THOUGHTS -- January through June 2006

I'll post here some of my thoughts, comments, and musings.


Fred Gielow appears on C-SPAN


Government Run AmokGovernment Run Amok e-Mailbox1e-Mailbox1 e-Mailbox2e-Mailbox 2 It's Been SaidIt's Been Said MustreadMust Read PoemsPoems
Picture thisPicture This QuickiesQuickies Say What?Say What? ThisThatThis & That ThoughtsThoughts XtraXtra

Archives

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."








MONDAY, June 26, 2006. Have you heard about "ocean fertilization"? No? I'll let Dr. Fred Singer describe it. (Dr. Singer is a preeminent authority on energy and environmental issues, pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, designer of the first satellite instrument for measuring atmospheric ozone, and a principal developer of scientific and weather satellites.)
"[Ocean fertilization is a] technique analogous to afforestation, but economically more attractive. [It would] speed up the natural absorption of CO2 into the ocean. Currently, much of the world's oceans is a biological desert. Even though many of these areas have adequate supplies of the basic nutrients, nitrates and phosphates, they lack essential micro nutrients like iron. Ocean fertilization (McElroy 1983) has been widely discussed among scientific specialists, with experiments proposed by the late John Martin (Martin 1990, 1994), and endorsed by the late Professor Roger Revelle, director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institution in La Jolla, California. With the completion and publication of the successful IronEx-II test (see Cooper et al. and other papers in the October 1996 issue of Nature), it now makes sense to consider ocean fertilization as a viable candidate for sequestering atmospheric CO2. The process is cheaper and politically less intrusive than control of emissions. It also exploits excess CO2 as a resource for enhancing ocean fisheries." (Hot Talk Cold Science -- Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, by S. Fred Singer, 1997, pages 72-73.)
Another way of describing it: In place of the Kyoto Protocol, ocean fertilization would be vastly less expensive, it would not cripple the economies of high-fuel-use countries, and it might actually work!

So why hasn't the public been apprised of this potential solution to the "man-caused" global warming "problem"? It's not because the scheme has been a closely-guarded secret. It's not because it would have massive negative consequences. (Seeding ocean areas with iron micronutrients would in fact create immense sea-life feeding grounds which could be exploited to feed a hungry world.) It's not because the nations of the world would veto the idea; how could any country be against it?

Oh, wait. If the Left and the media started talking about ocean fertilization, then people might begin to think it isn't a binary question of Kyoto or die. People might begin to realize Planet Earth can survive without human beings enduring what Al Gore calls a "wrenching transformation". The global warming "problem" might be solved without massive transfers of wealth from rich to poor nations, without the United Nations asserting global governance, without giving up air conditioning and your SUV. And some people might even begin to listen to all the scientists who say man-made global warming isn't even a problem at all.

No wonder you haven't seen anything in the media about ocean fertilization.


MONDAY, June 19, 2006. I think Ann Coulter's observation is a good and valid one: liberals use unassailable individuals or groups as battering rams to advance their agendas.
Dot "Grieving mom" Cindy Sheehan says the U.S. isn't worth dying for and George W. Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world; he's a lying bastard; he's an evil maniac. You may not like what she says, but you can't argue with her because her son died in Iraq. If you attack the content of her comments, you are attacking her, and that's simply not allowed.

Dot John Kerry said U.S. soldiers in Vietnam raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside. He served "with honor" in Vietnam, so you must not disagree with his accusations.

Dot Some wives (the "Jersey Girls": Kristin Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg), whose husbands died in the Twin Towers attacks, say the attack on the Twin Towers could have been prevented by George Bush. Are you going to dishonor these poor women by challenging what they say? How dare you! That would be cruel and heartless. (We are to pay no attention to the fact that the Jersey Girls were strong and vocal supporters of John Kerry.)

Dot Scientists say there's man-made global warming going on. They're scientists, for goodness sake, so what they say can not be challenged. (The fact that thousands of other scientists disagree is conveniently ignored. The mainstream media consider it unnecessary to inform the public about such contrary scientific views.)

Dot It's the mother's choice. She's the one who must endure the pregnancy. It's her body. She and her doctor ought to have the final word about aborting a tiny human being. Yes, that's the rhetoric, but what about the life of the little one? Who's speaking out on his or her behalf? (Of course the Constitution does, when it asserts the unalienable right to life, but those "old" documents, we're told, are "out of date," so don't pay any attention to them.)

Dot With the kids are in school, then they are the unassailable ones. We must spend more for them. We must have smaller class sizes. They're so young and innocent, we must let teachers -- trained professionals -- instill in them proper values regarding sex, the environment, the United Nations, and certainly religion (Christianity is so dangerous, we must never even allude to it in the sacred halls of K through 12).
The strategy of course is to ensnare public compassion and use it to frame liberal arguments. Liberals are expert at coloring every issue with deep shades of emotion so emotional forces become the major determining factors in deciding issue outcomes.

It was an unprecedented emotional success when the Left prevailed in Vietnam, causing the United States to lose that war. The facts that liberals restrained our military and handicapped their actions are inconvenient and always ignored.

The liberal -- we-can-lose-any-war -- Left is at it again in Iraq. Bring the troops home now! The death of one more American soldier cannot be tolerated! Unless, of course, it accrues to the advantage of liberals.













MONDAY, June 12, 2006. I found a bunch of pro-illegal-immigration pictures on the Internet, and here are. (Not all are from demonstrations in the U.S.)

Our Senators and Representatives are working very hard [they keep telling us] to find an answer to the border problem, but all the "solutions" they propose are based on the assumption the illegals want to become Americans. (And thus will vote!) But, what if illegals don't want to become Americans? And besides, what evidence is there to suggest they do?

Are immigrants buckling down with their English studies to achieve proficiency? Are they demonstrating fondness for the American flag and expressing eagerness to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Are they showing interest in embracing America's traditions and values? I don't think so.

They seem more interested in keeping their right to vote in their "home" countries. They seem more interested in rooting for their country's sports teams instead of ours. They seem more interested in being buried in their "homeland" than in their "new" homeland. They seem more interested in maintaining their "old" ways instead of embracing U.S. culture and customs. They want all the benefits of citizenship but none of the responsibilities.

Immigrants a hundred years ago were a different breed. They understood that coming to this country very often meant hardship and sacrifice, but they willingly endured the demands because they so wanted freedom and opportunity. My sense is that millions of illegals today don't give one hoot about America. They obviously don't care about our laws; the first thing they do upon entering our country is to break one.

Our elected representatives should take steps immediately to secure our borders. They should pass legislation to revoke instant citizenship for babies of illegals. They should prohibit dual citizenship. They should pass laws that prevent non-citizens from taking advantage of U.S. benefits that were intended for U.S. citizens. And they should enforce the laws already on the books!

Is that too much to ask?













MONDAY, June 5, 2006. Al Gore's new flick, An Inconvenient Truth opened May 24th. It's so easy to come to conclusions when only one side of an issue is presented. Here are a few articles with a different perspective.
"The Earth has certainly warmed in the last 100 years, although not as much as suggested by the IPCC. However, the sun has also been hotter during the same period, so that some, if not all, the warming is attributable to the more intense solar activity this century and to the shortening of the solar cycles themselves. If indeed there has been warming, it is clear the sun did it, not mankind or greenhouse gases."
"Days of Sunshine," by John L. Daly.

"The resulting warming due to this effect over the last century could be comparable to the amount of warming people think has been due to the greenhouse effect. Add to that the other effects due to the Sun, and greenhouse gases become less than 50% responsible for rising global temperatures."
"Viewpoint: The Sun and climate change," by Dr. Paal Brekke.

