Christmas Music
Posted here for 12-21-09

One of the things I like about Christmas is the music. I enjoy hearing happy Christmas songs in the stores. Many of these I remember from childhood days, and they bring back pleasant recollections.

I've searched the Internet and found a number of Christmas carols and songs; some old, some new, some funny, some traditional. But all I found enjoyable. I hope you'll like them, too.

"Oh, Holy Night," by Bing Crosby.
"The First Noel," by Elvis Presley.
"Silent Monks Sing Hallelujah."
"Christmas Song," by Mel Torme and Judy Garland.
"Christmas Songs Remix!" by Matt Rach.
"Cute Animal Christmas Song," author not known.
"The Christmas Song," by Nat King Cole.
"Carol of the Bells," by Vance Perry.
"I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas," by Gayle Peevey.
"The Christmas Song," by Celtic Woman, from the Helix Center in Dublin, Ireland.
"A Merry Little Christmas," by Frank Sinatra.
"Merry Christmas (click on each of the reindeer)."
"White Christmas," by Clyde Mc Pratler (?) and the Drifters.
"Christmas Song," by Walt Disney.
"Christmas Song," by Achmed the Dead Terrorist.
"Christmas Songs," by The Carpenters.
"Christmas Songs," by Larry, the Cable Guy.
"Christmas Song," by Ricky Nelson.
"Hear Your Favorite Christmas Songs Sung."
"Christmas Songs," by Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Stade and chorus.
"Silver Bells," by Doris Day.
"We Wish You a Merry christmas," by the Philharmonia Orchestra.
"Reaching," by the Gaither Vocal Band.
"We Wish You a Merry Christmas," by Japanese singers.
"Carol of the Bells," by a kazoo quartet.
"Beethoven Music to Christmas Lights," by the Wolf Family.
"Puttin' on the Dog," by Aaron Wilburn.
"Mary, Did You Know?" by Mark Lawry and the Gaither Vocal Band.

Merry, merry Christmas!

When Private Property Is No Longer Private Property
Posted here for 12-14-09

I haven't independently verified this (I couldn't find a reference to it on Snopes), but I have no reason to doubt it. The information is excerpted from an email I received 12-7-09. Thanks, Irene.

Beginning one year after enactment of H.R. 2454 (the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," better known as the Cap and Trade Bill), you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with newly-mandated energy and water efficiency standards. If passed into law, the bill will result in the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.

Even mobile homes will be subject to the bill's demands. In effect, you won't be able to sell without permission from the EPA administrator.

First, your home will have to be measured to determine its energy efficiency, which, of course, will be a somewhat subjective determination. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirements are (formulated at the whim of bureaucrats, naturally), and you'll be forced to pay for modifications and upgrades to comply with the new regulations. Then you'll have to have your home measured again, and if it is finally in compliance, you'll get a license that must be posted on your property. Only then will you be able to sell. If you don’t get a high enough rating, the law will prevent you from selling your home, regardless of price!

This will make an absolute mockery of the idea of private property. And by the way, the EPA administrator will be authorized to raise standards every year if he or she wishes, even above the automatic increases built into the legislation!

The requirements are set low initially, so the bill will pass Congress. Then, as the Administrator toughens the standards, and as the Act itself raises the requirements year by year, it will become harder and harder to meet the efficiency ratings, more and more expensive to meet them, and less and less likely you'll be able to sell your own private property.

It's all more change you can believe in. (Bet you didn't know this was what you were voting for when you pulled the lever for Obama.)

The Hoax Is Revealed
Posted here for 12-7-09

All those paying attention now know that the entire global warming scare has been a hoax! It has been a massive, outrageous, diabolical conspiracy to scare the world into adopting a United Nations-managed world government.

Let's look at this situation a little more closely.

Al Gore must have known global warming was a hoax from the very beginning, yet he darted from country to country spreading the big lie. I understand Fred Singer was in a small audience at one of the former vice president's early presentations, before Gore's dog-and-pony show went world-wide. Singer commented that the presentation was based on sometimes weak, sometimes erroneous science, but to no avail. The PowerPoint and subsequent Academy Award-winning movie did what they were intended to do: convince the world the sky is falling. Or, rather, that the planet is heating up such that oceans will rise, coastal cities will be inundated, and all life on earth will be in jeopardy.

You've got to give Chicken Little Al credit. His lies, trickery, and bravado fooled billions. His cunning fabrications and deceptions changed policy around the world. His propaganda campaign lies at the heart of Cap and Trade legislation, which if implemented, will cost every American household $1,761 a year (Source), and will probably destroy the U.S. economy. That's certainly some accomplishment!

But this stunning feat could not have been accomplished without influential and respected accomplices. Were it not for "scientists" who oversaw the temperature data, then manipulated, twisted, distorted, and in some cases actually destroyed the data, Gore's clever little escapade could not have been achieved. These "scientists" not only corrupted global warming (and cooling) data, they also catastrophically corrupted the scientific method, respect for science around the world, and indeed faith in humanity!

This is one of the most significant stories in the last decade. It's a story of conspiracy, breaking trust with the people, substituting lies for facts to achieve political ends, and it is of monumental proportions. The impact of Cap and Trade is estimated to result in a loss of close to ten trillion dollars in the United States alone over the period from 2012 to 2035! (Source.)

That's probably why we see so many headlines about this, why we see so much on TV about the story, why everybody's talking about it. Wait! The mainstream media is nearly silent on the subject. You're hard pressed to get any details at all without searching the Internet. What's going on?

What's going on, of course, is that the mainstream media are part of the conspiracy. They like the political outcome global warming would produce, so they avert their eyes from the facts, real science, and even the cries from real scientists who have been trying for years to expose the truth.

Way back on July 28, 2003, U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe said, "[M]uch of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science. [The threat of catastrophic global warming is] the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." (Source.)

I believe Senator Inhofe is correct.

Controlling All Food
Posted here for 11-30-09

In 1893, to aid in court cases dealing with food, the Austro-Hungarian Empire began to write a set of guidelines. These food mandates became known as Codex Alimentarius. Decades later in 1962, after the United Nations got into the act, UN bureaucrats decided to implement Codex worldwide.

Those with their hands on levers controlling the world's food supply are in positions of great power. And they can exercise that power for good or for evil. Many now believe Codex has been transformed from a benevolent food organization into one that's fraudulent, lethal, and illegitimate.

As the reach of the UN broadens and its power builds, Codex begins to reflect political rather than consumer interests. Fears are that the Codex Alimentarius Commission will soon regulate everything we put into our mouths. Dr. Gregory Damato states that soon-to-be mandatory food standards will apply to all 153 country members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Those countries that refuse to follow the standards will be subjected to crippling economic and trade sanctions.

Dr. Damato identifies some of the Codex standards that are expected to take effect:

All nutrients -- vitamins and minerals -- will be considered toxins/poisons and will be removed from all foods.
All food will be irradiated to remove "toxic" nutrients.
All nutrients (like vitamins A, B, C, D, etc.) that have a positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal in therapeutic doses.
It will probably be illegal to give advice on nutrition.
All dairy cows will be treated with Monsanto's genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).
All animals used for food will be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
Deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides, including those banned by 176 countries, will be allowed back into food, at elevated levels.
The use of growth hormones and antibiotics will be mandatory on all livestock, birds, and aqua-cultured species meant for human consumption.
Worldwide introduction of unlabelled and deadly GMOs (genetically-modified organizations) into crops, animals, fish, and plants will be mandated.
Elevated levels of residue from pesticides and insecticides that are toxic to humans and animals will be allowed.

One might speculate that Codex regulations will have a devastating effect on human beings. Indeed, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) estimate the results of the Codex standards will, within ten years, reduce the world's population by more than three billion.

Some see Codex not as a world food standard, but as an effective world population control measure.

[Source of this information -- I have not independently verified the information -- is "Codex Alimentarius -- Population Control Under the Guise of Consumer Protection," by Gregory Damato, PhD, Republic Magazine, Issue 13, pages 34-36. Address: PO Box 9, Boynton Beach, Florida 33425. Phone: 714-436-1234. Fax: 714-455-2091. Website.]

Morality in the Business World
Posted here for 11-23-09

Not so long ago a man's word was his bond. Business dealings were sealed with a handshake. Truth and honesty were sacred values, taught in all the homes and schools, and men were measured by their morality.

Over the years, however, as morality slipped from its throne, society reconfigured itself to adapt to a more corrupt landscape. Attorneys, of course, have been the principal beneficiaries (along with the corrupt) as they scurried to write contracts that are iron-clad. Then, of course, more lawyers were needed to review the contracts, propose changes, and debate at length with the lawyers who wrote the contracts in the first place.

When I first bought a house, over 45 years ago now, there were but a few pages in the contract. At the bank I met with a loan officer for a half hour or so. That was it. It was assumed most people were honest, most people were trustworthy, most people would abide by the contract's provisions. Indeed, that was the case.

When I moved from North Carolina to Florida in 1990, all sorts of paperwork was required to sort through and sign. I got a contract with a man who agreed to buy my home for a specified amount. The lawyers checked out everything and all the legal documents were in order. Upon closing, however, the buyer said he decided to pay less for the house than he had promised. Ten thousand dollars less!

I thought: that can't be! There are contracts. There are legal documents properly signed and filed that protect me. The buyer said: so what? I could sue him and take him to court and spend perhaps ten thousand dollars getting a judgement in my favor. The buyer said if that happened, he then wouldn't but the house, and it would have to be placed on the market once again, at a cost of thousands more. And considerable inconvenience!

So what good did all the lawyers do? And all the contracts? And all the signing and filing?

Now I'm selling my present home and moving to a new home in another city. The contract to buy is nearly 50 pages long. I had to provide close to 100 pages of materials to secure a mortgage. What confidence do I have that all these contracts and legal documents will protect me? None! Moreover, when I looked through the pages of documentation, I found legalese and phraseology I don't understand. I suspect it would take an attorney days to work through all the fine detail. And it would cost thousands!

Strangely, my only protection is the trustworthiness of those with whom I'm conducting my business. Trust and honesty are the values I must rely upon, just like in the good old days.

Total Control
Posted here for 11-16-09

Let's say the theory that the earth's temperature rises as CO2 levels rise is correct, even though we know it's not. We now know rises in CO2 do not result in rises in temperature.

Let's say the temperature-predicting computer models are right, even though we know they're not. They all predicted increasing temperatures for the earth resulting from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. All the models have now been proven wrong. There has been a cooling trend for the last decade or so, while the models specified ever-increasing temps.

Let's say CO2 is the major contributor to global warming, even though we know it's not. Of the "greenhouse gases," water vapor makes up 95 percent of the total. Only 3.6 percent comes from CO2.

Let's say the vast majority of CO2 is from man-made sources, even though we know it's not. More than 96 percent comes from natural sources; actually just 3.2 percent comes from man-made sources.

Even if we make all these ridiculous assumptions, even then, the Cap and Trade legislation Congress is working on, if passed, will have, for all intents and purposes, zero effect on the world's temperature. As it turns out, removing all man-made CO2 will have but an infinitesimal effect on temperatures, so small it couldn't even be detected.

