Multiculturalism . . . does not simply seek to assimilate or integrate cultural or racial minorities into the fabric of American society, but rather to destroy the fabric entirely and to place the alternative 'cultures' it champions in positions of cultural and political supremacy."

Multicultural education demands the removal of the American system. . . If we want power, we're going to have to take it. . . Multiculturalism is about creating a revolution. . . .

Quite simply, [. . .] America lost its grasp of its own historic character, and embraced "diversity" as a national goal. In the name of equality and nondiscrimination we invited mass immigration from every part of the globe, and made no demands on the newcomers to become Americans. In fact, we gave up our American core, adopted multiculturalism and declared all cultures equal. We invited the new groups to celebrate themselves while we cravenly permitted libelous denigration of our own past. Like fools we prated that diversity is our strength, when common sense and all of history tell us that strength comes from unity.

Absolute nondiscrimination meant we no longer enforced standards, made judgments, distinguished between good and evil, friend and foe. We grew lazy, stupid and careless -- about our borders, about national security, even about previous terrorist attacks against us. We worried over our "hate crimes" and our "racial profiling," while men resided in our midst who seethed with murderous fury even against our children, and plotted our destruction. Now we have a fifth column, fear further assaults and labor under a draconian security regime that is changing the nature of our lives.

[A]fter several decades of public education that reflects not the values of the nation's founders, but those of '60s radicals and reformers, millions of Americans are just plain confused. The farther we stray from the rock of unchanging spiritual principles, the easier it is to get swept away by clever appeals to our feelings -- including the need to prove to others that we a "tolerant." Increasingly, that means "tolerant" of evil. [. . .]

[O]ut of pure hatred -- the same rage and rebellion institutionalized in communism, Nazism and all the other "isms" that have paved the world's roads with corpses throughout the last century -- haters of Truth scheme to extinguish this shining light [the American experiment]. So they concoct an absurd, fantastic ruse -- that cannibal societies are as worthwhile as Western ones, that animals should have the same rights as human beings, that white people are inherently racist and oppressive, that sexual perversion is perfectly normal and noble, each passing year bringing new and more bizarre delusions to be held up as truth.

How much stranger still that we've bought it.

- Pennsylvania State University's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom was banned because its constitution and mission statement, which identified rights as "God-given," constituted religious "discrimination," because the words reflected a "devotion to god."

- Florida's Indian River College prohibited a student-organized screening of "The Passion of the Christ" by the Christian Student Fellowship because the film was too offensive. This same college administration has allowed a live performance entitled "F**king for Jesus" that described simulated sex with "the risen Christ."

- Purdue University informed a Christian women's housing group, the Stewart Cooperative, that it would have to sign a "nondiscrimination" policy that effectively barred this Christian group from being Christian.

- Ball State University told the Christian Student Foundation that it was required to adopt language in its constitution that would violate its fundamental biblical principles.

- Williams College sent a memo to its religious student groups instructing them to adopt "nondiscrimination" language or lose the ability to exist on campus. Williams justified this imposition by asserting that its mandate was "completely dictated by the Federal Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights guidelines for non-discrimination."