"Global warming is occurring due to oceans heating, not greenhouse gases. The oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core, which is the cause of ice ages."
"Global Warming," by Gary Novak.

"17,000 [scientists] have actually signed a petition against the Kyoto protocol."
"Is 'Global Warming' Hot Air?" an interview of Dr. S. Fred Singer by Geoff Metcalf.

"[S]atellite data contradicts the global warming theory. It is telling us something most of us have intuitively known for a long time. Some months and years are warmer than normal, while others are cooler. But over the long haul, earth maintains about the same temperature."
"The Politics of Global Warming," by Michael Coffman.

"'Human-induced changes are real,' says warming skeptic Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, 'but the changes are so small and of such a benign nature that they are insufficient to support any expensive or disruptive policy. If anything, they indicate that the best policy is probably to do nothing.'"
"Global Warming - Hot Problem or Hot Air?" by Jonathan H. Adler.

"Interestingly, each successive refinement and improvement to the [climate-predicting computer] models has moved predictions in one direction: towards ever more modest estimates of an anthropogenic effect on warming."
"Global Climate Change," a STATS survey of current research.

"[A] study published in 1991 [. . .] reported a close tie between the actual length of the solar cycle (which averages 11 years but varies from 9 to 15 years) and surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere throughout the entire twentieth century. If true, it would mean that human influences, such as increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, have contributed little or nothing to the approximately 0.8 degree C warming of Earth's surface since 1885."
"Sun's Role in Climate Change Continues to Spark Controversy," by SpaceDaily.

"There has been no measurable increase in the Earth’s temperature in the last 50 years, even after human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere from about 250 PPM [parts per million] to approximately 450 PPM."
"Environmental Information," by the Williams Institute for Advanced Constitutional Studies.

"Changes in solar brightness do correlate with changes in Earth's global temperature. But for climate researchers this only rubs in their ignorance of climate change."
"Sunspots May Play Role in Global Warming," by Robert C. Cowen.

"There has never been conclusive evidence that global warming is NOT a normal cyclical trend between periods of global cooling, or that it is caused by CO2 and other so-called 'greenhouse gasses'."
"Debunking the Global Warming Myths," by Doug Edelman.

"The objective of the global warming hoax is to create conditions that would reduce the earth's population by restricting the use of energy to protect health, to reduce the amount of food that can be grown to feed the population. It is an attack on the countless other ways modern life extends and protects our lives."
"Debunking Global Warming," by Alan Caruba.

"Unless and until we [. . .] start paying attention to the fact that none of the credible data gathered on the issue of CO2-generated climate change, when brought together and analyzed responsibly, point to anything remotely resembling the 'crisis' that so-called 'concerned scientists,' in collusion with I'm-happy-to-be-led-by-the-nose liberal-agenda media honks, are trying to sell us, we're doomed to be inundated by so-called 'news' that predicts our collective climatological demise because we failed to limit our carbon dioxide emissions."
"Debunking the Myth of Global Warming," by Greg Lewis.

"Before we get too carried away with all the big talk about 'science' and 'experts,' let's not forget that we are talking about a field that has trouble predicting whether or not it will be raining tomorrow. Yet we are expected to pile staggering costs onto the American consumers and taxpayers because of speculative theories turned into computer models."
"Who Says the Globe Is Warming?" by Thomas Sowell.

"The prevailing theory that human activities cause global warming, and its supposed manifestations – droughts, hurricanes, floods, bugs, fires, you name it – is only a theory. A religious theory, maybe, but not a testable scientific one."
"Skeptics Shut Out of Warming Dialogue," by Paula Easley.

"I think it's possible to prove the whole human-caused global-warming issue is a hoax."
"Calculating Human-Caused Global Warming," by Fred Gielow.

I suspect most Americans will never see any of this or believe anything other than that human-caused global warming is about to destroy the world. Because they'll only hear one side of the issue.


MONDAY, May 29, 2006. Some passing thoughts and ponderings:

Dot If Congress believed in capitalism and free markets, wouldn't it let free market forces determine what the minimum wage is, just as it lets free market forces determine what the maximum wage is? Why does it wish to impose centralized government dictates similar to those imposed by socialist and communist governments?

Dot Time after time we've learned how the Wall Street Journal and New York Times (and others) have distorted stories, published fictional stories as fact, and consistently provided grossly biased reporting. Why does anyone continue to buy these sources of propaganda?

Dot If everyone in the world thought the same and had the same values, there would be no need for different countries, governments, and value systems. Obviously, values, languages, and traditions vary greatly. So why do so many people wish for the United Nations to wield world dominance and governance? Isn't it demonstrable that this will fail?

Dot There's a big push to get all the illegal aliens in the U.S. to become citizens. But wait! Then they'll all be entitled to the rights of every other citizen -- like a minimum wage. Won't we then have to import another 12 million illegals to "do all the work Americans refuse to do"?

Dot In the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. has only one vote. The little country of Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time, so our vote is effectively neutralized. If we want a little clout, why not declare each one of our states a country? Then we might be able to get 50 votes on important issues, instead of just one.

Dot On the Court TV channel, I've watched several shows where psychics help the police department and FBI solve "insolvable" cases. Why aren't a couple of them pressed into service to solve the Natalie Holloway disappearance case?

Dot The Oil-for-Food program at the United Nations is probably the biggest scandal in the history of the world! Billions and billions of dollars were skimmed to bribe countries, buy votes in the U.N., and circumvent accountability. Wouldn't you think it would get a little more coverage in the press than prisoners at Guantanamo Bay with dog collars around their necks?

Dot A conservative talk-show host makes a slip of the tongue, apologizes, but is fired immediately. Professors in colleges and universities all over the country repeatedly spew anti-American, anti-Jew, anti-white, anti-Christian rhetoric (see "Thoughts" of 5-22 and 5-1 below), but are praised by their administrations, protected by the media, and lauded by academia. Why would anyone donate their hard-earned money to institutions of "higher" learning that allow such kooks to poison their students with such talk?


MONDAY, May 22, 2006. I've now completed David Horowitz's book, The Professors, (see "Thoughts", below, dated 5-1-06) and I thought you might be interested to see some more quotes from "highly-regarded" professors in this nation's colleges and universities:
"One can accurately describe the United States as a 'total racist society' in which every major aspect of life is shaped to some degree by the core racist realities."
- - --- Professor Joe Feagin, professor of sociology at Texas A&M University.

"What [American universities] need, and would much benefit from, is more Marxists, radicals, leftists -- all terms conventionally applied to those who fight against exploitation, racism, sexism, and capitalism. We can never have too many of these, just as we can never have too few 'conservatives'."
- - --- Professor Grover Furr, associate professor of English at Montclair State University.

"[T]he problem is capitalism, [and] the only solution, as difficult as this may be to contemplate at the present time [March 2005] is socialism."
- - --- Professor John Bellamy Foster, associate professor of sociology, University of Oregon, Eugene.

"Go to Vietnam and shoot your commanding officer. Become an airplane mechanic and learn to sabotage planes. . . . [A]ll police and members of their families must be killed and law enforcement demoralized. All jails and prisons must be opened and inmates liberated."
- - --- Professor H. Bruce Franklin, John Cotton Dana Professor of English and American Studies, Rutgers University.

"The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."
- - --- Professor Nicholas De Genova, Columbia University.

"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him." Also: "We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."
- - --- Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor of political science, University of Texas, Arlington.

"I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder." Also: "It is difficult not to hear in standard English always the sound of slaughter and conquest."
- - --- Professor bell hooks [the lower case affectation is hers], distinguished professor of English at City College in New York. [Prior to adopting the name "bell hooks", she was known as Gloria Watkins.]

