 The way back home. Send this page from You Don't Say to a friend.For those using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Select the "Mail" icon at the top of this window, then "Send Page." For those using Netscape: Select "File" at the top of this window, then "Send Page." |
 For years I've searched the racks of cards in December for a Christmas greeting that doesn't say the word "Christmas." I have several Jewish friends and I don't wish to offend them. I don't want to upset them or demonstrate lack of compassion. So what did I do? I bought cards that said, "Happy holidays" or "Season's greetings," that sort of thing. So I voluntarily sacrificed wishing most of my friends and family members "Merry Christmas," so I wouldn't upset a few who might take offense with the words. That's a perfect example of political correctness. Do you have to be Irish to be wished happy Saint Patrick's Day? Dare I say such a thing to someone who isn't Irish? Will they be offended? Hey, Saint Patrick's Day is a Christian festival (oh, my!) celebrated in the Catholic Church (oh, my, again). Is it rude or careless or improper to nonchalantly toss about the words: "Happy Saint Patrick's Day"? No, for goodness sake, of course not! Most people are delighted to join in the fun, wear something green, drink green beer, and try to speak with an Irish accent. It's no more offensive than wishing someone "Happy Martin Luther King Day" if they're not black. Or wishing someone "Happy Valentine's Day" if they're not in love. (Warning, warning: This holiday is named after two men -- oh, oh -- both of whom were named Valentine and both of whom were Christian martyrs -- oh-my-gosh!) So this year, although the cards I bought didn't have the words "Merry Christmas" printed on them, I decided to write them in. In bold, green letters. Hey, it's Christmas! So Merry Christmas to you, whether you be Christian or anything else. If you choose to take offense, that's your choice. I choose to merrily spread Christmas cheer to one and all. I say it again: Merry Christmas! "[I]n fifty years we've gone from a nation unified by traditional Judeo-Christian values to one in which those same values are increasingly scorned, rejected, and demonized. [. . .]Perhaps you thought the degradation of our morals and values has been a natural, inevitable phenomena. Not so, says Kupelian. Each slip and slide along the slippery slope has been funded, engineered, orchestrated, and thrust upon society by those who benefit from society's debauchery. I strongly recommend this book. Very insightful. [A copy may be purchased at the WorldNetDaily on-line store.] Isn't it curious that the mayors (in order: Slay, Kilpatrick, Williamson, Perrodin, Faison, Kincaid, Campbell, Brown, McKelvey, and King) are all Democrats, except Republican Williamson in Flint (King was a Democrat but became an Independent in 2005). Isn't it curious, too, that the U.S. Representatives representing those cities (St. Louis: Clay and Carnahan; Detroit: Kilpatrick and Conyers; Flint: Kildee; Compton: Millender-McDonald; Camden: Andrews; Birmingham: Davis; Cleveland: Kucinich and Jones; Oakland: Lee; Youngstown: Ryan; and Gary: Visclosky) are all Democrats. Every last one. Hmmm. We can conclude that most felons vote Democrat because Democrats in Congress have been working hard to give felons the vote. We can also conclude most illegal immigrants vote Democrat, too, because legislators on the left have been angling to give them voting rights, as well. We have pretty good evidence terrorists favor the Democrats over Republicans (reference), so we're beginning to see the nature of the support Democrats enjoy from the electorate. Obviously, millions of good and honest American citizens pull the levels for Democrats, too. My question is this: if you are judged by the company you keep, do you really want to run around in Democrat circles? [Source of ranking information: "Top 10 most Dangerous Cities in America," Human Events, November 6, 2006, page 10. Address: 1 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001. Phone: 202-216-0600. Website. See also the Morgan Quitno website.] The war. Republicans seem to understand the war on terror -- the war against radical Islam -- must be waged and must be won. If we lose, we lose everything. The Democrats don't have a clue. Their victories in Tuesday's election could spell the beginning of our defeat in Iraq, and ultimately the demise of Western culture and indeed Western civilization. Yes, it's that serious.Don't tell me Democrats and Republicans are the same. On these issues -- major issues of the day -- and many more, they're diametrically opposed to one another. First, the press. The mainstream media have been absolutely relentless in their campaign of negativism. For years we've been bombarded with story after story of disaster in Iraq. Every casualty was trumpeted . . . almost with glee. We were told there weren't enough troops on the ground. The planning was all wrong. There was no exit strategy. There was insufficient body armor for our men and women. Every week or two another "mistake" was ballyhooed to intensify the drum beat of defeatism.After the public was sufficiently softened up with "Iraq is Vietnam, but worse" messages, the survey folks were pressed into action. They made calls and asked citizens if the war was going