o Their clock radio goes off at 7 AM. The Federal Communications Commission regulates not only the airwaves used by their favorite radio station, but also the content of the programming.
o The radio is powered by electricity provided by a utility regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
o The label on their mattress is regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
o Their cotton sheets are regulated by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
o John uses toothpaste, soap, and shampoo regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. If his shampoo was tested on animals, those testing procedures were regulated by the USDA, as well as by National Science Foundation research protocols.
o The quality of water running out of John's shower is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. John finds it hard to rinse shampoo out of his hair, due to his low-flow showerhead, mandated by the Department of Energy.
o Jane must flush their low-flow toilet twice. Its low capacity is required by the Energy Policy Act.
o Jane's coffee and sugar she adds to it are regulated by the FDA and USDA, as well as by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
o The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service artificially inflates the price of milk Jane uses in her coffee, as well as the price of cheese, butter, and other dairy products.
o The fruit Jane serves for breakfast is regulated by the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service.
o After breakfast, John drives the children to school. The kids have to ride in the back seat, because passenger air bags required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have killed children riding in the front. John always buckles his seat belt, but is no safer with airbags, which NHTSA design standards ensure will protect adults who do not buckle.
o Baseball helmets the kids take to school are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
o The lunch they eat in the school cafeteria is regulated by the Department of Agriculture.
o Jane takes her SUV to work. She would have preferred a station wagon, but auto manufacturers stopped making them when they couldn't meet National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's fuel economy (or CAFE) standards. Up to now, SUVs have been exempt from CAFE standards, but that exemption will end soon.
o Jane takes a roundabout route to her office because the most direct route is reserved for "high occupancy vehicles" during rush hour times. States must provide HOV lanes and roads for carpools or forfeit federal highway funds, thanks to the EPA's air quality State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
o Department of Labor rules, covering employees' benefits where Jane works, and also civil rights, hiring and firing practices, labor relations, and occupational safety, are estimated to cost Americans in excess of $90 billion per year.
o John wants to build a deck for his house, but can't until he receives a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. His neighbors didn't get a permit and the Corp told them their property was a wetland.
o For supper John and Jane bake a frozen pizza. The Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service dictates its composition: "meat pizza," must be bread-based with tomato sauce, cheese, and meat toppings containing cooked meat made from not less than 15 percent raw meat. Their cheese pizza, however, is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
o After dinner, Jane calls her mother, at rates constrained by the Federal Communication Commission.
o John fills his pipe and lights it. His tobacco is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, part of the Department of Treasury.
o Then John works on his tax forms, as mandated by federal tax code. The code is contained in four large books, each of which is thicker than the Bible. On the other hand, the Code of Federal Regulations consumes 25 feet of shelf space. It's estimated they cost an average family more than $8,000 a year, in addition to what John and Jane pay in income taxes.

• The Constitution is meaningless. How can Congress appropriate billions of dollars of pork when there's nothing in the Constitution that permits them to do so? Answer: our elected officials ignore that document whenever it suits their pleasure. (This wasn't always the case.)

• Blacks and other minorities can't make it without special help. How else can you explain affirmative action? By definition, affirmative action is treating people unequally. But our Declaration of Independence states it's a self-evident Truth that all Men are created equal, and we declare with pride that in America there's equal justice under the law. Well, there isn't. Not as long as affirmative action is embraced by our government and its agencies.

• You are not innocent until proven guilty. Not in matters concerning the IRS. There, you have to prove to a bunch of clerks that all claims you make on your tax return are true. They don't have to prove a thing. And if some bureaucrat doesn't like you, he or she can deny your claim even if you prove you're right. You're also guilty and must prove you're innocent if you're male and you must appear before a judge in a child-custody case. Almost without exception the mother takes custody, regardless of the evidence. In Florida and probably elsewhere, a man can be forced to pay child-support even if there's undeniable proof he's not the father. And if you're a parent and some Children and Families agent doesn't think you're doing a proper parenting job, your kids can be taken from you. You're guilty then, too, until you prove otherwise. And your proof must convince a bureaucrat, not a judge or jury.

• The Rule of Law is meaningless. What's the most significant characteristic of illegal aliens? Yes, of course: they're illegal. But that doesn't matter to lots of government folks, who look the other way so they won't have to prosecute illegals for breaking the law. Moreover, some government agencies encourage illegals to get drivers' licenses, which, with motor/voter laws on the books, allow them to vote. U.S. District Judge Richard D. Rogers recently ruled that illegal aliens can take advantage of in-state tuition at a Kansas collage. That's something legal out-of-state citizens can't get.

• The government can take your private property. No "private property [shall] be taken for public use without just compensation." That's what Amendment V of our Constitution says, but the Constitution was written before the Endangered Species Act was passed. Now the government can move onto your property, declare something endangered, and all of a sudden your property isn't yours. And of course the Supreme Court ruling in the recent Kelo v. City of New London case now makes it possible for the government to snatch your property whenever it wishes, endangered species or not.

• What you think can be criminal. It used to be that if you broke the law, you were punished. That's no longer sufficient. Now, if you break the law and you do so with hateful thoughts, you are punished more severely. This is astonishing. The government pretends to look into your innermost thoughts and determine if an action you took was hate-based. And where in the Constitution is thought-divining sanctioned? I can't find it.

• You can be taxed more than once. My father, who was an estate attorney very familiar with tax law, used to tell me double taxation wasn't legal. Well, it is now. You can pay taxes for a lifetime, but when you die your money is taxed again. Is that fair? Is it legal? Is it moral? Doesn't matter. It's done.