So what motivates members of Congress to pass laws that will regulate and control all producers and users of energy in the United States? That's the motivation. They wish to control all producers and users of energy in the United States!

With arbitrary constraints, regulations, restrictions, and prohibitions, the left will be in the position to empower or "disempower" any corporation or enterprise desired. This is the heart of socialism: centralized control . . . by the left. Cap and Trade will unleash an avalanche of onerous controls -- what we can and cannot do, what we can and cannot eat, where we can and cannot go, indeed every aspect of our lives.

And this has been the leftist objective from day one: control. Our far-left president, along with far-left House and Senate members are on the verge of reaching their ultimate objective. America's citizens are on the verge of losing their freedom, and with that loss the world will slip over the edge into catastrophe.

Creating an Enemy
Posted here for 11-9-09

The women's lib movement has made a mess of things. Ostensibly with the intention of improving the lives of women, it has catastrophically destroyed the lives of countless men, and in the process caused unimaginable hardship not only for the fairer sex, but for families and children as well. Just look at what some of the "great" feminists over the years have said about their movement:

Shelia Cronin: "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the woman's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."
Marlene Dixon: "The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained."
Maureen Dowd: "Are men necessary?"
Andrea Dworkin: "Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women."
Germaine Greer: "If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition, it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry."
Nancy Lehmann: "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women. [. . .] Male society has sold us the idea of marriage. [. . .] Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it. [. . .] The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men."
Kate Millett: "The complete destruction of traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the 'revolutionary or utopian' goal of feminism."
Robin Morgan: "White males are most responsible for the destruction of human life and environment on the planet today." And "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
Gloria Steinem: "We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage."
Helen Sullinger: "Male society has sold us the idea of marriage. [. . .] Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it. [. . .] The end of the institution of marriage is the necessary condition for the liberation of women."

Do you see a theme running through all these invectives? Create a target for focusing animosity. Rally unrest and channel it toward a desired end. All of women's problems are the fault of men and what they created: marriage. These are evil entities, and if they can only be extricated from society, women will lead lives of bliss and rapture.

It's a tried and true technique. Hitler said all of Germany's problems resulted from Jews. Marx said all of Russia's problems resulted from the bourgeoisie. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says all of Iran's problems have resulted from Jews and Americans. Environmentalists say the world's greatest problem is global warming. Democrats say all our health care problems are the result of the insurance companies. Obama says all of America's social justice problems have resulted from the rich.

Once the source of a "problem" is identified, then we're told it's just a matter of destroying that source, and everyone will live happily ever after. But history shows us the "solutions" are almost inevitably far worse than the status quo.

Quotes above are from my new book, I Can't Believe You Said That! Overview. Order a copy.

Global Warming Supporters Are Full of Hot Air
Posted here for 11-2-09

With so much attention focused of late on cap and trade, it's necessary to revisit the subject of global warming. The September 2009 issue of Whistleblower magazine is dedicated to the topic, and it presents some insightful comments:

Page 3: "[T]he plan by Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress to institute a 'cap-and-trade' system on the production of carbon dioxide and other so-called 'greenhouse gases' (the principal one being water vapor, by the way) is nothing more than a plot to destroy the American economy once and for all."

Page 12: "You are being deceived about global warming. . . . The Earth has been cooling for 10 years. . . . The present cooling was not predicted by the alarmists' computer models." [Since the computer models were the exclusive basis for the whole global warming scare, isn't it time to concede the scare is over?]

Page 16 -- William Happer, director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy under President Bush in 1991: "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."

Page 17: "[M]ore than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s [. . .] have signed a massive separate petition project that challenges the belief in global warming."

Page 17: "Global warming was going to bring more and more horrific hurricanes, climate change scientists and the politicians who subscribed to their theories said. But since 2005, only one major hurricane has struck North America. A new study by Ronda State University researcher Ryan Maue shows worldwide cyclone activity -- typhoons, as well as hurricanes -- has reached at least a 30-year low. [. . .] The Arctic sea ice grew more on a percentage basis last winter than it has since 1979. The number of polar bears has risen 25 percent in the past decade. There are 15,000 of them in the Arctic now, while 10 years ago there were 12,000. [. . .] [A] switch in Pacific Ocean currents assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun's magnetic field suggest ... the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977."

Page 22: "[I]t is increasingly inescapable that the models on which the IPCC bases its alarm are useless for the task to which they are put, and the IPCC knows it."

Page 24: "In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this [UN] IPCC report."

Page 27: "[T]he atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 -- more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer; but just the opposite has occurred."

Page 28: "[The UN] goes so far as to claim that global warming is causing an increase in rich older men taking younger brides, elopement, high school dropouts, and sexually transmitted disease."

Page 38: "Every day -- every 24 hours -- the energy policies imposed by Washington destroy an amount of capital that could build the electrical generating capacity of one complete Hoover Dam. The lawyers, bureaucrats and now community organizers who have gradually displaced, as energy 'decision makers,' the engineers and industrialists who built America's energy industries are actively preventing the building of the nuclear and hydrocarbon power plants that could stop this vast hemorrhage of American capital. They are instead debating 'cap-and-trade,' which would tear down America's hydrocarbon power plants, and they continue to prevent the construction of new nuclear power plants. The Obama administration is simultaneously using our tax dollars to build solar arrays and windmills, while its 'chief energy regulator' has called for Americans to reduce their use of electricity by 50 percent. If one 10-reactor Palo Verde nuclear power station were built in each of the 50 states, the United States could be a net exporter of $200 billion per year of energy, rather than a net importer of $300 billion per year."

Page 44: "[A] Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey last year reportedly 'showed 90 percent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.'"

Global warming is clearly global nonsense, but as long as it serves as rationale for implementing socialist global policy, leftists will continue to cling to it.

Discarding Our National Sovereignty
Posted here for 10-26-09

Do you like the idea of equal justice under the law? The idea you're innocent until proven guilty? Freedom of speech? Freedom to worship as you please? The right to own weapons?

These are some of our laws, the basic principles of American society, our Constitutionally-protected freedoms. They are uniquely ours. No other countries have the same form of government and same protections for the citizens. We the people choose our own destiny. We don't allow outsiders to determine our future; we reserve that right for ourselves. We are very protective of our sovereignty.

But, sadly, not all of us. Too many of our leaders are anxious to discard a portion or all of our sovereign rights and relinquish them to the will of others. This is crazy, but it's true.

Robert Bartley, of the Wall Street Journal for more than 30 years: "I think the nation-state is finished."
William Benton, assistant Secretary of State in the 1940s and U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO in the 1960s: "We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the UN in the 1990s: "The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty [. . .] has passed."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, U.S. National Security Advisor for President Carter: "[N]ational sovereignty is no longer a viable concept."
Walter Cronkite, anchor of the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981: "[P]roud nations will some day see the light, and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty."
Chester M. Pierce, professor of education and psychiatry at Harvard: "Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances [. . .] toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity."
Carroll Quigley, professor of history at Georgetown University: "The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) [. . .] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and a one-world rule established."
Walt Restow, advisor for national security affairs for President Lyndon Johnson and President John F. Kennedy: [I]t is [. . .] an American interest to see the end to nationhood as it has been historically defined."
Strobe Talbott, Time columnist and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State: "Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority. [. . .] [N]ational sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Arnold Toynbee, British historian and member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (British equivalent of the CFR): "We are at present working [. . .] with all our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local states of the world. And all the time, we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."

The folks in the Obama administration appear to be particularly committed to the task of discarding our national sovereignty.

These quotations can be found in my new book, I Can't Belive You Said That! Overview. Order a copy.

Corrupting the Court
Posted here for 10-19-09

Everybody knows the responsibility of members of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the meaning of laws, as they apply in court cases, based on the dictates of the U.S. Constitution. Is there any disagreement on this point?

Well, apparently several members of the Court don't see it that way.

Justice Stephen Breyer: "For years people all over the world have cited the [U.S.] Supreme Court; why don't we cite them occasionally? [. . .] This is what I call opening your eyes, opening your eyes to things that are going on elsewhere. [. . .] What is at issue is the extent to which you might learn from other places."

This is sort of like saying: baseball is a good, decent game. Why not "learn" from baseball and apply some of its rules to football? Apparently, only Justice Breyer and his leftist sympathizers can't see how foolish his position is.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "[America's] 'lone ranger' mentality is beginning to change. Our justices [. . .] are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."

What in heaven's name do international law perspectives have to do with interpreting the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely nothing, unless you don't like what the Constitution says and you don't want to be encumbered by it. Those who don't like this country and its Constitution shouldn't be sitting on the Supreme Court.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "Conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community [. . .] should at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts. [. . .] I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues."

If "other countries" and "the international community" had laws far superior to our own, then that might be an excuse to consider what they say. But they don't! Our Constitution is closer to perfection than any country has ever achieved. If we rely on foreign rulings, we have kissed the Constitution goodbye. Look around the world and you can find a law somewhere to do whatever you please. And that's the whole idea behind the embrace of other country's laws.

Justice Anthony Kennedy: "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion. . ."

If international opinion is that we should disarm, should we do it? If international opinion is that we should give up our sovereignty, should we do it? Only if we have no regard for what made America great. In a world reeling from socialism, terrorism, and muslim radicalism, the last thing we should be doing is acknowledging "the overwhelming weight of international opinion." Why give up something good for something bad?

Thinking about Evolution
Posted here for 10-12-09

Darwin's theory of evolution says that through millions -- no, billions or hundreds of billions -- of minute changes, all living things on earth developed and "evolved" over time. The giraffe's long neck "evolved" so the animal could graze on the foliage at the top of acacia trees. The black markings under the cheetah's eyes "evolved" to give improved vision, by reducing the sun's reflection off the cat's face. Over millennia, birds "evolved" from dinosaurs. Humans "evolved" from monkeys. Everything "evolved" from pond scum.

Scientists tell us these evolutionary steps continue day to day, year to year, millennium to millennium. Yet, if so, don't you think we'd see some evidence of that? Shouldn't there be some noticeable indication of this process observable in the world?

If indeed there are billions of minute changes going on, shouldn't we see something suggestive of this in the entire human population of billions of people? And in the population of billions of animals around the world? Maybe the population as a whole doesn't show any change, but shouldn't we see it in some individuals?

How come no humans are growing tails, or producing extra stomachs (cows have four, after all), or developing sonar vision (like bats), or just improving our sense of smell (comparable to that of dogs), or our hearing (the Noctuid Moth hears sounds ranging from 1,000 and 240,000HZ)?

Naturally, most "evolutionary" changes would be negative, not positive, since they are, according to theory, just random, but we see no changes whatsoever. How can that be?

On the other hand, let's say that by some quirk of nature someone comes along with a mental capacity a hundred times the average. It would be an amazing "evolutionary" change, one all humanity could benefit from.

But how is that characteristic passed along to the rest of us? How does that change translate into some permanent advancement for society?

The only way would be for it to gradually get "passed on" through generations and generations of inherited genes. And how likely would that be? Totally unlikely, for as the characteristic moved from generation to generation it would be diluted again and again as the gene-mixture process continued, and its effect would be diluted with each new mixing.

