   Send this page from You Don't Say to a friend.For those using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Select the "Mail" icon at the top of this window, then "Send Page." For those using Netscape: Select "File" at the top of this window, then "Send Page." |
| Send this page from You Don't Say to a friend. For those using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Select the "Mail" icon at the top of this window, then "Send Page." For those using Netscape: Select "File" at the top of this window, then "Send Page." |
 This year more than 1,100,000 teen-age girls will become pregnant in the United States, 83 percent of them unmarried -- 30,000 under the age of fourteen. The majority of these girls will become pregnant again within two years. (p. 24)And who are the ones who have sponsored, promoted, ballyhooed, and rejoiced in the programs responsible for these dreary results? Yes, the liberals. And when the consequences of their policies prove disaster, they offer their solution: We must spend even more money on the same programs. Remember when we could say that without feeling politically incorrect? Now we must resort to "Happy holidays" or something else equally innocuous. And insipid. I remember a writing assignment I had in the 4th or 5th grade in school more than a half century ago: "Write about your Xmas." I remember well because I had no idea what the word "Xmas" meant. Anyway, now in school you can't write about Christmas because of "the separation of church and state." How is it liberals were allowed to read into the Constitution something that was never there, and then get the rest of us to go along with their deception? When Jefferson spoke of a wall of separation between church and state, he was explaining that the U.S. government would never impost a religion on the citizens. That was the wall of separation. He never dreamed his words would be "translated" by the anti-religion crowd to tear down probably the most crucial element in the formulation and strength of this great country. He always assumed a strong religious influence would be present in all government activities and, indeed, in all American life. "Oh, but you mustn't insult those who are not Christians," is the argument so often advanced. Well, is a November "Happy Thanksgiving" greeting an insult to Canadians? Is "Happy New Year" an affront to the Chinese who use a different calendar? Is "Happy Fourth of July" upsetting to the British? On the other hand, would a Christian be mortified if he was wished "Happy Hanukkah"? Or "Happy Victoria Day"? I don't think so. All this political correctness has everything to do with "political" and nothing to do with "correctness". It has been chronicled that political correctness is actually cultural Marxism, another thrust to socialize and destroy the American way of life. Why do we tolerate this internal terrorism? So, let me assert in the strongest of terms: Merry Christmas to one and all! It tells me that more than 100 of the You Don't Say website pages are indexed via Altavista, Excite, Google, HotBot, Northern Light, and Search MSN. I'm impressed! It also reports that of all the websites in the world, You Don't Say is ranked 75th by HotBot, based an the search parameter "conservative politics". It's ranked 27th by Google, 11th by Excite, and Number 1 by Northern Light! According to SEVEN Twentyfour, my website contains 2831 links, 2038 of which are outbound links to other websites. Unfortunately, 106 links have been identified as being in error, but many of these are merely transient errors I've found -- just temporary outages. Nevertheless, it looks like I have some "housekeeping" work to do to flush out now-obsolete link references. From another service, Website Tracker, which I discontinued a month or so ago due to the initiation of fees for the service, I learned You Don't Say has been accessed from more than 22 countries around the globe, including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Zambia. That's really rather exciting. Much of this traffic has resulted from links to You Don't Say from other websites. I'm very pleased this website has links to it from 41 other sites. Many thanks to those who consider my humble website worthy of their recommendation. Well, I guess that's about enough horn blowing for now. I must say, the Internet is an amazing and exciting facility! That I can sit here by my computer and broadcast what's on my mind to every living being, with on-line access and a wish to log on, is mind boggling. Pardon me if my mind boggles. Russian intelligence (the KGB, where Lunev worked for years) knew of the Monica Lewinski incident two years before Americans knew about it. [Imagine how compromised Clinton was! This should be a lesson for those who think character isn't important.]All these developments took place during a time when the American people thought communism was dead, Russia was our friend, and peace was reigning throughout the world. Things are often not as they seem. Sadly, wrong. The hate-America crowd is visible, vocal, and vindictive. To wit: "UMass physics professor Jennie Traschen [said] the flag was 'a symbol of terrorism, death, fear, destruction and repression.'"It would appear that our esteemed colleges and universities are far more interested in instilling anti-American fervor in their students than patriotism and American pride. But does that come as a surprise? For decades now our institutions of higher education have aggressively advanced the causes of socialism and communism. And this propaganda has colored the thinking of millions of graduates. What is a surprise is that in the face of such brain-washing, American flags are displayed with such intensity across this great country of ours. (All quotes from CampusReport, November 2001, pages 2-3. Address" Accuracy in Academia, 4455 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20008. Phone: 800-787-0429, extension 104. E-mail. Website.") I think Americans need to understand that "diversity" only works when the diverse groups choose to melt into the whole. When each religious, ethnic, or racial entity wishes to impost its values, customs, and language on all the others, multiculturalism fosters unrest, confrontation, and eventually war. World history proves the lesson time and time again, but liberals are determined to make multiculturalism "work" whatever the cost: unrest, conflict, tyranny, slavery. Quote from "Lexicon of a Liberal versus Conscience of a Conservative" by Mike Thompson: "Diversity doesn't strengthen any nation; it strengthens the grip of liberals on society. With growing diversity, the nation's polyglot, do-your-own-thing stew of humanity becomes stronger only in its contempt for all the non-kindred 'others' also trying to exist within the nation's borders. Such social unrest begs for Big Government to pass and enforce laws banning 'hate' and guaranteeing the 'rights' of every imaginable and unimaginable minority, from soccer moms to African-Americans, the non-waged, significant others (same sex or opposite), physically challenged, mentally challenged, nontraditional families, people of color, non-English-speaking-writing-or-reading communicators, thugs, the misunderstood, and the chronically incontinent." But, what if that trust is no longer merited? Many doctors bypass the Hippocratic Oath; they no longer promise to do no harm (and of course abortions are the essence of harm). Many lawyers appear to show more commitment and allegiance to their wallet than to the interests of their clients. We've known for decades the mainstream media are not always reliable when it comes to telling us the unvarnished truth, and sometimes they engage in blatant duplicity. The government schools and teachers are now committed to instilling attitudes and values, so a good "education" is only available in some private schools and via home schooling. It seems to me this growing violation of trust is a vicious disease we're now fighting. The cause: a set of weak or distorted moral values. Once my dentist told me he could save a couple of my teeth, but the rest would have to be pulled. His interests weren't