• The government interferes with religion. The First Amendment states quite clearly: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]," but state and federal governments interfere all the time. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kartlon, following precedent set by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled it's unconstitutional to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Monuments to the Ten Commandments are removed all over the country. A simple drawing of a small cross is forcibly removed from the seal of the County of Los Angeles. And the Supreme Court is so befuddled by the idea of separation of church and state [which is an idea not in the Constitution], it prohibits displays of the Ten Commandments at courthouses and public schools in Kentucky, but allows, with an opinion the same day, the Ten Commandments to be displayed at the Texas State Capitol.

"The organized sodomites, who constitute a tiny fraction of our society -- 1 to 2 percent [. . .] have been given carte blanche to 'overhaul straight America.' You may not know it, but you are being psychologically overhauled to accept the homosexual revolution 'whether you like it or not.'

"Welcome to the 'queering of America.' That's how the radical homosexual strategists themselves refer to their insidious crusade to remake our society and our entire culture in their image. They know they cannot succeed totally in the legislatures and the courts unless and until they have transformed our culture. This means saturating our popular cultural media with homosexual and lesbian characters, themes, styles, and symbols.

"This also means placing homosexual and lesbian characters into virtually every sitcom, soap, and drama on television. And it has gone far beyond that, of course. Programs like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Queer Eye for the Straight Girl, and The L Word are total propaganda platforms for the superiority of homosexuals over straights.

"This subversive crafting of the program content of network and cable TV is dictated by a contingent of homo-lesbo executives, artists, and consultants known in the trade as the Velvet Mofia or the Lavender Mob. [. . .]

"The revolutionary nature of [. . .] recent events was noted by the Chicago Tribune's Web Behrens. [. . .] After reciting a string of recent 'gay' TV episodes, including the Simpsons, Behrens wrote: 'When you consider that, just a decade ago, any one of these recent episodes would have been cause for much hand-wringing, protests and even boycotts, the word revolution is no exaggeration. So how did American culture arrive at this place?' [. . .]

"[The] entire strategy was laid out in minute detail in 1989, in a book entitled After the Ball: How American Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's.

"The authors, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen [. . .] state: 'By conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American way of life. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack. [. . .] We're talking about propaganda.' [. . .]

"[T]he Kirk-Madsen program does not stop with mere societal acceptance of homosexuality. It goes on to 'paint gay men and lesbians as superior -- veritable pillars of society.'"

Environmentalists claimed (wrongly, it later was later determined) that suckerfish at Klamath Falls, Oregon needed more water to survive. A federal court ruled the Endangered Species Act gives fish more rights than farmers, so water flow was turned off for over a thousand Klamath Basin farmers who also depended on water for survival. Economic loss to the farmers was estimated to exceed $200 million.

Four firefighters, who were battling a blaze that surrounded them in the Okanagan National Forest northeast of Seattle, radioed and pleaded over a period of nine hours for water to be dropped by helicopter. The U.S. Forest Service was reluctant to use nearby Chewuch River water, however, because of possible harm to endangered fish. The cost of this environmentalism: four dead firefighters.

Environmentalists have prevented the drilling of oil and gas, the mining of coal, the construction of nuclear power plants, and the building of oil refineries for decades. What do we pay for this environmental activism: a price at the gas pump of $3 per gallon, which could go to $4 or $5 or more. We also pay in terms of great dependence on others for our energy.

It has been alleged that changes in the material used for the space shuttle's o-rings and foam insulation led to the two shuttle disasters. The changes were initiated for environmental reasons. The cost in loss of life and tax dollars has been enormous.

Asbestos insulation was installed for fire protection on World Trade Tower columns up to the 64th floor. But during construction in 1971, anxious to accede to environmentalist demands, New York City banned asbestos, and an inferior insulation (or perhaps no insulation at all) was used for the columns above the 64th floor. It has been alleged that was the primarily reason the towers tumbled. Decades before 9-11, Herbert Levine, inventor of the insulation, said: "If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down." He was right. The cost: thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

We've just witnessed the ravages of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The levee protecting New Orleans was designed to withstand a Category 3 hurricane. Human Events (September 19, 2005, page 7) reports: "A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project designed to prevent a Category 5-hurricane-storm surge from filling lake Pontchartrain and flooding New Orleans was blocked by environmentalists intent on preserving 'natural water flow' in 1977." More recently, the Corps had a 1996 plan for levee strengthening. The plan would have upgraded 303 miles of levees along the Mississippi River. But environmentalists sued again, claiming insufficient study had been made of "the impact on bottomland hardwood wetlands." It took a year to settle the lawsuit and the Corp of Engineers agreed to hold off work for an additional two years. The price of all this environmentalism: hundreds of lives and probably more than $100 billion dollars.

