those contrary to political correctness. In the real world, those who are most skilled at discriminating (i.e.: making the wisest choices) are the most successful, honored, and encouraged. An "everything-is-equal" philosophy (strongly advocated by many on the left) is dangerous, destructive, and indeed absurd. Yet that is the popular philosophy of the mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, and countless philanthropic organizations. By the way, on one or more occasions in the past, the Boy Scouts didn't discriminate and they allowed homosexual leaders. Guess what happened. They were sued! (And properly so, I might add.) Kwanzaa was created in 1966 by Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga, who is the leader of the Black nationalist cultural group US, and also professor and chair of the Department of Black Studies at California State University, Long Beach. He is an author of several books [. . .] such as: Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family, Community and Culture and Kawaida Theory. (Source.)Happy Kwanzaa to all and to all a good night. The topic of slavery appears to elicit such behavior. Many hate-America folks apparently conclude that since some of our Founders had slaves and formulated a government tolerant of slaves, the Founders were therefore bigoted, racist, evil people, and as a result, America is worthy of disrespect, loathing, and hate. Love-America folks, on the other hand, will look at the same facts of history and conclude that while slavery was an inescapable fact in the 18th century, our Founders knew it was wrong and the founding documents they wrote laid the foundation for its demise. The Declaration of Independence states boldly that all men are created equal, not just whites or some specially-designated subset of mankind. Moreover, the love-America crowd will quickly point out that the good old USA was the first country in the world to ban slavery. Hate-America citizens, however, are too caught up in righteous indignation over the evils of America's past to focus on all the good deeds that have been accomplished. It seems to me the slavery issue is a defining one in today's thinking. A lot of leftists roll it out at every opportunity, to denigrate this country and demonstrate their compassion (and, apparently, feelings of guilt). Those on the right take pride in the monumental achievements of goodness America has produced. It could therefore be concluded that today, some -- perhaps much -- of what is taught and learned in the schools about ecology is simply propaganda designed by "environmentalists" to impose their agenda on America's youth. (Clever, these leftists.) Dixy Lee Ray cautions us (page 205), "It would be a mistake to dismiss what the Greens want as mere paranoia. . . . [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 author quotes (page 205) from the Christopher Manes book, Green Rage (1990) where he (Manes) outlined his view of ecological reform. This "environmentalist" wants: the deindustrialization of the West; a reduction of human population; the elimination of all use of fossil fuel, including automobiles [just like Al Gore], coal-fired plants, and manufacturing processes using petrochemicals; the end of all monoculture and cattle production; the end of all commercial logging; restoration of wilderness on developed land; the reintroduction of large predators, such as grizzly bears and wolves; and so on. It's the vision of a masochist, a misanthrope, a spiteful, hateful malcontent. And it seems to be the vision of many on the left. It's the vision announced by the Council of the Club of Rome in 1991: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. . . . All these dangers are caused by human intervention. . . . The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." For example, the Left tried relentlessly to portray Bush as stupid and innately evil. This was a PIT endeavor that failed, for citizens had four ybigotedconclude Bush was neither. Years ago, John Kerry (with the help of Jane Fonda and others) tried to denigrate his fellow servicemen by calling them rapists, torturers, and vile human beings, to effect our defeat in Vietnam. His PIT effort was quite successful. The abortion-rights movement was a massive PIT campaign. Poll results were said to indicate that 60 percent of Americans favored abortion, when in fact no polls had been taken. The media reported that 1,000,000 illegal abortions were performed annually, when the true number was about one-tenth that. While about 200 to 250 women were dying from illegal abortions each year, the media said the number was 10,000. [Source of stats: "The Media Matrix," by David Kupelian, Whistleblower, 10-04, page 21.] This PIT campaign resulted in the Supreme Court ruling (in effect: legislating) abortion legal. Environmentalists, too, are using the PIT approach. If they can get you to believe mankind is producing too much CO2, then you'll beg the government to accept the Kyoto Protocol (and dozens of freedom-fighting follow-on proposals), and their dreams of world government and a greatly weakened U.S. will be one step closer to realization. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a perfect example of PIT. Convince the public that a bug, weed, cricket, or critter is "endangered" and the government has all the justification it needs to seize your property or at least "control" it, and thereby invalidate fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Egalitarians jump with joy. Look how successful the Malthusians have been with their Politically-Induced Thought regarding DDT. Oh my goodness, DDT is causing the eagles to die, egg shells to be too thin, and people to get cancer. Today we know these charges are false, but DDT is still banned. This PIT scheme continues to kill. People tend to believe what they see in newspapers, magazines, and on TV, so the PIT pedlers have achieved impressive "successes". However, now that another side of issues is becoming available via talk radio, FOX News, and the Internet, perhaps the public will be less susceptible to the dangers Politically-Induced Thought can inflict. (Some might suggest this is nothing more than a from-the-Right PIT article. As ever, it remains the information consumer's responsibility to determine what's true and what's not.) I voted in mid-morning. There were two to three dozen people in front of me waiting to use the new touch-screen voting machines here in Florida. Then I learned there was a bomb scare a short time before I got to the polling place. Everyone was evacuated, bomb-sniffing dogs were brought in, and police did a thorough search. No bomb was found, but the delay created a lengthy waiting line. On election night I sat down in front of the TV at eight o'clock. Right off, the results sounded ominous. It looked like every state that was reported was leaning heavily toward Kerry. Leave it to the liberals to slant the exit polls so conservatives might be discouraged from voting west of the Mississippi. I heard a report that Kerry operatives called the major networks and begged them to delay calling Ohio as long as possible. I guess CBS (of course) and ABC agreed. Fox called Ohio first, then NBC a half hour or so later. For some strange reason I wasn't jumping with joy as state after state and county after county turned red. Perhaps it was because the electoral count, through much of the night, could have gone either way. I think it was about 12:45 (Eastern) when Fox gave Ohio to Bush, but he still wasn't above the half-way point. I waited 'til three, hoping to see Bush wrap it up, but that didn't happen until much later Wednesday. One of the delights of the election results for me was the defeat of Daschle. That was sweet. Gains in the House and Senate were also gratifying, but I took most satisfaction in two outcomes: First, the war on terrorism was reinforced. Had Kerry been elected, every terrorist in the world would realize the U.S. was a wimp and they would probably escalate their terror activities. Second, Bush will be able to appoint probably two, maybe more, justices to the Supreme Court. I believe he'll name constitutionalists, where Kerry would have named partisan activists. And the increase in Republican seats in the Senate should make confirmation achievable. Looking back, I guess before the election I thought Kerry was going to win. I thought the millions of left-leaning college kids liberals had registered would swing the election to the Democrats. And I also thought the liberals would be far more successful in stealing votes for their candidates. The election outcome is very encouraging. But it won't be a cake walk for George Bush. I'll bet dimes to doughnuts there'll be a concerted effort to impeach the President. There won't be a valid case for doing so, but Democrats will manufacture some rationale nevertheless. How do I know this? Because there was never any mention of accomplishments, successes, or victories. The military achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq have been incredibly successful, yet all were completely ignored. The focus, instead, was unceasingly on how Rumsfeld "screwed up", how his judgements were flawed (while the judgements of Colin Powell were presented as flawless), and how he was "callous" and "reckless" in his exercise of "power" as Secretary of Defense. One of the strongest criticisms of Rumsfeld was that he seriously underestimated manpower levels -- "boots on the ground" -- needed after Iraq fell. Critics who demanded 200,000 troops were endorsed by Front Line, without any comment as to what the additional 55,000 men and women could do to make things better. Nearly as strong criticism was leveled at Rumsfeld for "over-extending" duty tours of our military. Both of these criticisms essentially boil down to the demand to use more manpower resources than were or are available. But apparently the absurdity of this demand went unnoticed by Front Line writers. Although they did hint that Rumsfeld's strong statement against reinstating the draft was insincere. (Another baseless accusation.) Some might be dismayed to realize their tax dollars are funding such propaganda. Many others are not surprised and have for years considered PBS to be the Propaganda Broadcasting System. I