dental, they were monetary. What he wanted to pull were dollars from my checking account. My teeth were fine and I wouldn't let him yank a one. And my teeth have been fine for over 35 years since his pronouncement, so why should I ever trust a dentist again? I believe I've been tricked and deceived by dentists, doctors, lawyers, contractors, air conditioning servicemen, politicians (that goes without saying), scientists, salesmen (of course), news media people, even friends! The great god of multiculturalism, honored and worshiped in schools throughout the country, preaches that all people are equally good, and equally bad. So how do students, so taught, square Osama bin Laden followers, who commit unthinkable acts of terrorism, with decent, law-abiding, patriotic, God-fearing Americans, if everyone is indeed equally good and bad? Hand in hand with multiculturalism is "moral equivalence," which indoctrinates kids with the foolish nonsense that there really is no good or bad, just differences of perspective. So we hear the terrorists described as freedom fighters who simply need to be "understood," we learn of a mother who drowned her kids in the bathtub but should be excused because she was "depressed," and we suffer through the disgrace of President Clinton's lies to a grand jury, lies that ought to be tolerated, we were told, because everybody lies about sex. Thanks to liberals, their teachings, and their agenda (socialism), we are encouraged to ignore reason, logic, and common sense, and let emotion rule. We are instructed to embrace silly ideas like multiculturalism and moral equivalence not because they make sense, but because they make us "feel good." Right and wrong have been blended into one another, thereby evicting moral principles as the guardians of proper conduct. And "trust" slowly flushes down the toilet along with truth, decency, and honor, as liberals redefine our value system. (Two items from the November 2001 Middle America News, page 6: "'Those people who said we don't need multiculturalism, that it's too touchy-feely, a pox on them!' said Judith Rizzo, deputy chancellor for instruction in New York City schools." "Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the school board in Madison, Wisconsin voted to bar schools from leading children in the Pledge of Allegiance and forbade the singing of 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' though the instrumental-only version would be allowed. Supporters of the policy, like Bill Keys, who sponsored the original motion, said the lyrics to the national anthem were 'too militaristic' and feared that the Pledge of Allegiance would make immigrant students feel uncomfortable.") The parents said the injustice resulted from a neighbor who had made the accusation (to advance her own personal agenda) and from local officials who used the incident to advance their reputations and careers. A friend of mine tells me the Health and Human Services crowd makes available a 1-800 "hot line" number for any citizen to use anonymously to accuse any other citizen of any outrageous claim desired. Then the accused becomes guilty until he (or she) proves himself (herself) not guilty, not always an easy task -- even when the individual is indeed 100% innocent -- as is demonstrated by the husband and wife example above. My friend speaks from personal experience. A justice system is a wonderful thing -- but only if it produces justice! There was confusion at the metal detector. The first time through, I didn't trip the buzzer. I was sent back, however, to have my wallet x-rayed, and the buzzer went off on my second pass. The security agent didn't notice. For a while I couldn't find my carry-on bag; its contents were being examined nearby because the TV image of my keys concerned the x-ray machine operator. One man thought my wallet was his, but this confrontation was short lived. Lucky he didn't grab it first. I had to show my ID at the ticket desk, of course. I had to show it again at the gate. Then for a third time it was demanded before I could get on the plane. I wonder if all this inconvenience will cause passengers to welcome the idea of an implantable, scanable citizen-ID device. I hope not! It was disconcerting to see men in camouflaged outfits on duty in the airport. Some carried intimidating-looking rifles, a lot bigger and more menacing than the ones I practiced with at basic training many years ago. The military presence reminded me of a trip I took in the 1980s to Lima, Peru. The military was everywhere. Now we're a third-world country, too, it seems. When I got to the terminal for the flight back home, there must have been 200 people queued up trying to get through security. I waited in four different lines for nearly two hours before I got on the plane. There will be some point of inconvenience where people will decide air travel is too much of a drag. Procedures in place now seem to be approaching that point. Much of the aggravation results from what seems to be procedures implemented for the sake of appearances instead of for real safety. Does anyone really think that asking if I packed my own bags does anyone any good? An ID check three times seems a little excessive. I struck up a conversation with the woman next to me as we waited in one of the lines. I may have mentioned that all Muslims aren't terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. That sent her into orbit. "We can't profile people," she stated, indicating by her tone that the point was not up for debate. "But, what if we could identify the bad guys," I protested, "by some simple qualification?" No! Profiling is evil! Her mind was made up. "What about a two-month-old baby?" I inquired, in spite of the fact the issue was closed. "Should a two-month-old baby be subjected to a body search just like everybody else?" She clearly hadn't considered the idea of a terrorist infant, but her mind was closed. "Yes," she said, as we headed off in different directions to our seats. It was just as well. Further discussion would have been pointless anyway. Those words, spoken by our President, are powerful, determined, and comforting. The only trouble is they were spoken by President Clinton in August 1998. Yes, that's right, the same Mr. Clinton who is now running around telling everybody he can scare up he almost got bin Laden. Really, his cruise missiles missed Osama by only a half hour or so. Hey, don't measure old Bill by his results, just his intentions. I suppose the reaction of a lot of people would be, "Hey, leave him alone. He's no longer President." But should we hold people unaccountable just because they leave office? If a politician kills an intern -- just a hypothetical example, mind you -- and then retires, is his crime consequently forgiven? Last month Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R.-CA) said "Listen, there is no doubt in my mind that America's foreign policy under the Clinton Administration was to support the Taliban. Not just not to kick them out, but to actually be proactive in keeping them in power." I suppose we should forgive these results, too. He probably meant well. I suppose liberals are also all "pouty" about the Supreme Court's October 1 suspension of Clinton's privilege to practice law before the high court. Golly, gee, when he lied under oath in the Paula Jones case, that was about sex. Everybody knows you can lie about that. He didn't mean to do anything wrong. Yeah, right, just like he didn't mean to have the IRS audit (and harass) conservative organizations. Rush Limbaugh is right. Be on the lookout for symbolism over substance. It's the liberals' stock and trade. It's their "job One." It's their essence. Because they can't afford to reveal their true socialistic intentions. (Clinton quote from "Bill Clinton's War on Terrorism," The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, October 8-14, 2001, page 36. Address: 3600 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002. E-mail. Website. Rohrabacher quote from "Target Taliban, Not Afghans," Human Events, October 1, 2001, page 1. Address: 1 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001. Phone: 