Abortion: Many Republicans abhor abortion, particularly partial-birth abortion, because it's the murder of a human being. The Declaration of Independence states that ". . . these Truths [are] self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ." Furthermore, abortion is prohibited by many religious beliefs, for example "Thou shalt not kill."
ACLU: Republicans object to the ACLU because that organization appears anxious to cleanse the land of anything Christian. Under the guise of "protecting" the First Amendment, the ACLU continually preaches separation of church and state, even though the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First Amendment.
Affirmative action: Many Republicans believe that equal treatment under the law is fundamental to freedom. They consequently reject the idea of affirmative action because it rewards certain politically-identified groups at the expense of the others. Furthermore, it creates the climate that some groups need special treatment because they are inferior to other groups. Such class differentiation is anathema to the American Way.
Animal rights: Republicans, particularly religious Republicans, believe God's proclamation in "Genesis": "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Thus, Man rules over all other creatures and animals have no rights.
Education: Many Republicans want education controlled locally, not at the federal level. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to dictate education policy. The government schools have become distributors of propaganda and enforcers of government-imposed attitudes, values, and beliefs.
Embryonic stem cell research: It's not okay to take the life of a human being for purposes of experimentation, Republicans say. Life is sacred. Once the killing of a human being is condoned by the destruction of an embryo, respect for life has deteriorated; making euthanasia more and more acceptable and prevalent.
Environmentalism: Republicans believe mankind should be good guardians of nature's bounty. The environment and its creatures are to be respected, but not worshiped. The tenants of Christianity and pantheism can not be reconciled. The Endangered Species Act, adored by environmentalists, is unacceptable because it sacrifices private property to benefit obscure and often harmful bugs and other critters.
Felons allowed to vote: Republicans don't like the idea of allowing felons to vote in local, state, and national elections because felons have proven themselves to be irresponsible citizens.
Gay marriage: Republicans are against gay marriage because it deteriorates the sanctity of a man-woman marriage. Like easy divorce, it weakens families, trivializes family values, and opens the door to corrupting relationships: pedophilia, beastiality, and more.
Gun control: Republicans trust American citizens to be responsible, law-abiding, and intelligent. Gun control strips citizens of their responsibility to protect themselves and their families and transfers that responsibility to government, which is woefully unable to fulfill that role on an individual basis. The Founding Fathers understood the necessity for weapons in the hands of the public, and promulgated that freedom in the Second Amendment.
Illegal immigration: Some but not nearly enough Republicans understand quite well that illegal immigrants are illegal. One of the major responsibilities of the federal government is to protect the citizens. Allowing massive illegal immigration is a clear dereliction of duty. Illegal immigration floods the U.S. with drugs, disease, crooks, murderers, terrorists, and individuals with little to no means of support. It results in a massive drain on our resources, a huge population uninterested in adopting our customs and traditions, and it's altering the character of the country. Further, it's an utter insult to the many immigrants who come to this country legally. The numbers of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. (3,000 to 6,000 per day!) are inexcusable.
International Criminal Court: Republicans see the ICC for what it is: an international body designed to impose legal rulings based on legal precepts totally foreign to this country and our laws. ICC "justice" will obliterate our Constitutional protections and deal a death blow to our sovereignty.