well. Surprise! The American people didn't think so. The results were featured on the evening TV news programs and Sunday interview shows. It was almost as though the media were testing to see if Americans got their message. The "hate-Bush" propaganda offensive was a complete success. How could Joe and Jane voter be other than pessimistic about a war where all the news is bad, 24-7? With each report it seemed to get worse. Our troops were being killed, it was George Bush's fault, and the war is unwinnable. Have you heard anything good about what's going on in Iraq? No, you haven't. Not even "fair and balanced" Fox News is reporting on the progress, accomplishments, good news. Yet achievements abound. The press will only tell the people about death, destruction, disaster. "Only 12 percent of election stories that aired on NBC, ABC or CBS were favorable toward Republican candidates, according to a study released Oct. 31 by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Media and Public Affairs. In contrast, Democrats basked in glory. The study found that 77 percent of the news accounts between Sept. 5 and Oct 22 offered favorable evaluations of Democratic candidates and lawmakers." ["Study: Big 3 Television News Programs Tilt Against GOP," by Jennifer Harper, The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, November 6, 2006, page 4]. So while the Republicans were very accommodating in the dump-Republicans campaign, with wild, irresponsible federal spending, immigration plans tailor-made for terrorists, and a scandal here and there, I believe the principle architects of their defeat were the drive-by media guys cooperating hand-in-glove with Islamic terrorists. FROM: Howard Dean Democratic National Committee (DNC) Washington, DC TO: Democrat Election Supervisors -- FOR YOUR EYES ONLY We aren't going to win this election unless we make better preparations and more effective use of our positions in the electoral process. Here are some suggestions for better managing the vote: — When counting votes from the military, make certain as many as possible are lost, incorrectly interpreted, or damaged beyond recognition.The dodo Republicans have bought into our early-voting scheme (those idiots), so it should be easier than ever (you have more time than ever before) to fix the voting results where they need fixing. I'm counting on you to do your part to guarantee a Democrat victory, preferably a landslide. Remember: It doesn't matter who votes or who the voters vote for. All that matters is who counts the votes. Joseph Stalin said it a little more eloquently: "He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything." In the event you are not steadfast in your support of Democrats, I've prepared plans to dispatch our legal teams to every state in the Union to dispute any election result that favors Republicans. Our attorneys will demand recounts, and once that happens, you must act quickly to skew the numbers even further in our direction. On to victory! Thanks. Howard If you poke around a little and read between the lines, you can figure out pretty well what a Democrat-controlled House and Senate would do. First, the war in Iraq. It's easy to see that the terrorists would be thrilled with a Democrat victory. Democrats are a terrorist-friendly bunch. Just look how Bill Clinton treated them, basically with disregard. John Murtha would like to see our troops flee from Iraq (in effect, waving white flags as they go), and redeployed to Okinawa. Wouldn't the terrorists like that! Bush and the Republicans are uncooperative; they want to end terrorism. They want to kill those who wish our demise. They want to confront the terrorist threat now rather than postpone it to a time when our adversaries are more numerous, powerful, and determined. So, if you like the terrorists and want to placate them, just like the voters in Spain did, then by all means, vote Democrat.There are a whole lot of things I don't like about the Bush administration -- immigration policy perhaps tops the list -- but in spite of my disappointment and indeed dismay, Republicans understand we're in a life-or-death war with terrorism. Democrats apparently haven't figured that out yet. So as I see it, my obligation is to vote for the party that is dedicated to protecting the American people. Terrorists are hoping we vote for the Democrats -- certainly their escalation of bombings and killings in Iraq demonstrates this -- so my votes will be going for candidates with an "R" beside their names. "One of the enduring staples in mad medicine [treating the insane] has been the rise and fall of cures. Rarely has psychiatry been totally without a remedy advertised as effective. Whether it be whipping the mentally ill, bleeding them, making them vomit, feeding them sheep thyroids, putting them in continuous baths, stunning them with shock therapies, or severing their frontal lobes -- all such therapies 'worked' at one time, and then, when a new therapy came along, they were suddenly seen in a new light, and their shortcomings revealed."Whitaker states in his book, published in 2001 (page xiii): "Over the past twenty-five years, outcomes for people in the United States with schizophrenia have worsened. They are now no better than they were in the first decades of the twentieth century, when the therapy of the day was to wrap the