"Jews are a race of skunks and animals that stole Africa from the Black Man."
- - --- Professor Leonard Jeffries, professor of black studies at City University of New York.

"The United States has lost the war in Iraq and that's a good thing."
- - --- Professor Robert Jensen, associate professor of journalism, University of Texas, Austin.

"One of the great achievements of Communism, rarely recognized in the West, is its relatively successful containment of American power from the early 1950s through the demise of the Soviet state in 1991."
- - --- Professor Peter Kirstein, professor of history, Saint Xavier University.

"[George W.] Bush and bin Laden have much more in common. If anything, bin Laden's parochialism is slightly less offensive: whereas Bush concludes his addresses to the nation with 'God bless America' . . ."
- - --- Professor Vinay Lal, associate professor of history, University of California, Los Angeles.

"[The] Jewish state is a racist state that does not have the right to exist."
- - --- Professor Joseph Massad, assistant professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University.

"We as Americans have to hope America will lose [the war in Iraq]."
- - --- Professor Michael Schwartz, professor of sociology, State University of New York, Stony Brook.

"We need to think very, very clearly about who the enemy is. The enemy is the United States of America and everyone who supports it."
- - --- Professor Haunani-Kay Trask, professor of Hawaiian studies, University of Hawaii, Manoa.
I find it amazing that parents who spend tens of thousands of dollars for the "education" of their offspring aren't marching in the street as a result of the revelations in David Horowitz's book.


MONDAY, May 15, 2006. In Aruba over the weekend of May 6th, I made it a point to talk to several taxi drivers about the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. I got the impression they weren't too anxious to discuss the matter, but I learned a couple of interesting things.

One driver said if the incident had happened in the 1980s, the case would have been solved quickly. Apparently, Aruba law was changed in the '90s making it easier for individuals accused of crimes to avoid prosecution.

From what I saw on television over the last 10 months or so, I had the impression it's a fairly short walk from the Marriott to the lighthouse, maybe a quarter mile or so, half mile at most. No way! One taxi driver told me it's about five miles, making it a ten mile round trip! I was driven the route and it seems unlikely to me anyone out for a midnight stroll would seriously consider such a hike.

Joran van der Sloot's father's comment -- if there's no body there's no crime -- seems terribly incriminating, but as far as I know, not too much has been made of it. I understand Joran discussed that advice with the Kalpoe brothers (Satish and Deepak), so presumably it was a factor in their thinking in the days immediately following the incident.

The "highrise" hotels on the island line the beach in one section along the western coast: Wyndham, Radison, Hyatt, Holiday Inn, Marriott, and a couple of others, all within a mile or so. It's a fairly short walk from the Marriott to the Holiday Inn. It doesn't seem logical to me that Natalie would have been abducted by a stranger in that area.

One taxi driver said he thinks the case will eventually be solved, but he didn't know if it will take months or years. There was general consensus that Natalee's mother deserves sympathy, but anger that her actions have hurt the tourist business. People on the island wish the whole matter would just go away.

(Photos by FG: Charlos 'n Charlie's bar and grill, California Lighthouse, Holiday Inn.)


MONDAY, May 8, 2006. Perhaps you've received from Mountain Home Publishing (PO Box 2000, Ranson, West Virginia 25438-2000; 800-219-8591) a 32-page booklet that discusses "alternatives for the health conscious individual". Doctor David Williams makes a number of startling statements and causes one to rethink a lot of conventional medical thinking. Among Dr. Williams' claims:
o Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. He says over 13 million people are currently taking prescriptions to reduce cholesterol, but heart disease statistics in the U.S. continue to escalate. Hmmm. If all these drugs are doing any good, why does heart disease increase? Shouldn't it decrease? The booklet also notes that 60% of the people who get heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels! The majority of people who have high cholesterol levels never suffer heart attacks. Further, half of all heart-attack sufferers have none of the standard, recognized risk factors: smoking, obesity, genetics, or high cholesterol.

o Butter is a healthy food. Doctors have banned butter from many Americans' diets and recommended substitutes, but margarine, Williams says, is more dangerous than smoking cigarettes. Margarine's trans fatty acids are poison to your arteries, he explains. Eating butter can even protect you from skin cancer, Dr. Williams says.

o Eggs are a perfect food. When I went through a cholesterol scare, I gave up eating eggs. I even stayed away from egg noodles. The booklet says it's not true that egg yolks will raise your blood cholesterol level. Dietary cholesterol can't do that, Williams claims.

o The sun is actually good for you. It's widely believed that if you can't avoid the sun, you should at least use sunscreen. But the doctor says statistics indicate people with healthy tans have 50 percent less breast and colon cancers than those who avoid the sun. Vitamin D (our main source is the sun) is a proven cancer-fighter, while sunscreen products may actually cause skin cancer, according to Dr. Williams. Sunscreens contain one or more of five chemicals that may actually encourage cancer. Also, they block the production of melanin, which protects against skin cancer.

o An aspirin a day may actually increase the risk of stroke and heart attack. A Canadian research study found that aspirin increases the risk of stroke and heart attacks in 40% of the people who took it. Three other studies support the finding. Also: constant use of aspirin can make you blind by increasing your risk of macular degeneration, and it increases your risk of cataracts by up to 44%.

o The human body needs fat for peak performance and appetite appeasement. Cutting out fat may actually make you more overweight, according to Dr. Williams. One type of fat, conjugated linoleic acid, assists in weight control. But the body doesn't manufacture it, it must be in our diet, in such foods as beef, milk, and dairy products, just the foods medical people warn us to avoid.
Of course I have no idea if Dr. Williams knows what he's talking about. But even though he's selling his own products, I sense that there's probably more truth than fiction in his claims. If so, what does that say about today's medical profession? What does that say about the medical industry: hospitals, pharmaceuticals, clinics?

We make fun of the cure-all tonics peddled by the fast-talkers of a century ago. Why would we think the situation has changed?


MONDAY, May 1, 2006. I've been reading David Horowitz's book, The Professors, and it's driving me crazy. That prestigious colleges and universities all across the country are hiring and giving tenure to crazed, extreme leftists makes my blood boil. I could see how a couple of looney liberals could fall through the cracks into teaching positions in some of our institutions of higher learning, but Horowitz estimates there are presently 25,000 to 30,000 of them polluting the academic world. That's a lot of pollution!

Here's a sampling of what these "guardians" and "teachers" of today's intellectual thinking are saying:
"Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death."
- - --- Professor Sami al-Arian, professor of engineering at the University of South Florida.

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents."
- - --- Professor Bill Ayers, distinguished professor of early childhood education and senior university scholar, University of Illinois, Chicago campus.

"Ultimately we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country [the U.S.], because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country."
- - --- Professor Ihsan Bagby, professor of Islamic studies, University of Kentucky.

"We [blacks] must eliminate the white man before we can draw a free breath on this planet."
- - --- Professor Amiri Baraka, formerly LeRoi Jones Rutgers University, Stony Brook.

"Columbus's actions launched an era of modern colonialism, rape, pillage, genocide, cultural destruction, slavery, economic and environmental devastation."
- - --- Professor Marc Becker, associate professor of Latin American history at Truman Stat= University.

"Civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protection to all Americans."
- - --- Professor Mary Frances Berry, Geraldine R. Segal professor of American social thought and professor of history, University of Pennsylvania.

"The only way you can reach a conclusion that the [Black Panther] Party was violent is that blacks are not entitled to defend themselves."
- - --- Kathleen Cleaver, senior lecturer in law at Emory University.

