 The way back home. Send this page from You Don't Say to a friend.For those using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Select the "Mail" icon at the top of this window, then "Send Page." For those using Netscape: Select "File" at the top of this window, then "Send Page." |
 So many economists and most politicians dance about with delight in the face of the fact that 60%, 85%, (more ?) of the items under the Christmas tree were made in China. I suppose that might not be so bad if China were our friend! But China's words and deeds demonstrate the country is anything but. China's long-term goal is military superiority over the United States, and we're willing accomplices in that endeavor. The picture frame I received was made in China. So was the red/white/blue elephant. So was the flag watch. So was the binary clock. So was the 256K desktop data organizer. Heck, everything I received, except books and a small wooden carving, was made in China. In China the taxes manufacturers pay are far less than here in the U.S. The labor laws are far more lenient, lowering costs significantly. The environmental regulations are insignificant there, compared to federal laws here. And in numerous other ways the costs of production to Chinese companies are greatly reduced over the costs in this country. So what makes the "free" trade between us "fair"? Answer: it isn't fair trade. All the decks are stacked against American companies. Yet, the politicians clammer for still more "free" trade with Central and South America. Are we really willing to undermine our manufacturers, displace our jobs, sabotage our economy, and incapacitate our safety, just to save a few dollars when we shop at Walmart? The answer apparently is: Yes, indeed! Though this bidding has been long standing, sadly it remains widely ignored. Now we discover that for decades children have been taught from the earliest ages to despise this country, detest its history, and revolt against its principles. And that's just the indoctrination going on in our own government schools! Seriously, though, tens of millions of innocent children around the globe have been instilled with a bitter hatred of America that animates their lives and focuses their fury on our destruction. This wave of animosity has reached the point where multitudes now plot terrorist atrocities unimaginable just a few years ago. The loathing is now so pervasive, terrible and destructive consequences appear unavoidable. As the power of the atom can be employed for good or evil, so, too, can the power of religion be employed. Those who have chosen to corrupt religious teaching and use it to achieve their own evil ends will, sadly, bring a tragic reign of terror and horror to American citizens and other freedom-loving people before the evil doers meet their just demise. Merry Christmas! But what about the bureaucrats? It seems clear the approaches the rest of us use aren't the determining factors used by government. What should be one of the most important factors is "are the actions to be taken constitutional"? But we all know this "test" is rarely applied. The government undertakes unconstitutional enterprises all the time. It's as if the Constitution is a cozy "tradition" that can be followed or ignored at the whim of decision-makers. Clearly, such a condition is not what was intended by our Founders. What I'm leading up to is that many of our national actions nowadays are based on U.N.-initiated principles, such as "what's best for the environment," "what will limit or reduce populations," "what will transfer wealth from rich countries to poor countries," "what will empower the U.N. and the cause of global government." Too many Americans haven't yet noticed, I fear, that the U.N.'s agenda is in fact a direct attack on the U.S., its Constitution, and freedom in the world. So Mr. Nkuba started talking about this over the air. And many listeners began calling the radio station to tell how their babies were given the vaccine and then died shortly thereafter. Mr. Nkuba was outraged, and so were those who heard his program and attended his in-person talks around the country. And so was the Ugandan government, which didn't like someone running around stirring up people to disagree with the government's forced-vaccine program. Mr. Nkuba invited any and all government "experts" to come on his program and debate him. A few did and were quickly shown to be uninformed, uncooperative, and unwilling to sort out fact from fiction. The U.N. was also upset. It didn't like someone challenging its programs. The World Health Organization was, and remains, a strong proponent of the polio vaccine. [What, do you suppose, is its objective: the health of the Ugandan people . . . or . . . population reduction?] Anyway, with the facts against it, with the truth not on its side, and with an ever-growing outcry from the people, what could the government do? Well, I suppose the answer is obvious. It could destroy Mr. Nkuba. And that is exactly what is going on right now. The government is spending vast amounts of money to prove Nkuba "wrong." It has prevented him from speaking on the radio. It has reduced him to near poverty. It's a sad, heart-breaking story. It's a story of those in power who continue to choose death for the country's people over admitting to a mistake. It's a story of what can happen -- what is likely to happen, I would say -- when government becomes too powerful. It's a story that has been repeated, but with a different plot, countless times across the world. And it's a story that has found its way to the U.S.A. as well. Calculating the average rating for each state for 2001, shows that California is low (37) as I expected, Virginia (69) is higher than I expected, and Massachusetts (3) is unbelievably low. The others (Florida - 59, Michigan - 48, Pennsylvania - 55) are near the middle. What surprised me was how few members of Congress have middle-range ratings on an individual basis. Republican Representatives in the six states have an average ACU rating of 86, while the Democrats' average is just 11. Although the overall Republicans plus Democrat average is 45, I only found 10 of the 133 members from these six states with 2001 ACU ratings between 35 and 65, and four of these were from Pennsylvania. Some individual ratings of interest: Gary Condit (California): 24There were ten congressmen with perfect 100 ratings and 25 with a "perfect" 0 ratings (17 from California)! In these six states the political mood seems to be shifting just a little. In 2000, the overall average was 43, while in 2001 it was 45. During a meeting I attended recently in Washington, DC, one of the participants pleaded to give up a "few freedoms" in exchange for security. No, says Arthur Hays Sulzberger, "Freedom cannot be trifled with. You cannot surrender it for security unless in a state of war, and then you must guard carefully the methods of so doing." Freedom is so easy to yield, yet so formidable to regain. All around the globe freedom is scarce compared to here in the good old U.S. and A. Here it is so abundant, citizens give hardly a second thought to the idea of relinquishing a portion in exchange for campaign finance reform, the environment, political correctness, and on and on. In his famous October 1964 speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan emphasized the point: Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro. and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.But the liberals who champion multiculturalism embrace the premise that all cultures, all nations, all philosophies are equally valid and good, and thus lead the march that chips away at freedom. Or, is that the end they wish to achieve? It has been very clever in its aggregation of power; never moving so quickly or dramatically as to raise the ire of major powers in the world, such as first world nations. But it has been moving relentlessly toward total world domination; and no major nation (or minor one for that matter) appears willing or even interested in interfering with its drive toward supremacy. What would lead anyone to conclude the UN will decide one day its lust tor totalitarian control should be curtailed? Why would anyone be foolish enough to think the UN is not aiming at reigning supreme? All actions and evidence point to a not too distant date when all nations and all people will be subservient to an omnipotent UN. Cancer in a living organism grows, and if not stopped, if not purged, will eventually overwhelm the organism and destroy it. There comes a time when cancer is so pervasive and intense, no amount of treatment of any kind can save the victim. When will that time come with the United Nations? A scary thought: Has it come and gone? At this juncture in U.S., world and universal history it would appear that injustice reigns over justice, lies usually trump truth, black is white, up is down and everything is not as it seems. All of the above may be true, but what if, once we suspend the belief that the universe revolves around our own needs, wants and desires, we find that all is more perfect than we could have ever imagined? Remember when English was the language of America? Remember when you had to be able to read and write English to become a citizen? Remember when, even in places like Miami, English was spoken everywhere? Yes, an English version of the supervisor's letter was also included in the sample ballot. But what would that 16-page aid look like if EO #13166 were fully implemented. You'll recall: Clinton's Executive Order #13166 forces government to interact with citizens in any language demanded. Well, with more than 200 languages now spoken in the U.S., the sample ballot would mushroom to 1600 pages! I read in Human Events (October 14, 2002) that some billionaire heiress has announced she is giving $3 million to help defeat a Colorado ballot initiative designed to replace bilingual programs with English immersion for the state's Spanish-speaking students. Apparently she wants her daughter to learn Spanish and is too selfish to realize "Bilingual Education" hurts Spanish kids who need to speak English! The multiculturalists are thrilled that our country is balkanizing. Clinton and the Left see multiple languages as a sign of diversity, one of the gods they worship. Patriotic Americans, however, see multiculturalism and diversity for what it is: the encouragement and government sanction of conflicting views, traditions, and life styles. As the English First Member's Report (October 25, 2002) states, "That is exactly what life is like in the Balkan nations of Europe -- a seething caldron of linguistic and ethnic resentments that often spill out into shooting wars." Well, we used to believe these things, but now our experiences are proving we can't always trust our institutions or fellow citizens as we once did. And thus as the moral fabric of society continues to fray and as our way of life corrodes as a result, where are we as a country headed? What will life in the U.S.A. be like when we've lost all confidence in the underpinnings of society? Eventually, optimists must believe, the pendulum will change direction and return us to a moral, ethical, and honorable time. It will swing back, won't it? Well, it's one thing to throw away millions of "Torricelli" ballots, and print up replacements. But what about all the people who received absentee ballots before the Democrats decided to break the law and replace "the Torch" with Frank Lautenberg? No doubt thousands of people right now have in their possession a "Torricelli" ballot. And if they should vote for him, just how will the election board choose to handle those votes? Will they assume the vote was really for Lautenberg, or will they count it for Torricelli? My bet is that since the democrats had no qualms about breaking the law to get Lautenberg's name on the ballot in the first place, they'll have no qualms recording "Torricelli" votes as Lautenberg votes. Just look what you can accomplish when you have absolutely no respect for the rule of law. But there's a bigger issue, it seems to me, and that's simply this: how come no one is buzzing about with upset and disgust over the fact that the Democrat-controlled Senate, just a few weeks ago, gave "the Torch" little more than a slap on the wrist as "punishment" for his improper and unethical transgressions? You can't tell me Senate members didn't know of those illegal activities. Of course, the answer is that Democrats tend to put party over honor and ethics. They're convinced their "vision" of "what's good for America" allows them to sacrifice honesty, ethics, and even what's lawful, to assure "their guys" maintain control. When Nixon committed what many believed were acts of obtsruction of justice, Republicans were among the first to stand up and cry "foul". Yet, when Clinton committed perjury and engaged in numerous improper and disgusting acts, members of the Democrat party were MIA. They didn't stand up for decency, respectability, and the rule of law. Noooooo! They stood up in unanimity to say that all those misdeeds were private. Character didn't count. Breaking the law really didn't matter. Why? Because their guy was doing such a "good job" as president. So a corrupt Democrat senator is shown to be a disgrace to the U.S. Senate and the Senate Democrats look the other way. Then he resigns when his poll numbers plummet as more and more of his corruption is revealed to the general public. And how do Democrat politicians around the country react? They race to their nearest attorney and ask him or her to figure out a way to "get around" the law that now, just a month before the November election, prohibits a replacement for Torricelli on the ballot. Invasion -- How America still welcomes Terrorists, criminals, and other foreign menaces to our shores, by Michelle MalkinSo many books -- so little time. So that means you probably support the ban on DDT because it resulted in the death of millions of people around the world who died with malaria. And you probably support the "woman's right to choose," because abortion programs limit population growth. And you probably support the ban on Freon, because it, too, has produced death among some of the world's peoples through reduced refrigeration and the resulting degradation in food preservation. And you probably support euthanasia, too, since that practice culls even more from the living, giving them a "respectful," albeit early death. In America you're entitled to hold these beliefs and to espouse them as you please. But the problem becomes acute if you become elected to public office and you begin to