insane in wet sheets. Even more perplexing, schizophrenia outcomes in the United States and other developed countries today are much worse than in the poor countries of the world."So a key question is what's going on? Are our medical-providers and psychiatrists making progress in the treatment of mental diseases? Perhaps the answer can be found in an article by Tom DeWeese, titled, "Ritalin Is Poison" (The DeWeese Report, October 2006, page 4): "They (a committee of the American Psychiatric Association, APA) made a list of the most common symptoms of emotional discomfiture of children; those which bother teachers and parents most, and in a stroke that could not be more devoid of science or Hippocratic motive -- termed them a 'disease' [Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)]. Twenty five years of research, not deserving of the term 'research,' [have] failed to validate ADD/ADHD as a disease.It would seem that once again treatments have been imposed on patients, and many are benefiting -- teachers, parents, pharmaceutical manufacturers, child psychologists, counselors, special educators, and school coffers (federal annual grants of $400 flow to schools for each child diagnosed with ADHD) -- but not the "patients!" Live Science: [December 6, 2005.] The 2006 forecast calls for: 17 named tropical storms -- an average season has 9.6; 9 hurricanes compared to the average of 5.9; 5 major hurricanes with winds exceeding 110 mph -- average is 2.3.Let's recap: With their "improved" forecasting computer modeling software, state-of-the-art sensors and equipment, and all their wisdom and experience, our most-respected scientists, just six months prior to the start of the hurricane season, made a spectacularly incorrect prediction of what was to come. They demonstrated impressively they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when it comes to predicting weather patterns. Nevertheless, some of these same folks repeatedly stand before the microphones and TV cameras, with serious expressions on their faces, and assure us they are completely confident global warming will result in the earth's temperature rising 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100! On the surface this sounds reasonable and compassionate, just like so many liberal beliefs. Certainly folks from India, Togo, Papua New Guinea -- folks from anywhere in the world -- should be treated with respect as individuals. Certainly blacks and whites and browns -- people of any color -- should be accorded equal rights and equal justice. Certainly we're concerned about human rights and equal opportunity for all. But what about terrorists? This, it seems to me, is where liberals cling to the idea of multiculturalism to the exclusion of common sense and rationality. This is where their passion for equality leads them astray. They become so concerned about showing goodness and compassion to those who scheme to slit our throats and topple our nation, they lose all sense of reason. They want terrorists to feel happy and comfy while incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay by the United States. They want gentle coaxing ("pretty please, tell us what you know") instead of serious and intense interrogations. They want all the protections and safety guarantees provided by the U.S. Constitution accorded to those who don't even qualify as military fighters by the Geneva Convention. In short, they want to treat these people -- those who have vowed our decimation -- like you treat your neighbor next door. No, even better than that. Multiculturalism rears its ugly head in all sorts of issues: We should welcome illegal aliens into this country because they are good people and we should treat them equally with other people (that is, equally with legal aliens). We shouldn't use the death penalty, because it's so harsh, even for convicted serial murders. We should embrace socialism because it provides for the more equal distribution of services and resources. We should accept the Kyoto Protocol because it penalizes countries that produce the most greenhouse gasses (that is, countries that have been the most successful). We should give animals rights because they are living creatures, too, and deserve just as much respect as human beings. We should empower the United Nations and give up some of our sovereignty, because it's not fair for one country -- the U.S. -- to be so powerful, since that means other countries are less powerful. We should tax the rich and give to the poor so all people will be more equal. For those on the left, multiculturalism has become the foundation of liberal thought and policy. It is grounded in the sanctity of "equality," rather than the idea of equal rights, or equal opportunity, or equal treatment under the law. It sounds like such a compassionate ideology: so fair, so descent, so high minded. But of course it isn't. The Ayn Rand Institute has published a pretty good critique of multiculturalism on its website: Multiculturalism seeks to obliterate the value of a free, industrialized civilization (which today exists in the West and elsewhere), by declaring that such a civilization is no better than primitive tribalism. More deeply, it seeks to incapacitate a mind’s ability to distinguish good from evil, to distinguish that which is life promoting from that which is life negating.Lest