"[I]t appears that the greatest threat to our freedoms is posed not by the terrorists themselves but by our own government's response."
- - --- Professor David Cole, professor of law at Georgetown University.

"Half the American public is terminally stupid."
- - --- Professor Juan Cole, professor of history, University of Michigan.

"In [Iran], there is a democratically elected government. If you ask me, [President] Khatami has more clear legitimacy than Bush does."
- - --- Professor Hamid Dabashi, professor of Islamic studies, Columbia University.

"[T]he only path of liberation for black people is that which leads toward complete and radical overthrow of the capitalist class."
- - --- Professor Angela Davis, professor of the history of consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

"The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military."
- - --- Professor Nicholas De Genova, assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia University.

"Falling temperatures will cause the ice caps to sink into the ocean, producing "a global tidal wave that could wipe out a substantial portion of mankind, and the sea level could rise 60 to 100 feet." (1970.) Also (some years later): "The population of the U.S. will shrink from 250 million to about 22.5 million before 1999 because of famine and global warming." [Emphasis added.] Also (as quoted in 1990): "Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." Also (as reported in 1992): "Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
- - --- Professor Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies and biology at Stanford University.

And these are examples of quotes from professors only through letter E!

My recommendation is for philanthropic graduates from these universities to withhold contributions to their alma maters until hair-brained views, like those above, are no longer featured and encouraged on the campus scene. And a matter-of-fact letter to the university president explaining your decision would probably be helpful, too.


MONDAY, April 24, 2006. If you're not familiar with Whistleblower magazine (published by WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.; website), I think you should be. It's a monthly publication, each issue of which is devoted to a specific topic. The December 2005 issue addressed "Criminalizing Christianity." Here are a couple of excerpts from "How 'Gay Rights' Is Being Sold to America," by David Kupelian:
[I]n the "gay rights" movement's relentless struggle to legitimize homosexuality, and in the greater society's veneration of them as heroes of the great civil rights crusade of the new millennium, we've forgotten one thing. In the endlessly clever media campaign that's bamboozled everyone, "restructured their consciousness," turned their hate into love and their rejection into acceptance, something crucial has been lost.

We've forgotten about reality. We've been living in a Madison Avenue fantasy world of marketing images and carefully crafted rhetoric in the foreground, with court battles, fascistlike intimidation, and relentless waves of persuasion in the background.

But what about the truth we've left behind? What about the reality of homosexuality, of what causes it, and of what it means physically and spiritually for those so oriented? Do we even care any more? [. . .]

[S]exually abused young males are "up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused," concludes the peer-reviewed 1998 study, "Sexual Abuse of Boys," by William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D. [. . .]

Unfortunately, with all the brainy marketing behind the campaign to mainstream homosexuality, what's been swept under the rug is the recognition -- once commonplace in America -- that flawed early relationships or sexual victimization can put a child on the road to homosexuality. [. . .]

Today we've basically abandoned "old-fashioned" notions of right and wrong in favor of "consensuality," which means two people can do whatever they want, no matter how abominable, as long as they "don't hurt anybody else." The problem with that -- aside from the fact that it denies the existence of God and His laws -- is that in such a deluded state you have no basis for determining if you're hurting another person or not. A pedophile justifies sex with children precisely because he doesn't believe he's hurting the child; rather he believes he's loving him. [. . .]

Where and when will this "gay rights" public relations steamroller stop? The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality. [. . .]

Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced -- and all because of a little factor we've forgotten about in our cleverness, namely this: In truth, there is something wrong with homosexuality.

Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive -- just as Western civilization has long understood it. [. . .]

Glorifying dysfunctionality and corruption, we have relieved homosexuals of the inner conflict they once felt over their condition -- something they desperately need, indeed all of us need, if we're ever going to overcome our problems and find wholeness.

MONDAY, April 17, 2006. Have you heard about Border XXI? With all the focus recently on the immigration problem, Border XXI deserves some attention, I think.
"The 1983 La Paz Agreement between the United States and Mexico is a pact to protect, conserve, and improve the environment of the border region of both countries. The agreement defined the region as the 62 miles (100 km) to the north and south of the international border. This area includes maritime (sea) boundaries and land in four American states and six Mexican border states." La Paz Agreement. La Paz Agreement. Border XXI and TRIP: Summary of the Framework Document. About the Border XXI Program. Border XXI Documents.
The following article was published in the Siera County Sentinel, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, June 11, 1997, page 19, and is a little more blunt about the La Paz Agreement.
"Tucked beneath the coattails of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was an additional agreement implementing what has come to be called the La Paz Agreement that calls for the elimination of the United States/Mexico International Border at Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas. The La Paz Agreement was implemented in January 1997 and calls for a 62.5 mile strip north and south of the border to be an open zone and will be called "Border Region 21." [Italics added.] "Federally Supported Land Grabs: Border Area 21, Elimination of the Border Between U.S. and Mexico."
Border XXI has distributed control of the region and has diluted sovereignty there. Some believe that was the initial intent of the agreement. It blurs the border and subjects it to oversight from numerous parties and powers. It turns the designated strip of territory into almost a no-man's land.

The original Border XXI agreement concluded in 2000, but now a new agreement is in place:
"Border 2012 is a 10-year, bi-national, results-oriented environmental program for the U.S.-Mexico border region. The Border 2012 Program is the latest multi-year, bi-national planning effort to be implemented under the La Paz Agreement and succeeds Border XXI, a five-year program that ended in 2000." HCM2021. U.S.-Mexico Border Program.
The one-world folks are busy turning the planet into a borderless "utopia" where folks can move from place to place without the worries of such "irritations" as citizenship, sovereignty, private property, and national boundaries. And now there are millions of Mexicans here who are singing out of the same hymnal.

More sources of information: "Sustainable Communities," by Henry Lamb. "Borders? What Borders? Take a Bi-National Vacation," by Paula Devlin.


MONDAY, April 10, 2006. We keep reading about polls that say a majority of American citizens approve of abortion. But, as everybody knows, polling data can be skewed in any direction desired by the poll takers. The comments of Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL are instructive:
"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 million."
And thus, with a budget of just $7500 in 1969, abortion champions transformed our country, which hitherto had subscribed to the idea that there were certain unalienable rights, and that among them were Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And now your federal government is using your tax dollars to fund the killing of innocent unborn human beings. In the year 2003, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America ended the lives of 244,628 unborn babies, and during its fiscal year ending June 30, 2004, received more than $265 million in government grants and contracts. In the seven years following June 30, 1997, Planned Parenthood received more than $1.49 billion from American taxpayers. It performed 1,398,574 abortions during that time. (If you do the math, it's $1065 per murder.)

Planned Parenthood is more deadly than leukemia, brain cancer, skin cancer, diabetes, car accidents, Alzheimer's disease, and HIV/AIDS combined! Abortion has become the leading cause of death for black Americans; 1,452 killings per day. Although blacks comprise only 12 percent of the U.S. population, black women account for 32 percent of abortions!

Apparently many are unaware that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger launched her birth control movement from a perspective of race and class bias. She was fascinated with eugenics and wrote a series of articles on the subject: "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920); "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921); "The Purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924); "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" July 1925); and "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928). Writing to a colleague, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, she said,
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population . . ."
The "pro-choice" gang -- mostly Democrats -- wish to describe a living human being in a woman's womb as a "potential person" or merely a lump of biomass. They leap at the chance to kill Terri Schiavo, think partial-birth abortions are just fine (that's when a woman gives birth and the "doctor" destroys the baby during the delivery process), and only have respect for life when a convicted murderer is on his way to lethal injection. It's a strange kind of compassion.