work your "vision" through public policy. You begin to codify draconian measures to achieve your desired ends. Of course you don't wish to publicize your agenda, because that would create wild panic. But over time, the public might begin to wonder if you and like-thinking cohorts are implementing broad, comprehensive, insidious schemes to reduce population levels. I suspect many good Americans wonder right now if too many senators, congressmen, and bureaucrats who share your "vision," are clandestinely "making it happen." I know a number of people who wonder if compulsory vaccinations aren't really just a grand scheme to "infect" the public with some population-reduction agent. Or if not now, then some day soon. I know those who wonder if the chem trails we sometimes see in the sky aren't another method being tested or possibly already used to infect the public and wean out some of the weaker members. I know people who are convinced the fluoridation in the drinking water is merely a means of poisoning people or perhaps readying a delivery system for a future chemical or biological poisoning. Some even think Project HARP in Alaska, managed by the federal government, is an effort to manipulate, control, or reduce the population. Now I'm not one who's ready to subscribe to these "conspiracy" theories, but when government leaders lie to us so willingly about so many things (Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Waco, the OK City bombing, TWA 800, etc., etc.), it's really little wonder lots of citizens are worried. Do you think the judge will be unbiased in dealing with his financial "friends" versus "perfect strangers"? Is it even possible to be unbiased under those circumstances? Let's say you're sued by a very wealthy individual or entity. When your money runs out, how do you think you'll get proper legal representation? As the saying goes: When your money runs out, so does your attorney. Let's say your attorney tells you the justice system in your city, town, or county is corrupt. Let's say he tells you of specific instances where gross injustices were committed by the court or a judge. To whom would you then turn for justice? "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for whom?" Several institutions of higher learning were sampled to determine the ratio of professors registered (listed in local voter registration records) in a party of the left versus professors registered in a party of the right. Here are some ratios: Brown University: 54 to 3; Cornell University: 166 to 6; Davidson College: 10 to 1; Denver College: 35 to 1; Harvard University: 50 to 2; Penn State University: 59 to 10; Pomona College: 18 to 2; San Diego State University: 80 to 11; Stanford University: 151 to 17; State University of New York at Binghamton: 35 to 1; Syracuse University: 50 to 2; University of California at Berkeley: 59 to 7; University of California at Los Angeles: 141 to 9; University of California at San Diego: 99 to 6; University of California at Santa Barbara: 72 to 1; University of Colorado at Boulder: 116 to 5; University of Houston: 45 to 14; University of Maryland: 59 to 10; University of Texas at Austin: 94 to 15. That's about 1400 to 125! There are over eleven times as many left-leaning professors as right-leaning professors in the survey! You may think the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars you're investing will give your kids a good liberal education. It turns out they're getting a good Liberal education. (Source of statistics: "The Shame of America's One-Party Campuses," The American Enterprise, September 2002, pages 19-25. Address: 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Phone: 202-862-5886. Fax: 202-862-5867. E-mail. Website.) Before you read further, what would be your answer? Which of these four is top priority, as far as you're concerned? It didn't take me long to answer. The UN. Because if we don't stop the one-world, global-government movement, which the UN is leading, this country will lose its sovereignty, its laws, and indeed the freedom its people treasure. The UN's race for domination of the planet must be stopped or a relentless wave of tyranny will overwhelm all mankind for eons to come. Next in importance, I would say, is education. Government schools are teaching this nation's children a hate-America, environmentalism-over all, humanism agenda that will cripple this country. A "no-absolutes" mind-set instills in the citizens' a view that the American Way is no better than any other way. This is, of course, the first step to the idea that the American Way is the worst way, which is the objective of the Left. Next, I would say, would be immigration. If we don't control our borders and initiate sensible, America-First immigration policies, we will be overrun with foreigners who have no respect for our laws, customs, traditions, life styles, and the English language. This is a recipe for the overthrow of America, which is the hoped-for consequence by those opposed to immigration reform. Abortion would come last on my list. Not because it is an unimportant issue. It's vitally important to regain national morality by criminalizing the murder of innocent babies. It's last because the other issues are even more important, as I see them, if we are to keep our freedom and, indeed, if America is to survive. Maybe the U.S. should reimburse England for all the taxes the U.K. has been denied since we established independence. Maybe we should pay -- pick a number -- say, $12 trillion.Each if these cockamamie proposals makes just as much sense as paying "reparations" to blacks. Yes, slaves were brought to this country from Africa, but who sold the slaves? African blacks did. And what about the blacks in America who were not slaves? Should their descendants receive reparations? And what about the millions upon millions of non-blacks who came to this country after slavery was abolished? Should they, too, be required to pay blacks reparations? The idea of reparations is exceedingly divisive. In fact it's the antithesis of the political consciousness we ought to be encouraging in this country. The nature of reparations -- one "special interest" group collecting what it is not owed -- reinforces and further institutionalizes the socialistic concept that government should be in the business of redistributing the country's wealth. The fuss over reparations establishes further evidence that this country is no longer committed to justice but is instead only interested in political "solutions" which deal with the buying and selling of votes. The mindset of reparations strengthens the idea that some individuals don't have to take responsibility for their lives. Some "leader," political party, or power will take care of them. Reparations for blacks is a proposal every self-respecting, patriotic, honorable black ought to scoff at. Equality would dictate a flat tax, so all taxpayers would be assessed at an equal tax rate, but liberals insist on a graduated scale, so they can penalize the rich and buy votes from the poor. Equality would demand equal treatment of all, but liberals demand special, preferential treatment -- affirmative action it's called -- for blacks, women, homosexuals, and all manner of other special-interest groups, which, just by coincidence, forms the heart of their political