you think we need to lock arms and repel the dangerous ideology of multiculturalism, think again. Multiculturalism has already taken hold. It is presently in the driver's seat, as this excellent article explains. The task is not protecting our country from multiculturalism, but recovering from the damage already wrought. PETAE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal Eaters.So call up some friends and get organized. Start one or more of these much-needed organizations. But, look out! Those on the Left won't like you if you do. Far too few Americans understand the stakes, I fear, and far too many are rooting for the Iranians, in order to besmirch the Bush record and achieve political advantage. We ought to listen carefully to the words of Ahmadinejad, for his threats are promises. I hereby declare that this sinister regime [Israel] is the banner of Satan. It is the banner of the Great Satan. [. . .] As we can see, from the southernmost point in South America to the easternmost point in Asia, all the people are shouting a single cry. With placards in their hands and clenched fists, they shout: Death to Israel. (Source.)The following excerpts from The New York Sun, describe the magnitude of the problem: [A]ccording to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira -- the late 620s -- the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his [recent] letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.There is fear we may soon be facing war -- of a nuclear variety -- with Iran. Perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad considers a declaration of war has already been issued. I've been told of a place, however, where old Ben is only half right. Death, yes, but taxes . . . no! The place is Tok, Alaska, a community about 200 miles southeast of Fairbanks, at the intersection of Routes 1 and 2. Because it isn't incorporated, it isn't considered a city, town, or village. It's just a place, a community. A friend visited there recently and reported: The people we have met up here are probably like our ancestors that settled the U.S. They are very independent and hard working. Most still depend on the game they kill and the fish they catch for a major portion of the meat they eat. They also grow vegetables. When you factor in the 24 hours of daylight, their growing season is as long if not longer than ours at home. We haven’t personally seen one yet but we are told that by late July there will be quite a few 70-pound cabbages at the local farmers' market.Before you quit your job, pack your things, and make a mad dash for Tok, you should know there are disadvantages. While there are 24 hours of daylight in the summertime, there are only three hours of daylight in the wintertime. There is a bank and a small medical/dental clinic, but if you have a serious illness or injury, you'll have to be Medivaced to Fairbanks. There's no movie theater or bowling alley, clothing or furniture stores. No McDonald's. No take-out pizza place. No cable TV. But they do have mosquitoes! By the millions. Big ones. Hungry ones. Agressive ones! Oh, I forgot to mention: Tok residents are still required to pay federal taxes, so I guess old Ben was right all along. "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."George Stein reported in the American Scientist: "[Karl] Marx himself viewed Darwin's work as confirmation by the natural sciences of his own views. . ."Stein found Darwin's theory was also greatly influential in China: "Mao Tse-tung regarded Darwin, as presented by the German Darwinists, as the foundation of Chinese scientific socialism."Joseph Stalin, who at one time was a theology student, was transformed when he read Darwin. In a 1940 book titled Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, author Emelian Yaroslavsky noted: "At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist."G. Glurdjidze said his boyhood friend, Joseph Stalin, told him, "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . . I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense. [The author is] Darwin. You must read it."So we can point a finger at Darwin's theory as perhaps the key factor that turned influential men away from God to godlessness and evil. Today, respected voices are speaking up to condemn Darwin's theory. "The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it. . . . Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people."Though thoroughly debunked, Darwin's theory of evolution continues to be taught as fact to nearly all the kids in our government schools. The anti-religion zealots won't yield. (Source: Tornado in a Junkyard, by James Perloff, Refuge Books, PO Box 191, Arlington, Massachusetts 02476-0002, Fourth printing: 2001, pages 117-118, 224-225.) The diameter of the moon's orbit increases about one and a half inches per year, but the increases would have been greater in the past. However, even with conservative extrapolations and the assumption the moon started its journey when in contact with Earth, it would take only 1.37 billion years to reach its current position. How is that possible if the Earth is five billion years old as many scientists say? Some of the comets, which are said to have been formed when the universe began, are breaking apart. How could they last for five billion years? Astronomer Fred Hoyle commented, "[T]hese