202-216-0600. Website.) I keep hearing TV talking heads wondering about the source of the deadly spores. Well, it seems pretty clear to me the person who sent the letter and its dangerous contents didn't get the stuff at a local Anthrax-Are-Us superstore. I'd say somewhere, probably nearby, there's a stash from which a tiny amount was used for "settling a score" with the folks at American Media. So there's probably a hefty supply of the dangerous spores in Boca Raton or nearby. Maybe just down the street from where I live. Maybe next door! We keep hearing about the American Media employee in whose nose but a single anthrax spore was found. This report has been repeated over and over, apparently to comfort and console us. Well, what if he had already inhaled some 10,000 other spores? (I've heard a lethal dose is 7,000 to 15,000.) On local broadcasts it has been reported that this guy has been gravely ill in a Miami hospital, near death, but may now be slowly recovering. So tell me, who would you think would be in possession of a dangerous batch of anthrax? The check-out clerk at a local supermarket? No, I don't think so. The local librarian? Hardly. A 61-year-old first-grade school teacher? Doubt it. A terrorist? Yes, that sounds like a pretty good bet. So all this debate about "Is it a criminal matter or terrorist matter?" seems like a campaign to reject the obvious. Of course it's a terrorist matter. Does that mean the American Media "attack" was a savage terrorist incident? Not necessarily. It could have been a trial run, a test of the effectiveness of sending anthrax through the mail. (Received any strange envelopes lately?) Or it could be simple retaliation for an unflattering tabloid article about bin Laden (there was such an article that denigrated his sexual prowess). Whatever the reason, I'd say the terrorists are involved and the FBI had better get its act together and find where the anthrax is hidden. The next attack probably won't be so mild, relatively speaking. For anthrax victim Robert Stevens, however, it couldn't have been more devastating. [Since writing the above I've visited the site of the American Media building. It's now surrounded with chain-link fencing. I talked to an NBC guy there for fifteen minutes or so. Among other things, he told me the three people infected with anthrax have been moved to London! He didn't know why. He told me the man in the Miami hospital was there because he was very sick, but not from anthrax. Also: a day or two ago I saw Senator Bill Frist, the only physician in the Senate, on TV. He said a lethal dose of anthrax is 100,000 spores, contradicting what I'd heard from a couple of other sources. There's so much information buzzing around right now, it's hard to know for sure where the truth lies. Note to self: what's new?] I'm pretty confident Palm Beach County won't be a target of an NBC attack. My guess is Florida won't be hit at all. But if it is, I think there are no more than two likely targets in the whole state: Miami (about 45 miles south of me) and Orlando and Disney World (about 160 miles north). Therefore, I should consider the implications of an attack on either of these locations. But first, what are the most likely U.S. cities terrorists would wish to strike? After New York City and Washington, DC, I suspect Chicago would probably rank third. Major destruction there would demonstrate the entire country is in peril and would greatly advance the terrorist's principal objective: terror. Other likely high-probability targets: LA, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Miami, Atlanta -- our largest metropolitan areas. But Atlanta, St. Louis, Denver, and a bunch more would also be on the terrorists' desired "hit" list. In the unlikely event a suitcase-sized nuclear device is detonated in Miami, I'd probably survive pretty well, but it would behoove me to evacuate quickly if wind patterns send radio active fallout my way. Thus, I'd better get a bag packed and make plans in case such an unthinkable occurrence should develop. Likewise, if Miami suffers a biological attack, I assume I'd hear about it in time to flee with my life. With a chemical attack -- contaminants in the water supply, for example -- I hope I'd find out about the poisoning before succumbing to it. So the lesson is to have a good supply of bottled water ready. And I already do. Orlando is far enough north to give me confidence a strike there wouldn't affect me. I assume fallout would probably be blown out to sea. In any event, I conclude I need my bag packed, the car gassed up, a quantity of cash on hand, a weapon handy, and a box of supplies -- food, water, etc. -- ready to go on a moment's notice. There's no doubt the terrorists have achieved much with their 9-11 attack. They have taken from us our comfort, security, and peace of mind. Quite remarkable for a day's work. So, what are your plans? We should immediately deport all visitors and illegal immigrants in America who have any connection whatsoever with terrorist agents, terrorist organizations, or countries that support terrorism. (Some people might call that "profiling". I'd call it survival.)Sound cruel? Sound mean spirited? Sound un-American? Well, should we do this before or after an NBC attack wipes out eight to ten million citizens in and around New York City? Such a hit would totally destroy the stock market, decimate the world economy, and drastically change life forever around the globe -- just what the terrorists want. So, what would be your choice? It's hard for me to overlook the sins of the past and eagerly embrace the institution that has been so willing to sacrifice layers of freedom, now that it's clear to one and all the entire fabric of our freedom is in jeopardy. But there is little choice. Terrorism, like other nasty wars, is not an endeavor that can be waged by individual citizens. (Contrary to TV ads, it's not an army of one!) It takes an entire country; a united response. It take massive governmental action. While we must indeed come together to fight a common foe, we must nevertheless be diligent in our watchfulness over the government's reach in this campaign. It is all too easy to casually relinquish bricks from freedom's house in the name of safety and security. And it's only too easy for government to compromise constitutional guarantees in its enthusiasm to achieve a righteous outcome. I'm sorry, my friends, but the sad truth is that life in these United States will never again return to the "normal" we enjoyed prior to September 11th. Ironic, isn't it: 9-1-1, a day that has changed forever American views of the world and our perception of safety in our own homes and places of work. A man with two legs amputated may "heal", but he will never return to "normal". Likewise, this country, with its World Trade Center towers amputated, may get back to business, but the consequences of the terrorism we've just experienced have dramatically altered the way we'll do business and how we'll deal with the world. On the bright side however, Gary Condit may not be the only American to benefit from this tragedy. The rest of us may find some semblance of a silver lining, too. We may now decide that a porous border allows entry into our country of not only migrant workers, students, and visitors, but also drugs, potentially lethal weapons, and individuals with intent to destroy us. And we may decide to protect and regulate our borders, something we should have done decades ago. We may decide to get serious with those who ignore visa expirations and other visitor constraints.Do not take much comfort in these developments, friends, for the road before us is absolutely treacherous. Many tens of millions of Americans have absolutely no appreciation of the hardship this country endured during World War II, and we may be embarking on what amounts to Number III. We now enter a desperate time. The outcome is not predetermined. The toll will be intimidating. The dedication and tenacity demanded will be extreme. But we have no choice. We must fight the battles and we must win. The very idea of freedom is at stake. Fast forward but a handful