power. Equality would direct our leaders to play by the same rules as the rest of us, but liberals in power (e.g. Bill Clinton and his crowd) consider themselves above the law and they legislate for themselves special perks and benefits not available to the "common folk". Likewise, they exempt themselves from constraints they impose on We the People. And it's not just the attainment of "equality" that liberals seek. It's the attainment of equality as defined by liberals that they demand. Liberals willingly sacrifice equal opportunity -- the vision of our Forefathers -- for equality, as if liberals didn't know the difference. But all those like the nut case (and his many cohorts in the media and in other leftist factions in America), who wish to delete any reference to "God" in our nation's motto, currency, and its other institutions, apparently postulate that either men are not created equal, or if they are, it's either a baseless claim, or it's a gift from the State. The concept that men are not created equal by a Supreme Being refutes the very essence, intention, and indeed statements of the Founding Fathers. To suggest the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights prohibit the mention of "God" is like suggesting law encourages lawlessness. It is the agenda of the left to continually empower government at the expense of the people's power. The agenda of the right is just the opposite. So we may conclude the right stands for personal freedom, while the left fights for the other side. There are still a few hundred copies in inventory, but I suspect the supply may be depleted by the end of the year. At the present time I have no plans to initiate another printing. Soooo, if you'd like to get a copy, let me suggest that you check out the NewsMax Store via the link below and place an order. Orders registered this way give me the additional benefit of a commission on your purchase. (Nice!) Even after the book goes out of print, I do plan to continue weekly (hopefully) updates to this website. I have found it very gratifying to search for, find, and post items I think will be of interest to you. If you have any suggestions (constructive, please), why not send me a note. Thanks. The answer is the U.S. government! That nearly omnipotent entity has well-established programs and procedures to systematically infringe on your and my property rights (violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) and in fact to completely obliterate those rights. The EPA is now empowered to tell you how you can and cannot use your land. If the government wishes, it's a simple matter for the EPA to find an endangered species -- real or imagined -- on your property. The value of your land will then plummet and your ability to do with the land as you wish will be drastically curtailed. You own a nice car? At any time a government agent can find evidence -- real or imagined -- that your vehicle was used for drug trafficking, and can, through the power of RICO laws, seize it. The government doesn't have to pay you for your automobile, nor give it back. When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decides to flood land, in spite of the fact that hundreds and hundreds of landowners will be flooded out, then it becomes clear that we as a nation must decide pretty quickly if we're going to tolerate tyranny or raise one heck of a fuss to protect the principle of private property. The speakers were excellent. Henry Lamb spoke about the international basis for land use policy (how the UN is driving our government's attacks on private property). Michael Coffman discussed how international policy becomes domestic policy (the U.S. follows UN dictates to a "T"). Tom DeWeese presented Agenda 21 and "Smart Growth" (it's truly scary how our freedoms are being roped up and tied off). Tom McDonnell's topic was Water Control (water policy is being used as a weapon to restrict our freedoms). There were more than a dozen other speakers, many with valuable information, insightful revelations, and comprehensive analysis. John Nelson was the last to speak to the hundred-plus people in attendance and as I said to him afterward, his comments were both interesting and terrifying. He predicted the IMF will give an order to devalue our currency by twenty percent before the end of the year (an economist in the audience predicted 30%). John said the stock market will continue to tumble and will drop thousands of points below present levels (the economist pegged the low at $5900). John's comments about the Federal Reserve were scary, too, asserting that it's impossible to pay off the national debt, so U.S. default (or worse) is guaranteed. These are but a few of the sobering remarks John had for us. Perhaps the most encouraging news during the conference was the announcement that a "Sawgrass Rebellion" gathering is planned for Naples, Florida for October 17th and 18th this year. We need such a major event to garner national attention on the issue of private property and its infringement by the government. Hopefully the Sawgrass Rebellion will galvanize Americans to demand that our leaders respect, honor, and obey the Constitution. "Progress cannot be made on serious issues because one side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs. . ."It's quite a book! Rarely is an author so willing to write such politically incorrect statements. Ann Coulter is outspoken and brave in Slander. Get yourself a copy. (To place an order, link directly to the NewsMax Store from my homepage.) Well, according to reports I've heard, Bill Clinton has now collected about ten times that amount, but, my goodness, I haven't heard a peep from all the press people who were in such a frenzy over Reagan. But this comes as no surprise to more and more Americans who are recognizing that the mainstream media is liberalism central. Yet, there are still those who refuse to acknowledge reality. They continue to read the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, and/or U.S. News and World Report, and assume they're getting news rather than spin. They continue to watch Tom, Dan, and/or Peter and assume the pretty face gives them unbiased reporting. They continue to fail to recognize that much of our culture now has a hard-left twist on it. We all must sit up and take notice. So, here's a summary: Letters, first class, first ounce = $0.37 (up from $0.34)Now, that wasn't so hard, was it? All this is from page 36 of a publication titled R2001-1 Rate Case Implementation. My post office person was kind enough to give me a copy, along with two sheets with Priority Mail ZIP codes, Zones, and rates. The above rates go in effect June 30, 2002. The last rate increase went into effect July 1, 2001. So, place your bets. When will the rate be $0.40 for a one-ounce first class letter? Well, the UN has. And the UN does it. I understand there are 191 countries in the world. On April 11th the UN announced the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). How many nations ratified it? Just 60, less than one third of all the countries on the planet. So how does the UN get away with such tyranny? Easy. They simply proclaim ratification is complete with 60 votes. You don't like it? Too bad. You don't think it's fair? Tough. You think it violates US laws and customs? Of course! Get used to such dictatorial practices; the UN is now in charge. There are two important considerations here. 1) That Bill Clinton would sign on to the ICC in the last days of his presidency reveals what a dangerous president he was. He swore to uphold the US Constitution, but he signed an international agreement that completely ignores basic constitutional protections for American citizens. 