 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." |
 But then something remarkable happened. In 1994, Republicans gained control in Congress, and soon thereafter presented their proposals to combat poverty. Those proposals became known as "welfare reform". Liberals went berserk. Patricia Ireland, NOW president, predicted, "Millions more will swell the ranks of the poor and hungry as a result of this bill." Peter Digre, Los Angeles child welfare officer, warned, "Los Angeles will see more than 17,000 new cases of child abuse due to poverty and family stress." Tom Brokaw intoned, "[P]rojections show that that will push, as least short term, more than a million youngsters in this country below the poverty line." Dan Rather reported: welfare reform "is going to put a lot of poor children on the street". The Children's Defense Fund estimated the reform "would increase child poverty nationwide by 12 percent . . . make children hungrier . . . [and] reduce the incomes of one-fifth of all families with children in the nation." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projected that the law "would push 2.6 million people, including 1.1 children, into poverty, and would cause one-tenth of all American families, including 8 million families with children, to lose income." Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the Republican legislation "would be the most brutal act of social policy we have known since the Reconstruction. . . . In five years' time, you'll find appearing on your streets abandoned children -- helpless, hostile, angry, awful -- in numbers we have no idea." Barbara Walters said, "[A]s many as a million children will go hungry." Senator Patrick Leahy declared, "This bill is anti-family, anti-child, and mean-spirited." Senator Frank Lautenberg lamented, "I'm afraid that the streets of our nation's cities might someday look like the streets of Brazil." In a press release, Senator Ted Kennedy cautioned, "[This bill] will leave . . . children ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed. . . . The gap between rich and poor will be wider, the bonds which tie families together will be weaker, and the dreams of millions of children well be farther from reach." Peter Edelman, who served in the Clinton Administration said, "There will be more malnutrition and more crime, increased infant mortality, and increased drug and alcohol abuse. There will be increased family violence and abuse against children and women." Welfare reform legislation became law in 1996. Every dire prediction of the Left has now been proven not only wrong, but resoundingly wrong. Poverty has fallen precipitously. Millions of women have taken jobs and found a true sense of pride in their employment. Welfare rolls dropped 60 percent! Poverty declined from 14 percent in 1995 to 12 percent in 2003. About 3.5 million fewer Americans are poor today compared to 1995. Poverty is at its lowest in history for African American children. Hunger among U.S. children has been cut in half. A few questions: Have you seen this incredible news reported by the mainstream media? Wouldn't you consider it to be truly newsworthy? Have you come across any news outlet crediting Republicans for these remarkable results? Have you heard anyone on ABC, CBS, NBC, or read in the Washington Post, New York Times, or any other major liberal print publication about what a beneficial effect this legislation has had on the black community, single mothers, and the poor, constituencies the Left indignantly claims to serve? And finally, have you heard even one Democrat apologize for being 100 percent wrong on the issue of welfare reform? No, I haven't either. And I wouldn't have come across any of this information, had I not read Do-Gooders by Mona Charen (Penguin Group, 2004). It's an excellent book. I recommend it. How else can you explain the continuing allegiance to Alfred Kinsey, Paul Ehrlich, Peter Singer, Rigoberta Menchu, Noam Chomsky, and so many others whose ideas and prophecies have been resoundingly disproved, but who retain a faithful following? Alfred Kinsey, who Flynn says masturbated with a toothbrush inserted in his urethra, was a homosexual, wife-swapper, sadomasochist, and some think a pedophile. He wrote two momentous books -- Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) -- under the guise of science. But now we know his research "results" were biased, invalid, and deceitful. Kinsey was not principled; he was perverted. However, because his propaganda was consistent with liberal "thinking", the books remain respected today by many. His writings revolutionized and corrupted U.S. law, education, and culture, yet a movie was released just recently to repolish the image of this man.Daniel Flynn's book is thought provoking, but frustrating, as it suggests there's no reasoning with many liberals. Just like Susan Estrich said, principles are unimportant; politics reign supreme. Such a philosophy demonstrates the difficulty of debating the culture war. When one side holds principles dear and the other discards them, where can the debate begin? Walter Williams has it right: "Many law professors and others who hold contempt for our Constitution preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be 'living'? Depending on 'evolving standards,' maybe my two pair could beat your flush." This really isn't rocket science. Yet, there's loony-from-the-left Justice Sandra Day O'Connor saying to a television audience on April 21, 2005, "This is much ado about nothing. Our Constitution is one that evolves." No it isn't! It's one that can be amended. It's one that can be changed through democratic procedures. But it isn't one that automatically evolves, except via blatant judicial activism. It doesn't evolve except via tyrannical justices who wish to twist or redefine Constitutional meanings that have stood unchallenged for hundreds of years. Then there's the radical leftist notion that interpreting the U.S. Constitution necessitates looking outside the Constitution, even outside the country, for "wisdom" in the administration of legal and societal justice. This is simply nuts! In comments recently to members of the 99-year-old American Society of International Law in Washington, DC, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader I-don't-like-the-Constitution Ginsburg opined: "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification." With all due respect, Ms. Ginsburg, that's exactly what the Constitution was, is (or should be), and should always be! Why should justices consider anything but the U.S. Constitution while they're trying to interpret the U.S. Constitution? Are you telling me that if I get a speeding ticket, I can plead not guilty because cars are allowed to travel over a hundred miles an hour in Germany? Are you saying euthanasia is just fine and dandy here because it's allowed in the Netherlands? Are you asserting that since decapitations occur in the Middle East, they might be okay in America? Or are you just positing that if you want to change the Constitution, you should be allowed to, if you can find some foreign crackpot nation with laws in accord with your agenda? That is plain and simple judicial rule. There's a legislative branch of government, Ms. Ginsburg, and you're not in it. Your job is to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it. Clearly you know that, so your protestations must simply be deceitful rationalizations of your activist rulings. Ms. O'Connor, you've admitted you and others on the bench have relied on European Court rulings in the decision to strike down the Texas law outlawing sodomy between adults of the same gender. You must know your job is to strictly abide by the tenants of the U.S. Constitution, not opinions you happen to favor from other countries. So your statements must be a mask to justify tampering with what you should not be allowed to tamper with. Thomas Sowell sums up: "We are already well down the slippery slope toward judicial rule, and Justice O'Connor is one of those who has repeatedly greased that slope in decisions full of sociological pieties, fashionable rhetoric, and lofty attitudes, but lacking in legal principles from the Constitution of the United States." Our elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have the power to reel in these extremist justices and their accomplices, or to simply impeach them. It's high time we put an end to judicial rule. Let's begin by identifying the greenhouse gases that "cause" global warming and determining how much each contributes to the "problem". The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. That's right, plain old water -- H2O --in the form of vapor (like humidity) comprises 95% of all greenhouse gases. Most water vapor is of natural origin; human beings cause just 0.001% of (or .00001 times) the total. Shown below are the greenhouse gases, the abundance of each, and the percent attributable to man.