assume your answer to questions one and two is no. But millions of voters will cast their ballot on November 2nd for John Kerry, who has the full support of CPUSA. Joelle Fishman, chairwoman of the party's political action committee said, "At this moment, we will convey our program best by working with all our might to build the broadest possible coalitions, fronts and networks that can defeat the undemocratic, imperialistic Bush war machine. This is our responsibility to our own class here and internationally." At a June 29, 2003 meeting in New York, the CPUSA national committee approved a resolution making the defeat of George Bush and the Republican majority in Congress the 'number one priority." Aren't friends of our enemy our enemies as well? You can be sure terrorists around the world are rooting for a John F. Kerry victory. After all, he has said he wouldn't have gone after Saddam. He wouldn't have fought terrorists in Iraq. He would have let Saddam's regime reinstitute its WMD programs (as we now know would have happened) and perhaps allow those WMDs to be distributed to terrorists worldwide. And then he would be shocked, just shocked, when a major U.S. city would be struck. I disagree with many of George Bush's policies and actions. In some cases I have strong disagreements. But he seems to understand, where Kerry does not, that our country is under attack. He seems to realize, where Kerry doesn't, that protecting the United States is the most important role of the federal government. He seems to appreciate, where Kerry seems to have no clue, that the struggle against terrorism is just as critical as the fight against Naziism and the conflict with the Soviet Union, perhaps more so. But many good, freedom-loving (can I say: naive?) Americans will pull the lever for Kerry, because "he looks so nice", because he sounds so presidential, or because he's a Democrat and "I've always voted Democrat." You can vote with the communists or against them. It's your choice. [Source of quotes: "U.S. Communists to Support Dems," by WorldNetDaily, Whistleblower, September 2004, page 11. Address: PO Box 2450, Fair Oaks, California 95628. Phone: 916-852-6300. Fax: 916-852-6302. Website.] Of late, though, we see where one poll has Kerry leading by a significant margin, while another has Bush leading by a good margin. These polls supposedly represent the same time sample, yet they're "poles apart", while each claims a margin of error of only three or four percentage points. Obviously, the polls are the antithesis of what they claim to be, for they claim to be valid, representative measures of voter preferences at a certain point in time. If they were indeed valid, all the results would be consistently in agreement, at least for a given sample period. It's therefore easy (and proper) to conclude the polls are invalid. So why do the media continue to hype the results? Are media people blind to what's plain to see? I don't think so. After all, who is initiating and sponsoring the polls? In many instances it's the media organizations themselves. So they are in the business of not only reporting the news, but generating it as well. And, as recent CBS revelations suggest, the mainstream media have an agenda. So, by tweaking question content, or by careful sample management, or by downright manipulation of poll results, they can do what they do best: slant the 'news' for their own political purposes. I hope more balanced reporting (ala Fox News), radio talk shows (ala Rush Limbaugh, et. al), and the Internet can turn the tide and allow a view from the right to be heard by all. (Everyone has heard the view from the left since birth.) At this point, however, it's not clear to me that decades of mainstream media indoctrination can be neutralized. During the first debate, I thought Kerry looked tall and commanding. Then I noticed his microphone was on a longer stem than the microphone Bush had. I've seen a lot of debates over the years and every effort has always been made to have identical settings for the two debaters. But not during the first Bush-Kerry debate. Bush, speaking into his mike, looked short and inferior to Kerry. Was that just an accident? During the Cheney-Edwards debate did you notice where Cheney's microphone was positioned? It was clipped to his tie rather low, and as a result, his coat occasionally brushed up against it and his comments were more muffled. Edward's remarks were always clear and distinct. His microphone was positioned higher on his tie, away from his lapel. Just an accident? Did you notice that when Edwards spoke, often side-by-side pictures of the candidates were shown on the TV screen? You could see Cheney's reactions: a furled brow every now and then and sometimes an expression of frustration. But I thought there were far fewer side-by-side shots when Cheney was speaking. Edward's expressions and body language seemed to be more hidden. Just an accident? Did you notice in the side-by-side shots that the camera zoomed in on Edwards a little more than Cheney. That made Edwards more of a commanding figure. He seemed more powerful. In prior debates every effort was made to