2) Just because George Bush "rescinded" Clinton's signature doesn't mean the ICC's jurisdiction won't reach our shores. The UN proclaims the 60 countries voting for it now make the ICC world law! Now the death toll is in the millions -- tens of millions! These individuals had no choice in the matter. We snuffed them out. And we took great glee, in many instances, in the massacre. Don't these people deserve some justice? Shouldn't the families of these people receive reparations? Slavery is and was wrong, but isn't murder even worse? Of course the U.S. Supreme Court says no . . . if the murder is abortion. Why are liberals so hot under the collar (pun intended) when it comes to Catholic priests who sexually molest kids? Because the dirty little secret is that it isn't Catholics who do the abuse, it's homosexuals. The liberal litany is that the homosexual lifestyle is as normal and natural and healthy as the heterosexual lifestyle. Homosexual Catholics are revealing this litany to be a lie. Why are liberals so unconcerned about protecting our borders from waves of illegal immigrants? Because immigrants, legal or illegal, must all be welcomed into the good old U.S.A. under the cloak of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is unassailable in the eyes of liberals, so they must ignore all facts -- like terrorists sneaking into America to plant nukes -- that disprove their sacred screed. Much of the promotion of the book has focused on the fact that birth rates in the West are below rates necessary to sustain the indigenous populations, while birth rates of immigrants flooding western countries continue to be sky high. The inevitable result is the death over time of western culture as we know it and a massive transformation of the racial, moral, ethnic, and cultural nature of western societies. But there is much more meat that Buchanan serves us in the pages of his book. His presentation of cultural history and what lies ahead is powerful stuff. Let me give you just a couple of tastes (page 5): "Not only ethnically and racially, but culturally and morally, we are no longer one people or 'one nation under God.'"And this from page 148: "Many of the institutions that now have custody of America's past operate on the principles of Big Brother's Ministry of Truth: drop down the 'memory hole' the patriotic stories of America's greatness and glory, and produce new 'warts-and-all' histories that play up her crimes and sins, revealing what we have loved to be loathsome and those we have revered to be disreputable, even despicable. Many old heroes have not survived the killing fields of the New History. Ultimate goal: Destroy patriotism, kill the love of country, demoralize the people, deconstruct America. History then will no longer unite and inspire us, but depress and divide us into the children of victims and the children of the villains of America's past."What Buchanan has written needs to be read. It's an important history lesson and look into the crystal ball of the future. It's not a pleasant sight. In the interest of equality, liberals want to "Robin Hood" the country and the world. They want to steal from the rich to give to the poor. They never seem to realize that the hope of reward (wealth, fortune) is the driving motivation that keeps the economy going. Torpedo that motivation and capitalism is sunk. Would you work if you were given a million dollars? The liberals have for a long time worked to achieve -- and have now achieved -- equal outcomes in the government schools. Outcome-Based Education is now installed throughout the land. We may be equalizing outcomes, but as a result, we're dumbing down our kids and assuring that our brightest students -- those with the most potential -- are forced to perform at the lowest common denominator. Grade inflation, passing failing students, and the movement to do away with tests and grades are a natural result of the "equality above all" mindset. Another manifestation of hopeless equalitarianism is liberal policy regarding immigration. The "equality for all" attitude means foreigners have as much right to be here as U.S. citizens. Moreover, since the foreigners liberals favor (the third-world poor) are so "unequal" to us, they must be given even more welfare and government handouts than Americans are entitled to. An extreme example of equalitarianism is the liberal who proclaims that not only are all people equal, all animals are equal. "There are no clear distinctions between us and animals," said Michael W. Fox, VP of the Humane Society of the United States. "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," said Ingrid Newkirk, director, PETA. [Quotes from Animal Scam, by Kathleen Marquardt with Herbert M. Levine and Mark LaRochelle, 1993,] Equalitarianism is an attractive concept . . . for those who don't wish to think. Our Founders had the wisdom to envision a country and a political system based on equal opportunity. Anyone with any synapses firing knows that individuals are fundamentally unequal. We all have different talents, abilities, interests, motivation, strength, etc., etc., etc. The key to success, happiness, and justice isn't equality, it's equal opportunity and equal justice under the law, two concepts liberals seem to have trouble understanding. Aside from the receipt of illegal campaign funds, how could Clinton justify giving away to the Chinese some of this country's most vital military secrets? Equalitarianism. How could Jimmy Carter give away the Panama Canal? Equalitarianism. How can socialists sleep at night after they have plundered from the rich to give (ostensibly) to the poor? Equalitarianism. How can the Democrats agree, intellectually, with the idea that we should decimate our armed forces and unilaterally reduce weapon stockpiles? Equalitarianism. It's an idea that could only appeal to those who let their emotions override common sense. But the proponents of equalitarianism have a rather major flaw, besides their foolish philosophy. They seem to think they themselves should be exempt from the ponderous equalitarian measures they wish to impose on the rest of us. They want to retain their perks and their unequal trappings of power. They'll tell you: they deserve their un-equalitarian status. But, why is it that those liberals not in power cling to their equalitarian beliefs? Because it feels like the right thing to do. 
MONDAY, May 6, 2002.