The data indicate that man's contribution to global warming greenhouse gases is miniscule, just .0028 times the total (that's 0.28%, or just over a quarter of one percent). Yet, the Kyoto Protocol is lauded by environmentalists and many on the left as a means of slowing down or stopping the "warming" process. What exactly does this UN treaty demand? It calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. (Source.) But many countries are exempt from such reductions. China, India, South Korea and Mexico don't have to reduce CO2 emissions at all, even though they are fast growing and by 2010, collectively, will likely produce more CO2 than the United States! (Source.) All man-made greenhouse gases amount to only 0.0028 times the total of all gases, but man-made CO2 alone amounts to just 0.00117 times the total of all greenhouse gases (0.03618 x 0.03225): a little over one one-thousandth. A reduction of 30% of man-made CO2 would remove just 0.00035 times the total (three and a half ten-thousandths). Is this going to have any measurable effect at all? But wait, since some countries are exempt from CO2 reductions, even the 0.00035 amount won't be achieved. We are now talking about such infinitesimal portions that we're surely lost in the margin of error of the data. Yet, 141 countries have ratified the treaty (Source) and it is now in force! It's clear to me the Kyoto Protocol is not about the environment, reducing greenhouse gases, and lowering global temperatures. It's about politics, power, income redistribution, and global government. In their eagerness to ease the pain of breaking up, those on the left have implemented no-fault divorce, which has rendered marriage nearly meaningless.The Left appears aligned with purposes that run counter to America's great past history and its noble values. Those purposes, if fulfilled, will create a new America, with a culture and value system never seen here before. It will be an America which is anathema to vast numbers of citizens in the red states, many in the blue states as well, and unquestionably to one and all of this country's founders. * 17,000 scientists dispute global warming claims: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (Source.)Two groups of "experts" have reached diametrically opposing conclusions on the subject of global warming. How can this be? Could it be that the advocates for man-made global warming are motivated by one agenda: wealth redistribution, socialism, and world government, while the others are motivated by a different agenda: the truth? Granddad didn't have much of an education and he worked for Western Union for many years, but then got a job as postman. He said he wanted to work for the Post Office -- in spite of the lower wages -- because the job was more "secure". However, his doctor had advised him to seek daytime, outdoor employment as therapy for some kind of chest or lung trouble, so that was also a factor in his switching jobs. In such humble surroundings, dad grew up, graduated from Northwestern High School, spent two years in "Detroit Junior College" (later Wayne University), then graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1924. If Dad's grandparents hadn't emigrated from Europe to this country, I suppose Dad might have been born in Germany. And I (or his childdren) might have been born there, too. And brought up as a good little Nazi kid. And perhaps trapped for decades in the squallar of East Germany. And possibly living there today, suffering through the grip of socialism that infects and erodes Germany and the rest of Europe. But instead, my great-grandparents took the risk and suffered the hardship of moving, with their six-year-old son, to America. My parents were born here. As a result, I enjoy more freedom, more opportunity, and a higher living standard than the vast majority of Germans. I didn't have to live under Hitler's reign and the terrible war he brought upon that country. For that I am and shall be eternally grateful. I'm a very lucky person to call America home, and to be able to enjoy its many blessings. I am a citizen of the most successful, most powerful, most generous, most compassionate country in the history of the world. It puzzles me a little that African Americans, with their own myriad tales of family emigration from other countries, aren't similarly thankful. "Viva Fidel! Viva Che! Castro is the most honest and courageous politician I've ever met." -- Jesse Jackson.When the Left makes its fervent political pronouncements, we need to understand its political perspective. We need to consider the kind of "utopia" leftists wish to impose upon us all. We need to realize the Left loves all things Communist. John Kerry wants the U.S. Senate to honor the memory of the late W.E.B. DuBois. Who was DuBois? He was a fervent anti-American. He was a member of the Soviet-dominated Communist Party. He praised Joseph Stalin as a "great" and "courageous" man. He was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize. In Mao's China, a national holiday was staged in DuBois' honor in 1959. Kerry thinks the U.S. should give this man special recognition and acclaim. The nature, character, and intent of those on the left are becoming ever more clear. It seems rather straightforward to me: members of the Supreme Court are to reach their judgements based on a strict interpretation of the contents of the U.S. Constitution. That means reading the Constitution and abiding by what it says. Nothing more, nothing less. So why in heaven's name are liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justices looking to the law of other lands in their decision-making processes? Listen to what they say: "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion."But why? How can any foreign opinion illuminate what our founders wrote very clearly in the U.S. Constitution? If the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" is in favor of weakening the U.S., redistributing our wealth to poorer countries, and lowering our standard of living (and of course international opinion is overwhelming in favor of just that), does that mean we should comply with such wishes? Of course not! "Our justices . . . are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."If justices become more open to foreign views, they inevitably become less open to American views. Whose side are these justices on, anyway? "For years people all over the world have cited the [U.S.] Supreme Court; why don't we cite them occasionally? . . . This is what I call opening your eyes, opening your eyes to things that are going on elsewhere. . . . What is at issue is the extent to which you might learn from other places."What is at issue is the extent to which you might dilute, contaminate, or distort U.S. laws, customs, and practices. Such a viewpoint is the multicultural perspective of someone who at a minimum considers all countries equal, and at a maximum considers our country inferior