Kyoto Protocol: Many Republicans realize the Kyoto Protocol is merely a means of imposing global anti-American policies on this country. At its heart are ideas of wealth redistribution, global government, and the imposition of pantheistic values. Many Republicans see a correlation between sunspot activity and warming cycles rather than warming due to any action humans have taken on earth. The global warming scare is effective because people can easily buy into the scam. If the U.S. yields to its Chicken Little tactics, we will be playing directly into the hands of our enemies.
Legal tort reform: Republicans are for reform, because lawyers have found ways to pervert the legal system in this country and turn unjustified lawsuits into mechanisms of great personal profit. They need to be set back on a course leading to reasonable, judicial outcomes.
Morals and religion: Republicans are often religious folks; that is, Christians. They take their moral and ethical value system from the teachings of their religion. Though that doesn't guarantee moral and ethical behavior, it does creates a strong influence in that direction.
Oil drilling, refineries, coal burning, and nuclear power: Republicans realize that capitalism, progress, and advancement rest on the availability of plentiful and inexpensive fuel. At present the major sources of power are oil, coal, and nuclear. Republicans understand that we must drill for oil, burn coal, and utilize nuclear power, so they oppose the extreme environmentalists who wish to cut off access to these resources.
Pornography: Pornography is destructive, particularly to kids, so Republicans want some limits on access. For example, they favor withholding public funding of pornographic "artists". They favor constraints regarding what books are purchased by public funds for the libraries. They favor encouraging the movie and TV industries to be more sensitive to the effect pornography in their products will have on kids.
Private property: Republicans are strong private property advocates. The recent Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision infuriates Republicans and has precipitated a rush to initiate state laws to guard against future similar takings. Private property and freedom are inseparable. When the notion of private property is trivialized and the annexation by the state of personal homes is allowed, then freedom has been dealt a serious blow
Reparations: Republicans cannot support reparations. Reparations today are not a means to right a wrong. They are nothing more than a "perk" for one group at the expense of another. They are a super-colossal affirmative-action program. Who today in the U.S. owns slaves or supports slavery? No one. Thus, reparations legislation, which Democrats in Congress are pushing, is largely a vote-buying exercise. Should the legislation pass, I suspect there might be a significant backlash.
Sodomy: Christian Republicans view sodomy as immoral. In general they have no interest in dictating what goes on in private bedrooms, but they strongly object to the "sodomiziation" of America; that is, the positive emphasis in the media, the equating of "sodomy marriage" with "real" marriage, and the forced teaching of sodomy to kids (even those of kindergarten age) in the government schools.
Taxes: Republicans understand the deleterious effect of taxes not only on the economy, but on the motivation of people. A point comes where people decide it doesn't make sense to risk capital, to work long hours, to innovate, to achieve, if a major portion of their income is seized by government and then redistributed to those who risk nothing, work little to no hours, are not innovative, and are underachievers. Taxes and socialism go hand and hand, and that's another reason Republicans want taxes lowered.
Terrorism: Republicans see terrorism as the greatest threat to U.S. safety since World War II and they demand an aggressive and successful war to combat this threat. Nowhere is the world is safe from terrorism today and countries that agree to "compacts" with the terrorists are naive, foolish, and in great danger.
United Nations: Republicans view the UN as an international agency whose interests generally run counter the interests of the U.S. Most members of the General Assembly vote against America. The success record of the UN in halting or averting wars and conflicts is abysmal. The recent oil-for-food scandal demonstrates what the UN does best: corruption. Our country will be best served if the UN is terminated, if we quit the organization, or at a minimum if the UN relinquishes its world-control intentions and reverts back to just a debating society.