The more one ponders Darwin's theory, the less it appears feasible. After all, we know that Charles Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Well, scientists have found such complex organs -- the light-sensing mechanism of the eye, for example, and the human blood-clotting system -- so in Darwin's own words his theory absolutely breaks down.

But facts don't dissuade fanatics. A biology professor at Texas Tech University refuses to recommend students for medical school if they will not concede Darwin's theory of evolution accounts for the origin of the human species. The president at the University of Idaho issued an edict prohibiting the teaching of any "views that differ from evolution." When the Board of Education in Cobb County, Georgia placed stickers inside county biology textbooks ("This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit claiming the stickers fostered an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Nowadays, thinking is rooted in ideology, not facts, logic, and common sense. Another good example: global warming.

Old Lies and New Lies
Posted here for 10-5-09

An email I received recently (thanks, FES19) got me thinking. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced the Social Security program, he promised:

1.) Participation in the program would be completely voluntary.
2.) Participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program; never more than that.
3.) The money participants elected to put into the program would always be deductible from their income for tax purposes.
4.) The money participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program; never any other Government program.
5.) Annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Over the years all these promises have been broken.

That was then and this is now, and today we're confronted with another massive government program: health care. Barack Obama has been incessant with assurances, comforting rhetoric, and promises. Among the promises (source):

1.) No one will be compelled to buy coverage.
2.) There will be no new taxes on employer benefits.
3.) Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector can.
4.) A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.
5.) Patients don't have to fear rationing.

What's the difference between Roosevelt's promises and Obama's? Well, it took years for the Social Security lies to be revealed. We know today the health care lies are fabrications.

And there's another difference. I think in general, the people were in favor of FDR's program. Surveys clearly show a majority of Americans does not want BO's health care program.

But the liberal congress is racing to pass the legislation nevertheless. Representative government? I don't think so.

Marginalizing Men
Posted here for 9-28-09

I recently read Save the Males (2008), by Kathleen Parker. It's an interesting book. Here are a couple of quotations I found particularly enlightening:

Thirty years ago, 58 percent of college students were men; today they are a minority at 44 percent. By 2012, women are expected to be awarded 60 percent of bachelor's degrees in this country.

The gradual eradication of men and fathers from children's lives -- often in the service of feminist goals that seemed like a good idea at the time -- has been our most dubious achievement. Thanks to divorce, unwed motherhood, and policies that unfairly penalize and marginalize fathers, 30 to 40 percent of all American children sleep in a home where their father doesn't. Although most women who marry and have children don't intend to divorce and become single parents, single motherhood by choice is becoming increasingly popular as unmarried celebrities are applauded for accessorizing with designer babies.

[T]wenty-five million American children are more likely to see a father on television than in the home.

[A] 2007 University of Washington study [. . .] revealed that women reported instigating domestic violence twice as often as men [. . . .]

[W]omen abuse and kill children more often than men do.

Women can kill their husbands with relative impunity as long as they can convince a jury that they were in an abusive marriage.

America leads the Western world in mother-only families.

[T]wo-thirds of divorces are filed by women.

Since 1998, as the porn industry has exploded, the number of breast implants has increased 700 percent.

[I]n the army, men have to be able to toss a grenade thirty-five meters, while women only have to be able to throw one over a concrete wall. Women, unlike men, get a three-minute grace period for the three-mile run, while orientation videos tell female recruits, "It's okay to cry."

[I]t is marriage and children that turn boys into men.

It must be awful to be a teenager in a culture where parents behave as adolescents and there's nothing left to rebel against except oneself.

Feminism is disguised as a pro-women endeavor. Rather it embraces a far-left ideology and amuses itself with strong anti-men thinking and activities. In the process it does great harm to women, men, and particularly kids.

Where Will the Trend Take Us?
Posted here for 9-21-09

Dedicated leftists are beseeching us to reduce our carbon footprint to "save the planet." And thousands or perhaps millions of concerned citizens are anxious to do the environmentalists' bidding, believing "it will make a difference."

It's not hard to see where this trend will take us. No matter how much we recycle, conserve, and sacrifice, there's always more we can be shamed into doing.

I've heard radio commercials encouraging us to turn off ceiling fans when we leave a room. The "do as I say" crowd tells us we should set our thermostats so we're hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. Why should we be comfortable when we can roast or shiver for the environmentalists? A TV ad in Brazil suggests people should pee in the shower to reduce the number of toilet flushings.

The control freaks are running the asylum and if we're not careful, we'll let them take all our freedoms away.

You can save electricity and money if at night you turn off all but one light in your house. You can same even more power and bucks if you turn off all the lights.

You can "help save the planet" if you watch a small-screen TV instead of a big-screen TV. A 17-inch set is better than a 42-inch set, but a 12-inch set is better yet. Obviously, watching no set at all is optimum.

You know you shouldn't eat meat, because raising animals takes so many resources. So, stock the shelves with tofu and just take delight in how you're helping save Mother Earth.

Of course we should cut back on our use of automobiles. Doing so saves money and gas, and reduces those nasty emissions.

It's said a five-minute shower uses up to seven times less water than a bath. If that's the case, a two-and-a-half-minute shower uses up to 14 times less water. Some say heating water accounts for 14-25% of home energy consumption, so really, don't you think you should take a cold shower? I mean, do you want to save the planet or not! Are you going to conserve, or are you going to be one of those evil people who wants to destroy the environment? (Here are 37 ways to help you reduce water usage.)

You'll save even more if you shower with a friend or family member. Don't be ridiculous, you say? I'm not. These are logical step-by-step extensions of actions the left is advocating right now.

Hey, just think how effective we'll be at saving the planet if we just stay in bed all day. Environmentalists haven't advocated that yet, but we're getting closer and closer to such silliness.

And of course the ultimate gesture of sacrifice on behalf of "saving" Mother Earth is simply to die. Leftists have been working on that one for some time. By banning DDT, they've "saved the planet" with the deaths of millions of Africans each year.

As Colorado Governor Dick Lamm once said, "We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts [. . .] and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."

I Can't Believe You Said That!

Posted here for 9-14-09

I'm excited and pleased to announce the publication of my book, I Can't Believe You Said That! The first copies became available September 8, 2009.

It's a 400-page compilation of nearly 700 quotations from more than 300 liberals. You'll be shocked, dismayed, even outraged at what's been said. Liberals with their own words reveal they want to transform America into a haven of communism, remove Christianity from society, imprison gun owners, give animals special rights, take children away from their parents, destroy marriage, relinquish our nationality sovereignty, let parents kill their own kids, make environmentalism the central organizing principle of government, empower the United Nations as the single world governing authority, and that's just for starters. It's amazing!

Liberals are supposed to be the compassionate ones, right? Well, when you read what some of them have said, you'll change your mind about that idea.

Here are a few selected quotations:

"Every child who believes in God is mentally ill."
"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime."
"The optimum [human] population of Earth is zero."
"Our problem today is too little government."
"America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place."
"I don't believe human beings have the 'right to life.'"
"Education should aim at destroying free will."
"Trees and rocks have rights to their own freedom."

Quotations in the book provide a more comprehensive picture of liberalism and leftist thinking than a six-month seminar by Bill Ayers, Noam Chomsky, and Ward Churchill!

When you read these statements from liberals, you're bound to say, "I can't believe you said that!"

More information: . Announcement . PowerPoint Overview . Introduction . Author bio . Order the book.
ISBN-13: 978-0-967665-88-7. . ISBN-10: 0-967665-88-4. . (The book is not presently in local book stores.)

Dancing with the Czars
Posted here for 9-7-09

We are beginning to find out about the attitudes, values, and beliefs of the czars Barack Obama has lined up to serve him and do his bidding. As information becomes available, it tells us a lot about the czars, but it tells us much more about Barack Obama.

The Green Job "Czar" is Van Jones, who has called himself a communist and a "black nationalist." Said he, "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist. (...) I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." (Source.)

The Science "Czar" is John Holdren, who supports the discredited theories of Paul Erlich, and who has stated that 1) babies aren't human until they’re socialized and it's okay to kill them, 2) the world shouild force abortions and sterilizations, 3) sterilizing agents should be put into the drinking water for population control, and 4) single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise. (Source. Also.)

The Health Policy "Czar" is Ezekiel Emanuel M.D., brother of Rahm Emmanuel. He supports "Social Value Allocation," which advocates infanticide, forced abortion, and possibly euthanasia. He said, "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason." (Source. Also.)

The Regulatory "Czar" is Cass Sunstein, who, like Professor Peter Singer, is a radical animal rights supporter. He sees no uniqueness or value in human life as opposed to animal life, and he has proposed giving animals the right to sue! On another topic, at present the only way doctors can harvest your organs is with your consent or (after you die) with the consent of your family. Sunstein wants to make it an "opt-out decision," meaning if you don't say anything, doctors should be able to use your organs whether its what you wanted or not. (Source. Also.)

Is there any possibility Barach Obama isn't aware of the attitudes, values, and beliefs of these people? No, there's absolutely no such possibility. Mr. Obama chose them and all the dozens of other "czars" expressly because of their attitudes, values, and beliefs.

Justifying Death for the Elderly
Posted here for 8-31-09

Dr. Ezekiel "Zeke" J. Emanuel is Barack Obama's special adviser for health policy. One of his brothers is White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The "good" doctor is telling the President old folks shouldn't be given expensive health care because, "everyone who is 65 years [old] now was previously 25 years [old]." In other words, it's okay to treat old folks like dirt, since they were once young and healthy. This distorted, convoluted thinking could only come from an "intellectual" who believes he can justify anything by the application of clever and sophisticated "logic" and "reasoning." I think most reasonable people would call such "logic" and "reasoning" utter nonsense!

But his "logic" has already been translated into public policy. An article titled "Medical Murder," by Richard Poe in the August 2009 Whistleblower (page 16) relates a recent example:

Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Oregon, was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008. Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.

At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, fifteen grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious.

But Oregon's health commissars nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money? Wagner received a letter stating that the Oregon Health Plan would not approve any treatment for her "that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of the disease . . ." However, if Wagner opted for physician-assisted suicide, Oregon would be happy to pick up the tab, said the letter.

My advice to all the elderly folks living in Oregon: flee!

But flee where? It seems our President shares Dr. Emanuel's philosophy. If the "health care" bill passes, we all may be in danger as we get on in years.

Richard Poe's article continues:

We know that Barack Obama personally endorses at least three different methods of shortening the lives of elderly, disabled and gravely ill people.

The first method -- let's call it the Oregon model -- is to pressure them into committing suicide, by cutting off other options.

The second method is to pressure them into accepting palliative or comfort care in place of real care -- again, by cutting off other options. Comfort care, remember, is care that helps you feel good while you are dying, but does nothing to prolong your life.

We also know that Obama endorses forced starvation and dehydration, as was famously inflicted upon Terri Schiavo in 2005. [. . .]