Sources of information above: "The Fraud of Roe v. Wade," by David Kupelian, and "Making a Bloody Fortune," by Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Whistleblower, February 2006, pages 8, 28, and 36.
MONDAY, April 3, 2006. You go to a fine restaurant, order the $55 "Complete Dinner," and ask for the check. The waiter smiles, then inquires, "And what is your total annual income, sir?"

Indignant, you respond, "I don't know what business it is of yours, but I earn a very respectable $82,000 a year. Now, please, I'd like the check!"

The waiter replies, "That would put you in the 'Level 3' income category, so the meal charge is 1.27 times the 'base' amount, or a total of 69 dollars and 85 cents. Will that be cash or a credit card?"

"Wait a minute," you retort. "You mean you're going to charge me $69.85 for this meal, while you're going to charge someone else with a smaller income just $55, for an identical meal? Are you crazy? That's insane! The food is the same, the service is the same, the surroundings are the same, but you expect me to fork out $14.85 more than Joe Janitor? That's absurd! That's outrageous! That's intolerable!"

But as we near income tax day, we know that our "friendly" government has exactly the same policy. The services the government provides to you are identical to the services provided Mr. Joe Janitor, yet your tax bill is higher because and only because you have a greater income. And the taxes really rich people pay are even greater yet, though the rich receive no special treatment: no faster postal delivery times, no greater police protection, no better education for their kids in the public schools, . . .

But, what about the poor people, you may say. They couldn't possibly afford to pay the tax if everybody paid the same amount. They're poor!

If there are people paying no tax (like today), then the system is corrupted. They have no concern about tax rates or tax fairness, and they will forever strive to increase government handouts. Why would they do otherwise? There are no personal consequences for them for higher and higher tax rates.

Fairness would dictate that every American citizen should pay the same dollar tax amount. Then, if passed by elected representatives, laws could provide rebates or other kinds of assistance to the needy.

Our tax laws are designed to maximize revenue for government. Fairness is not -- nor has it ever been -- a factor that influences this objective. It used to be universally understood that double taxation was not allowed. It wasn't fair, it wasn't ethical, it wasn't right. Now the government does it all the time. And the only reason these money-grabbing, unfair-taxing, outrageous policies continue is because the people allow them.


MONDAY, March 27, 2006. The year: 1969 or 1970. The place: Oslo, Norway. The occasion: a meeting to stir up anti-American sentiment.

In charge of the meeting was a blonde-haired kid in his 20s, a little unkempt looking. He welcomed the attendees -- it wasn’t a large gathering -- and introduced a film to be shown. The movie, he explained, showed captured U.S. airmen condemning American atrocities committed during the Vietnam war.

One pilot shown on the screen explained how he was instructed to bomb civilian schools and hospitals and target religious sites and public gatherings. However, as he described these atrocious acts, he sat, hands on his knees, with the fingers of both hands clenched in fists, except for his middle fingers which were clearly pointing toward the camera. Occasionally he would scratch his face with one of those two fingers. Obviously his captors and most of the meeting goers didn’t recognize the gesture was a sign his statements were coerced.

Another captured pilot in the film referred to two airmen buddies who had participated in raids on civilians. He identified them as: Clark Kent and Ben Casey. They were the ones most successful in their attacks, the pilot said with a straight face.

The movie was a scorching indictment of America, its leaders, and its policies . . . unless, of course, you were familiar with the clear, coded messages the captured men conveyed in their “testimony”.

Most of those in the room that evening, however, were unfamiliar with the coded signals, so the presentation was clear “proof” of an evil America. But after the movie, one young man, an American (let‘s call him John) -- probably the only American in the audience -- stood up and revealed the statements were merely coerced propaganda. Several large men in the front row immediately leaped to their feet. “Don’t believe the outrageous lies this fascist is telling you,” they shouted. General confusion erupted and the meeting broke up in disarray.

As the attendees exited, the blonde-haired “leader” approached John. “Why did you try to ruin my meeting, man?” he inquired.

Some twenty years or so later, John realized the “kid” who had lead the hate-America meeting in Oslo was making a name for himself on the political scene here in the U.S.A. He realized the kid was none other than William Jefferson Clinton! Yes, Bill Clinton, who as a Rhodes Scholar attended classes during his first semester in Oxford but didn’t take his final exams, spent the remainder of his trans-Atlantic time traveling around Europe -- and into the U.S.S.R. -- beating the anti-American drum. And this was about the time the future President was doing everything in his power to avoid being drafted into the U.S. Army.

When I was told this story recently, John said he had described the incident to Washington Times reporters. The story was going to be published if it could be verified Clinton was indeed in Oslo on the date John had recorded in the diary he kept.

As it turned out, State Department records that might have proved Clinton was there had all been destroyed. But I have no reason to doubt John’s veracity and the details of the meeting he described.


MONDAY, March 20, 2006. Many on the left seem to hold abortion as the most sacred principle of our times. Just look how Ted Kennedy and his comrades focused on the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling in their interrogations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito during the recent Senate hearings. If abortion isn't the holy grail of liberalism, what is? Certainly not fighting terrorism, clearly not reducing taxes, obviously not controlling illegal immigration.

Liberals will fight to the death over the practice of allowing "doctors", those who have vowed to do no harm, to kill the most helpless among us: the unborn . . . or the partially born. Many Democrats preach and protest against the death penalty for individuals who have been proven guilty, while they demonstrate and demand that the lives of the most innocent of mankind should be terminated, at the whim of a woman's fancy.

Of course the media elite are at the forefront of the pro-death phalanx. Oops, sorry: "pro-choice" phalanx. They beat the drum for the "right to choose" and if you tune in to their rantings, you'd think that was all there was to it: let women decide for themselves -- maybe with an abortionist's advice -- in all matters involving their own bodies.

The cries of those who have had abortions and wish to tell their tales of grief and dismay are ignored by the media. We certainly can't have the public informed about both sides of an issue, can we.

Joyce Zounis is director of women's outreach for Operation Outcry: Silent No More, a movement encouraging women to speak out about abortion. She says, "The aftermath of abortion is horrendous. I was told it would be over 'real quick' -- it lasted 27 years! [N]ot once in eleven years was I told of the emotional complications an abortion can bring -- personality changes, numbness, rage, never-ending mental anguish, the exhaustive effort of balancing my fragile state of mind, the tormenting silence of guilt and shame, the constant dissatisfaction with life and the absolute need to grieve the loss of my children."

Caron Strong: "Nightmares and suicidal thoughts are common, especially around the anniversary of the abortion or the date when the baby would have been born."

Amy Marie: "It devastated me. I had nightmares, flashbacks, fits of rage, uncontrollable crying, trouble sleeping, and could not look at pregnant women or children without feeling hurt, anger and guilt."

Brandy: "No one told me that I would hear cries in the middle of the night."

Scherrie: "Twenty-five years later, I still cannot talk about it without tears and pain in my heart. It all looks simple on paper and seems like an easy way out of a bad spot, but no one tells you that the easy way out will cost you later in emotional damage and physical problems."

Norma McCorvey is the "Jane Roe" of the Roe v. Wade lawsuit. In 1995 she found Christianity (maybe it was the other way around) and she now has dedicated her life to the pro-life cause. "I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders," she says. "I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. The issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn, and justice for what is right."

[Source of quotes: "Roe v. Roe," by Art Moore, Whistleblower magazine, February 2006, pages 18-19.]


MONDAY, March 13, 2006. Going through last year's records in the "always-fun" income tax preparation exercise, I came across my long-distance telephone bill for March 2005. I have a plan where out-of-state calls are charged at just 2.9 cents per minute. It's a pretty good rate!