to the others. Multiculturalism may "feel good" to some, but at heart, it's anti-American. "Conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community, although not formally binding upon our decisions, should at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts. . . . I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues."Are not these justices admitting they wish to violate their vows? How can they support and defend the Constitution if they entertain ideas that run counter to it? That they even consider using decision-making criteria that are not American-made is shocking. That they openly advocate such a practice is unacceptable. The Court is out of control. Bear in mind: liberals in Congress are hellbent on swelling the ranks of these traitorous Supreme Court justices. On January 10, 1963, U.S. Representative Albert S. Herlong, Jr. (D-FL), read a list of 45 communist goals into the Congressional Record. Listed below is a sample of the objectives presently being implemented by the ACLU: o Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Get control of the teachers' associations.It's clear that at least with these objectives, the ACLU is making great strides. But the ACLU is not working alone. Under the guise of protecting our Constitutional rights, the organization encourages donations from individuals, big corporations, foundations, and even the U.S. government itself, and millions of dollars roll into ACLU treasuries each year. Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, the ACLU can initiate endless lawsuits and guess who pays the legal fees. You do. Whether you like what the ACLU is doing or not, you are contributing inordinate sums of money to empower ACLU lawsuits. Earl Browder, one of the co-founders of the ACLU in the 1920s, was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 until it dissolved in 1944. Shortly thereafter, he became president of the Communist Political Association. Mr. Browder said the ACLU was a "transmission belt" for the communist party agenda. Does anyone think that purpose has changed over the years? Reference: "ACLU Fulfilling Communist Agenda," by Devvy Kidd, Whistleblower, December 2004, pages 35-36. Address: PO Box 2450, Fair Oaks, California 95628. Phone: 916-852-6300. Fax: 916-852-6302. Website. A father is ill and he's late with a child-support payment to his ex-wife for his 12-year-old son. He had been a little late with a few prior payments, but he always paid eventually. What do you think the government did? Government agents, without court action, without any notice whatsoever, froze his bank account. One day when he had the equivalent of about 75 cents (U.S.) in his pocket, he went to the bank for some money and was told he couldn't cash a check, make a withdrawal, or take any action with his account except to make a deposit. The amount he owed for child support was the equivalent of $80 (U.S.), but his entire account balance of more than $500 was frozen. He had no money for transportation, no money for food, no money for rent . . . no money at all! But this outrageous incident didn't happen in Cuba. No, I misled you about that. It happened in the democratic "paradise" of New York State. And stories like it -- some much worse -- are duplicated millions of times across the country. In the specific incident I'm referring to, the actual money amounts are ten times what I described above, but all the other facts are true. And this happened on a Friday, late in the day, too late for the father to get in touch with the "child protection" agency that froze his account. He needed gas for his car, food for the weekend, and change for bridge tolls, and a few days later he would need money for a mortgage payment, electric bill, and telephone bill. He has more than enough funds at the bank to meet all these obligations, but he can't write a check or access an ATM; he can't get his hands on a nickel of his own money! And how is he supposed to go to work and earn an income, if he can't even pay for gas for his automobile? If some "child protection" clerk has a bad day and decides not to take immediate action when the father calls, not long thereafter, the electricity will be disconnected, telephone service terminated, and the poor man will be in serious trouble. And by the way, telephone calls are only accepted by the "child protection" agency between 9:00 and 10:30 in the morning. If you miss that window, you'll have to wait a full day. Also: if all the operators are busy when you call, you can leave a message, but according to policy, it will take from 48 to 72 hours for the agency to call you back. If you have bills due in a day or two, tough. Had the father written a check just prior to the account freeze, the check would have bounced, and the father's credit might be in jeopardy. With credit problems, his license to sell insurance could be revoked, leaving him without any source of income. If his ex-wife is spiteful enough and wicked enough, she can simply give the word and dad will immediately be hauled off to jail. You can imagine what good that would do. But such actions are taken nevertheless, and have become "routine" nowadays. U.S. courts all over American sanction these draconian measures to "get" deadbeat dads and prevent them from defaulting on their payments. But they're also "wounding" and in some cases "killing off" good, honest, sincere dads who are just going through some tough times. Fathers who think this is unfair, get upset, and raise their voices with their ex-wives should beware. At least in New York State, wifey can complain to a judge and force the father to attend temper-management classes. Guess who pays. The father. Most of the others at the gathering had the same opinion. There was no real debate. Subsequent to that discussion I began to give some serious consideration to the subject, and it soon became clear that life is too precious to be sacrificed at the alter of convenience. This is now so abundantly clear, I wonder how I could have been so embarrassingly wrong with my earlier pronouncement. In retrospect, I believe I was merely reflecting mainstream media bias. Constant reinforcement of the idea -- it's the woman's right to choose -- in the absence of any competing viewpoint, led me unconsciously to my position. I was one of the millions of consumers of information who thought I was getting balance, but was only getting propaganda. Positions are always easy if you don't know there's another side to an issue. About ten years ago a number of us rented a bus to take us to a political event of some kind in Orlando. Someone mentioned the John Birch Society, and immediately emotion swelled up inside me. Why, that organization is bad. It's un-American. It's dangerous. It's evil! But then logic and common sense took over. Who said it was so awful? How was it that I had such immediate and strong aversion to the JBS? Where did I get my information? I got all of my