It was a magic moment. Hillsdale College presented a Shavano Institute conference at the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club in Naples, Florida in March of this year. I was selected as one of the hosts of the affair. The guest speaker at dinner was Benjamin Netanyaho, former prime minister of Israel, who spoke on the topic "Terrorism: How the Constitutional Democracies Can Win." There were perhaps 700 people in attendance. A Hillsdale College conference is always a stellar event.Before his address I was among a very few -- perhaps a dozen or so -- permitted to meet the man and exchange a few words. What a thrill. What an honor. I consider him one of the great leaders of our time. He is a conservative, after all. As I awaited my turn, I asked myself what I could possibly say to this great individual. The usual, "It's an honor to meet you." or "You are a great leader." would be the typical remark, I suppose, so I certainly didn't want to say that! When I shook his hand I said, "I was so impressed with your speech at the CPAC Conference last year!" I hoped that would be a bit off the beaten track for a greeting. Well, I was impressed with his CPAC dinner speech. It was so compelling, so logical, so well thought out, so powerful. And his speech in Naples was likewise. After my comment he remarked that those who attend CPAC gatherings are a special bunch of people. If the world can be redirected away from its present course of terrorism and destruction, he told me, it will be folks like the CPAC people who will do it. About six months ago, however, he apparently came down with cancer of the liver and cancer of the blood (hemophilia). I'm told it is medically extremely rare that both cancers should strike the same victim at the same time. In just six months, the pilot went from a healthy, robust man to a weak, struggling patient on life-support equipment. Cancer was destroying the man's blood faster than new blood could be pumped into his body. Clinton reportedly called the hospital to give him his condolences, and he told the hospital staff to do whatever the pilot asked. Several days ago the pilot asked to be taken off the life-support equipment. His doctors told him doing so would condemn him to death within twelve hours. It was the pilot's wish, nevertheless, so the tubes and equipment were removed and he went home, apparently to await his demise. The last I've heard, the pilot still hangs onto life, after three days at home. This story doesn't yet have an ending. I don't know what to make of it. The whole thing seems like a bad novel. How could this happen? Why did it happen? Are there hidden facts or details that could explain what has gone on? I suspect so, but I'll probably never know. Note, posted 5-20-02: I was informed the pilot died May 11th at noon, some three weeks after he was taken off life support. The doctors can't explain how he lasted so long. He existed without a stomach, which had been removed in an operation after it was learned he had cancer. The authorities don't want the responsibility of making wise judgements about who is and isn't searched, because it's a whole lot easier to blindly follow a simple rule: search at random. Then when the next atrocity occurs, nobody is at fault -- there's no accountability -- because everybody "followed the rules." Prior to a recent flight, I watched -- hoping I would not be a search victim -- as the agents yanked one unsuspecting traveler after another out of line and subjected them and their belongings to intense scrutiny. I noticed one of those "sacrificed" was a woman wearing an outfit about as close-fitting as a coat of paint. They blindly moved the wand all over her, but on visual inspection it would have been immediately apparent if she were concealing so much as an M&M -- peanut or plain! Another one they searched was a bewildered little girl, maybe twelve years old, who, I would guess, had a terrorist probability of about 0.0000. But the mindless regulations were being followed to the letter of the law, so everyone was happy -- except anybody who recognized the absurdity of the game being played out all day long all across the country. Such procedures provide little to no security or protection, but the staff is on the job! The agents are following directions -- mindlessly following directions. And the airport staff and the government can assure the anxious citizens: "A series of new and effective procedures is now in place and operational to protect the public!" Ha. The bizarre charades I witnessed in the airports are but simple reflections of much of what goes on today in the rest of the world. It's called implemented policy. People at Klamath Falls have their water supply, needed for their crops, withheld, but the government workers are "just doing their job." Kids say "bang" in school and are suspended, because the zero-tolerance rule is in effect and supercedes all sense of reason. The common sense of the common law has now been replaced by endless pages of prohibitions, so judgement and wisdom are no longer necessary in the search for "justice". Philip K. Howard wrote about all this eight years ago in his insightful book, The Death of Common Sense. After we took off, the stewardess announced that for the last 30 minutes of the flight everyone would have to remain seated; no one could even go to the bathroom. Well, I knew that planes landing at Reagan national were subject to greater security, but I couldn't imagine what such a restriction would accomplish, and I stated as much to the woman sitting next to me. She explained that if anyone was going to hijack the plane, when they stood up to do so, they would be shot by the on-board marshal. That sort of scenario hadn't occurred to me, but, I protested, this "you-must-be-seated" rule only advises such a hijacker that he must commandeer the plane sometime before the last 30 minutes of flight. If that happens, she continued, then there's plenty of time to shoot the plane out of the sky. Her analysis got me thinking about what could be in store for us on our trip. Further conversation revealed that these security "insights" were not mere speculation. Her daughter actually works in the White House. No, no, not as an intern. She has a job other than satisfying presidential sexual desires. She actually works on policy! I told my brother about the incident after I got home. He said he had heard about an individual on such a flight as mine, who, about 20 minutes before landing, discovered his kidneys couldn't wait 20 minutes. So he got up to relieve the pressure. He wasn't shot, but the plane was diverted to the Dulles Airport! Guess who wasn't very popular with the other passengers on that flight. This bunch can't even come up with a definition of the term. (That's because the UN wants to keep its options open, just in case it wishes to side with terrorists on some issue.) Let me help them out: Terrorism is any attack aimed specifically and deliberately at civilians and civilian facilities for the express purpose of achieving one or more political, economic, or religious objectives. Perhaps the 9-11 attack has demonstrated far more effectively than dozens of years of conservative warnings: The U.S. can not depend on others to look out for U.S. interests. The U.N. is a composite of countries, the majority of which distrust, dislike, or detest America. U.N. policy is and always has been directed at socialist objectives that are fundamentally at odds with U.S. cultural and economic objectives. Freedom's cause is not served by ceding power to a body whose agents are unelected, unfriendly, irresponsible, and unaccountable. Look at the mighty UN's reaction to the atrocious assassination of 3000 innocent civilians in the World Trade Towers and Pentagon. Where was the concern? The outrage? The compassion? Kofi Annan didn't even send a