Abortion: Democrats favor abortion, even partial-birth abortion, which involves killing a baby as it's being born. The Dems are not in favor of letting the states decide this issue individually (as the Tenth Amendment specifies).
ACLU: Democrats support the ACLU even when that organization takes action to remove "under God" from the Pledge, the Ten Commandments from public view, crosses from any public document, and the Boy Scouts from public parks and facilities.
Affirmative action: Democrats do not believe in the idea of equal treatment or equal opportunity, but wish to bestow favors on certain groups; those groups Democrats consider more worthy than others.
Animal rights: Democrats (best example: members of PETA) embrace animal rights, which, strictly speaking, mean no hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock farming or ranching, no use of animals in science or education; no animal bone marrow to treat blood disorders. No meat, eggs, honey, leather, fur, wool, down, or even silk. No zoos, aquariums, circuses, rodeos, or animal actors in films. No butter or ice cream, candies, gelatin, drywall, home insulation, candles, soap, glue, brake fluid, and heart valves. No milk for children, insulin for diabetics, or guide dogs for the blind. No rat traps. No pest control. (Source: The True Meaning of 'Animal Rights', by Kathleen Marquardt.)
Education: Democrats are staunch supporters of the NEA (National Education Association), but NEA positions have more to do with advancing the Left's agenda than educating kids.
Embryonic stem cell research: It's okay to take the life of a human being, the Democrats say, if someone else might benefit as a result. The issue of killing one human being to benefit another is not considered in those terms.
Environmentalism: Pantheists are one of the Democrats' constituents, so Democrats must adopt the tenets of pantheism. This view holds that man is no more important than any other creature, or any rock or patch of pond scum, for that matter. Extreme policies -- such as the Endangered Species Act, for example, which has trashed private property -- are inevitable consequences.
Felons allowed to vote: Democrats like the idea of allowing felons to vote in local, state, and national elections. That's because Democrats believe most felons are Democrats.
Gay marriage: It's okay to ignore hundreds of years of laws, history, and tradition if it will benefit a constituency and result in more votes. Marriage isn't that important anyway, the Democrats seemingly conclude. If gay marriage weakens families, distorts family values, and erodes society, well, so be it.
Gun control: Democrats do not trust the American citizen and they wants all power and control in the hands of government. This is antithetical to the principles of our Founding Fathers, but it's mainstream liberalism.
Illegal immigration: Democrats have no problem with illegal immigration. That's because with the motor/voter laws Dems passed, many illegals are able to vote, and Dems know most illegals will vote Democrat.
International Criminal Court: Democrats are willing (anxious?) to empower an international body to impose legal rulings on U.S. citizens without many of the legal protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Our president, for example, could be tried for war crimes at the whim of our enemies. The Dems would applaud this action . . . as long as it's not a Democrat president.
Kyoto Protocol: Democrats endorse the Protocol in spite of the fact human-caused global warming has not been scientifically established. Most scientists seem to refute the idea. And by the way, the effects of Kyoto, if implemented, would be economically devastating for the U.S. and probably the entire world. That, apparently, would suit Dems just fine as it would make the people of the world more equal (U.S. citizens would be vastly poorer, but certainly more equal).
Legal tort reform: Democrats are against it, because, though it might be good for America, reform would likely lower lawyer fees. Lawyers are mighty financial supporters of Democrats, and Dems aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.
Morals and religion: A lot of Democrat folks don't like religion. Consequently, they have no foundation upon which to build a set of moral principles. They just decide for themselves what's moral and what's not. Another advantage of this perspective: they can change their view of morality any time it's convenient.
Oil drilling, refineries, coal burning, and nuclear power: Democrats are against all conventional sources of power because the environmentalists -- one of their constituents -- don't like power production. We might wish to blame environmentalists because oil refineries have not been built in the U.S. for decades, oil drilling has been stopped even in logical places for it, and no U.S. nuclear facilities have been constructed for many a year, but the blame belongs with the Democrats, who have acceded to the eco-nuts bidding.
Pornography: Pornography is just dandy, according to Dems. If anyone suggests decency limits, Democrats cry "First Amendment right of free speech". Democrats, however, don't see anything wrong with banning shouts of "fire" in a movie theater.
Private property: Democrats are now on record -- as a result of the recent Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision -- as having a rather cavalier attitude regarding the sanctity of private property. Once again, leftist thinking rejects sacred principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.
Reparations: To pander to its base, Democrats favor reparations. That is, they wish to take money from you and me and redistribute it to folks who are not now slaves, never were slaves, and whose parents and even grandparents weren't slaves. Dems consider this "justice".
Sodomy: Democrats have a love affair with sodomy and wish to give it respectability by instituting gay marriage, commonality by a ceaseless blitz on TV and in the media, and power by teaching it to all the kids attending government schools.
Taxes: In its quest for an increasingly powerful central government, Democrats wish to tax the successful. They then give more and bigger handouts to the unsuccessful. This is basically a strategy to buy votes; a remarkably successful strategy at that.
Terrorism: Democrats love peace (as if Republicans don't); so much so that they hesitate and sometimes refuse to fight for freedom. Although Democrats sometimes start wars or instigate military action, any such action initiated by Republicans is despised. Democrats have not yet learned that the can't-we-all-just-get-along philosophy doesn't work when our adversaries are intent on our total destruction.
United Nations: Democrats think the UN is great. Once again, they exhibit willingness -- eagerness, actually -- to abdicate our freedoms and sovereignty to an agency, most of the members of which hate us with a passion.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6.