of years. Now Gary Condit has been accused of conduct worse by magnitudes than anything we heard about Packwood. So he should resign . . . right now . . . immediately! If not sooner! Well, no. Because, you see, Condit is a Democrat. Consequently, the rules change. He shouldn't resign. His constituents should decide in the next election if he should go or stay. Liberals don't have this sensitivity and generosity when a Republican is the accused. With Packwood, women's groups were shouting, picketing, and acting with indignation that he wasn't run out of town on a rail, in spite of the fact Packwood had been a strong supporter of women's issues. For Condit, the women are reluctant to condemn or even criticize. It's Bill Clinton all over again. Oh, he has been so good for his constituents. And oh, his personal actions are separate and apart from his legislative duties. And oh my, we mustn't rush to judgement about this man until all the facts are known. Could she be so misinformed or uninformed as to miss the point entirely about the Berlin Wall incident? If not, was she simply trying singlehandedly to rewrite history? What is one to think when such misrepresentations are presented as fact? What other "facts" are she and her compatriots unloading on an unsuspecting public? Well, what would you say if I told you he was not the killer? Like everybody else, I guess, I believed what the government and the mainstream media told me about that incident: Leaving the Ambassador Hotel in downtown Los Angeles, Kennedy made his way through the kitchen pantry, whereupon he came upon Sirhan Bishara Sirhan who shouted an epithet and then fired his revolver at RFK, killing him. Just a short time ago I read that Sirhan fired eight shots from an Iver Johnson .22 revolver, but "later a ballistics investigation showed that none matched the bullets in Kennedy." Retired FBI Agent William Bailey said "a total of 11 (some claimed 13, but two were questionable) bullet holes were found to be in the walls and people. It was obvious to the most obstinate conspiracy debunker that at least one more gun in addition to Sirhan's eight-shot revolver had been fired in the melee." Bailey called the RFK death investigation "The biggest blunder in the history of criminal investigations." Then in April 1969, "immediately following Sirhan's inevitable conviction, the LAPD burned more than 2,400 photos of the crime scene." They were thrown "in the incinerator for permanent disposal." "Kennedy was hit four times with shots that were impossible for Sirhan to have fired. Two entered his head (back and right side), one in his right armpit, and the fourth went harmlessly upward through the tufted shoulder of his suit coat from right to left, also leaving powder burns and (the last two) lodging in the ceiling, indicating that they were fired from below." Because autopsy "evidence . . . shows that Sirhan could not have been in back of Kennedy or close enough (one to three inches) to shoot him and create powder burns behind the ear, someone else actually murdered the senator." Makes you wonder, doesn't it. (Quotes above from "Who Killed Robert F. Kennedy?" by Pat Shannan, Media Bypass, July 2001, pages 16-18. Alternative Media, Incorporated, 4900 Tippecanoe Drive, Evansville, Indiana 47715-3234. E-mail. Website. You could sue me for any reason you could think of: I harmed your business (even if I didn't), liable (even if no liable was involved), robbery (even if there was none), or anything else. I would then have to hire an attorney and spend perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to protect myself. You would have to hire an attorney, too, but you would consider this "business expense" worth it, if you could have the satisfaction of knowing you inflicted great financial hardship on me and in addition considerable worry and stress. Maybe you could hire an attorney good enough to actually win the case in court, in spite of my innocence. If that didn't appear likely, you could delay and procrastinate over a period of months or even years to maximize the hardship on me. I've heard there's a saying: When your money runs out, so does your attorney. So if you play your cards right, you could, over time, completely bankrupt me and totally destroy me. Will someone please explain how justice is served with such a state of affairs? I have another friend who has strong conservative views, but who has come to the conclusion that if he hasn't seen a news item reported by Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, it just isn't true. So when I tell him of the dangers of the ICC (International Criminal Court), or some facts concerning the downing of TWA 800, or various reports dealing with John Doe #2's role in the OK City bombing, he dismisses them as kooky, wacko poppycock. Thus, the magnitude of the problem is clearly illustrated. If intelligent, informed, thinking people are so dedicated to what a select cadre of spokesmen tells them, and so unwilling to even consider what that cadre doesn't tell them, how will the truth ever emerge. Millions of Americans hold President Franklin D. Roosevelt in high esteem. If I told them it was only through his actions that the Japanese succeeded in their attack on Pearl Harbor, most if not all of them wouldn't believe it. Even after being confronted with overwhelming evidence of the validity of the accusation (see The New American, June 4, 2001, articles starting on pages 10, 20, and 23) they still wouldn't discard their old invalid beliefs. Some months ago there was a ruckus over the revelation that DNA evidence "proved conclusively" that Thomas Jefferson was father to at least one of the sons of Sally Hemings, one of Jefferson's slaves. The country, the world, was informed of this "outrage" at a time, just coincidentally, I'm sure, when President Clinton was trying to establish that he was in good company with all his immoral acts. Now we learn (at least a few of us) that the DNA evidence proves rather conclusively that Thomas Jefferson was not the father of any of Sally's children (see "Rescuing Jefferson," by Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, June 2001, page 7). The mainstream media, in all their exalted wisdom, have chosen to treat this revelation to obscurity. My friend's father and my conservative friend will probably never hear of it. Once again the FBI was in the middle of the fracas, apparently pressuring witnesses to recant their stories and altering witness statements that contradicted the trumped-up scenario. The only trouble with the FBI "explanation" was it violated the laws of physics, hundreds of eye-witness accounts, and basic common sense. There was a radar record of TWA 800's demise. The most critical portion of data (some 20 seconds, as I recall) mysteriously disappeared. All the other data, which is not incriminating, is just fine. We're supposed to believe this was just a simple snafu. I recommend you get a copy of this video and show it to your friends. Then have some discussions about how trustworthy the government is. From appearances, federal bureaucrats will let nothing stand in the way of their quest to spin lies and mislead the citizens. Just thank your lucky stars you aren't Jim Sanders who was "foolish" enough to search for the TWA 800 truth.
UN treaties and mandates are being imposed on all peoples of the world when a specified proportion of nations ratifies them, whether or not the U.S. approves. If Americans don't like new international laws, too bad. Even though our Constitution states that any treaty provisions which contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional, the UN claims by proclamation it has omnipotent jurisdiction around the globe. We presently have veto power in the Security Council. Guess what. The UN powercrats intend to remove that power. The rest of the world is tuned in to the UN world takeover underway. The deafening silence from the U.S. mainstream media tells me the folks that control our news are fully supportive of this communist-led coup.