get exactly the same view of each candidate. But not this time. Just an accident? I didn't see any "tricks" during the Bush-Kerry debate last Friday. I don't know if there weren't any or if I just didn't see them. I remember one of the early, Clinton "State of the Union" speeches. I was surprised because the main camera (with a head-on view) was positioned so Clinton was in the foreground and the President of the Senate (a Democrat) was in the background, but the Speaker of the House (a Republican) was not in the picture. Usually the camera is positioned to include all three. Hmmm. Just an accident? Could the Democrats be playing subliminal tricks on the American public? It wouldn't surprise me in the least. "Williams claims that al-Qaida has been planning a spectacular nuclear attack using six or seven suitcase nuclear bombs that would be detonated simultaneously in U.S. cities."I understand the Homeland Security Department has prepared a report containing instructions for dealing with a nuclear explosion. These are very scary times indeed. On the other hand, I was brought up and confirmed in the Episcopal church. Perhaps I ought to be described as an Episcopalian-American. To many, their church is more important than where their grandparents (or great-grandparents, etc.) came from. But race seems to be of particular importance today. Maybe I should require that I be identified as a white-American. After all, I am a white American. Age is another defining factor many consider significant. Do you suppose I should demand to be referred to as a senior-American, or a seasoned-American, or maybe even what they used to say: an old-American. Sexual preference and sexual orientation are hotly debated and discussed today. Apparently some people are anxious to wear their sexual descriptions on their foreheads (or maybe in other places). Do you think I should insist to be described as a straight-American? How about political orientation? I am proud of my conservative views and beliefs. I do not wish to be considered or labeled a liberal. Maybe I should demand to be identified as a conservative-American. The answer is: No, I don't want any of these monickers. If some sort of hyphenated description of me is required for some unimaginable reason, this is the label I would choose: I'm an American-American! They suggest George Bush was AWOL during his national guard training. Have they any proof? No. As a matter of fact, all available records appear to refute the assertion. But that doesn't matter, because the fabrication sounds plausible to all who love to hate the president. So what do Machiavellians do when service records prove Bush fulfilled his service obligations? They suggest the records were forged. Is there any proof? No. Then they scream that pilot George didn't take a physical he was ordered to take. Is there any proof? Only forged records. But, as Dan Rather assures us, it doesn't matter that the records were forged, because the charge is valid anyway. And the proof? Well, without forged records, there is none. Liberals say W started the war with Iraq just as a favor to "all his rich oil friends". Do they have any proof to substantiate the claim. No. Proof, facts, data, logic: these are all unnecessary elements for Machiavellians. Moreover, they're avoided at all cost, because liberal hypotheses are always grounded in lies, not truth. The smear-George-Bush campaign is but one of many examples of liberal Machiavellianism. The environmental extremists said DDT was a danger to bird eggs and the environment in general. They said it caused cancer in humans. That sounded possible, and government policy was changed as a result. But it was all a lie. Machiavelli would be proud. Liberals said the spotted owl was endangered and needed vast forests if it was to survive as a species. They said logging must stop in the forests. But the truth is the spotted owl was never in danger of extinction. But look how effective the lie has been! Machiavellians said farmers in Klamath Falls had to give up water they needed for crops, because a bunch of suckerfish needed the water to survive. Months after the farmers endured great hardship -- some even lost their property -- we learn the extra water did not benefit the suckerfish at all, but probably harmed them. But such is often the result of lies. Liberals told us (and continue to tell us) we must to sign the Kyoto Protocol so our planet can survive all the "nasty" greenhouse gasses man produces. It turns out man's production of greenhouse gases has an exceedingly small (if any) impact on "global warming". The real culprit: "nasty" Mr. Sun. Scare after scare and "danger" after "danger" have been found to be nothing more than Machiavellian fabrications, one right after another. The liberals spin their webs of deceit, the liberal mainstream media dutifully hype each "catastrophe", and vast numbers of Americans bleat in sympathetic response. But there are signs more and more people are learning the truth. That only suggests the myths and deceptions will intensify. When you build your house of lies, truth will collapse it. Just ask Dan Rather. The Founders understood