The March bill showed I made only one call and it was just one minute in length. So here's the question: What was the amount due for March?

I was amazed. It was $1.27! That's for a 2.9-cent phone call.

You see, there's a 99-cent "Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee", and a 7-cent "City Communications Services Tax", and a 3-cent "State Statutory Gross Receipts" charge, and a 4-cent "Federal Excise Tax", and finally an 11-cent "Federal USF Combined High Cost and School" charge (I think this may be the "Al Gore" tax to wire rural schools to the Internet -- schools that have been wired to the Internet for years).

So that phone bill consisted of 97.6% taxes, fees, and miscellaneous charges and just 2.4% actual phone service.

Amazing! And liberals think our taxes are too low!


MONDAY, March 6, 2006. It happened more than 18 years ago in a public school. Tommy (not his real name) was assigned to a sixth-grade social studies class taught by a Mr. Collins (his real name). Mr. C. took a liking to Tommy and asked him to stay after school occasionally to help with classroom maintenance duties like cleaning the chalk board and straightening up the chairs. Tommy was pleased to be of assistance.

Over time, a friendship developed and the teacher invited the student to his home where the two looked at travel pictures and talked, and after a while Mr. Collins confided he had another activity in mind. The teacher, who was probably in his late 20s, explained what he was going to do. A blanket was placed over both their laps as they sat side by side. Mr. C. reached his hand underneath the cover and undid Tommy's fly. Then he gently and briefly fondled Tommy's most private of parts.

"You must never tell your parents," Mr. Collins cautioned. "Promise me they'll never know about this." Confused and flustered, Tommy agreed.

There were other times, too, such as a trip to the stadium to see a major league baseball game, when it was cool enough to warrant taking a blanket, and a visit to the big city hockey arena to see a game. Tommy was apparently too young to experience any "sexual" stimulation from the encounters, but clearly Mr. C. was not. And these "trysts" continued even after the boy graduated from the sixth grade.

But one day at his home, Tommy was overwhelmed with feelings he could not explain. His emotions swirled about like a tornado and they erupted in an outburst of uncontrollable crying. His parents were perplexed. What was wrong? What was the matter? What was going on?

Tommy felt unable to continue his pledge of silence and he told his mother and father everything. The catharsis was therapeutic. Tommy knew deep down inside that what his teacher had done was improper, but breaking his promise was also wrong, he thought.

I understand that over the years, Tommy looked back at the trauma caused by the incident, and he pondered whether or not there were any lasting effects. It's hard to say, he confesses, but life-long consequences may indeed have resulted.

And so, with such scenarios such as this -- or far, far worse -- being played out millions of times across the country, it's hard to understand tolerance of groups like NAMBLA and the ACLU which acts so aggressively on NAMBLA's behalf. (Related 1. Related 2. Related 3. Related 4. Related 5. Related 6. Related 7. Related 8. Related 9. Related 10.)


MONDAY, February 27, 2006. The Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar February 21-22, 2006 at The Breakers in Palm Beach, Florida was absolutely outstanding (just as you'd expect from Hillsdale College). Speakers included Peggy Noonan, Larry Arnn (Hillsdale president), Mark Levin, Fred Barnes, and others.

I was able to talk briefly with Peggy Noonan and I asked who in the long term did she think would win, liberals or conservatives. She pondered the question momentarily, then said rather assuredly conservatives would prevail. She went on to say that's because, fundamentally, people yearn for conservative values. The allure of liberalism may ensnare us and drag us down even more, but ultimately, the goodness of the right will be triumphant. I remarked that her perspective was cause for optimism, but she cautioned we may sink a whole lot more before the conservative will engages. Thus, there may be quite a spell of darkness before we're able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

During her talk (subject: "Presidents and the Media: Reagan to Bush"), Noonan remarked that there's a vast pent-up desire, at least bubbling within half of the voting public, to have a woman president, and Hillary will effortlessly tap into that reservoir. That's the secret weapon Senator Clinton has in her drive for the presidency. (The article Noonan wrote after the seminar.)

Interestingly, in a conversation with Fred Barnes after his talk (subject: "Objectivity and the Mainstream Media"), he said he thought Hillary has absolutely no chance to be elected to the highest office in the land. His reasoning: Hillary is not liked by her political brethren, she is harsh and shrill, and too many voters despise her.

I asked Fred if he had experienced any pressure at FOX News to moderate his conservatism on the air to make FOX appear more middle-of-the-road. He said absolutely not. I was curious because I thought his reactions to Bush's recent State of the Union speech were more negative than I thought were justified. Fred said he has heard a lot of Bush speeches he considered noteworthy, but that wasn't one of them.

Hillsdale College refuses all government funding, so it is unencumbered with regard to federal dictates, demands, and regulations. That's my kind of college! Let me encourage you to subscribe to Imprimis, Hillsdale's national speech digest. There's no charge. Address: Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242. Phone: 800-437-2268. Imprimis Archive.


MONDAY, February 20, 2006. Perhaps there are many who believe the homosexual movement is merely an oppressed few yearning for a chance to exercise their own brand of sexuality without embarrassment, torment, or disgrace. Gays and lesbians simply want to engage in private relations with like-minded individuals and they have no agenda beyond that. Right?

Well, apparently not. Homosexuals themselves have let the cat out of the bag with their own words:
"Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . . . We must keep our eyes on the goal. . . of radically reordering society's views of reality."
The statement is from Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Notice her phrase: "radically reordering society's views of reality." It's not exactly a plea to keep prying eyes away from her bedroom.
"All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. . . . [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men. . . . The family unit -- spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence -- will be abolished. . . . All churches who condemn us will be closed."
Michael Swift wrote those words in the February 1987 issue of Gay Community News. Now that's not exactly a polite request for tolerance and respect. It's more a declaration of war on marriage and family values. He also said:
"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons will become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."
So the homosexual message isn't: let me be me. It's: I'm going to make you into me.
"[W]e are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality."
So threatened Steve Warren, spokesman for the homosexual group Act Up, in an article in The Advocate, a gay community magazine. Also writing about this cultural revolution were Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s. They presented their strategy:
"Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion."
In his article, Steve Warren summed up progress to date:
"We have captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already beaten you on a number of battlefields. And we have the spirit of the age on our side. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now."
His words are hard to dispute. Just turn on your TV to any of the numerous gay-advocate programs, go to the movies and watch Brokeback Mountain, perform a Google search with "gay marriage" as the search argument. Homosexuality is winning. Christianity, family, and marriage are losing.

In his article "How 'Gay Rights' Is Being Sold to America," author David Kupelian reports that "the popular teen magazine Seventeen conducted a reader poll in 1991, shortly after activist homosexuals abandoned the streets in favor of the television studio. At the time, only 17 percent of the magazine's adolescent readers accepted homosexuality as appropriate. In 1999, after eight years of intense 'gay rights' marketing, a whopping 54 percent, more than three times as many teens, accepted homosexuality as appropriate."

Kupelian continues:
"Whether in culture, politics, law, business, the news media, entertainment, education, or even the church, homosexual strides have been nothing short of astonishing. Once condemned as 'immoral deviants,' homosexuals and lesbians today are honored, idealized, defended as victims, and celebrated as role models. Thanks to 'hate-crimes' legislation, they are now afforded extra protections as a special class of people -- protections nor granted to all members of society. (If you were assaulted, the perpetrator would get one sentence, but if you were assaulted because of your homosexuality, the perpetrator would receive a more severe sentence under hatecrimes sentencing guidelines.) Meanwhile, in what was once a vibrant Judeo-Christian culture, Christians and other proponents of traditional biblical principles are routinely cast as bigots and 'homophobes.' . . "
Perhaps lesbian lawyer Barbara Findlay was right when she predicted: "The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation."