I believe the new rates are reflected on the Post Office website. I understand another rate hike may be coming soon. We are now at a point where it's so important to avoid hurting the feelings of certain select groups -- blacks in this case -- we will distort or completely ignore reality. We don't wish to "embarrass" women so we'll use a double standard in the armed forces so women can "succeed" there. We don't want to "embarrass" homosexuals, so we'll overlook rudimentary public safety measures when it comes to the spread of AIDS. We don't want to "embarrass" blacks so we'll ignore crime statistics and we'll even consider imposing death sentences based on race proportions. I understand in Canada the prosecution of hate crimes is so important, invoking truth as a defense is not allowed. And in this country if a white beats an Hispanic it's a hate crime, but if an Hispanic beats a white, it isn't. By definition! We as a people have allowed the corruption of our language, the corruption of our morals, the corruption of our politicians, and we seem willing to allow corruption of something as fundamental as truth! . . . all attorneys were honorable and ethical like my dad was.Now I know better. "If you are a webmaster who works on one of the 20,000 U.S. government websites, you will need to come into compliance with Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. This law requires any United States Federal Agencies with websites to make those sites accessible to individuals with disabilities by June 21st, 2001.I thought I'd see how well my website complies with all the endless federal laws and regulations. I "analyzed" my website with the aid of an on-line service called Bobby (check out your own website, or any website with Bobby). How many "infractions" do you think were reported? Hold onto your hat. There were 804 "instances" where "accessibility errors" were found on my homepage alone! What terrible infractions did I commit? Unthinkable things like not providing "alternative text" for images, not providing "extended descriptions" [??], using the "same link phrase more than once", using "relative sizing and positioning rather than absolute (pixels)", using animated images that might contain "fast or distracting motion", using "obsolete language features" [whatever that means]. . . And those are only some of the "infractions" on the first three pages of the eight-page report. Just imagine tens of thousands of government webmasters, paid by your tax dollars, spending tens or hundreds of hours each to make sure their websites comply with all this bureaucratic malarkey. Then add in thousands of college and university websites that must be made compliant. Then imagine every other field of endeavor in the country which must kowtow to similar idiotic nonsense. Then tell me if you think the federal government isn't too big and intrusive. I bet most people would answer "yes". They would say recycling is vital to save resources, provide for the future, and for fundamental patriotism. I say poppycock! The position of recycling advocates is in effect that natural market forces (supply and demand) should be scrapped and that government bureaucratic decisions (socialism) should take over. It's so easy to appeal to the emotions nowadays (save resources, provide for the future, etc., etc.), I think too many people are sucked in and are letting their guts make decisions for them. I understand it is more expensive to recycle than to just toss the trash away, even after all economic cost factors are considered. But all over the country folks are sorting out glass, plastic, aluminum, and paper, they're filling separate bins, and at least two trucks come by to pick up all the different categories. That was what the Kyoto Protocols were all about: frightening the "rich" countries of the world into "voluntarily" using dramatically less energy in order to "save the world". But of course Kyoto had nothing to do with "saving the world". It had everything to do with empowering the forces of world government, strengthening world socialism, and punishing the "bad guy", the U.S., for its success and abundance. While I'm not pleased with many of GW's positions and policies to date, I'm overjoyed with his rejection of Kyoto. If Gore were president, clearly he would have embraced this monstrosity and the U.S. would be on the fast track to third-world living conditions, and the American dream would be over. Talk to the Democrats and they'll say "your fair share" is always more than what you're already paying, unless you're poor, then you should get more benefits. Well, tell me, how is it fair if Mr. Hardworking pays fifty percent of his earnings in taxes while Mr. Lazypants pays nothing? If Mr. Hardworking went to the grocery store and was charged $100 for the food in his cart, but Mr. Lazypants got the same groceries free, is that fair? (Of course, it must be, because with food stamps that's exactly what's happening.) So we've discovered that "fairness" is just a word game Democrats play to round up votes for themselves. "Fairness" is a smoke screen for them to hide behind while they advance their Marxist doctrine ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). Is it fair for the bottom 60% of the taxpayers to pay only 10% of all taxes? That's what's going on. Is it fair for the bottom 40% of all taxpayers to pay less than 1% or all taxes? They do, you know. Bear in mind it's the bottom 40% who are receiving more services, that is more government handouts, in terms of welfare, police protection, healthcare, etc. I understand Arthur Godfrey once said, "I'm proud to be paying taxes in the United States. The only thing is -- I could be just as proud for half the money." "Fairness" is one of the most-used words in the liberals' lexicon. It intimidates and shames the rich and motivates all the Mr. and Mrs. Lazypants in the country to remain unproductive. How fair is that? Sometimes I post items or website links which contain very controversial statements or positions. An example is the NOTMILK links on this week's home page. I don't know if milk is good or bad for you (or me), but I believe the information is thought provoking and valuable from that standpoint. If it is indeed totally factual, then it would be improper to exclude it merely because it is a minority or contrary view. More examples are the chemtrails links included on the Web Links Hodgepodge page. Some people say chemtrails are real, others scoff at them. I believe I'm performing a service by allowing you to read about them and decide for yourself. In all cases I try to identify the source of the posted material, so readers can evaluate source qualifications and can also engage in follow-up research if they so choose. And, whenever notified of a "correction", I post the notification prominently, even though I may not know "for certain" that the "correction" itself is valid. Up to now I have assumed that these ground rules were implicitly understood. Now they should be explicitly understood. If I were to read between the lines, this is what the sign would say: "This environmentally sensitive land [of course all land is environmentally sensitive, so such a statement is nothing more than silly rationalization] has been purchased by the citizens of Palm Beach County [remember them -- they're the ones who are so stupid they don't even know how to punch a hole in a punched card] for preservation [that is: to remove from use, to make unavailable, to prevent nasty human beings from turning it into something productive like housing, businesses, or even parks or playgrounds, all in accord with the idea of "Sustainability" -- Boca Raton is a "Sustainable Community", don't you know -- which means the bugs and beetles are more important than the citizens] as a natural area. No vehicles. No dumping. No hunting. [No anything! This land is no longer "our land", it's now the government's land, and if you trespass, you're in for a heap of trouble.] I mean after all, a huge tract of land (over 3,000,000 acres!) called the Everglades is just a dozen or so miles to the west. Do we really need to lock up valuable land in the middle of a metropolitan area and make it untouchable? The people are now so enamored with the idea of "protecting