Hallmark card of sympathy. The UN could serve a valid function of airing differences between nations, rallying world opinion against evil forces, and encouraging global peace and freedom, but if it achieves the dictatorial powers it covets, and if there is no sufficient force to counteract it, the UN can and will become a tyrant that destroys and overwhelms all peace-loving people and freedom-based institutions. Well, now it seems the wife has decided the daughter's real father is whom she prefers. So she has left my friend, taken an apartment, taken the two kids, and enjoys her new companion's company on a regular, frequent basis. But she's still officially married to my friend. (Imagine the impact on the kids.) Recently, at the wife's demand, they went to court to decide support payments my friend must produce. As is now the vogue, the husband, being male, is deemed the "bad" guy, even though he has acted honorably throughout the entire sordid mess. Presently in the midst of employer-sponsored study for a good-paying, but commissioned, position, he finds himself financially stressed. He can't even afford an attorney to represent himself at the court hearing. So what did the judge rule? He ruled that since he deemed my friend to be highly intelligent and capable of a good-sized income, the child support should be very liberal. Then he went on to rule that payments must be retroactive to when the wife left town. So my friend is instantly in debt, significant debt. Worse, according to "the law", my friend must produce the money (which he doesn't have) instantly, or be subject to imprisonment at the whim of the wife. Talk about a no-win situation! How in the world did this country and it's judicial system get so screwed up that such a ruling would be handed down? Tragically, I have the impression such injustice is rampant throughout the land. Take evolution. They say that since all living things evolve over time, all life on Earth evolved from some slime in the ocean. They ignore the fact that no cross-species link has ever been discovered by any anthropologist from the beginning of time. Take abortion. They say that even if the baby is 99 percent delivered, it's still in the uterus and may be legally aborted. Take the global-warming issue. They say that since the temperature of the earth is now warmer than it was 50 or 100 years ago, glaciers are melting, seas are rising, and everybody who lives within 50 miles of an ocean had better get a row boat. It's sort of like the parent who finds that his or her teenage son grew an average of an inch per year for three years straight, and then concludes that by the age of 45, he'll be eight feet tall! They say we mustn't disturb the pristine wilderness with well-drilling and oil-pumping equipment. As if "spoiling" the view for polar bears and carribou was a top-priority national concern. If they were consistent, they'd have to conclude that we shouldn't drill anywhere on the planet, because the rigs and pipes will "spoil" the landscape for some creatures -- including man. And they'd have to say that windmill farms and dams and nuclear power plants also disrupt the scenery. As do homes, roads, businesses, and all man-made contrivances. That goof-ball advocates of pretend environmentalism are able to impress other than lunatics and lobotomy patients is truly disconcerting. Why aren't these "saviors of nature" picketing on the sand dunes of Saudi Arabia to stop the drilling for oil there? The left-wing environmental radicals are not just haters of the kind of man who wishes less dependency on foreign oil sources and energy sufficiency for U.S. citizens, they're haters of all mankind! The defense attorney questioned each of us on a number of topics. One was our reaction to a defendant who doesn't take the witness stand in his own defense. We were questioned so intently on the subject, I concluded the defendant definitely wouldn't testify, possibly because he was guilty. Of course you're not allowed to think such thoughts, because the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The questions the defense attorney posed, however, seemed to me to suggest guilt even before the jury was seated. The last question asked during the grilling was to me. It was whether my website is conservative or liberal. Before I could answer, the judge disallowed the question. Interesting, I thought. A lot of other personal and very probing questions had been allowed. A couple of years back I was in another group of potential jurors undergoing questioning. This case dealt with the death of bystanders as a result of a car accident. The defense attorney made it clear that any knowledge about physics and the laws of motion would automatically "disqualify" anyone from sitting on the jury. Several others who had taken a physics class in high school were booted off the panel before I was questioned. When it became known I have an engineering degree, I was gone in an instant. Doesn't that suggest that the defense was going to try to distort the laws of physics in an effort to get their guy off? As far as I was concerned, this was a pretty damning display. One of the other potential jurors last week told me about a jury on which he had served two or three years ago. After hearing all the evidence, the jury members exited the court room for deliberation. One of the jurors, a black, announced immediately that the defendant, a black, was "not guilty". After two days of deliberations the vote was deadlocked: one "not guilty" one "undecided" and the rest "guilty". It appears jury nullification is alive and well. And this is fine. It is fitting and proper. These "institutions" have been around for decades. What would happen, do you suppose, if someone wanted to designate July, let's say, as white history month? Can you imagine how incendiary that would be? What if some congressmen announced they were forming a White Caucus? What if someone left a large sum of money to a major university to establish a white studies program? What about an NAAWP? Imagine public reaction to a new WET cable channel. It becomes clear how effectively our thinking has been managed when we examine some of these ideas. Black groups are accepted and even encouraged, but white groups, regardless of their intentions, are automatically considered to be racist. Just the thought of an organization dedicated to white issues and concerns is anathema to good and decent people. By definition its agenda is hate, its members are un-American, and it must be condemned by all good citizens. This is an intriguing state of affairs to ponder. If we have been so blinded and dominated by political correctness on the matter of things black and white, imagine how our thinking may be clouded on other matters. They probably won't be executed. The bleeding hearts in this country wouldn't tolerate that. And politicians of every stripe will crawl all over one another to prove their compassion to the bleeding hearts by telling TV cameras "It's not right to sacrifice all these lives." So are we then to treat the terrorists to three squares a day, plenty of exercise, all the time they wish for religious expression, and a big, bright tropical sun for the rest of their natural born days? I've heard speculation that perhaps some (many?) will be questioned and then returned to their country