But there is a fourth way of ending a life which Obama has not publicly endorsed. It is the cheapest, most efficient way of all: killing by lethal injection. Will doctors be encouraged to administer lethal injections to their patients under Obamacare?

If that comes to pass, there will be three major results: 1) Doctors will be in the murder business, splitting their time between healing and killing. 2) Doctors will be working for the government, with strong motivations to take instead of save lives. 3) The government will adopt as policy the snuffing out of the elderly.

That's certainly "change you can believe in."

The Final Transition
Posted here for 8-24-09

Mr. Thornton, I'm Doctor Richard Radcliff, and as you know, this once-every-five-years meeting is mandated by the government to discuss near-end-of-life matters. National Health Care Records indicate your 75th birthday was last week, and I need to review with you your options now that you've reached that age.

You realize, of course, the government simply can't afford to provide you with the same health care treatments and attention as is provided to, say, a 25-year-old healthy man. Your productive years are pretty much behind you now, so your future contributions to society will be few to none. As a result, you need to consider the fact that you've had a full and satisfying life. Therefore, it's time to look back, give thanks for your many blessings, and look ahead with a realization millions of others, who are young and productive, are the future of this country. It's time to sit back and relax, and imagine the joys and challenges facing the younger generation.

I'm sure you can appreciate that young people are simply unwilling to underwrite the costs of your major medical needs, and the needs of all the other old timers, so the government has to make hard decisions. In your last phone conversation with a medical practitioner you stated your hip is giving you a lot of pain. Well, if you were 15 or 20 years younger, the government might consider a hip replacement for you, but you know that's not cost effective now. I hope you appreciate the quality and benefits of the pain pills you've been issued by the government. You realize, I'm sure, a less-costly pain medication will be provided for you once you reach age 80. If you reach age 80.

Your government Health Care Records indicate that up to now you've been enjoying the benefits of eight different medications for your various medical needs. At age 75, that number decreases to four, so we'll need to discuss which four medications you'll choose to discontinue.

Yes, getting old isn't easy. It's difficult as the years slip by to realize you are more and more a burden on society. Over time, you've made the transition from someone who's energetic, productive, and a source of valued goods and services to someone who's tired, unproductive, and a weight around the neck of all those younger than you. You've had your turn, now it's time to begin thinking about The Final Transition.

You can sense in the people around you a certain contempt that you're consuming vital resources. You can see in their faces dismay over your selfishness. You can understand that your friends and family members need to get on with their lives unencumbered with the care and expense and attention you demand.

When you look at the statistics, you realize full well you've overstayed your welcome. More than 68% of old people opt out before the age of 75. These are the patriots. These are the unselfish. These are the ones concerned about the future of this country. You know the old expression: "Die, so others may live!"

Our senators and representatives in Washington are working on a bill to give an added incentive for old people to die. If the legislation passes, the government will pay your estate $4500 if you check out before age 75, or $1500 if you die before age 80. It's sort of like "Cash for Clunkers."

It'll apply to anyone living in the United States . . . except of course senators and representatives, who can live as long as they want.

This Changes Everything
Posted here for 8-10-09

We have crossed a line.

With the nationalization of the auto industry, the impending nationalization of the energy industry, and the likely eventual nationalization of the health industry, government is all of a sudden in the middle of private enterprise. That's not allowed by our Constitution, but that doesn't matter. It's the will of the most powerful man in the history of the modern world. Obama wants it, as do the worshipping media, so it will come to pass.

This changes everything.

Business decisions will never again be made for business reasons alone, they'll be made for political reasons. You like a car with lots of get up and go? The government likes a car with lots of gas mileage and few emissions. Guess which vehicle Government Motors will build?

Maybe it makes sense to construct a power-generating plant in Texas. Texas is a Republican state. The plant will be built somewhere else, in a good Democrat state instead.

You like your medical provider? If the government doesn't like your medical provider, he or she won't be providing medical services for you. Doctors and hospitals will have someone else to serve. They'll be more interested in keeping government bureaucrats happy than in keeping you happy. If they anger you, they may lose you a patient. If they anger the government, they may lose their hospital or practice.

All of a sudden government will be king, and its subjects will understand that the king will favor only those who favor the king. Don't you think businesses will find it necessary to show proper respect to a power that can put them out of business at any moment? Of course. Everyone bows down to the king. And the king likes his subjects to be obedient. And that means obedience to whatever political objective is put forth.

When the government runs things, what motivation will there be to be responsive to customers? Little to none. When the government runs things, it's a monopoly. You buy what the government sells, at the price the government specifies, and you don't complain, because the king is sometimes not in a good mood.

We've seen countries all over the world suffer under the weight of oppressive government control. We have become one of those countries.

Control
Posted here for 8-3-09

If the government is bold enough to tell you where you must set your thermostat (link), that you cannot smoke (link), that you cannot eat foods with trans fat (link), that your health care will be cut off when you reach a certain age (link), that the air you breath out will be regulated (link), that your property can be taken whenever it suits the wishes of those in power (link), that you can't even move your own farm animals without giving notice to the USDA (link), don't you think government bureaucrats will feel quite comfortable ratcheting up even further their control over our lives? Would you be surprised if the government . . .

. . . set limits on the amount of electricity you can use? Or the amount of water? Or food?
. . . set limits on the size of TV screen you can watch?
. . . set limits on the amount of meat you can eat? Or perhaps decided you can't eat any meat at all?
. . . set limits on the number of miles you can drive in your car?
. . . set limits on the number of flights you can take per year? Or the distances flown?
. . . specified the number of days of "volunteer" work you must do each month?
. . . specified the amount of exercise you must get each week?
. . . specified the exact wage you're paid?
. . . specified the occupations for your kids?
. . . prohibited certain activities (like skydiving, rock climbing, balloon riding, hunting, fishing, etc.)?
. . . designated conservatives as "dangerous" to society? (Oh, that's right, they already tried to get away with that one earlier this year.)

Those things are absurd, you might say. But I say it's truly absurd how much the government has already infringed upon our freedoms!

All the rationales are ready for use: "to protect the planet," "to reduce the world's temperature," "to lower health-care costs," "to help the poor," "for the children," "to correct inefficiencies in the market," and so on. It doesn't matter that the rationales are false, that they don't make sense, that they're only purpose is to justify the unjustifiable. Those presently in power have designs they are determined to implement.

Heaven help the U.S.A. and every single American, born, or yet to be born.

Land of Abundance; Life of Scarcity
Posted here for 7-27-09

America has so much: land, natural resources, wealth, power, success, opportunity. Yet the federal government, at the direction of one far-left president, intends to impose upon the people a life of great scarcity.

We're not allowed to tap our massive sources of gas and oil. We're not allowed to use nuclear power. An absolutely crippling system of cap and trade procedures is nearing readiness to arbitrarily limit our nation's production, transportation, power generation, and consumption. In the midst of great abundance, we're being forced to live lives of scarcity with a drastically reduced standard of living.

We're told to cut back. We're told to conserve. We're told to recycle. We're told we must use ugly little florescent gizmos instead of the warm and familiar incandescent bulbs we know and love. We're told to keep our homes at temperatures specified by the government. We can only buy toilets and showers with government-approved water capacities and flows. Government can now take your home and property if it is thought someone else will produce more tax revenue. Government can trespass on your property and make demands on what you do, in the name of some fish or bug or frog or turtle. Government can make unnegotiable demands on you if it is deemed your property doesn't meet some bureaucrat-specified regulation regarding cleanliness, even if its cause is not your fault. Government can find a puddle or wet spot on your land and can dictate whether you can or cannot fill in the low spot. If government health care is passed, federal bureaucrats will not only determine who gets health care, they'll determine when, how much, and what your doctor gets paid. This is true socialized medicine.

With each governmental expansion, our freedom is being curtailed. With each governmental expansion, our choices are being taken away. With each governmental expansion, we are squeezed more and more into a life of scarcity.

This is the inevitable result of socialism. This is the inevitable result of Obama policy. This is the inevitable result of liberal ideology.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Posted here for 7-20-09

Let's get down to basics. When you're selecting someone for the U.S. Supreme Court, do you want someone whose thinking is consistent with, or at odds with past Supreme Court rulings? Granted, some high court rulings have been atrocious, but in general I'd say it makes sense to pick someone who is generally in accord with prior rulings.

Seven rulings handed down by Judge Sonia Sotomayor have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In four of six cases (one is still pending), her judgements and decisions have been overruled! That's two out of three!

It would seem to me that alone would disqualify her confirmation.

But if that record isn't enough, how about what she has said? Here are a couple of quotations:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." From a 2001 speech in Berkeley, California.

"I accept [some of my judging] will be [. . .] based on my gender and my Latina heritage." From a 2001 speech in Berkeley, California.

"All of the legal defense funds out there -- they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't 'make law.'" From a 2005 conference at Duke University Law School.

This is just the kind of person that those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law would reject for the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is just the kind of person that Barack Obama chooses as his top pick for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Medicating Kids
Posted here for 7-13-09

It breaks my heart to learn what's going on in public schools today: drugs, indroctrination, lack of discipline, dumbing down, and the medicating of the kids. Did you know that one in nine students is now on medication, and in half the cases the medications are ADHD drugs? ADHD has no specific medical or psychological symptons, only behavioral symptons. This is an outrage.

Here's an except from "Behavior Worth Medicating?" by Gregory A. Hession, J.D., in The New American, September 17, 2007, pages 14-15:

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) was created by a vote at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in 1987. Prior to this, hyperactivity was called Minimum Brain Dysfunction. Some of the many symptoms of this 'disorder,' listed in the DSM-IV [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual] are:

(I)(a) Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work or other activities.
(I)(c) Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly.
(1)(i) Is often forgetful in daily activities.
(2)(a) Often fidgets with hands or feet or squinns in seat.
(2)(c) Often runs about, climbs, or talks excessively.

This sure sounds like most boys in their growing years. In fact, three out of four youths diagnosed with ADHD are boys. Just about any child at any time could be diagnosed with such a disorder. There is no biological test for ADHD; the diagnosis is based only on observation of behavioral symptoms. Put simply, if a doctor examined a child diagnosed with ADHD, he would not be able to identify a physical or medical condition, in the brain or elsewhere, showing the presence of ADHD. A conference held by the National Institutes of Health in 1998, to investigate the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, concluded that 'there is no independent, valid test for ADHD; further research is necessary to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. . . . Our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains speculative.' Thus, a diagnosis is entirely discretionary.

Despite this official and professional equivocation, a 900-percent increase in the number of hyperactive children since the official ADHD naming ceremony in 1987 has been reported. Rather than help a child to learn to control his or her behaviar, schools, state child protective services, and psychiatry work together in a coercive alliance to addict millions of children to amphetamines in order to 'treat' these normal childhood behaviors.

This is just the kind of result you would expect when government takes over responsibilities for your child's health.

Oh, by the way, the government is just about ready to take over responsibilities for your health as well.

Can Obama Fool Enough of Us?
Posted here for 6-22-09

Over 20 years ago I visited Kathmandu, Nepal (where I took the photo at right). It was an exciting adventure: strange sights, strange smells, strange customs. I was interested to learn that not too many years prior to my visit, it was a closed society. That is, the people were prevented from hearing anything the government wished to keep from them. All channels of communication were controlled, so citizens knew only the government's message and perspective. No conflicting information or criticism was allowed.