the environment", they'll do almost anything if convinced such a purpose is served. This wouldn't be so significant, except that this same little game is being played all over the country. The leftists have big plans for us. And in the name of environmentalism, they're accomplishing their plans one right after another. And I fear we have a Hemlock Republican for President, as well. He seems willing to buy into some but not all of the scare tactics of the environmental extremists. He appears to support, even champion the United Nations and the one-world government it's trying to shove down the throats of humanity. He is comfortable with an ever-greater role for the federal government in the schooling of our children . . . and in many other matters that ought to be left to the states or to we the people. Yes, it's refreshing that our President is concerned about protecting this country from attack (isn't it treason not to?). And it's comforting to see him stand up to the arsenic-levels hand grenade Clinton left him. And his stance regarding energy -- people are more important than a tiny area of tundra no one will ever see -- is gratifying. And his trashing of the Kyoto Treaty is cause for rejoicing. But has the incessant march to globalization been turned around? Sadly, no. The pace has been slowed, I'd say, but its direction remains unchanged. Thus, the cyanide/hemlock analogy seems to apply. In view of this, it is not comforting to contemplate what actions they may be considering, given this motivation, in the exercise of their political and law-making duties. This simple little exercise helps us see what kind of friend or enemy China is. They certainly didn't help us when our slow-moving reconnaissance plane was nearly knocked out of the sky by harassing Chinese jet pilots. Why, then, do we continue to treat them as a friend by buying tens of billions of dollars worth of their products every year? "Because their prices are so low," someone may say. Well, would we have bought Nazi products if their prices had been low? I don't think so. So the question is: at what point are we willing to withdraw economic support of our enemies? I suggest we've passed that point. Why don't we look on the label and see where a product has been manufactured before we buy it? Why don't we simply decide to pass up Chinese goods and buy from other countries, even if the price is a little higher? When we're at war with China (Chinese leaders believe it's inevitable -- within a matter of years), then we'll surely stop aiding that country financially. Why wait? 1) A global tax to amass about $1.5 trillion per year for the United Nations:Everybody finished? Good, put down your pencils; here are the answers. In all cases the answer is "Before 2005", because at the Millennium Summit in New York City in September last year, 152 heads of state from around the world agreed to all of these proposals (and a whole lot more) by unanimous consent. They're part of the Millennium Declaration. This revelation and numerous onerous others are presented in a two-and-a-half-hour video titled "Final Countdown to UN World Government," a presentation by Dr. Michael S. Coffman at the Granada Forum in December of last year. What? The mainstream media haven't informed you about these little details which were consummated during what you thought was just a marvelous photo op? Well, only in this country are we uninformed. The rest of the world knows all about these developments. Order this video through Discerning the Times Digest at 800-799-9878, or check out the Discerning the Times Digest website. (I derive no financial gain from sale of this video.) I believe Bill Clinton was willing to trade invaluable U.S. technology secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions because he considers it "unfair" that there wasn't technological parity -- "equality" -- between that country and ours. I believe Bill Clinton unleashed his onerous "Sustainable Development" programs on the American people because he considers it "unfair" that some people -- U.S. citizens -- enjoy a life style and standard of living far superior to that enjoyed elsewhere in the world. Smiling Bill wants world equality, even if it means all Americans will suffer. I believe the PETA people (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) want to prohibit use of all animals and animal products (meat, milk, leather, etc., etc.) because they consider it "unfair" some creatures -- humans -- are taking advantage of other creatures -- animals. (I'm not certain what their remedy would be for the lion's penchant for 'lessor' red-blooded animals). I believe the one worlders want a one-world government and all it implies because it's "unfair" that some folks -- we Americans in particular -- have more freedom and opportunity than those living in every other country in the world. Their fixation of 'equality" allows them to readily relinquish all our Founding Fathers fought for and died for, so all peoples of the world will be "equally" enslaved. I believe the NEA bunch (National Education Association) demands all children must be publically educated -- according to carefully-prescribed UN dictates -- because it's "unfair" for some kids to get a better education and even to be "smarter" than other kids. They consider "equality" and "equal outcomes" (e.g.: Outcome-Based Education) -- infinitely preferable to each student reaching his or her own maximum potential. I believe the left wants to register all guns and soon thereafter to confiscate all guns so the citizenry will be "equally" unable to resist the ever-encroaching reach of governments -- city, state, federal, and world. I believe affirmative action is anti-American because it tries to achieve equal outcomes at the expense of equal opportunities. The foundation of our republic is "equal treatment under the law," but leftists wish to dictate unequal treatment in their drive for end-result equality. This of course destroys initiative, subverts responsibility, and rewards certain "special" groups, a uniquely un-American precept. I believe "eco-maniacs" advance their scientifically-flawed theories of man-made global warming, etc., etc. because they see these shams as a means of reaching world-wide "equality". Rich and successful nations must be forced to cut back on energy use and production -- just to make it "fair" for unsuccessful nations. I believe the liberals ceaselessly favor more income taxes and more progressive income taxes because it's "unfair" for some to make more money than others, regardless of talent, effort, risk taking, or any other factors. Their vision is that "equality" demands government-imposed redistribution of wealth, and for that matter, government-imposed regulation of all aspects of life. I believe in the interest of "fairness" and "equality" liberals will take away our money, our guns, our opportunity, and our freedom. And these are the "rewards" awaiting us all as we merrily march along the liberals' road to hell. You can't criticize blacks -- even when criticism is warranted -- because you're then a racist. And what could be worse than that? You can't even say the word "niggardly" anymore -- instead of "stingy" -- without being thrown to the lions. You can't criticize homosexuals -- even for the most crude and disgusting behavior -- because you're then a homophobe. You can't criticize illegal immigrants -- even when they break laws, steal property, and spread disease -- because you're then a xenophobe and/or an intolerant bigot. And thus we reap the fruits of political correctness. Kids in grade school can't even say the word "gun" without fearing reprisals. Young adults in college must follow the campus speech code or face banishment. If you don't support a woman's choice to murder her unborn son or daughter, you're an unthinking, uncaring sexist. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . ." But political correctness has now added all sorts of exceptions to that once all-inclusive principle. Some years ago I confessed I thought I should be a little more tolerant of people. Those to whom I made the comment registered shock, dismay, and anger. They immediately concluded I meant more tolerant of blacks. I didn't. I meant more tolerant of people, exactly what I said. Now the word "gun" rings all sorts of bells with the public. If I say I own a gun, I'm automatically considered to be strange, dangerous, an extremist, or something worse. Look what happens when you try to have an honest debate about "global warming." Facts are no longer allowed in the discussion. You have to believe in "global warming" just like the peasants had to believe the king did have clothes. When a cloud of political correctness blocks out the penetrating rays of common sense and truth, the people ought to sit up and take notice. It's not only the First Amendment that has been damaged, our fundamental freedom has been undermined as well. And of course that is precisely what political correctness is all about. Nichols said Jesse Jackson had been enlisted, and was willing, to stir up blacks and convince them the Republicans had actually stolen the election from Gore. We saw that phase underway. The objective was to create enough antagonism and outrage to precipitate widespread race violence all across the country. Clinton was then to declare a "national emergency", unleash FEMA "emergency plan" police action, and invoke presidential "emergency powers", including the invalidation of the presidential election, thereby allowing Clinton to remain president indefinitely. Nichols said Clinton White House staff members were advised they would remain in the White House for an extended period of time after January 2001. Consequently, they kept their rented homes and apartments making it unusually difficult for new administration people to find housing. (I believe this aspect -- the problem of finding housing -- was reported in the mainstream media.) Nichols said Washington reporters were told White House staffers had been advised by Clinton, "Don't give up your lease; we're not going anywhere." But some of the people at Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH operation apparently didn't like what Jesse was doing, and feared that if Bush somehow did become president, Rainbow/BUSH might come under severe IRS scrutiny and investigation. That explains, said Nichols, why on January 12th, Jesse Jackson called the White House 48 times, to state he wasn't going to be able to launch the race riots on the 15th as originally agreed. White House staffers reportedly said they first heard on the 13th they might indeed have to leave the White House. Nichols said further there were only three people who could have known about Jesse Jackson's love child: the mother . . . and she wouldn't have squealed, the father (Jesse) . . . and he wouldn't have squealed, and Bill Clinton, who Nichols believes squealed to the press in revenge for Jackson reneging on the "deal" they had. Larry Nichols has insights and information probably nobody else on earth has. And that explains why he has been brutally beaten on nine separate occasions! You might be interested in Larry's book, The Genie Is Out of the Bottle, ($20 + S&H), Larry Nichols, #58 Kensington Drive, Conway, Arkansas 72032, (501-329-5122). Nichols also mentioned that Chelsea's father is not Bill Clinton. It's Webster Hubbell! (Which man does she more closely resemble?) Also: there's ample evidence to show that Bill Clinton did indeed father Danny Williams, the son of Bobbie Ann Williams (a black woman). (Danny does look like Clinton.) Nichols said Arkansas troopers admit they took then-governor Bill Clinton to Ms. Williams house for sexual pleasures on numerous occasions. Moreover, Nichols heard the troopers talking about it on the CB channel he monitored. Larry Nichols made many other revelations during his two-hour talk. Some were surprising. Some were stunning. Some were sickening. He said all the major media players -- at CBS, NBC, ABC, Time, Newsweek, etc., etc. (and the politicians and impeachment prosecutors as well) -- know all about the Clinton scandals and the mountains of evidence Nichols has produced to substantiate the charges. It should tell us a great deal that the media have chosen to withhold this information from the public. Would they have been so protective of the president were he Republican? A bankruptcy court has decided that those who invested in the oil concern must all share equally in their losses. So if Investor A actually netted let's say a positive $1000 from the "investment," and Investor B lost $1000, Investor A would have to fork over $1000 to Investor B. Can you believe it? This is happening right now, right here in the good old U.S. of A. What happened to the concept of "risk taking"? What happened to the capitalistic rules of free markets? What happened to inevitable outcomes of profit for some and loss for others? I guess they're gone. At least in this case. Some judge has apparently decided that those who lost a lot of money are upset and consequently those who made a little money ought to be upset, too. So, let's steal from the lucky ones to give to the unlucky ones. Let's impose some grand (totally arbitrary) equalitarian rules on all those who had the misfortune of investing in the oil company. Let's let the court and not natural market forces decide winners and losers. But there's another ingredient in the equation. The lawyers. A big law firm with a bunch of high-priced lawyers is working on this case. Well, how much will they have to pay to achieve the sacred equality the court is seeking? Well, of course the lawyers are exempt. They'll spend their hours (hundreds, thousands?), bill at exorbitant rates, and sing merrily as they skip to the bank with their bags of loot. So then the question becomes: when you add in the legal fees, will any of the investors net positive? My guess: not a one. But the judge will be happy with himself for "leveling" the playing field. The investors will all be outraged. The lawyers will pat themselves on the back for "doing a good job" . . . and "serving justice". I never did do the arithmetic to see if I netted positive or negative from my investment in this oil company scam. And of course I was surprised and angered when it became clear it was a Ponzi scheme. What I didn't do was race to the courts and demand full payments of monies promised by the now-dead salesman. And when stocks I purchase in the stock market lose value, I don't demand that all the investors who made money pay me, just to "level the playing field". I thought capitalism and free markets and American justice were the level playing field. Clearly, I thought wrong. With hopes of catering to your interests, as best I can, I'd like to know what you like and/or would like changed, so please give me your suggestions or comments. An e-mail note is but a click away. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those who bought my book, You Don't Say. It isn't available at local book stores, but sales have been gratifying at Accuracy In Media, The Conservative Book Club, Media Bypass Magazine, Amazon.Com, and The American Policy Center. Eagle Publishing (Conservative Book Club) informed me that my book was among the top ten best sellers there. Thank you for your interest in my work and for your devotion to this country and its principles of freedom, equal opportunity, and justice. Thus we’re confronted with today’s conundrum: When traditional religious and family values were plucked from the schools and replaced with Humanism, the morals of this country were turned off. How do we turn them back on? We see religion berated by the media, belittled by Hollywood, and besmirched by liberals. We watch as a past president scoffs at truth and decency, while some of us even applaud his debasement. We endure report after report of shootings at school, work, and home. We stand idly by as music companies and performers spew forth filth, advocate violence, and endorse hate. The signs of moral degradation are all about us. And then some of us ask: why is the country plunging into a moral cesspool? The simple answer: liberals. Liberals like Bill Clinton. Liberals in the media, Hollywood, and throughout the education system. Liberals who with sexual