[Kupelian quotes from Whistleblower magazine, December 2005, page 25. Other quotes from "Gay Acivists' War Against Christianity," by Ed Vitagliano, American Family Association Journal, February 2006, pages 16, 17, 22.]


MONDAY, February 13, 2006. The mainstream media and the rest of the Left seem to have a love affair with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and other animal-rights groups. Whenever there's a PETA campaign or announcement or any save-the-animal demonstration, the press covers it with enthusiasm and fawning support. Look closely, however, and very often you'll find that animal-rights advocates are -- underneath their disguise -- nut cases, loonies, and extremists, wildly out of step with traditional American values. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what these animal kooks themselves say:
"Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth." -- PETA statement.

"I don't believe human beings have the 'right to life.' That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director.

"It would be great if all the fast food outlets' slaughterhouses, laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow." -- Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman.

"I would rather have medical experiments done on our children, than on animals." -- PETA statement.

"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." "Only 7% of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States. . . We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." -- Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S.

"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition." -- Peter Singer, known as the "Father of Animal Rights".

"To those people who say, 'My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say, 'Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of tradeoff." -- Bill Maher.

"Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], we'd be against it." -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director.

"Chickens are interesting individuals who have as much right not to be cooked and eaten as a dog or a cat or even a human being." -- Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman.

"Ants are sentient beings, like we are, and have a right to life like we do, and they shouldn't be shown the level of disrespect the producers of ant farms show them." -- Stephanie Boyles, PETA.

"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration." -- Michael W. Fox, vice president, Humane Society of the United States.

"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." -- Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA, and subsequently the head of an animal-rights fundraising company.

"I think it is speciesist [someone who accepts human domination over animals] to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day and what they endure every day because they cannot defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed against them." -- Karen Davis, president of the animal rights group United Poultry Concerns.

"If a human four-year-old has what it takes for legal personhood, then a chimpanzee should be able to be a legal person in terms of legal rights." -- Steven Wise, Harvard University lecturer and author of Rattling the Cage.

"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans." -- Peter Singer.

"[A]rson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." -- Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA.

"If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justified solution." -- Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for PCRM [Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine], a front group for PETA.

We see that many of the "noble" animal-rights people are anti-Christian, anti-human being, even anti-mankind! Based on recent reports about PETA folks killing large numbers of dogs and cats, it seems some may even be anti-animal!

(State of Virginia documents show PETA kills 85 percent of the animals it receives. By contrast, the Norfolk SPCA finds homes for 73 percent of the animals it takes in. On June 15, 2005, two PETA employees were arrested in North Carolina on charges of animal cruelty. Police caught the pair, Andrew Cook, 24, and Adria Hinkle, 27, dumping the corpses of eighteen dogs, including seven puppies, a cat and two kittens, and several other animals into a dumpster behind a Piggly Wiggly supermarket in Ahoskie County, North Carolina. Witnesses told reporters they thought the animals had been given to PETA by owners who assumed good homes would be found for them. After all, they worked for PETA! PETA president Ingrid Newkirk explained in a 2003 New Yorker article how she became involved in the animal-rights movement after some kittens she had taken to a "shelter" were put to sleep. She said, "I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. . . I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." -- Information from Capital Research Center Organization Trends, January 2006, pages 2 and 3. Published by Capital Research Center, 1513 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1480. Phone: 202-483-6900 or 800-459-3950. E-mail. Website.)


MONDAY, February 6, 2006. If you think environmentalism is all about saving the earth, protecting the whales, stopping pollution, and the like, I here's some news. It's not! Listen to what environmental advocates themselves have to say:
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism." [Environmentalism equals replacing capitalism with socialism.]
-- Judi Bari, Earth First! member.

"The environmentalist's dream is an egalitarian society based on: rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally."
-- Aaron Wildavsky, political scientist and professor. [Environmentalism equals making everybody equal; that is, it's communism.]

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. . , [C]limate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." [Environmentalism equals changing the world.]
-- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister.

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land." [Environmentalism equals a return to primitive living.]
-- David Foreman, Earth First! member.

"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." [Environmentalism equals changing policy by claiming -- even without substantiation -- it's necessary to save the world's environment.]
-- Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, and one of a number of politicians (including Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Al Gore, John Kerry, Christopher Shays, and others) who were designated as "Green Leadership for the '90s."

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment}, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." [Environmentalism equals lies "if necessary".]
-- Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist.

"We routinely wrote scare stories about the hazards of chemicals, employing words like 'cancer,' and 'birth defects' to splash a little cold water in reporters' faces. . . . Our press reports were more or less true. . . . Few handouts, however, can be completely honest, and ours were no exception . . . . We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment." [Environmentalism equals government-sponsored deception.]
-- Jim Sibbison, former EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) press officer.

"Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say." [Environmentalism equals silencing debate and stifling contrary opinions.]
-- Ross Gelbspan, former editor of the Boston Globe.

"I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy." [Environmentalism equals indoctrination.]
-- Charles Alexander, "Time" magazine science editor.
Writer John Meredith summarizes: "The radical environmental movement is destroying America. It is turning our society, once based on individual freedom and responsibility, into little more than mindless followers of regulations established at the whim of unelected special-interest groups."

Walter Williams has the last word: "While the Soviet Union has collapsed, communism is not dead. It has [been] repackaged under a new name: environmentalism. Communism is about extensive government regulation and control by elites, and so is environmentalism."


MONDAY, January 30, 2006. We now know Joseph McCarthy was right (the liberals were wrong) and Soviet agents were indeed working within the U.S. government in pursuit of communist objectives. That being the case, as the Venona Papers have well established, just what has happened to the communist threat? If the Left so successfully protected communist agents by smearing McCarthy's efforts to expose them, where do things stand today?

It's hard for me to escape the conclusion that communists remain busy inside and outside our government to corrupt, disrupt, and dismantle our republic. And I see evidence all about. American values, American culture, American traditions are under attack as never before. Alger Hiss may not be around to spy and to spread his Soviet influence, but many like-minded communist sympathizers have followed in his footsteps and are working tirelessly on behalf of our enemies. Some may be merely "useful idiots" as Joseph Stalin called them, but they're advancing the cause of communism, nevertheless.

"The theory of communism," wrote Karl Marx, "may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property." In lock step, we saw the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements pronounce in its report: "Land . . . cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land is therefore indispensible." We heard from Peter Berle, former president of the National Audubon Society, and board member of the Sierra Club, when he stated unequivocally, "We reject the idea of private property." Sierra Club member Debbie Sease joined the chorus: "We're going to take on these phony property rights advocates and kick their butts." Brock Evans, vice president of the National Audubon Society: "I think [private property] should be in the public domain. We should get it all. Be unreasonable. You can do it. Yesterday's heresy is today's common wisdom. So I would say, let's take it back, let's take it all back." Comedian (?) George Carlin: "[P]rivate property [. . .] is at the core of our failure as a species." Louis Proyect, Columbia University (teaching our kids his own brand of communism): "The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need."

Jane Fonda worked for the cause: "I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." Ralph Nader: "What is needed is socialism or communism of one sort of another." Senator Bob Kerrey: "I don't think the problem is that we don't have enough freedom. For gosh sakes, I've got so much freedom, I don't know what to do with it." Hillary Clinton (2004): "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Whoopie Goldberg: "I don't really view communism as a bad thing." And Ted Turner: "Communism is fine with me."