Who's in charge? Our country was founded on the idea of personal responsibility, but a segment of society wishes instead centralized control. They want government to define our "Freedoms"; attend to our health, welfare, and education needs; direct our living conditions; and micromanage every aspect of our existence. They even want government control (via the U.N.) exercised around the world, run by un-elected, un-accountable bureaucrats.

I think most Americans see the folly of allowing the government to take charge of our lives, because then freedom is forsaken, but more and more, we seem to be moving in that direction.

What's the value system? For nearly 200 years U.S. citizens agreed pretty much on Judeo-Christian principles and values. Now that moral value system is under attack. We have even reached the point where the ethics of today's multiculturalism teach us to respect, indeed pamper, those who vow our demise. Turning the other cheek has always been considered a virtue, but not if it results in annihilation.

The American value system of kindness and benevolence is being exploited by our enemies. Our compassion welcomes the very tyrants and oppressors who intend our slaughter.

What are the governing principles? We Americans expect governmental actions and legislation to be based on what's good for this country and what's good for its citizens. More and more, this isn't the case. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, considers critters and crabgrass more important then people. At Klamath Falls, Oregon, in their blind passion for "nature", EPA henchmen prevented farmers from getting needed water for crops. Some farmers were thrust into bankruptcy, and as it turns out, sucker fish, the object of EPA concern, weren't threatened in the first place.

As more and more subversives take control of the levers of governmental control, more and more the rationale for what the government does is founded in pantheism, humanism, and Marxism. Nobody elected these bureaucrats to their offices.

We assume our country's safety is top priority -- a governing principle -- but clearly it isn't. Terrorists, criminals, drugs, and diseases pour across our border with mexico like water over Niagara. We assume our legislators are focused on fiscal responsibility -- a governing principle -- but their votes suggest their own selfish interests become a higher priority. We assume freedom is an over-riding governing principle. But, no, the federal government usurps State and individual liberty all the time, even specifying the maximum flush capacity of toilets! We assume victory in our nation's wars is certainly a sacred governing principle. Not at all. Too many elected Democrats are encouraging our withdrawal from Iraq, challenging every military move, and even belittling our policies in military bases holding Iraqi prisoners. They seek an embarrassing and humiliating defeat by our enemies so the Republican presidency will be a resounding failure.

Where's the common ground? Those on the left and those on the right state earnestly and truthfully they want a moral and law-abiding America. They want decent, American values. The disagreement is over what's "moral", what's "law-abiding", and exactly what values are to be cherished.

The Left says: separation of church and state. The Right says religious symbols and traditions are being scrubbed from public view and Christianity is under direct attack.The Left says gays have a civil right to marry. The Right says: yes, they do, as long as one marriage partner is male and the other female. Preserving civil rights does not permit redefinition of terms.

The Left says living the 'good life" is facilitated with no-fault divorce. The Right says: no, family break-up should be discouraged. The harmful effect on kids is immeasurable. The Left says feminism frees women and allows them all the ""advantages" of men. The Right says feminism is an anti-men, anti-family, self-indulgent ideology that denigrates motherhood and misleads women into thinking their greatest fulfillment will be achieved by acting like they're members of the opposite sex.

The Left says the First Amendment is sacred and it's okay for the National Endowment for the Arts to issue grants for pornographic "art". It's proper and praiseworthy to fill school libraries with pornographic material. The Right says: yes, the First Amendment is sacred, but that doesn't mean the government should sanction pornography with public funding of the NEA and encourage filth in public school libraries. Freedom of speech doesn't tolerate screaming "fire" in a movie theater, and it doesn't necessitate governmental embrace and support of odious pictures and prose.

The Left says diversity should be embraced because "the melting pot" effect is what made this country great. The Right says freedom is what made America great, and the melting-pot effect seems, with leftist intervention, to be diminishing.

Who decides the rule of law? The Left says the rule of law is a living, evolving organism, that morphs to align itself with the mores of the day. The Right says a living Constitution is no Constitution at all, since it then becomes a piece of wet clay that can be remolded at whim by activist judges. (And of course, that's the issue with Bush's judge nominations.) The idea of a living Constitution is bad, but what's equally bad is a Constitution or laws that are ignored. Illegal aliens are treated as though they're legal aliens. Illegality has no consequence. In the 2000 election debacle, the Florida Supreme Court decided it didn't like the election laws, though they were properly and legally passed by the state legislature, so the court ruled them invalid. They weren't "fair" according to the robed ones. Besides, the Democrat justices knew their guy (Al Gore) wasn't going to win if the rule of law was upheld. So they overturned it.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court thought it perfectly proper to completely redefine the word "marriage" so gays and lesbians would feel better about themselves. That their action violated Massachusetts law was of no concern to them. After all, they are above the law.

During the Terri Schiavo incident, the U.S. Congress passed a law demanding review of the case by a federal court. The court ignored the law. The Congress issued a subpoena. A county judge ignored it. What were the consequences of these flagrant violation of the rule of law? There were none.

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.
Thoughts for First half of 2005.

The way back home.