abnormalities pervert the family. Liberal politicians who in the interest of self, sacrifice the interest of the people. Liberals who with deceit and contempt, corrupt environmental consciousness to advocate their own socialistic, redistribution schemes. Liberals who incite class warfare and animosity between groups as a means of self enrichment and self-aggrandizement. Liberals who wish to impose a United Nations world government on all, even at a cost of U.S. constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, national identity, and individual liberty. George W. Bush has a massive challenge before him. Will he miraculously turn around this race to destruction or will he merely modestly slow its onrush? But of course it’s not George’s job to do. It’s our job, the job of each and every citizen. Do we wish to do it? Can we do it? Will we do it? Highlights for me were the panel "How Bush Can Fight the PR Assault from the Left," with Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Terry Jeffrey; Senator Jesse Helms' presentation; the panel "The Privacy Crisis: Who Controls Your Information?", with Phyllis Schlafly, Senator Richard Shelby, and Representative Bob Barr; a great speech by Wayne LaPierre on the UN threat to the Second Amendment; remarks by The Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu at the Ronald Reagan Banquet (very upbeat); the panel "Reasonable Construction: The Federal Judiciary Under Bush," with Barbara Olson, Judge Robert Bork, Gary Kreep, and Lynn Hogue; the "CPAC Debate: Media Bias in Campaign 2000," with moderator Brent Bozell and participants Sam Donaldson and Bob Novak (Novak won hands down); and the panel "Reflections on the Clinton Era, and Will There Be a Second Act?" with Larry Klayman, Reed Irvine, Cliff Kincaid, and Jeffrey Gayner. It was an outstanding conference! I was also very pleased to speak, albeit briefly, with David Horowitz, Cliff Kincaid, Charlton Heston, Reed Irvine, Bob Novak, and several others. Then on Monday (2-19) I drove to Ft. Myers (Florida) to attend a two-day conference on "Taxes, Freedom, and America's Future," sponsored by Hillsdale College's Shavano Institute at the Sanibel Harbour Resort and Spa. Margaret Thatcher was the speaker at the dinner and spoke on "Challenges Facing the 21st Century." On Tuesday there were several presentations dealing with taxation, with speakers including Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn and ABC News Journalist John Stossel. Wow, what a lot of information and insight! Probably most gratifying was the optimism that flowed from both gatherings. Although obstacles ahead are indeed daunting, there are underlying forces (the Internet in particular) which are poised to block and maybe even turn around the building momentum toward world government, socialism, and social degradation.
"USE OF THIS PRODUCT MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS [an ingredient] WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO CAUSE CANCER IN LABORATORY ANIMALS."Doesn't sound too appetizing, does it? But millions of people reach for this product every day and pour it on their food without a second thought. The ingredient is saccharin and it comes in those little pink Sweet 'N Low packets. And it also comes in lots of other products you can buy at the super market. I used to use Sweet 'N' Low all the time . . . until I got out a magnifying glass and read the nearly microscopic red-letter "warning" on the pink paper. Does saccharin cause cancer in humans? I don't know. But its appearance on the grocery shelf doesn't prove it's harmless. I suppose lots of people conclude that "the government" must be checking on the safety of such things so consumers don't have to worry. But the warning says it may be hazardous to your health! I'm now using honey as a sweetener in my tea. You see, I don't have a whole lot of confidence in the government looking out for my interests. I plan to stay away from saccharin. ITEM: [At six weeks the embryo's] brain coordinates movement of muscles and the involuntary movement of organs. Reflex responses are present. At 43 days, his brain waves can be recorded." ["The Facts of Life," The New American, November 6, 2000, page 14. Published by American Opinion Publishing Incorporated, 770 Westhill Boulevard, Appleton, Wisconsin 54914. Phone: 920-749-3784. Fax: 920-749-3785. E-mail. Website.] Can we all agree, then, that a human's life begins 43 days after conception (if not earlier)? Can we all agree, then, that the taking of a human life at any time after 43 days is murder? Are we as a people going to let free market forces (whoever is best for a job) determine who gets what job position, or are we going to subordinate talent and qualification to the color of one's skin? Are we going to impose political agendas on the process of job selection (i.e. socialism) or will we allow the very best to fill each job opportunity (freedom)? 1. A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. I've been interested to learn that since Website Tracker was activated, the most frequent visit hour is between 5 and 6 p.m. (next most frequent time is in the morning, usually 11 -12). The most popular operating system is Windows 98, the most popular browser is Internet Explorer 5, and the most popular search engine is Yahoo. Perhaps most surprising is the country of origin. Of course by far most visits are from the U.S., but my website has also been visited by folks in Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Zambia! I owe a debt of gratitude to Accuracy In Media (AIM), as this is the most frequent "referrer" website. Thanks, too, to the American Policy Center, Civics & Politics, Gun Politics, and Voices of the Florida Taxpayer, as each has also referred visitors. And Mr. Dale is not a lone victim at the hands of ruthless power brokers. Linda Tripp, faithful friend of Monica, was also socked with an monumental lawsuit. It was clearly predatory in nature, designed precisely to punish her for an unforgivable sin, telling the truth. The suit was finally tossed out of court, but not before Ms. Tripp had accumulated a mountain of legal expenses. Once again, the mean-spirited perpetrators remain unaccountable, while Linda tries to put her Humpty Dumpty life back together again. Then there's Jim Sanders, who smelled something fishy in the TWA 800 disaster, so he had a tiny piece of fabric from the plane's interior analyzed for chemical content. The lab reported materials consistent with rocket fuel, supporting the contention a rocket brought down the plane. But the government doesn't like it when facts are uncovered to get in the way of a massive federal coverup, so both Jim and his wife were hit with a devastating lawsuit. They are still battling it. And the beat goes on. If you're the government or some wealthy agency, you can inflict terrible harm and pain on an "enemy." You can scare them silly, bleed them financially via legal fees, and turn their lives upside down. And your only inconvenience is your own legal costs, which usually are covered by public funds; i.e. the taxpayer. Justice is not what these cases are all about, for along with the defendant, justice is destroyed as well. (I speak from personal experience.) The next time his son smashed the car (brand new) to smithereens, Jake told the insurance company he himself had actually been driving when a deer ran out in front of the vehicle causing Jake to veer off the road into a tree. I was shocked Jake was so willing to deceive, so quick to concoct falsehoods, yet so bold as to boast about them. Is that 21st Century morality in America? Are lies and illegalities now the stuff of bragging rights. Whatever happened to responsibility, integrity, honor, and truth? In my mind I imagine a million families where similar scenarios are played out, and I begin to understand why so many Americans embrace a truth-impared president and why half of the voters were willing, sometimes anxious, to cast their ballot for a Democrat presidential candidate who apparently holds moral standards quite similar to Jake's.  Thoughts for 1999. Thoughts for 2000. The way back home. |