that no one is equal to anyone else in terms of intellect, talent, determination, strength, and countless other characteristics, but they knew freedom demanded all be treated equally under the law. It's a pillar of American justice. But in recent years, some folks decided equal justice was inconvenient. It interfered with what they wanted, so they decided they would simply dispense with the concept. When Bill Clinton lied under oath, that was illegal. Many folks have been tossed into jail for such conduct. One of the articles of impeachment that was drawn up against President Nixon (Hillary helped with this) was that he lied to the American people. But Bill Clinton! He's a good Democrat. He's too important to be held to the same standard as everyone else. So let's just ignore the law in his case. Okay? Okay. The Florida vote-count fiasco in 2000 is another example where the Law was inconvenient. Florida State law was and is very specific regarding the handling of vote tallies and the schedule for filing these tallies. When it became clear their guy, Al Gore, wasn't going to win the state, some folks decided that the laws weren't fair. These "folks" were members of the Florida Supreme Court. You'd think they would rule in accord with the law (in spite of the fact they're liberals), but no, they decided the law was unfair (read: Gore wouldn't be president), although the procedures and schedules had been on the books, unchallenged, for years. More recently, some homosexuals decided they wanted to be married. Never mind that to do so it would be necessary to totally corrupt the definition of marriage ("the legal union of a man with a woman"). Never mind that gay marriage is against the law. Never mind that an office holder (a mayor) who swore to uphold the law would officiate at the "weddings". Gee, when the law says you can't do something, but you want to do it, it must be okay to do it . . . if you're a liberal. (I haven't heard of any cases where conservatives break the law and are not held accountable.) Some may consider these incidents amusing or entertaining and to some degree they are both. But as a nation, we have chosen to step over the line. We have demonstrated that laws are not to be applied equally. We have demonstrated that judges and justices do not have to uphold the law. We have demonstrated that laws can be completely ignored and moreover, there are no consequences for doing so. We have allowed the Rule of Law to become impotent and meaningless. Am I the only one who thinks this is calamitous? Franklin D. Roosevelt: "[N]o greater thing could come to our land today than a revival of the spirit of religion -- a revival that would sweep through the homes of the nation and stir the hearts of men and women of all faiths to a reassertion of their belief in God and their dedication to His will for themselves and for their world."Compared to these stalwarts of the Democrat party, many of today's outspoken liberals are radical, anti-religious extremists. The key question is: just whom will Americans follow into the future? [Source of quotes: "Supreme Power," Inside the Beltway, The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, May 31-June 6, 2004, page 6. Address: 3600 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002. E-mail. Website.] The rationale for all this is that the non-human creatures of North America need space to thrive and to move about freely. World planners have made this determination (that 50% of the land should be for animals only) rather arbitrarily, it would seem, because I've never seen any justification for it. Why couldn't the critters get along with 45%? Or 25%? Or maybe 5%? What hasn't been written about much, as far as I know, is the whole hypothesis upon which the Wildlands Project is based. Why do living things (but not humans, of course) need core areas, buffer zones, and connecting corridors? How many worms, frogs, mice, or even buffalo need to roam all over the continent? Sure, some birds migrate great distances, but no core areas, buffers, or corridors on land are needed for them to fly wherever they want! In the U.S. we don't have any wildebeest migrations like you find in Tanzania. So why do we need to set aside so much territory -- much of which is presently private property? And the answer, of course, is we don't. The entire Wildlands Project is a world-wide scam. It's a clever sophistry to achieve a diabolical end result: equalitarianism. Some would say socialism. Some would say communism. Some might say, simply, totalitarianism. Whatever the name, it's about forcing people to live at identical levels of poverty. Folks in Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and the U.S. all living in misery. Except, of course, the ruling elite. Now, that may not be the result Wildlands people will tell you they envision, but it will unquestionably be the outcome if the "Wildlands Project" becomes fully implemented. Of course the numerical value of one's IQ is usually not paraded about for the world to observe, but other racial differences are. For example, professional athletic achievements are quantified and publicized and