It seems many of us have either forgotten the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, or have consciously chosen to discard it. John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist." In 1775, Arthur Lee of Virginia said: "The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty." More recently, Theodore Roosevelt reinforced the point: "In every civilized society, property rights must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily and in the great majority of cases, human rights and property rights are fundamentally and in the long run, identical."

The Endangered Species Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1973, not only authorized but encouraged government bureaucrats to trespass on private property, make judgements (with or without proof) about animals or plants found in your back yard, and indeed specify how you may use your own property. Once your land has been designated "critical habitat," the government -- not you -- takes control (in effect, ownership) and dictates to you how your land may or may not be used.

Less the twenty years after the Endangered Species Act became law, Senator Mark Hatfield, an ESA supporter, said, "[T]oday the act is being applied across entire states and regions, with the result that it now affects millions upon millions of acres of publicly and privately owned land, and many thousands of human beings. [. . .] The situation has gotten out of control." Indeed it has. And the situation has only become worse since the Senator made those comments in a Washington Post article June 12, 1992.

Now we see the U.S. Supreme court issuing rulings (Kelo v. City of New London) allowing a municipality to seize private property from one citizen and give it to another so more tax revenue will be forthcoming for government coffers. Adams was right: anarchy and tyranny have commenced. Today, government overtly and blatantly thumbs its nose at private property, and lots of Americans think that's just fine.


MONDAY, January 23, 2006. How much does it cost? How far is it from here to there? How old are you? What time is it? Are we going faster than the speed limit?

Everything is measured, calibrated, sized, and delineated, and these valuations are essential in day-to-day life. But wait, there's one commodity that has eluded measurement. It's one of our most treasured possessions, but there's no scale, no value, no gauge to assess how much freedom we have. Some think we have a lot; others think we have far too little, but without some unit of measure, it's impossible to say unequivocally. Are we gaining or losing freedom? Do we have more or less freedom today than we had fifty years ago? What's the rate of freedom gain or loss? These are all important questions and crucial to those who cherish the liberty and freedom bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.

There are some parameters we should be able to agree with. Private property is fundamental to freedom. So is the idea of equal justice under the law. So is the right to own and use a weapon for self protection, the free exercise of an individual's religion, unfettered individual speech, a press able to publish findings without government censorship, certainly low taxes, and minimum government interference in individual affairs. And of course there are others.

Thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling, however, private property is not as secure as it was just a few years ago. Equal justice under the law is being eroded by the idea of special rights for special groups, and our very concept of the "law" is being transformed into a kind of putty that can be molded at will. The law said only a man and woman can marry, but some didn't like that, so they simply ignored the law and were rewarded with no adverse consequences. An illegal alien used to be considered illegal, but now our government looks the other way when immigration laws are trashed. Many of our elected officials wish to seize weapons from the citizens, thereby rendering the public defenseless. I am free to exercise my religion as long as it doesn't interfere with the wishes of Michael Newdow and/or the ACLU, both of whom seem to have a personal vendetta against Christianity. And judges and courts around the country are ruling again and again against the free exercise of religion, using as an excuse "the wall of separation between church and state". Folks like to think they have free speech, but try speaking about homosexuals from a church pulpit and some government officials may visit you to discuss your "crime". (It has already happened.) The press remains free, but that's because it's an instrument of the left. Nowadays, politicians who suggest lower taxes are castigated for wanting to "harm" the children, people on welfare, and anyone else who sucks at the government's tit. And the thought of reducing to a minimum government interference in individual affairs is now laughable. The U.S. citizen is controlled and managed and dominated by government as never before in American history.

It seems to me the left is inching ever onward toward its goal of socialism and world dominance and with each "advance" our freedoms become marginalized, restricted, and ignored. I just wish we had a measuring stick to document the degradation, so people would be better able to comprehend the results over time of the culture war we're now battling.


MONDAY, January 16, 2006.A little over a week ago I participated in what was billed as a "debate" with the managing editor of the Sun-Sentinel newspaper at a breakfast meeting of the Tower Forum in Ft. Lauderdale. I chose to consider it a "discussion" rather than a debate of the topic we were assigned: "Bias in the media: What's the impact?"

I started out by asking those in attendance if they thought the mainstream media were for or against John Kerry. Everyone shouted out "For". I asked: for or against abortion? The response was mixed, but mostly "For". For or against the war in Iraq? It seemed unanimous: "Against!" For or against gay marriage? "For!" For or against America? The response was mixed, but I believe more registered "Against" than "For". In any event, it was quite clear the audience perceived a strong bias in the media, and indeed, the managing editor conceded this point early on.

The "debate" then seemed to settle into a pattern. I described examples of blatant mainstream media bias and the managing editor would say, yes, there is bias, but not at the Sun-Sentinel.

At one point I mentioned the book Disinformation, by Richard Miniter, and the revelation that WMDs have indeed been discovered in Iraq: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas), over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas, bombs loaded with mustard and sarin gas, among other weapons. I then posed the question: Why is it that such startling information has not been headlined in the major media? Why is it so many in the press have not even mentioned these astonishing findings.

The response was: The managing editor didn't consider the information newsworthy. I was amazed.

My closing remarks were: "In his book, Bias, Bernard Goldberg states: 'The old argument that the networks and other media elites have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark comers and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.' But what is the impact of media bias? It is, arguably, a war lost in Vietnam, thanks to media manipulation of the 'news.' It's ruined reputations -- like Joe McCarthy's. It's an election that might have turned out the other way, if bloggers weren't around to reveal the truth. It's a war in Iraq where the media may be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And it's thousands upon thousands of journalists and writers coloring their reporting, slanting their words, and influencing American thinking. In other words, the impact of media bias is immeasurable."


A lion relaxes lazily in the shade of a beautiful acacia tree on the Serengeti.  Photo by FG, Dec. 2005.MONDAY, January 9, 2006. My trip to Tanzania with brother Jim (I now call him "Jungle Jim") was a grand success! We hiked through Gombe Stream National Park looking for (and finding) chimpanzees, drove hundreds of miles back and forth across the Serengeti taking pictures all the way (can you spot the lions in the photo? Click to enlarge.), twice crisscrossed the floor of Ngorongoro Crater and found the "Big Five" (lions, elephants, rhinos, buffalos, leopards), and visited the Tarangire National Park where we saw monkeys, wildebeests, hartebeests, topi, zebras, antelopes, giraffes, wart hogs, hyenas, hyrax, and many other exciting animals.

There's nothing quite like an Africa picture-taking safari. The weather was very good, though we had some hot days and rather cool days, the air was fresh and invigorating, and for most of the trip we didn't see a TV set, telephone (although our guide had a cell phone), sign board, high-voltage utility pole, or even a paved road! And we didn't hear what we hear every day in the U.S.: a constant barrage of political talk, Bush bashing, war protests, scandals, immigration problems, budget overruns, and bickering. We watched for some while in Gombe National Park as baboons frolicked about, some dashing by me so closely I could have touched them. We looked out over the Serengeti and saw in every direction an uninterrupted expanse of plains for as far as the eye could see. We observed lions mating in the Ngorongoro Crater, and watched hippos splashing themselves in a small water hole, and saw flamingos scooting along in the shallow depths of a lake. The peacefulness and tranquility are an antidote for the stress and anxiety of twenty-first century life in the U.S.

But now I'm back home, I've pretty much recovered from the eight-hour time-zone difference, and I suppose it's time to plunge back into things political. Once again the TV is blaring, newspaper headlines are screaming, and Americans are agitated over the latest outrages.

I can rejoin the fracas, refreshed and energized. And I'll forever have the magnificent memories of two weeks in Tanzania to balance all the insanity that seems so prevalent in today's scene.






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. Second half of 2005.





The way back home.