information from the mainstream media. They were the ones who instilled in me the fear, anger, and hate. With their incessant one-sided, biased perspective, I had adopted their loathing and rancor without the benefit of any opposing view. In the years since, I've found JBS and its publication, The New American, to be good and noble forces acting in the interest of America. So in whose interest were the mainstream media acting? And thus I conclude media influence has been so powerful and stealthy, most Americans cling to positions they would readily discard if a fair debate were permitted. So, my reaction to the Rathergate scandal is not: Isn't this terrible; Dan Rather deliberately misled the public in an attempt to get John Kerry elected. My reaction is: this time he was caught; how many other times did his deceptions and unethical behavior mislead the public? And how many times did the bias of Jennings and Browkaw and Chris Mathews, et. al. propagandize us successfully? And what have been the consequences of all this chicanery? I have a video tape: "Television's Vietnam" (Accuracy in Media, 1984 and 1985), a two-part presentation of how the media misreported the war for their own purposes. It shows how false media stories contributed to the loss of American will to fight the Communists. The North Vietnam army didn't win the war; the U.S. media did -- but not for America. I have another tape: "The 60-Minute Deception" (Citizens for Honest Government, 1997). It documents how the 60-Minutes TV program and host Mike Wallace smeared Chris Ruddy. It was a masterful hatchet job, with clever editing, lighting, questions. Chris was made to look like a bumbling fool. I assume most viewers concluded he (Chris) didn't know what he was talking about (the death of Vince Foster). Thanks to the video, I now understand how vicious, deceitful, and effective the mainstream media are. The mainstream media continue to preach their leftist message. On all critical issues, they hammer away relentlessly. For example: the environment. In an e-mail exchange, a friend of mine wrote, "global warming is now substantiated by a multitude of scientific findings from all over the world. How you can trivialize all this evidence escapes me." I can only conclude he is one of the great multitude that has bought into the global warming scare. Without the benefit of any information to the contrary, he is absolutely convinced man's selfishness, pollution, and stupidity (and large population numbers) are resulting in melting glaciers, raising sea levels, increasing incidents of skin cancer (from bigger ozone holes), and the eventual total destruction of the planet. Of course those in the media aren't the only ones with leftist agendas. Hollywood, almost our entire education system (K through PhD), countless tax-free foundations, much of the publishing industry, many courts, and others on the left are all partners in the hoax. They advance their big-government, redistribution, socialist agendas by coloring stories, withholding information, simple bias, and simple lies. The good news is that finally voices are rising to fill the long-time vacuum. Talk radio, the Internet, and FOX news are proving the public craves both sides of issues. And as more information becomes available, there's hope the leftists' "vision" won't prevail. But at present, there's no end in sight for this conflict. Well, of course!, you may be saying to yourself. Okay, let's test your mettle. Suppose a small mosque is constructed across the way from where you live. And suppose the call to prayer is made every two hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Each call is only two minutes long, but the voice is loud, high-pitched, and very irritating. So irritating in fact, that the dogs in the neighborhood -- and there are many -- begin barking aggressively whenever the call sounds, and they yelp, bay, and howl for up to a half hour. Still feeling tolerant? Suppose an abandon store front over on Main Street is purchased by a group called the Church of the Worshipped Canine. It has a very small congregation, which meets every Sunday morning at 10 for a quite service. There are no calls to worship, not even any hymn singing, but there is a sacrifice performed each week. The throat of an adult, live cocker spaniel is slit, and each church-goer takes a sip of its blood while the dog writhes in agony before it dies. How's your tolerance holding up now? Suppose your next-door neighbor decides to begin a religion called the Church of Higher Consciousness. He wants to be a real religious guy, so he holds services every night from 8 to 10. You can take your own drugs to consume or you can accept drugs he'll give you . . . in exchange for a generous donation. Still feel tolerant? Suppose a religious sect states publicly that all practitioners are expected to convert non-believers to the religion. And if a non-believer isn't willing to convert, then he or she must be slain. That seems to equate pretty closely to the teachings of the Wahhabi movement of Islam, but good, tolerant USA folks don't want to be judgmental, insensitive, bigoted people, so we have nothing but good things to say about Islam. The President says its followers are all wonderful people. The Post Office releases a stamp in honor of the religion. We let Islam leaders solicit new members in the U.S. armed forces, in our prisons, and in our schools we openly, aggressively teach Islam. My, what a marvelously tolerant people we are. Except, of course, of Christianity. We've seen numerous attempts by Congress to list vitamins and minerals as drugs (those efforts continue). I've found vitamin C very effective for me in limiting and even preventing colds, and lots of other people have had the same experience, but vitamin-C manufacturers can't claim that effectiveness, even with the substantiation of extensive tests and research. What in the world is going on? The TV ad stated that food providers are employing special additives to get us "hooked" on certain foods. I don't know if that's true, but we're told too many of us are overweight. Interestingly, we're reportedly more overweight than people in other countries. Hmmm. Of course long ago the Coca-Cola people used derivatives from coca leaves (cocaine) to make drinking that product addictive, but am I to believe companies today are so irresponsible and revenue-driven that they would knowingly, willingly sacrifice the wellbeing of their customers? Am I to believe our government is more committed to the health and wellbeing of the food and pharmaceutical industries than to the health and wellbeing of U.S. citizens? Am I to believe there's a giant conspiracy underway with massive political contributions going to our elected representatives who then tweak the laws to benefit food and drug producers, and manipulate FDA guidelines for the same purpose? My tendency is to conclude: yes. So Christianity is a religion, but, although many would disagree, I think Humanism is, too. (ACD definition of Humanism: "Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests predominate."). And Humanism is the belief system of much of the Left, particularly those, like the ACLU folks, who want to remove Christian symbols and Christian meaning from America. Their mantra is incessant: the separation of church and state. But, as is so often the case, they are misleading and deceptive. Anti-Christians are not purists seeking to re-establish Constitutional integrity. They are not patriots endeavoring to right wrongs perpetrated on the people. They are merely activists striving to displace Christian values and establish in their place the values of their own religion: Humanism. Let's make some comparisons:
Humanism is pretty well established now in the government schools. So the advocates are broadening their charge to other segments of life in America. Read their plan. Decide for yourself if you want our traditions and values trashed and replaced with those of the Humanists. Years ago, a friend of mine, Dick Mueller, liked to pose this teaser: How many life guards should be put on the beach? Theoretically, the more placed on watch, the more lives saved. Society accepts the present lifeguard/swimmer ratio, in spite of the fact that people continue to drown. It's a measure of the value of life. If the speed limit were lowered to, let's say, 10 mph, highway deaths would plummet. The public is so anxious to travel at 65 to 70 miles an hour, it is willing to accept 41,000 automobile-caused deaths per year (source), a rather tragic result, we'd have to agree. (Many Americans think two one-hundredths of that number is too many deaths to pay for the war on terror.) Here's another measure: What's the value of the life of a man or woman in terms of eagles saved from destruction? Society has answered that question. To rescue bald eagles from "certain death", DDT was banned. But there have been unintended consequences. (Or, perhaps they were intended consequences.) Millions of people around the world have now paid with their own lives to save bald eagles from death. Society has, in effect, determined it's "worth it" to ban DDT to "save" eagles, even though the human suffering and death is inestimable. The calculation: about 100,000 spared eagles equals 100,000,000 human casualties (rough estimates) -- casualties that could have been prevented with DDT. (By the way, it's not scientifically clear that banning DDT had any influence on bald eagle longevity rates. And DDT remains banned in spite of the fact it has been found to harm neither man nor beast.) How much is a baby worth? Not much to many. Once he or she has "crossed the finish line" (that is, he or she has been separated from his or her mother), the price goes up dramatically, but while in the birth canal, the nearly newborn is in grave danger. Inside a mother is one of the most dangerous places in America. In some cases, the value of the almost-born is less than worthless, because some mothers will pay thousands of dollars to be rid of this "gift of life". We must recognize that the only difference between a completely normal birth and partial birth abortion is that for the abortion procedure, the "doctor" intentionally kills the tiny human being just before it is allowed to enter the world. (See the result here, if you can bear to look atrocity in the face.) There was a time when doctors signed the Oath of Hippocrates. By doing so they vowed, "I will keep them [those they care for] from harm and injustice", "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy". Now the profession charged with tending to our health is participating in the willful murder of countless citizens, some 38 million from 1973 to 1998 (source). It must be close to fifty million today. The Declaration of Independence says, ". . . all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Emphasis added.) There can be no liberty or the pursuit of happiness without first life. I was told a favorite Tipper story was when she first went with Al Gore to meet his parents. Obviously, this was a time of great anxiety as she wanted to make a good impression and she wanted to be on her very best behavior. According to the story, Tipper had a pet skunk -- properly "de-scented" of course -- and she and Al took the animal along with them for the big meeting. Of course the senior Gores, being people of great wealth and influence, had a home and adjoining property commensurate with their rank and station. Well, it seems that during all the excitement, the skunk somehow got loose, and began scampering about the mansion. Then it escaped through an open door or window to the great outdoors. Naturally, Tipper and Al began a search, and as luck would have it, came upon Mr. Skunk fairly quickly. That was the good news. The bad news was that Mr. Skunk was not their cute little pet, but an actual from-the-wild, scent-facilities-fully-operational animal. When they returned to the mansion, Mr. Skunk became displeased and expressed his displeasure as is his breed's custom. Reportedly, the carpeting, drapery, curtains, and everything else were saturated, and the whole house reeked. I'm sure that was a very memorable first impression, but I'm not so sure the tale is true. The woman who told me, however, said she believed it! Obviously, terrorism must rank high on the list. The day terrorists unleash a concerted WMD attack here, particularly nuclear or biological, will be a real day of infamy! It is likely to bring this country to its knees. But there are other serious threats. I consider the United Nations anathema to U.S. interests and the survival of capitalism and our republic. In spite of its corruption, ineptitude, and malevolence, this world governing agency is still embraced by many, most of whom are of the liberal persuasion. UN power and influence continue to grow even in the face of the atrocious Oil-for-Food scandal, arguably the most monstrous scandal in world history. The UN must be defanged. It must be shut down. It must be buried in the trashheap of misguided, hazardous ideas. I think another threat to U.S. wellbeing is our current moral deficit. The popular fad of impiousness and permissiveness has spawned tolerance of immorality and turpitude. A country cannot be great if its people aren't good. (I believe Alexis de Tocqueville was the first to make this point.) But it's liberals, I conclude, who are most responsible for the moral degradation. Still another major threat to our wellbeing is, in my opinion, the government schools. Public schools have now reached the point where they are not teaching facts and how to think; they are teaching attitudes, values and beliefs -- what to think. This is dangerous and serious, and it must be corrected soon if the U.S. expects to retain its position of leadership and dominance in the world. Once again, the responsibility for this sad state of affairs rests