available for comparison. Who can dispute the fact that blacks are on average better football players than whites? Just look at the percent of blacks on the major teams and compare it to the percent of blacks in the general population. (About 12 out of 100 Americans are black.) Unless you're willing to assert massive affirmative action is going on in this sport, you'll have to conclude blacks are on average simply better. (Physical differences.) But even this obvious conclusion is politically incorrect because if blacks are better than whites in one forum, then it's logical whites are better than blacks in another. These days, under the reign of political correctness, stating such truth is unacceptable. As another example, look at the world record holders in the sport of running. In the 100-meter dash, of the 100 fastest times, 100% have been achieved by West African blacks. Physical characteristics such as lung capacity, muscle mass, fat distribution, testosterone levels, etc., allow these blacks to excel remarkably in short-distance sprints. Longer races, however, make different physical demands on the body, and in the marathon, of the 100 fastest times, 0 percent are achieved by West African blacks. Whites hold 36 percent of these fastest times. ("Black Magic," by Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, February 2000, page 8.) Consider basketball. The best whites can jump straight up 50 percent of their height. Blacks can jump up to over 60 percent of their height (ibid, page 9). Surprise, surprise: there are lots of blacks on professional basketball teams. Let's look at 12th grade blacks and Hispanics. In 1998 reading, Hispanics scored about 1.9 percent higher than blacks. In 2000 mathematics, they scored about 3.3 percent higher. In 2001 history, about 1.9 percent higher. In 2001 geography, about 3.8 percent higher. ("Fantasy and Fraud: No Child Left Behind," by Ian Jobling, American Renaissance, February 2004, page 3.) (IQ differences.) If we can't talk about certain facts because they're politically incorrect, then can we reach proper conclusions and make proper decisions? If we start with a flawed premise -- that all racial groups have identical average IQs -- then we're likely to establish flawed policy. So questions come to mind: Now that we know DDT is completely safe for humans and the environment, why is it still banned? Why isn't the ban lifted so millions of lives can be saved? Why isn't this chemical used today in every part of the world where malaria is a threat? An answer comes to mind: Perhaps it's because environmentalists want the dying to go on. Perhaps it's because those in power like the idea that tens of millions of poor, mostly black people are being wiped out. Perhaps it's because they want fewer human beings in the world and they've chosen the mosquito as their weapon of choice. Respected environmentalist, Dr. LaMont Cole, at Yale University said that "To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world overpopulation problem."(6) Dr. Van den Bosch of the University of California criticized those of us who have concern for "all those little brown people in poor countries."(7) Dr. Charles Wurster, a major opponent of DDT, was once asked about the possibility that banning DDT would necessitate use of far more toxic and dangerous pesticides. Said he: "So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any."(8) Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome, wrote in 1990: "[M]y chief quarrel with DDT . . . is that it has greatly added to the population problem."(9) The beloved Jacques Cousteau wasn't timid in his recommendation: "In order to stabilize world population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."(10) And liberal icon Ted Turner has his own assessment of what the world's population should be: "A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal."(11) The environmentalists describe themselves as loving, caring, concerned scientists. Some of their statements, however, suggest they may be callous, uncaring, unconcerned racists instead. (1) 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, page 76. And of course it works the other way around. If platinum country singer Benny Twangmaster says he's voting for John Kerry, and if you just detest Benny Twangmaster, you may decide to vote for Bush. So which candidate is Rapists-Are-Us endorsing? Who is Pornography International supporting? Who has received the nod from Child Molesters Unlimited? Well, we don't know. But we do know the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supports John Kerry. The organization apparently loves the guy. Just visit the CPUSA website and check it out. When I recently stopped by to see what the Communists are saying, I found Top Ten Reasons to Defeat Bush, Build Unity to Take Back Our Country in 2004!: Defeat Bush and the Ultra Right, National Conference to Defeat Bush & Ultra Right! New York City, January 31, Push Bush Out the Door in 2004, No! to Bush and Co. Nov. 5th, and Vote to Defeat the Right-Wing on Nov, among other articles. Maybe this makes November voting decisions easier. If you like the Communist