The question arises: just how well informed are we, with our abundance of media outlets, the Internet, talk radio, Fox News?

Abraham Lincoln said, "You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time." Ah yes, but the key question is: can you fool enough of the people enough of the time? If you can, you will prevail.

We live in an era of the Holy One, where sacred Obama-rule is unquestioned. Where the mainstream media are so gaga over the guy, he could be planning the nation's overthrow, and they'd swoon, and coo approvingly.

Tens of millions of folks get their news from the mainstream media, many only from the mainstream media. They don't have the time or inclination to challenge what the President says, or what the worshipping media report. They have no reason to second guess Obama's policies. After all, the media think they're just peachy. If you're not tuned into alternative arguments, you'll probably think everything is just peachy, too.

Thus, perhaps enough people think there's global warming and we need Cap and Trade. Perhaps enough people think the takeover of GM by the federal government is a great idea. Perhaps enough people believe socialized medicine is just what the doctor ordered.

So what if a few million of us understand Obama's policies are collapsing the economy, transforming us into a corrupt socialist state, empowering our enemies, and ushering in legislation that will drastically lower our standard of living? The media say we're the crazy ones. We're the tea party nut cakes. We're the trouble-makers. We're the extremists.

If we can be marginalized, trivialized, stigmatized, the left will have its way and all hope for America will be lost. But the good news is that while the mainstream media loudly beat the drum for the poison Barack is brewing, it isn't news alone that is influencing people and determining their views. Common sense is still in abundance, and with it, folks can feel in their bones this administration, this president, and the fawning media are leading us in the wrong direction.

The big unknown: are there enough of us to save the country?

A Crazy Scenario
Posted here for 6-15-09

Here's a crazy scenario that has been bouncing around in my head of late:

Obama continues his crusade to bring down the economy and the American capitalist system, in accord with the Saul Alinsky strategy: "[E]stablish a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo's complete collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins."

The meltdown of the economy accelerates, the U.S. transformation into a socialist hellhole accelerates as well, and the standard of living of the citizens drops precipitously.

A point is reached where even the Obama-worshipping mainstream media realize the President's policies are transforming the country into anarchy and ruination. They reluctantly abandon their "god," and begin to tell the public the truth.

Politicians are so corrupt and weak, and fearful of Obama's accumulated power, they refuse to impeach the President.

The media seek a means of removing him from office.

There's only one avenue open to them: investigate his birth records and prove he is not a native-born American. This creates a Constitutional crisis, but Obama is finally forced out of office and the country is left to mend its shattered government, economy, and national heart and soul.

Thus, our only salvation is for the media to report the facts they should have reported a year or two ago.

Sort of an interesting scenario, don't you think?

The King of Disenfranchisia
Posted here for 6-8-09

The King of Disenfranchisia was proud and powerful, but pretentious. He ruled over a kingdom rich with natural abundance and rife with peasants who adored him. He traveled from hamlet to hamlet and spoke to adoring throngs, saying, "Come, my children, I will lead you out of your wretched conditions to a better tomorrow. Follow me and your lives will be transformed. I have a vision for the future. I see a new way. Come, and together we will find opportunity, reward, and fulfillment!"

And the peasants chanted in a single voice, "Oh, Glorious King, we will. Praise be to you, Enlightened One!" And they knelt down and bowed their heads as the king's procession passed by.

There came a time, however, when the weather grew foul, and torrents of rain battered the kingdom week after week. Farmers saw their crops washed away. Whole villages were flooded. And the peasants were afraid. "We are so helpless," they told the king. "Our fate is in your hands. What will you do to save us from this affliction?"

"Fear not!" was the king's reply. "I shall let loose all the waters in the kingdom's largest lake and wash the rain water away. After the hardship will come richness and reward."

And the peasants were in awe at the king's wisdom, and they erected great images in his honor.

But with rotted crops and drowned cows and pigs, fears grew anew. So the king issued a proclamation stating he was henceforth the holder of all lands and the merchant of all business enterprises in the kingdom. And the people's fears were eased.

However, great sickness fell upon the peasants throughout the land and there was suffering and death. Once again, the king addressed his subjects: "This great plague we are seeing had its beginnings during my father's reign, before I became your king, but I will put an end to the suffering. I hereby establish a Health Ministry, which will attend to the health needs of all: those who are poor and those who are very, very poor.

And the peasants rejoiced.

Then the king had a notice posted in every village square: "Hear ye, all peasants of Disenfranchisia. Flooding and sickness have upset the process of payments throughout the kingdom. Henceforth, all exchange transactions will be under the direction of my newly-appointed Minister of Transactions."

And the peasants knew that was a good thing, because the king had so spoken.

Months came and months went. Years came and years went. And the peasants of Disenfranchisia all died. And their once proud and noble kingdom died as well.

Obama: Missed Opportunities
Posted here for 6-1-09

What a missed opportunity! I can't understand why our President is so callous, uncaring, and unimaginative.

He recently decided he knows better than the free market and capitalism, and he increased CAFE "standards" to 35 miles per gallon. This, of course, is to reduce the production of greenhouse gases, so the planet will be saved. But this is an outrage!

If he really wanted to save the planet, why didn't he raise the "standard" to 50 miles per gallon? Or, better yet, a 100 miles per gallon? Does he really want to save the planet or just "look like" he's saving the planet?

And how about the Cap and Trade missed opportunity! Sure, lowering the output of evil greenhouse gases in industry will redistribute wealth, decimate the economy, and penalize the U.S. relative to other countries like China and India, but why just strangle industry? What about all the CO2 people are producing? Why not put some caps and trades on them? If someone wants to run around the block to keep fit, shouldn't he or she pay more than someone who just sits in front of the TV all day and eats cheese puffs? Running causes heavy breathing, something that ought to be controlled by the federal government. And just imagine all the CO2 produced in bedrooms across the land. Activity there, too, should be capped and traded. You like sex more often than the seventy-five-year-olds at the end of the block? You should pay them for all the harmful CO2 gases you're huffing and puffing.

Here's yet another missed opportunity: the minimum wage. It's inexcusable! On July 24, this year, the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 per hour. That's hardly fair. There are people making a lot more than that. Why not raise the minimum to $12.00 per hour? No, better yet, how about $75 per hour? That's more like it! With an annual income of something like $150,000 per year, all those people who couldn't afford big homes would be able to afford them. My gosh, we'd solve the whole real estate bubble problem.

We thought Barack Obama was ruining the country with his aggressively socialistic policies and initiatives. In view of the above, he's not nearly aggressive enough!

What's the Debate Really About?
Posted here for 5-25-09

The debate has raged: Is waterboarding torture? Is it not? Does the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners apply to those held at Guantanamo Bay? Does it not? What kind of treatment is permissible in cases where prisoners are believed to have information that endangers the lives of Americans? Is an interrogation technique torture simply because someone says it is? Is sleep deprivation torture? Loud sounds? Grilling someone for sixteen hours? How about two hours? And on and on. Several thoughts come to mind on the subject.

First, is this really a debate about waterboarding? Or is it merely a political move to make points with one group -- those on the left -- and to denigrate another group -- those on the right? I suspect there's a large political component surrounding the issue. It has become an effective tool to claim moral superiority: Liberals can state they stand for "what's right," while conservatives are demeaned as reckless, ruthless, crass, and without moral sensibilities.

Second, since the left is driving the matter, there has been no focus on consequences. Dick Cheney and others contend that without the use of waterboarding and the information it yielded, many Americans would have been killed. Documentation is said to exist that clearly proves this contention, and even quantifies the beneficial results of waterboarding, but of course, Mr. Obama won't let that documentation see the light of day. Better the argument remain a theoretical discussion, where he can derive political points.

And third, there has been a critically important element missing in the whole debate. What effect will all this "discussion" have on our enemies? Will it accrue to their advantage or disadvantage?

Advantage, obviously. Terrorists aren't going to ease up on beheadings or any of their other atrocities. Now they know that if captured, they'll be treated with kid gloves. They can safely keep their mouths closed without fear of any harsh treatment. The United States has just advertized it cares more about the comfort of captured adversaries than about the safety and even lives of its people.

If as a nation we choose to withhold use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique, that's fine. But if we wish to triumph over our adversaries, the last thing in the world we should do is give them our playbook.

Alliance with Alinsky
Posted here for 5-18-09

Since both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have embraced the methods of Saul Alinsky, and many others on the left in DC are similarity aligned with them, what exactly are Mr. Alinsky's methods?

In Hillary's college thesis on the man, she wrote, "[A]fter graduating from the University of Chicago, Alinsky received a fellowship in criminology with a first assignment to get a look at crime from the inside of gangs. He attached himself to the [Al] Capone gang, attaining a perspective from which he viewed the gang as a huge quasi-public utility serving the people of Chicago." (Source.)

In the late 1930s Alinsky earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the "Back of the Yards" area in Chicago, an industrial and residential neighborhood on the southwest side of the city. In 1940 he established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped "organize" communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. (Source.)

The DiscoverTheNetworks website states:

In the Alinsky model, "organizing" is a euphemism for "revolution" -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo's complete collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal "changes" are needed.

It's not a stretch to view current activities in the White House as a near-perfect reflection of the "revolution" Alinsky envisioned. I suspect most of those who voted for Barack Obama expected "change," but certainly not revolutionary change leading to full-fledged Marxism. Take a look at Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, and see if the Obama administration isn't following Alinsky's rules to a tee.

The Global Warming Debate Should Be Over
Posted here for 5-11-09

I got a little 16-page booklet in the mail a couple of weeks ago, on the topic of global warming: The Skeptic's Handbook, by Joanne Nova. It summarizes pretty well where we are in the global warming debate. Four important developments have occurred since 2003. They are:

1. Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years, but can find no sign of the telltale "hotspot" warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There's not even a hint.

2. Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window.

3. Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat, C02 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don't know what it is.

4. Adding twice the C02 doesn't make twice the difference. The first C02 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player.

So, for global warming, science dictates we must have a telltale "hotspot" warming pattern. It's not there. Rising CO2 levels historically come after an earth's warming period, not before. So the argument that increased CO2 is causing temperature rise is simply bogus. Since there has been no warming since 2001, not only are the scare mongers completely wrong, every one of the earth-temperature computer models is wrong as well! Absolutely wrong! And finally, since the globe experienced an ice age coincident with high CO2 levels, the whole fuss about CO2 is unfounded.

These scientific developments won't change Al Gore's mind, or any other leftist politician's mind. That's because the global warming issue has nothing to do with CO2. It has everything to do with implementing a political agenda, a leftist political agenda. Obama's cap and trade scheme, for example, is proceeding at full speed. Science has shown there is absolutely no need for it, but that doesn't matter. As Timothy Wirth said in 1990, "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."

Government Is Not Your Friend
Posted here for 5-4-09

When you make a decision, you consider need, value, appropriateness, and likely consequences. Of course, we all do this automatically. It's common sense.