firmly on the shoulders of the left. So, as I see it, except for Muslim terrorism (which we must not underestimate), and out-of-control illegal immigration (which I didn't mention above, but is also a serious worry), lying at the heart of the major threats to America today is liberalism. Pat Buchanan was right. We are fighting a culture war. Will the traditions, values, and morality that made this country great prevail? Or will we yield to the left's world view and relinquish our greatness? But when it comes to a life-style that has a devastatingly negative impact on health and longevity, they're on the wrong side of the issue. I'm talking about homosexuality. Mike Thompson, in his book, What's the Difference? (page 79) describes the magnitude of the problem: Far from promoting a style of life, homosexuality engenders actuarial rates that dramatize the lethality of same-sex activity, particularly for male practitioners. Fact: The average homosexual American male has a life span of barely 40 years (much shorter than for alcoholics or heavy cigarette smokers). A reasonable healthy heterosexual male, on the other hand, can expect to live a third of a century longer than a gay man, 33 more years.So, what gives? Why do liberals tell us to stop smoking, so we'll live longer; stop eating so much so we'll live longer; yet condone, embrace, even encourage homosexuality? I think the answer is: liberals aren't compassionate, they're control freaks. They wish to impose on us what they decide is proper behavior. They are determined to force everybody to do as they say, because they're convinced they're wiser, kinder, and better than we are. If elections don't go their way, they conclude the people who voted are dumb. If the law doesn't go their way and they are unable to get legislation in accord with their wishes, they get like-minded judges to manufacture law where it didn't before exist. If they still don't get their way, then as a last resort, they simply ignore the law. Thus, liberal mayors performed hundreds of gay marriages in spite of very clear laws prohibiting such actions. Liberals demand obedience to their view of the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer freedom. And I'm definitely against it without good answers to a couple of key questions. First: how much is it going to cost? The "experts" tell us the price tag will be $7.8 billion and the project won't be completed for at least 20 years. (Source.) Hmmm. Do we really need to seize so much taxpayer money (from citizens all the across the country, I might add) for such a project? Moreover, what is estimated today to cost $7.8 billion will in all likelihood cost closer to double that, or more, by the time the project's finished. Just ask the Big Dig folks. Next, the CERP promises to restore the Everglades -- that's the whole purpose, we're told -- but restore it to what? What it was ten years ago? A hundred years ago? A thousand years ago? And of course that's the trick. The public doesn't know and even the planners themselves don't know, because it's not going to be restored. It's going to be "changed" into something it isn't today and never has been in the past. So the whole idea of "restoration" is a scam, but a very successful one, as the CERP has been approved and is moving ahead full steam. Read what's posted about the CERP on some of the many Everglades restoration websites. They talk about the beauty and majesty of the Everglades. For example: "They are, they have always been, one of the unique regions of the earth, remote, never wholly known. Nothing anywhere else is like them: their vast glittering openness, wider than the enormous visible round of the horizon, the racing free saltness and sweetness of their massive winds, under the dazzling blue heights of space. They are unique also in the simplicity, the diversity, and the related harmony of the forms of life they enclose. The miracle of light pours over the green and brown expanse of saw grass and of water, shining and slow-moving below, the grass and water that is the central fact of the Everglades of Florida. It is a river of grass."Tell me why it's necessary to not only protect the existing Everglades but to enlarge it as the CERP envisions. Do we need even more "vast glittering openness"? Why? For whom? The bugs, birds, and alligators? Then the websites talk about how the Everglades is in terrible, terrible trouble, because of evil humanity and our desire to build homes and live here. We are careless and thoughtless, and we badly mistreat this sacred "river of grass", which has now been named a United Nations World Heritage Site: "Today, discharges to the Everglades are often too much, or too little, and frequently at the wrong times of the year. An over abundance or scarcity of water affects plants and wildlife accustomed to the Everglades’ historic range of water flows and levels. . . ." (Source.) Please tell me just who or what will stop us from discharging "too much" or "too little" water in the future? And by the way, who determines what's "too much" or "too little"? What the websites and the "experts" don't explain is how unproven technology, proven incompetence, a vast bureaucracy, and total government control are going to solve the Everglades' "problems". It's a little like expecting the United Nations to rule the world without selfishness, corruption, and fallacy. About ten years ago, I spoke during a citizen-comment portion of a meeting of the "Restudy" Project (later renamed CERP). My point was that the name, itself, "Restudy", was undescriptive and inappropriate. I suggested instead: the "Boondoggle" Project. As I understand it, some time before Christmas there was a secret meeting with "important" people, like Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); Timothy E. Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation; Richard C. Holbrooke, United States ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton; and Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General; among others. The location was Holbrooke's apartment and the purpose was to discover a way to improve the image of the U.N. The day after Christmas, that terrible tsunami hit the Indian Ocean. All of a sudden there were reports about how Bush was slow to respond to the tragedy, how he remained at his ranch and wasn't sufficiently concerned about all the death and destruction. There were charges he was late in sending sympathy to the affected countries and delinquent in contacting their leaders. The initial U.S. relief commitment of $15 million, made a day after the disaster, but before full reports of damage were known, was criticized as being stingy and uncompassionate. At the same time, the U.N. was receiving rave reviews in its reaction to the tsunami. A December 29th article in the New York Times by Warren Hoge praised Annan for assuming the leadership role in assistance coordination. The headline: "U.N. Leader Taking Reins of Relief Effort". "Tonight," said Sam Champion, December 28th, sitting in for Larry King on his TV program, "an exclusive. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan speaks out, in his first and only TV interview in this catastrophe." Bush was blasted, Annan was lauded, but it turns out Bush was back from "vacation" before Annan was. For his interview on Larry King Live, Annan spoke by telephone from an "undisclosed location" (Jackson Hole, Wyoming). Moreover, official White House statements were released to the public before any UN pronouncements were made. The day after the tsunami, White House spokesman Trent Duffy announced Bush had sent letters of condolence to leaders of the seven affected countries. But that timeline is inconvenient when you want to spin the news. Leslie Gelb (an attendee at the secret meeting) said, "They [the administration] made up for . . . lost ground . . . But many people around the world won't forget the delay." Delay? What delay? There wasn't a delay. As the AIM Report (January 11, 2005) states, "It would have been nice if Hoge [and the New York Times] had put it all together, making it plain that what we were witnessing was a public relations campaign to use the tsunami to make the U.S. look bad and the U.N. look good. And how many other mainstream media reports are merely propaganda? The whole abortion-rights movement is a good example of today's improbity. Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of the pro-abortion group NARAL (originally known as The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, then The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) described the early days of the movement: "I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," he said, reminiscing about the origin of the phrases "pro-choice", "freedom of choice" and "women must have control over their own bodies". "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical." "Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. "Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. "Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization." Did you believe Dan Rather when he said documented proof substantiated his allegations about George Bush? Did you believe the guy who angrily asserted: "I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"? Did you believe the claims of the pharmaceutical companies about all those products they subsequently pulled from the market? Did you believe the glowing financial reports from Enron and WorldCom? Did you believe in the integrity of the New York Times prior to the Jason Blair fiasco? Did you believe OJ Simpson when he said he'd devote the rest of his life searching for the killer of his ex-wife? Did you believe Janet Jackson when she said her nationally televised exhibition was simply a wardrobe malfunction? Did you believe the "statistics" and the "survey results" (described above) of the pro-abortion advocates? And now, when liberals shout: "second-hand smoke kills 50,000 people a year" (or whatever the number is that they're currently touting), do you accept the assertion as fact? When the eco-maniacs scream: "Man-caused global warming will raise the oceans levels ten inches and flood thousands of square miles of land," do you run for high ground? When reports concluding Vince Foster committed suicide, did you think: case closed? The good news is that with discernment, common sense, and the Internet, Americans have a better chance now of finding the truth than ever before. The bad news: lots and lots of people are working very hard to sustain the big lies. Source of the Nathanson quotes: "The Media Matrix," by David Kupelian, Whistleblower, October 2004, pages 21-22. Address: PO Box 2450, Fair Oaks, California 95628. Phone: 916-852-6300. Fax: 916-852-6302. Website. See also this website regarding Nathanson. That's what hate-crime laws are all about. They're designed to discern the thinking of criminals and mete out penalties accordingly. My first reaction to this is: what about equal treatment under the law? If Jack, a white, hates Catholics and the pizza place owner, a white, is Catholic, why isn't Jack's crime a hate crime? And of course the answer is that the equal-treatment-under-the-law aspect of justice has been quietly subverted. It's now okay to hate Catholics under the law; it's not okay to hate blacks. Amazingly, it seems okay for blacks to hate whites during lawlessness, without -- in many instances -- severe consequences. My second reaction is: just who put the government in the business of reading our minds and determining who hates whom? If Jake only mildly hates blacks, is he still guilty of a hate-crime? If Jake admits to merely occasional dislike of blacks, is it still a hate-crime? If Jake loves 98% of the blacks, but hates 2%, what then? Apparently the hate-crime laws in Canada, in some parts of Europe, and here in the U.S. force judges and juries to make all these imponderable determinations. As soon as you start penalizing people for what they think and what they feel, you've just established the thought police and destroyed individual freedom. William Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, observed: "In the '40s, '50s, '60s and even '70s, we were taught that the difference between the free world and the communist bloc was that in the free world if you committed a crime, you were going to go to jail for what you did, but in the Soviet Union and other countries, you would go to jail for what you thought." He continued: "Hate-crime laws are not really hate-crimes laws -- they are really hate-thought laws. We have a movement in the entire Western world [. . .] for people to go to jail for what they think." The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . ." Yet, we're now making laws abridging the freedom of thought! And lots of folks, particularly on the left, seem to think that's just fine. But that seems to raise a question: just what are moral values? My dictionary says morality is "conformity to the rules of right conduct, moral or virtuous conduct." Of course, but what is that? Many people might consider morality simply following the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. On the other hand, some might point to the Ten Commandments as a practical guide to proper moral conduct. But, as we all know, many liberals don't like the Ten Commandments. They don't want them posted in schools where they could be a positive influence on the young and impressionable. They don't want them on display in the public square where they can remind the general public about good behavior. I guess they don't like the idea we should honor our mother and father, that we shouldn't kill, or commit adultery, or steal, or lie, and so on. Yes, these moral imperatives are derived from the Bible. And liberals don't like the Bible. But since that's the case, just where do they go to formulate their guide for morality? The answer seems to