comets cannot have been moving around the sun as they are at present for much longer than a million years, since otherwise they would already have broken Up." Hmmm. Helium slowly escapes through the earth's crust, and some of it eventually escapes the pull of gravity and enters space. Calculations show that a whole lot more helium should be present in the atmosphere if the Earth is indeed billions of years old. An article in New Science observed: "At first sight there ought to be about a thousand times as much helium in the atmosphere as there is." Many scientists agree that the Mississippi River formed about two million years ago. Calculating the change in the size over time of the huge delta at the river's mouth suggests it has existed for less than five thousand years. Experts at the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers concluded, "Adopting this rate of progress (262 feet per annum), four thousand four hundred years have elapsed since the river began to advance into the gulf." Hmmm. Consider the world's human population. After some careful analysis, scientist Henry Morris stated, "If the population increased at only 1/2 percent per year for a million years [the time many think man has roamed the planet], or if the average family size were only 2.5 children per family for 25,000 generations, the number of people in the present generation would exceed 102100, a number which is, of course, utterly impossible." It's not only what you read in the daily newspapers that may be misleading or fallacious. Basic scientific "facts" may also be in error. Particularly "facts" that are advanced to bolster an agenda -- evolution, in this case. [Source: Tornado in a Junkyard, by James Perloff, Refuge Books, PO Box 191, Arlington, Massachusetts 02476-0002, Fourth printing: 2001, pages 131-135.] Okay, if a man and a man can marry, then certainly a man and a boy can marry. Or a man and a five-year-old girl. Hey, equal protection. How about a man and his brother? A man and his dog? A man and his dead grandmother? Once the floodgates are open, everything will wash through. Recently there have been reports of rallies promoting bigamy, which is illegal in more than three-quarters the states. But gosh, just mention "equal protection" and you'll have to allow bigamy. Two wives, ten wives, a hundred wives. How about fifty wives and fifty husbands all married in one big "happy" family. With current "thinking" about "equal protection" how can you stop it? If we really want to milk the equal-protection concept, why shouldn't all taxpayers pay the same rate? Or maybe the same amount! How come those beating the bushes for same-sex marriage aren't picketing for a flat tax? Why shouldn't ten-year-olds be allowed to vote? Why shouldn't citizens have the same retirement benefits that those in Congress enjoy? Why shouldn't we all have equal incomes? It's easy to find absurd examples that distort the true meaning of equal protection. Many on the left are so consumed with the objective of equality, they completely lose sight that here in the U.S. it's equal protection, not equal outcomes. They want equal education and to achieve it are willing to curtail the training of bright students. They want equal health care and to achieve it are willing to impose federal government constraints on individual health care options. They want equal -- well, more equal -- incomes and to achieve them are willing to confiscate wealth from the hard-working and successful to redistribute to the non-working and unsuccessful. They are so fixated on equality, they wish to empower government to guarantee individual parity. The fixation is so dominant, they want a single agency, the UN -- with members unelected, actions unaccountable, and power unrestrained -- to rule the world. As for me, I choose freedom. I choose individual responsibility. I choose to echo the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "For what avail the plow or sail, Or land or life, if freedom fail?" "Essentially the freedom of a university is the freedom of competent persons in the classroom. In order to protect this freedom, the University assumes the right to prevent exploitation of its prestige by unqualified persons or by those who would use it as a platform for propaganda. . . . The function of the university is to seek and to transmit knowledge and to train students in the processes whereby truth is to be made known. To convert, or to make converts, is alien and hostile to this dispassionate duty. Where it becomes necessary in performing this function of a university, to consider political, social, or sectarian movements, they are dissected and examined not taught, and the conclusion left, with no tipping of the scales, to the logic of the facts. . . ."I bet you'll agree with me the statement is a pretty darn good description of what should be common policy on university campuses across the land. Perhaps years ago it was. However, on July 3, 2003, the Faculty Senate of the University of California voted 43 to 3 to remove this clause from the university's academic freedom previsions. Why? Because the policy was in direct conflict with a course being offered on the Berkeley campus. Rather than remove or redesign the course, the policy was scrapped. The errant course, titled "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance", was the