But that's not what's going on in government.

If "need" was taken into consideration, clearly we'd be drilling for oil in ANWR and off the East and West Coasts. There's lots of oil there and we desperately need it. But to please extreme environmentalists, the oil remains untouched.

If "value" was taken into consideration, we'd make dramatic changes in our educational system. We wouldn't be indoctrinating the kids, we'd be teaching them how to think and reason. We'd be filling their heads with facts and we'd instill logic, common sense, and practicality. Attitudes, values, and beliefs should be the end result of learning, not the starting point as it is today in the public schools.

If "appropriateness" was taken into consideration, we wouldn't be rushing to divert massive amounts of our national wealth to combat global warming, when facts reveal the Earth isn't even heating up. Yes, some years are a little warmer, some years a little cooler, but we've experienced nothing outside of warming and cooling patterns that have been going on for millions of years.

If "consequences" were taken into consideration, we wouldn't be embracing socialism. Everywhere it has been tried, it has failed. And not just failed, but failed catastrophically. Regardless of when it was tired, where it was tired, and who tried it, the result has been the same: disaster for the people.

The federal government now has abandoned the principle of serving America's needs. It is serving the fantasies of extreme leftists. Obama's criticism of America during his recent European tour is nothing more than the rantings of Jeremiah Wright, tidied up with softer terms and smoother rhetoric. The Obama spending rampages were nothing more than lavish repayments for political favors. The only thing they will stimulate is debt and future inflation. Our new President isn't concerned about the American people, he's concerned about buying votes and assuring the longevity of leftist control. He kowtows to our enemies, and treats them to bows, smiles, and handshakes. He closes the camp at Guantanamo, before he has any idea what to do with the detainees; he has no exit strategy whatsoever. He eagerly advances the initiatives of the United Nations (Law of the Sea Treaty, Rights of the Child, International Criminal Court, etc.), knowing all too well our sovereignty will severely suffer as a result.

One hundred days is quite enough to ascertain Obama's intentions. His presidency will gravely damage this country, already in a weaken state of economic disruption and terrorist concern. He is poised to impose the "wrenching transformation" that so often has been spoken of. He may so thoroughly subvert Constitutional designs, that our freedoms may be trampled beyond repair.

Quite some time ago we should have known he was going to do that.

A Lesson in Inconsistency
Posted here for 4-27-09

Rush Limbaugh has been pummelled in the press -- endlessly -- for saying he hopes Barack Obama fails. Thinking folks would quickly deduce that Rush considers Obama's policies and intentions at odds with Rush's view of what's best for America. Many in the mainstream media don't seem to fall into that category (thinking folks), so they leap to the conclusion Limbaugh wants America to fail.

It's an outrage, they bark. It's unpatriotic! It's disgraceful! He should be banned from the airways!

Well, before mainstream reporters and commentators get too steamed, before they hyperventilate with indignation, they should pause briefly and reflect on what has happened in the not so distant past.

Democrat Bill Press, speaking about the incoming Bush Administration on CNN's "Crossfire" program December 18, 2000, said this: "We certainly don't want him to succeed too much."
Democrat James Carvelle, speaking at a press conference, explaining the Democrat battle plan to combat what George Bush does, said this: "I certainly hope [George Bush] doesn't succeed."
Democrat Nancy Pelosi, speaking about her midterm 'election strategy,' as quoted in The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 31, 2006, said this: "You cannot go head to head with the President until you take him down. Take him down, make him pay, and then we can have a conversation."
An August, 2006 Fox News poll of registered voters asked this question: "Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want president Bush to succeed or not?" An amazing 51 percent of Democrats replied "No," they didn't want him to succeed.

There's a saying: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." I guess there's an unspoken understanding: not if the goose is Democrat and the gander is Republican.

Source of quote: "Liberal Hopes for Failure," by Rush Limbaugh, The Limbaugh Letter, April 2009, page 15. Address: 1270 Avenue of the Americas, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10020. Show phone: 800-282-2882. Fax: 212-445-3963. E-mail. Website.

Learning from History
Posted here for 4-20-09


Of course it's impossible to predict if the present economic downturn will be in any way similar to the crash of 1929, but what if it is? What did we learn from the history of that period?

First we learned that on Black Tuesday the market took a terrible tumble. Terrible! But after that, there was a market rally of some duration. Lesson: an upswing does not necessarily signal the end of trouble.

Next we learned that the crash of 1929 was really a crash of 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932. After that first recovery shortly following Black Tuesday, the Dow kept dropping and dropping and dropping, despite numerous little blips of positive gain. Lesson: the economy took a beating and didn't hit bottom until years after the first plunge.

Next, we learned that the policies of the era didn't make things better. They made things worse. The massive government spending programs that were unleashed, exacerbated the economic difficulties. They made a bad situation absolutely awful. Lesson: since the Obama administration has undertaken massive spending programs, we can only conclude that our economy will worsen, not improve.

And finally, we learned that the market didn't recover until 1954, 25 years after the bottom fell out. Lesson: if what we're going through is anything like what we went through, hold onto your hat. It's going to be a rough ride.

Here's one final thought: Obama is not dumb. He knows what happened back in the depression days. He knows that incurring debt and wildly running the printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving will worsen our economic future. So why is he doing it?

[Source of graphic.]

White Slaves
Posted here for 4-13-09

Slavery. It was a national disgrace. The country has been in a turmoil over it for centuries.

But concern has focused on only one part of the issue: black slaves. Yes, of course. But what of the white slaves? White slaves?

A book by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, White Cargo, describes the forgotten history of white slaves in America. And quite a history it was. Turns out whiles were slaves before blacks were, and tens of millions of Americans are direct descendants of white slaves.

Whites were bought and sold as property, whipped, raped at will, and sometimes worked to death. Convicts, rebels, beggars, prostitutes, and unwanted Scots or Irishmen were rounded up and hauled to the colonies for as long as 14 years of hard labor. Sometimes young people were kidnapped and sold. All for the purpose of assisting the tobacco planters in America and cane growers in the Caribbean. Some estimates suggest that two thirds of the British who left for the colonies between 1620 and 1775 were white slaves.

It wasn't infrequent that masters worked their white servants to death or turned them out to starve if they got sick or were disabled. These slaves could not marry without the consent of their masters. Women who became pregnant owed two extra years of service to make up for the cost of the child, even if the father was the master.

Of the 1,200 servants who came to Jamestown in 1619, some 800 died the first year. It was reported that of white convicts who were imported as slaves, half were dead after seven years of service. Of the first 300 children shipped between 1619 and 1622, only twelve were still alive in 1624. Towns all over England rounded up young beggars and sold them as slaves for use by the colonialists.

For more than a century, arranging a kidnapping and selling an individual for slave labor was an almost foolproof means to eliminate a young enemy or rival.

A little before the War Between the States, Frederick Olmstead, the designer of New York City's Central Park was asked why he preferred enslaved whites over blacks to drain swamps and dig irrigation ditches. Said he, "It's dangerous work and a negro's life is too valuable to be risked at it. If a negro dies, it is a considerable loss, you know."

At the time, there was very little objection to the use of whites for slave purposes. White bondage never promoted an abolition movement, and it died out sometime around 1820.

[Source of the above information: an article titled "White Slaves," a review of the book White Cargo, reviewed by Thomas Jackson, published in the American Renaissance, December 2008, pages 8-12. Address: PO Box 527, Oakton, Virginia 22124. E-mail. Website.]

Do We Have a Cloward-Piven Administration?
Posted here for 4-6-09

I came across this interesting diagram on the Sharp Right Turn website.

Several websites (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, among others.) discuss the Cloward-Piven Strategy -- forcing political change through orchestrated crisis, and the question is raised: is this the blue-print by which Barack Obama is guided?

His actions -- drastically weakening our economy and implementing socialist policies such as nationalizing many private institutions -- seem to suggest the answer is yes. His history -- hobnobbing with hate-America folks like Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Khalid al-Mansour (aka: Don Warden), and so many others -- seems to suggest the answer is yes. His past work -- aggressively supporting ACORN efforts -- strongly suggests the answer is yes. And his agenda -- raising taxes, cap and trade, silencing talk radio, punishing the successful, disablling the coal industry, appeasing our enemies, antagonizing our friends, etc., etc., etc. -- also suggests the answer is yes.

When he was sworn into office, he took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Indications at present lead me to believe he's trying to do everything but.

Four Simple Questions
Posted here for 3-30-09

I came across an article several months ago that seems to frame perfectly the whole global warming issue ("Greatest Current Danger: Climate Alarmism," Human Events, June 16, 2008, page 17). Written by Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, the article contains excerpts from remarks he made at the National Press Club May 27, 2008. Here are what I consider his most important comments:

I have to say that the basic questions of the current climate change debate are sufficiently known and well-structured. Four of them are crucial:

Question number one: Do we live in an era of statistically significant, non-accidental, and non-cyclical climate change?

Question number two: If so, is it dominantly manmade?

Question number three: If so, should such a moderate temperature increase bother us more than many other pressing problems we face, and should it receive our extraordinary attention?

And the final question: If we want to change the climate, can it be done, and are current attempts to do it the best allocation of our scarce resources?

I would say that my answers to all these questions is no. [. . .] [T]o argue, as it is done by many contemporary environmentalists, that these questions have already been answered with a consensual yes and that there is an unchallenged scientific consensus about this, is unjustified. And not only unjustified, it is also morally and intellectual[ly] deceptive, and this is something that I can't live with.

Regarding questions one and two, we have scientific knowledge that shows other periods of world history have been warmer, other periods have experienced greater levels of CO2, and during such periods life has been enhanced, not threatened. These conditions occurred without any CO2 contribution from man.

Regarding question three, it seems to me only a political extremist would say global warming deserves any attention at all, given the economic dangers we face, and the Islamic threats we face, and the threats of socialism at our doorstep.

Regarding question four, even some global warming alarmists concede man's attempts to alter global temperatures will have negligible if any effects at all.

Thus we see the whole matter is nothing more than a "Chicken Little" exercise to intimidate the world. If the left is successful with this scare, it will be able to impose it's agenda on society: wealth redistribution, world government, and full-fledged socialism.

"Global warming" is a means to an end that has absolutely nothing to do with the warming of the globe.

Accomplishments
Posted here for 3-23-09

Look at the impact the left has had on America and the world. It's dramatic. It's overwhelming! Leftist agendas and programs have fundamentally changed this country from what it was intended to be. Consider some examples:

Alfred Kinsey wrote some books about sex and radically changed the attitudes, values, and beliefs of Americans. His study, though fraudulent, advanced the acceptance of pornography, homosexuality, abortion, and condom-based sex education. His supporters today promote the idea that children are "sexual beings," and pedophilia -- adult-child sex -- is normal. Laws have been changed, religious principles altered, and society has been drastically degraded, all thanks to Mr. Kinsey.