be: they simply decide for themselves. If it's inconvenient to tell the truth, then that's not part of their morality. If adultery is something they choose to engage in, then that's outside their moral code as well. If cheating a customer or an associate gets them a result they want, then they may stipulate such an action is okay. I'm sure the ACLU would be quick to aver their hostility toward the Ten Commandments has everything to do with separating church and state and nothing to do with proper moral conduct, but as I discussed in my December 20, 2004 Thoughts item, that argument is nothing but subterfuge. So, liberals -- those who so often claim moral superiority over the rest of us -- have a morality guide they write in pencil. And they carry a big eraser. Those who follow Christian or Jewish teachings don't have such flexibility. They don't consider what was written on the tablets to be the Ten Suggestions. In a like way, liberals want the U.S. Constitution to be a "work in progress", subject to constant revision and update in accord with their latest "thinking", while conservatives hold to the idea that the Constitution is a rock, which supports the rule of law and gives our country morality, fairness, and prosperity. Both sides cannot win in this culture war. The winner will define America for a long time to come. (See also: "The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part II," by Dennis Prager.) Conservatives subscribe to the wisdom of Daniel Webster: "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not clulster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold onto the Constitution, for if the American Constitutional should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." Liberals clearly wish to ignore Webster's admonition. They're anxious to revise the Constitution, reinterpret it, or ignore it altogether in some circumstances. (Here's a good example.) Liberal Senators are quick to invoke the filabuster to block George Bush judicial nominees, in spite of the fact the Constitution does not give them that prerogative. Liberal state supreme court justices endorse homosexual marriage, in the face of laws prohibiting it. A liberal mayor in California and another in New York State chose to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, while state law -- law they vowed to uphold -- prohibits such action. The people pass referenda (in California, for example), but liberal judges quickly issue restraining orders to invalidate the democratic process. The U.S. Congress passes a ban on partial birth abortion, and immediately, judges around the country rule the ban invalid. Liberals don't seem interested in following the law; they seem intent on remolding it to their own personal liking. I was amazed a little over four years ago while watching a debate between Al Gore and Bill Bradley. Each tried to out-do the other with promises of Constitutional changes and revisions. Neither wanted to "hold on" to the Constitution; both wanted to rewrite it. The anti-Christian movement that liberals seem so anxious to strengthen, leaves them with a canundrum: How can they subscribe to the founding principle of these United States, namely: "that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."? Of course they can't, because they do not recognize a Creator. But, without a Creator, there can be no Creator-endowed unalienable Rights, so liberals must intrinsically reject the Declaration of Independence, and this country's most important founding principle. Conservatives see the liberal movement as a direct attack on our freedom and our country's future, for it is indeed just that. Thomas Jefferson states the conservatives' case: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." Oh, wait, they just did that last one with the release of the movie "Kinsey", starring Liam Neeson and Laura Linney. According to Dr. Judith Reisman, author of Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences and Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution, Alfred C. Kinsey and his "research" team: "'forced' subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals."1 So he intentionally and vindictively misled the American public (and the world) into thinking repugnant sexual conduct was vastly more common than it really was, while posing as an ethical and honest scientist. And he empowered men all across the land to view their more depraved "instincts" as normal, valid, and worthy of fulfilment. But his influence has been much greater than just public thinking. His corruption has now been translated into public policy. As a result of Kinsey's passion for perversion and his 1948 publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, "Kinsey is far and away the most influential sex scientist in the law. Fully 100 percent of the sex science citations in the original 1955 American Law Institute's 'Model Penal Code' cite Kinsey's bogus data on 'normal sexuality'."2 "'Gay liberationists in general, and boy-lovers in particular, should know Kinsey's work and hold it dear,' says one NAMBLA publication."3 "To sum it all up, today virtually everything having to do with sex -- from attitudes toward extramarital sex and homosexuality, to the nation's sex-education curricula, to the ways medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and even the criminal justice system define and deal with sexual pathology -- is rooted firmly in the ludicrously fraudulent 'data' of Kinsey and his cult of criminally deviant sex 'researchers'."4 And this is the man and the legacy Hollywood now chooses to celebrate. The dirty, little (and not-so-little) secrets of Dr. Kinsey have been known for decades, yet there are individuals and groups who wish to ignore them. Clearly Hollywood is one of the groups. The Rockefeller Foundation, which funded Kinsey, is another. Indiana University's Kinsey Institute still promotes Kinsey's findings. Hugh Hefner, after reading Kinsey's book, created Playboy magazine, opened Playboy clubs, and promoted the "Playboy philosophy". Upon reading Kinsey's book, Harry Hay left his wife and children and campaigned to legitimize sodomy. He established the Mattachine Society and became father of the "gay rights" revolution that started in the '60s.5 And last but not least: the mainstream media participate in this scandal by downplaying or completely ignoring the Kinsey debacle. There are many on the left who champion Kinsey's work and endorse his morality. 1. "Selling Sex in the U.S.A." by David Kupelian, Whistleblower, November 2004, page 13. Address: PO Box 2450, Fair Oaks, California 95628. Phone: 916-852-6300. Fax: 916-852-6302. Website.  Thoughts for 1999. Thoughts for 2000. Thoughts for 2001. Thoughts for 2002. Thoughts for 2003. Thoughts for First half of 2004. Second half of 2004.The way back home. |
Government Run Amok
e-Mailbox1
It's Been Said
Must Read 
Poems
Picture This
Quickies
Say What? 
This & That
Thoughts
Xtra