party and all it stands for, vote for John Kerry. This sounds to me more like the excuse a ten-year-old would produce when he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar. "I could reach the cookie jar, mommy, so that's why I took the cookies." Well, let's see. Did President Zipper rape Juanita Broaddrick (in Little Rock in April 1978) because he was able to rape her? Did he use crack cocaine because he was able to? Did he father a child with Bobbie Ann Williams (Ms. Williams said, in the mid-1980s) because he could? Did he murder someone, do you suppose, because he could get away with it? Mr. Sex Pot had more than four years to come up with a clever rationale for his Monica tryst, and all he could come up with was the "excuse" that he did it because he could do it. Amazing! And he rolls out the "excuse" as though it fully justifies his actions. What's even more amazing is that there must be millions of Americans who are saying, "Oh, he did it because he could do it. There, I knew he had a good reason." And they'll go on admiring the man as if he had admitted to bad breath or something. If such acceptance of unacceptable behavior is any measure, this country's morality is sinking fast. EO #473,871: By the powers vested in me as President of the United States, I hereby declare and proclaim that the seven southwestern states, heretofore known as Aztlan, are ceded to the World State of Mexico. The former state of Alaska, in its entirety, is designated a "World Wilderness Zone", in which no human being will be allowed to set foot -- ever. The former state of Hawaii, at the request of the United Nations, is now renamed "World Government Island", and will be the official headquarters territory of the UN, containing all of its world-governing agencies, including the World Taxing Authority, the World Military Department (WMD), and World Currency Center, among others. The former state of Florida is hereby renamed "Cuba North", and it becomes part of the World State of Cuba. The remaining 40 states and their governments are dissolved and renamed the "World State of Excess"."I would like to cite President George W. Bush and his amnesty programs at the beginning of this century. They, along with active Democrat support, achieved great success in opening wide the immigration gates, and are largely responsible for the 49 million aliens, mostly Hispanics (mostly voting Democrat), who subsequently entered what used to be the United States of America. "And of course I must credit my mother, who was President for three terms following the Bush administration. She was able to establish the U.S. as a bilingual nation, extend Social Security benefits to millions of families living throughout the world, accept the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, and subscribe to the restrictions and rulings of the International Criminal Court. You'll recall the ICC eventually found George Bush guilty of crimes against the world. "So now to commemorate the achievements we have attained, I hereby proclaim this day, July 12, 2025 as "World Day", and I also forever abolish any public recognition or celebration of July 4th, the so-called "Independence Day". For today we are free. Today is our true Independence Day. "Marriage as such has been abolished; the Christian church has been crushed; pornography and homosexuality are freely enjoyed everywhere and are taught in all grades of the government schools; home-schooling is illegal; hate speech, practiced by deviants once called conservatives, is now a felony; travel is only with government approval; and the old, out-of-date U.S. Constitution has been tossed on history's scrap heap where it belongs. "I pledge to you, fellow countrypersons, that the world government we have empowered will feed you, clothe you, and attend to your every need. Highly-trained government specialists will select schools for your children. They will choose for them the perfect vocation, carefully matching their talents and interests with work-force needs. And when you are old and no longer a productive worker for society, or when you are seriously sick or incapacitated or suffer from a debilitating mental disease, the government's medical oversight agency will attend to you. You will not have to suffer the indignity of an extended death experience. The "foreclosure" process will be private, comfortable, and timely, and it will be unnecessary for you or family members to select a foreclosure date. All of these unpleasantries will be discretely attended to by government professionals. "This is an historic day. Freedom at last is here for all people everywhere. Go forth, citizens of the world, and rejoice. Celebrate the moment. Praise Allah. "Compulsory attendance schedules for World Day ceremonies will be posted on the "Public Forum Website" from 1900 hours to 2100 hours. As this is a special day, power will not be discontinued at 2100 hours but will remain available until 2200 hours. "Good night, and Allah bless the world!"  Thoughts for 1999. Thoughts for 2000. Thoughts for 2001. Thoughts for 2002. Thoughts for 2003. Thoughts for First half of 2004.The way back home. |