Rachel Carlson wrote Silent Spring and stirred up public concern about pesticides and in particular DDT. She got her facts wrong, I assume intentionally, but that didn't stop her from turning public opinion against the malaria-stopping agent. The end result was that millions of people, predominantly African people, died. Some suggest this was the hidden objective, advanced by over-population worries.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, perhaps more than any other president, corrupted the U.S. Constitution by the unconstitutional expansion of federal power. He changed the mindset of Americans, convincing them the federal government is the source of solutions to the country's problems. By massive spending programs and federal intervention, he worsened the 1929 stock market crash and extended it by perhaps a decade.

Lyndon Baines Johnson ushered in the Great Society -- his "War on Poverty," which was basically a massive federal spending program to help the poor. The program cost hundreds of billions of dollars, it was a failure, and it was unconstitutional.

Social Security is unconstitutional. Medicare is unconstitutional. Federal aid to education is unconstitutional, as is the Federal Reserve and membership in the U.N. Banning prayer in school is unconstitutional (the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"). It's unconstitutional to tax a citizen's labors (i.e. the income tax).

All these actions and results are courtesy of the left. It's as if the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people") didn't exist.

Ah, but what of the onerous legislation passed by those on the right?

Well, not too much truly dramatic legislation has actually been passed by these folks. Except, of course, when Lincoln freed the slaves.

Children of Single-Mothers
Posted here for 3-16-09

Ann Coulter does a great job in her new book, Guilty, to highlight the destructive aspects of single-mother homes. The mainstream media ooze with praise for single moms, but our society is paying a steep price for this "lifestyle." Here are some of the significant and sad statistics Coulter mentions:

In 1996, 70 percent of the inmates serving long-term sentences in state juvenile detention centers were raised by single mothers.
Of the juvenile murderers and rapists, 72 percent and 60 percent respectively are from single-mother homes.
Children raised by a single mother are responsible for 70 percent of teenage births, 70 percent of school dropouts, 63 percent of suicides, 90 percent of homeless and runaway children, 70 percent of juvenile delinquents, 71 percent of adolescent chemical or substance abuse, and 70 percent of child murders.
The difference in crime rates between blacks and whites disappears after controlling for single motherhood.
In 2005, over one third of all babies born in the U.S. were illegitimate.
America has more than twice the percent of teenage births as other developed nations.
Half the single mothers in America live below the poverty line.
Children from single-mother homes are six times more likely to be in poverty than kids living with married parents.
Single mothers account for 90 percent of all welfare recipients.
Chronic poverty in America could be wiped out if women simply got married before having children, and stayed married after having children.
Since 1970, the illegitimacy rate has gone up more than 300 percent.
Adopted children are no worse off than nonadopted children; actually they are generally better off.
Single mothers cost taxpayers $112 billion each year.
Of mothers who kill their children through neglect, 85 percent are single mothers.
The number of single mothers in the U.S. in 2003 was 10 million, up from 3 million in 1970.

Coulter notes that those on the left were the ones who destroyed the stigma associated with illegitimacy. They altered laws, revised morals, and encouraged the idea it's okay for kids to be born out of wedlock.

The damage done to society is tragic. The damage done to the kids of single moms is unforgivable.

Looking Ahead
Posted here for 3-9-09

I was talking to my financial advisor a few days ago. He said his company has projected a Dow Jones Industrial Average low of 6100. I bet him a nickel it would drop below 5000. He said that would be disastrous.

Since then I've heard other projections, one as a low of 3100! What if it drops below that?

Obama and his legislative comrades are changing laws. They're changing long-standing rules. They're changing everything! Newsweek says we're now a socialist country. What's a capitalist to do?

Those who strive to be law-abiding watch as the irresponsible are rewarded with bailouts. Those who spent decades of dedication, innovation, and toil, are told their wealth will be confiscated and redistributed to those who are lazy, unresourceful, and underachieving.

Millions of Americans who planned for, saved for, and richly deserve their retirements are watching with dismay as their portfolios shrink and looming inflation threatens to turn their golden years into despair.

I was talking to my tax man and he confided that the economic outlook is so grim, plans for a new member of his family will have to be abandoned.

How can a businessman expand production, increase the number of employees, or make any meaningful plans at all in the face of such uncertainty and potentially catastrophic times? How can intelligent business decisions be made when government keeps changing the rules of the game. Imagine playing football if the number of yards to a first down was a randomly-generated number.

I've heard that the 800 to 900 billion dollars projected in the "stimulus" bill could pay nearly all of the country's federal income taxes for 2008. Imagine what a real stimulus that would be. And legislation to enact it could probably be less than ten pages.

Companies are going out of business, hard-working folks are losing their jobs, banks are closing, the stock market is tanking, and the wealth of the citizenry is plummeting.

That's change you can believe in.

Lots of Questions
Posted here for 3-2-09

For me, one of the true delights of retirement is the availability of time to think. Often after I get up in the morning, I enjoy leaning back in an easy chair and pondering life's complexities. I'm able to give thought to an endless stream of questions. Such as:

Why does Al Gore continue to cite the "hockey-stick" temperature curve to "prove" global warming, when the curve has been proven invalid? Why does Al Gore refuse to debate the subject of global warming with any knowledgeable scientist who doesn't buy into the hoax?
Why do Democrats tolerate a senator who was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan? If he were a Republican, would he be tolerated? And why were his remarks about "white niggers" not met with outrage and demands for his resignation? Wouldn't that have been the result if a Republican had made the same remarks?
If liberals are so enthralled with diversity, why aren't they enthralled with the diversity of political talk found on talk radio? If they are dedicated to the First Amendment and free speech, why do they wish to silence those on the right who exercise free speech? If it's "fairness" they're after, why don't they force PBS to be fair in its broadcasts of right and left material? Why don't they force the mainstream media to be fair in its reporting? Why don't they force Hollywood to be fair in the political content of its products? Why don't they force colleges and universities to have a fair representation of liberals and conservatives on their faculties? With their "Fairness Doctrine," do liberals also intend to remove Christian broadcasts from radio; for example broadcasts that criticize homosexuality?
When someone says people shouldn't be so judgemental, isn't that person being judgemental?
If the global-warming issue is not about advancing a liberal agenda, why is it that all the "solutions" proposed to address the issue (income redistribution, global government, etc.) advance a liberal political agenda?
What can be concluded about the fact that home-schooled kids (a fraction of all the kids in the country) always seem to do better on tests than the "professionally"-taught kids?
Why do some -- mostly liberals -- want to empower the United Nations when not one of the "diplomats" there is elected by the people? What is it UN advocates don't like about our republic and its democratic ways?
How come liberals advocate affirmative action and at the same time champion equal opportunity, when the two principles are the antitheses of one another?
Since history is clear that massive federal spending only makes a country's economic crisis worse, why are so many of our leaders voting for massive federal spending?
Why do the Democrats -- and in particular Barack Obama -- work so hard to transform our country into a socialist state, when socialism has been proven to fail -- and fail catastrophically -- everywhere it has been tried?
Why do you suppose the argument wasn't made that slaves were just doing jobs Americans wouldn't do?
Are blacks actually better basketball players, or is the NBA just racist against whites?
If Barack Obama actually was born in Hawaii, why doesn't he simply release his birth certificate records so the matter can be settled? Why has he forbidden colleges he attended to release his birth and citizenship information? Why has he assured the suppression of birth records in Hawaii and Kenya? And why haven't the media reported any of the lawsuit activity and Supreme Court action on this issue?
Do you think either party (Republicans, Democrats) would be so interested in excusing the lawlessness of illegal aliens if illegal alien votes weren't at stake? Who is deciding which illegal acts are considered actually illegal and which aren't?
Why do some people show far more intolerance to American interrogation techniques than to the unthinkable acts (like cutting off one's head) of our enemies?
Why do so many of our elected officials press for socialized medicine, when it has proven in countries around the world to increase costs and reduce the quality of health care?
How come Obama is so adamant about responsibility when it comes to the actions of executives in the private sector, but completely indifferent regarding responsibility when it comes to politicians -- like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd -- who are most culpable in the mortgage debacle and resultant economic crisis?
Why do liberals have so little respect for citizens that they won't allow them to use weapons to defend themselves against attack?
Why do you suppose it's usually Democrats who are the perpetrators of vote fraud? And why have the Democrats given billions of federal dollars to ACORN (or ACORN-like groups), even though ACORN has been under federal investigation for fraudulent voter registration drives for months.
Why do liberals wish to redefine marriage? Why do they encourage the homosexual lifestyle when homosexual sex has greatly exacerbated the transmission of AIDS? Why do they demand AIDS education in K-12? Do kindergarteners need to learn about AIDS?
If everyone understands that a two-for-one stock split cuts the value of each share in half, why doesn't everyone understand that printing more and more currency will have a similar effect? (Printed money.)
Are lies perpetrated by the left just the result of lowered standards of morality (which they have encouraged), or are they because only with lies are leftists able to support their ideology?

And these are only a few of the questions.

An Age of Big Lies
Posted here for 2-23-09

We are living in an Age of Big Lies. Politicians tell us governments must assume massive amounts of increased power to combat the effects of global warming. Obama tells us the "Stimulus" Bill must be passed immediately to avoid imminent economic ruin. Decades ago we were told DDT was devastating the environment and must be banned worldwide. All these crises and emergencies have something in common: they demand government action for their "solution."

It's a clever ploy: stir up emotion and fear so whatever you propose will be quickly embraced by the people as a means to circumvent the hyped catastrophe. Clever, but not new. Nearly eighty years ago, a Mr. Adolf Hitler penned an autobiography, Mein Kampf, in which he wrote:

[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

Our nation is rooted in the assumption its citizens and leaders will be honorable, God-fearing, truthful individuals. Remember the words of John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Today, however, our federal government is ruled by a different breed. A majority of our leaders are ruthless, dishonorable, deceitful politicians. They are selfish, corrupt, and driven by a far-left ideology. We are on a course they have chosen for us. It leads to socialism, pain, and poverty.

We must turn this ship around.

In Less than Three Weeks
Posted here for 2-16-09

If it were possible to drill for oil anywhere in the world, where in the world should we drill? Not in a city. Nor in the countryside. Nor in areas where there's farming or ranching or where it would disturb beautiful scenic vistas of mountains or valleys. A drilling site ought to be away from the public, in a remote and harsh territory where few would ever visit and where the surrounding area is dreary and unattractive. Just such a place, of course, is ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Range). But of all the places in the world, that's where Barack Obama won't allow drilling. It makes no sense. [Photo from the Geotimes website.]

If it was your responsibility to find the best place in the world to house captured terrorists, where would it be? Certainly not in one of the states. Our citizens don't want terrorists in their back yard. You might wish to choose another country, but what other country would be willing to take them? No country with any sense. My guess is that after concerted effort and study, you'd conclude the best place in the world would be the military prison at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. It's perfect: remote, protected, comfortable climate, isolated, not too far from the U.S., within a U.S. naval base. (Photos.) Our new President, however, believes Gitmo is the worst place in the world to house captured terrorists, so he has decided to close the prison. And to where is he going to move these military combatants? Well, he doesn't know. He says it's unacceptable to conduct a military action without an exit strategy, but he has no exit strategy for the Gitmo terrorists. This is silliness. And it's dangerous for our country.