work of a political activist, Snehal Shingavi, who, though arrested for conducting illegal demonstrations on campus, nevertheless retained his faculty position. Shingavi achieved some degree of national prominence for himself and embarrassment for the university when he included a warning in the school catalogue describing his class. He advised conservative students to refrain from taking the class! The University replaced the 1934 statement with a clause specifying that, in effect, a teacher in a classroom can say whatever he or she wishes, as long as the Faculty Senate doesn't object. Clearly, the Senate doesn't object to teaching propaganda. It does object to constraints calling for unbiased and intellectually honest classroom teaching. Professor Stanley Fish, academic scholar and retired Dean of the University of Illinois at Chicago wrote just such a set of constraints in an article titled "Save the World on Your Own Time". The article appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Teachers should teach their subjects. They should not teach peace or war or freedom or diversity or uniformity or nationalism or anti-nationalism or any other agenda that might properly be taught by a political leader or a talk-show host. Of course they should teach about such subjects, something very different from urging them as commitments - when they are part of the history or philosophy or literature or sociology that is being studied. The only advocacy that should go on in the classroom is the advocacy of what James Murphy has identified as the intellectual virtues, 'thoroughness, perseverance, intellectual honesty,' all components of the cardinal academic virtue of being 'conscientious in the pursuit of truth.'"Americans are disturbed that Muslim children are indoctrinated with anti-American hate every day in their schools and classrooms. Ironically, the same propaganda is preached every day in America's hallowed halls of academia. Reference: The Political Assault on America's Universities, by David Horowitz, (a booklet), 2006, pages 5, 6, 15, 16. Published by the Center for Study of Popular Culture, PO Box 361269, Los Angeles, CA 90036. Website. See also Students for Academic Freedom website. And just who determines what "right thing" our government must do? Why, good old Timothy Wirth, of course, and the rest of the liberal-elite cabal. So the strategy is this: scare the living daylights out of the citizens so that they'll beg politicians to take action . . . any action to save them from the hypothesized global-warming disaster (Al Gore says it's settled science) that will surely end life on Earth as we know it. In the face of a constant barrage of hype, the people are swallowing the hoax. Recently it was reported that even Pat Robertson, who I thought would know better, now says the summer is so hot, he's a global-warming believer. (Will he change his mind if there's a really-cold day this winter?) Have you heard of MIT professor Richard S. Lindzen, the 66-year-old climate scientist who has done extensive work on atmospheric pressure and global wind circulation patterns? No, of course you haven't, because he doesn't support the current global-warming theology. Way back in 1988 Lindzen challenged the assertion greenhouse gases were causing global warming. His studies led him to believe the "drying effect" of water vapor in the upper atmosphere (water vapor constitutes 95% of all greenhouse gasses, you know) counteracts any tendency for global warming. A lifelong Democrat, Lindzen converted to Republican when he realized bad science could lead to bad governmental policies and could negatively impact the U.S. economy. There are more than 30 different computer models simulating world climate. No two agree. Would you be inclined to conclude that constitutes "settled science"? The Canadian government's model predicted world temperatures will rise 14.4 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2000 to 2100. The United Kingdom's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research predicted the rise will be 5.4 degrees. Here in the U.S., the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) projection was 1.8 degrees. It's one eighth the Canadian projection. It's pretty clear that a 1.8-degree temperature rise in 100 years won't scare very many people, so Al Gore and his colleagues chose to ignore the NCAR number, in spite of the fact the NCAR analysis is significantly more sophisticated and therefore presumable more accurate than what was produced by either the Canadian or UK model. In any event, most scientists seem to agree that atmosphere temperature increases are likely to be the first result of greenhouse gas warming. You walk into a greenhouse; it's hot in there. But satellite measurements indicate the atmosphere is not warming like it "should". The Earth's surface is warming a little, but not the atmosphere. Sort of like what you'd expect as a result of radiation from the sun. Hmmm. But don't even think about that. Just keep telling yourself: The Earth is getting hotter. The seas are rising. Global warming threatens all life on the planet. We must do what the liberals tell us to do. The Kyoto Protocol is good. After all: "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." (Reference: "Legitimate Threat or Hot Air?" by Lowell Ponte and Marc Morano, NewsMax.com (the magazine), July 2006, pages 16-30. Address: Sequoia Digital Corporation, 224 Datura Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.) + The Only Reliable Basis for Sound Government and Just Human Relations is Natural Law (God's order of things).Do these characteristics describe our government today? There are some inconvenient facts, however, that cloud the bright picture liberals have painted for us. For example, although embryonic stem cell research has gone on for years, the number of breakthroughs has been -- how shall I put this? -- disappointing. You see, the number of breakthroughs has been, well, zero. Zero for humans. Some rodents have benefited, however. Success with adult stem cells, however, has been impressive. Adult stem cells have been used for decades in the treatment of Type 1 diabetes, for liver disease, to combat spinal cord injuries, and for other medical purposes. Actually, adult stem cells have been employed in the treatment of over 80 different diseases! Embryonic stem cells, when used in humans for any purpose at all, tend to be rejected by the immune system. At present there's no way to circumvent this reaction. But there's another problem: the cells seem to cause malignancies and monster tumors. So why all the liberal excitement over and insistence about using embryonic stem cells? Perhaps ignorance. Perhaps a belief that research will result in more "respect" for abortion. Perhaps simply a lack of respect for life. Perhaps to continue or accelerate the flow of money into research organization coffers. Perhaps blind emotion. Perhaps other reasons as well. Scientists discovered long ago that lead can not be converted into gold. After some while, they abandoned their efforts to do so. When will scientists abandon their efforts to turn embryonic stem cells into some kind of medical panacea. Reference: Godless, by Ann Coulter, 2006, pages 192-194. Address: Crown Publishers, Member of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Incorporated, New York, New York. Website. What if it revealed the Federal Reserve is neither federal nor a reserve, and that it was fraudulently created? What if it disclosed the Fed is nothing more than a collection of private banking interests, that the government could, if it so chose, print money without attendant interest obligations, and that the national debt would be drastically reduced if it did so? What if the movie documented these assertions and then advocated disobedience? Well, we'll soon find out what would happen, because such a movie is scheduled to be released July 28, 2006 and shown at five cities (Austin, Chicago, Kansas City, New York, and Tampa), followed by five more cities August 4th (Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, and Orlando). It's titled "America: From Freedom to Fascism" and it was narrated and produced by Aaron Russo. Check out the movie's website. I attended a pre-release showing of the film at the Freedom-21 Conference at Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky July 21st. It's a powerful and persuasive presentation. Attorneys, a U.S. congressman, think talk experts, and others all agree we have been deceived by the federal government. The Constitution does not allow direct taxation of wages (i.e. a tax on income), yet our elected representatives, who swear to uphold the Constitution, misrepresent the law, judges violate rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the income tax hoax and Federal Reserve scam persist. I suspect many folks who see the movie will think it's simply lies or fiction, like "Fahrenheit 9/11" for example, but maybe just enough will begin to demand answers. Maybe thousands of movie-goers will begin to question their elected officials. Maybe this will be the beginning of the final battle to return this country to its constitutional foundation, to return power to the people, and to rejuvenate our Founding Father's great legacy: freedom. Major arguments against the idea life evolved spontaneously from long-ago ooze include: 1. No evidence has been found in fossil records (or anywhere else) proving one species has evolved from another species. Darwin himself admitted this when he wrote: "We cannot prove that a single species has changed." Geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan (Nobel Prize winner for his work on heredity) said: "Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another."Yet, liberals cling, like Titanic passengers to life rafts, to the proposition life originated from ooze, and we all evolved from those early one-celled life forms. Why? Besides a natural reticence to relinquish long-held beliefs, I think the major reason is: abandoning Darwin opens the door for the idea of intelligent design. Liberals won't tolerate that. Intelligent design necessitates an intelligent designer, which is hemlock to the Left. So, in our schools and media and in the hills of Hollywood, we all evolved from tiny, little amoeba-like creatures. We all have fish and foul in our family tree. We all have gorillas and chimpanzees as distant relatives. Well, maybe liberals do, but I don't.  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. Thoughts for First half of 2006.The way back home. |
Government Run Amok
e-Mailbox1
It's Been Said
Must Read 
Poems
Picture This
Quickies
Say What? 
This & That
Thoughts
Xtra