If you were just elected President of the United States, and you decided to be interviewed on television, to which TV outlet would you give the honor of the first interview? Barack Obama didn't select ABC, NBC, or ABC. Or even CNN or MSNBC. Obviously not the fair and balanced FOX News network. His first formal TV interview as President was with an Arabic satellite TV Network. The interview on the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel aired January 27th. During the program Obama cited his Muslim background and relatives, something that was absolutely taboo during the U.S. presidential campaign. I suppose Obama feels a certain kinship with the Arab world. (Additional reference.) But just the same, why would he choose Arab TV as his first TV interview? (Analysis.)

If you are giving a speech and you wish to refer to the religious people of America, what would you say? During his Inaugural Address, Barack Obama said: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers." Why were Muslims given second ranking? About 78.4% of Americans are Christians, 1.7% Jewish, 0.7% Buddhist, 0.6% Muslim, 0.4% Hindu, and 16.1% unaffiliated ("unaffiliated" doesn't necessarily mean nonbelievers). (Source.) Why the special attention to Muslims? Why the slap at Buddhists? I thought Obama was focused on uniting the country. Such rhetoric seems quite counter-productive.

If you are President, doesn't that mean you should speak the truth? With a Democrat Commander-in-Chief, apparently not. In his recent press conference, Barack Obama spoke as if he were on the campaign trail. Lots of exaggerations, lots of promises, and little regard to actual facts. For example, he cited Japan's decade-long economic doldrums as rationale for his massive spending bill, implying Japan didn't take any federal action. But Japan's economic troubles, just like our own in 1929 were dramatically exacerbated by exactly the kind of government interference Obama has demanded: massive federal spending. When I listened, I thought: the lies and deceit are once again flowing freely from the White House.

If the weather computer models are right, then as more and more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere, the temperature of the world will continue to increase. However, we've now had a decade or so of higher CO2 levels, but lower temperatures, so why is Obama so concerned about global warming? The answer: the global warming scare is only a tool used by extreme leftists to advance extreme leftist policy: wealth redistribution, world government, more control, less freedom. Al Gore's frantic cries of panic, echoed by Obama, are intended to frighten the public into agreeing that the only salvation for the world is more government power and less liberty for the people.

President Obama's words and actions frighten me. When he was elected I knew our republic was in for trouble. I'm beginning to understand that the trouble will be far worse than I imagined.

Truth Is Emerging on the Subject of Global Warming
Posted here for 2-9-09

More and more people are seeing the global warming hoax for what it is. And more and more scientists are speaking up with politically incorrect statements. Such as the following:

"The 'global warming' trope is unraveling on a daily basis - scientifically, economically, and politically." -- UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London.
"This whole climate change issue is rapidly disintegrating. . . . All indications are that we are now on the threshold of global cooling associated with the second and less active solar cycle." -- Professor Dr. Will J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa.
"Their entire global warming scare was based on around two decades of warming in the late 20th century so if that is followed by 20 years of stasis and cooling, which one of those two episodes represents the trend? How can we be sure that there is ANY trend?" -- Australian John Ray, Ph.D., who publishes the website Greenie Watch.
"The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date." -- Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton.
"How many years of declining world temperature would it take now -- in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998 -- to break up Al Gore's 'climate change consensus?'" -- Environmental Economist and global warming co-author Dennis Avery.
"I am a skeptic . . . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology declaring she is skeptical of man-made climate fears.
"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact." -- Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," -- Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.
"The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming." -- Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
"Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen [is] bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance [of global warming]." -- Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Universite Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon.
"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." -- Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy.
"The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming." -- Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics.
"To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions." -- Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.
"C02 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. Not C02, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped C02 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." -- Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute.
"[IPCC fear about global warming is the] [w]orst scientific scandal in [. . .] history." -- Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist and top UN IPCC Japanese scientist.

The tide is turning but Al Gore continues his scare tactics. He has to; he has staked his reputation on global warming nonsense.

Source of the above quotes is a Press Update sheet, dated July 25, 2008, from Marc Morano, communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The "Golden Era of Obama"
Posted here for 1-26-09

We have now entered the "Golden Era of Obama," where everything good that befalls us will be the result of the President's wise and prudent rule, and everything bad will be the result of the fumbling, bumbling, and stumbling of George W. Bush and the evil Republicans. This perspective will be woven into media stories for the next six months. Or twelve. Or 48.

When terrorists next strike the U.S. (Joe Biden says that will be soon), it won't be because of Obama's I-love-you-so-you-love-me strategy; it'll be because Bush policies failed. When our national intellegence proves ineffective, it won't be because Leon Panetta was sent to the CIA to water down its effectiveness; it'll be because we are paying the price for eight years of Bush "torturing" prisoners. When there's trouble in Iraq or Iran or anywhere in the Middle East, it won't be because Obama promised to pull our troops out of the region, it will be because Bush managed the military so badly. Every Obama mistake, every misstep, every leftist policy that harms our country will be Bush's fault. That's what the media will tell us -- over and over again -- so it will have to be true.

Just as Kennedy was judged and considered weak and ineffective by the Soviet Union -- thereby precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis and nearly world nuclear disaster -- so too will Obama be judged. All of Obama's public statements to date have led our enemies to conclude he is weak, inexperienced, and vulnerable. If they have any inclination to attack us, they will consider now an opportune moment to do so.

If our new President was merely inexperienced, that would be one thing. All newly-elected presidents -- except perhaps those who served as Vice President -- are largely inexperienced. Ronald Reagan was certainly inexperienced on a presidential level when he took office, but his tough-on-our-enemies attitude was clear and our foes acted accordingly. Now we have a coddle-your-enemies guy as Commander in Chief. That does not bode well.

If we had a media dedicated to seriously analyzing, challenging, and critiquing the President and his policies, then there would be at least some oversight, some restraint on Obama's far-left designs. But instead, the media are cheer leaders. They're chanting praise and bowing down to the anointed one, anxious to applaud his every move. They're in no mood to probe, question, or scrutinize his actions. One does not quarrel with the messiah, don't you know.

And the people, too. For vast numbers of Americans, the euphoria continues. They have elected a black man as President. What could be more honorable? More noble? Everything they read reinforces that view. They read the mainstream media.

Some on the right -- Karl Rove, for example -- are hopeful the seriousness of the President's job will be sobering enough to moderate what otherwise would be extreme-left policy. I hope Mr. Rove is correct.

History-Making Week
Posted here for 1-19-09

This is a very special week. A man I respect greatly will begin a new chapter in his life and it will impact the country significantly. He will assume major responsibilities and be catapulted into the public's attention like never before, although he's been influential in politics for years.

He'll be in a position to speak directly to the American people, and through his newly-acquired bully pulpit will provide thoughtful analysis of today's issues. With keen intellect and impressive speaking prowess, he'll inform the public about key social, political, economic, and other matters of national significance.

He'll address the major problems confronting America, and he'll provide clear, concise explanations of the causes and effects, and he'll explain what policies should be implemented to serve our nation best. He's a man who passionately loves America, who believes in her goodness and greatness, and who is dedicated to the principles that allowed our country to thrive: freedom, capitalism, the rule of law, limited government, God-given rights.

Of course I'm talking about Glenn Beck and the start of his new TV program on Fox News (weekdays, 5 p.m. East Coast time).

Good News and Bad News
Posted here for 1-12-09

Much of what I write takes note of circumstances I find troubling: the country's morals, its values, national and world politics, liberal agendas, deceit, and so on. This time I've decided to strike a positive note. Here's how it works: I'll state some good news, and I'll leave it to you to fill in the bad news. Okay, here we go.

The Good News Is John McCain was not elected president.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on the U.S. since 2001.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is there's lots of oil -- billions of barrels -- available if we simply drill for it in Alaska.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is taxes were lowered during the Bush administration.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is Barack Obama has not yet been sworn into office.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is Barack Obama has a great deal of experience when it comes to giving speeches.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is Throughout all of our history it has been indisputable that our president was native born.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is more and more scientists realize that man-made global warming is a myth and more and more economists realize that implementing the Kyoto Protocol will destroy America.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is the Fairness Doctrine was revoked during the Reagan administration.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is Al Franken did not receive enough actual votes to be elected senator in Minnesota.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is We understand how criminal and corrupt politicians are if they spend a lot of time in the Chicago area.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is that of the 43 presidents we've had to date, not one has been an extreme leftist.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is on January 2nd, the Dow rose to more than 9000 for the first time since November, 2008.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is The Earth has been cooling for the last six years, contrary to the projections of computer models designed by those who say man-made CO2 is heating the planet.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is nuclear power is safe and could provide the U.S. with vast amounts of clean, inexpensive power.
The Bad News Is . . .

The Good News Is terrorists and our enemies were not happy when George Bush was President.
The Bad News Is . . .

Evolution Theory and Pointlessness
Posted here for 1-5-09

It occurs to me that the only difference between the theory of evolution and creationism is this: for one, everything is without purpose; for the other, everything is with purpose. Evolutionists believe the origin of life -- and everything else -- is just a matter of random circumstance, while those who reject evolution believe life -- and everything else -- is the result of a design.

So, which explanation makes sense to you? That all living things are merely accidents occurring over a period of eons, or that living things are special, and the most special of all is human beings?

If you side with evolutionists, it's easy for your philosophy to lead you to such a conclusion as this: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." That's the logic evolution theory forces you to embrace. Ingrid Newkirk made the statement in 1986. She's co-founder and national director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Note her philosophy does not elevate the status of animals, it denigrates the status of human beings. Of course: all creatures are nothing more than random happenstance. "I don’t believe human beings have the ‘right to life,'" she said.

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, made this statement: "Very often it’s not wrong to kill a child once it’s left the womb. Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person." Again, if life and existance are nothing but pointless evolutionary occurrences, then such a statement might make sense. (This is the philosophy Professor Singer is instilling in his students.)

"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration," said Michael W. Fox, vice president of the Humane Society of the United States. The religion of evolution yields this perspective.

In 1973, James Watson, director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and the man who cracked the genetic code, said this: "I think we must reevaluate our basic assumptions about the meaning of life. Perhaps . . . no one should be thought of as alive until about three days after birth. . . . If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice. . . . [T]he doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose, and save a lot of misery and suffering." Such thinking is unimaginable . . . unless life has no meaning, no significance, no value. And that's the inevitable conclusion of those who subscribe to the theory of evolution.

Then there's Margaret Sanger, founder of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Said she, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Why not, if we're just helpless, pointless beings, at the total mercy of random, evolutionary influences?

Evolution was considered by Adolph Hitler as scientific justification for his death camps. After all, he was just helping evolution along in its quest for superior human beings. In Mein Kampf he argued that different races have higher and lower values and that his goal was "to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and weaker." He said further, "Jews formed a sub-human counter race, predestined by their biological heritage to evil, just as the Nordic race was destined for nobility."

Evolutionists answer the "why" question about life by surmising there is no "why." Everything just happened by accident. Life therefore has no purpose. It has no meaning. It has no substance.

If you convince yourself you are as worthy of life as a barnyard animal, beetle, or begonia, then you've defined for yourself a meaningless existance.