of origin, so that country can take "proper judicial action." Right. That would probably mean they'd be given heros' welcomes and then sent off on their next terrorist mission. So, what the heck do we do with all the terrorists? In retrospect, my talk was too long, I should have given it extemporaneously (rather than reading it), and there was miscommunication on the topic of "multiculturalism." I had carefully defined the term -- at least I thought I had -- but apparently the audience equated criticism of multiculturalism with racism. And once you've been accused of racism, there's no salvation or redemption. The mainstream media have been so successful in their praise of diversity, the general public seems blind to some of the dangers. I quoted from an article: "In the name of equality and nondiscrimination, we invited mass immigration from every part of the globe, and made no demands on the newcomers to become Americans. In fact, we gave up our American core, adopted multiculturalism and declared all cultures equal. . ." ("Homeland Security," by Carol Iannone, Whistleblower Magazine). I quoted from another article: "The inauguration of 'diversity' as the new doctrine of national conformity was not just a dramatic break with the past; it was a rejection of the past. The Founding Fathers believed diversity led to faction, disharmony and abuse of the law." ("Multicultural Hell Comes to America," by Charles A. Roberts, American Renaissance.) I quoted from a book: "Simply and directly put, America will explode in tribal warfare in our lifetime and shatter into several new ethnically-based nations. . . . Throughout world history, all multiethnic empires have broken up, and almost always in cataclysmic violence." (Civil War II, by Thomas W. Chittum.) I said, "[M]ulticulturalism turns on its head our national motto. Our country is supposed to be about melting many into one. "E Pluribus Unum!" Liberals don't want any melting." I surmise most in the audience heard nothing but "racism," "intolerance," and "bigotry." It was an enormous mistake on my part not to anticipate that result. The words we use to communicate sometimes carry impact so great they overwhelm the listener and destroy, rather than enhance, the communication process. I don't remember exactly which Clinton address it was (maybe there were several), but I remember vividly that the camera was positioned off center so the President was in the picture along with Veep Gore, but the Speaker of the House (a Republican) couldn't be seen. I thought at the time: How many people do the Democrats have thinking up new and devious ways to promote themselves and minimize exposure of Republicans? Perhaps your reaction is: That's why Democrats so often win; they play all the angles. Or perhaps your reaction is: The Republicans would do the very same thing -- if they weren't so dumb. My reaction is: No, the Republicans probably wouldn't do such a thing because I think that in general they are more honorable. They focus on substance over symbolism, while it's the other way around (as Rush so often says) with the Dems. How many dozens or hundreds (thousands?) of other little tricks and deceptions and manipulations were implemented during the Clinton reign that we didn't notice but may have had some unconscious effect? It's a little scary to contemplate how broad and intensive these influences may have been, and what impact they may have had on the citizenry. Well, I got the answer to that question recently in a conversation with a friend, a pilot who has contacts with a number of military people. He said we've achieved remarkable results in spite of extensive damage to our fighting force. For example: he explained that a recent lull in our bombing campaign was not because we had no targets. It was because our planes were in desperate need of maintenance and unavailable spare parts. He revealed that the U.S. plane that recently flew into an Afghan mountain, killing all on board, did so because the mountain wasn't supposed to be there, according to the maps in use. During the Clinton administration, funding for maps of Afghanistan was withdrawn, so old, outdated, inaccurate maps caused the crash. Now, he added, a couple of satellites has been positioned over the country to complete a hurry-up operation to produce accurate maps. He also said the armed services are woefully low in manpower. That's why so many reserve units have been called up. Clinton bragged how he reduced the size of government. He did so by drastically reducing the number of military people, while increasing non-military staff. Now there's inside talk of re-establishing the draft! According to my friend, our military forces are struggling in this war, thanks to Clinton's admitted loathing of the military and his administration's reckless attention to its needs. Apparently the legacy of the Clinton era is more than a stained dress. It's a dangerously weakened country in a time when strong and effective armed forces are absolutely critical. "Last year, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.Does anyone beside me see a pattern here? Obviously, the FBI and CIA didn't. These organizations have been busy as bees for the last eight years or so investigating organizations that really post a threat, like militias, individuals who hold the U.S. Constitution in high regard, folks who want to own weapons, religious people, and other dangerous, evil, right-wing groups. Construction at the entrance to the West Palm Beach Airport has the usual traffic flow all mixed up. I turned left at the usual spot, following the car in front of me, and found we were going the wrong way, bucking three lanes of oncoming traffic! At the check-in desk I was asked to remove my driver's license so the agent could check the expiration date on the reverse side of the card. Why, I wondered, was that necessary. He said it didn't make sense to him either, but he was just following the "rules." This little discussion apparently disrupted his usual processing sequence, for he neglected to ask me if I'd packed my bag myself, if it had been in my possession at all times, and if any stranger had asked me to carry anything on board. Imagine that! A serious security breach! It got me to thinking. If these questions are so essential to flight security, why not ask some really important questions. How about: "Are you planning to take over the airplane and fly it into an important U.S. building?" That would be nice to know. Also: "Do you have any plans to use a sharp object to cut the throats of some of the passengers or crew?" Or maybe, simply: "Are you a terrorist?" I had taken precautions before reaching the security checkpoint. I had put my keys and change in my carry-on bag so they wouldn't set off the metal detector. I had even removed my belt, because I knew the buckle would trip the alarm. The metal detector beeped anyway, probably from the rivets on my jeans and eyelets on my boots. I was asked if the boots had metal toes. They did not. Then I'd have to take them off, I was informed. But after a little more "wanding," that demand was forgotten and I was allowed to proceed to the gate. With the imposition of so many new rules and regulations, it's instructive to observe that of all the inconvenient procedures passengers must now endure, none would have thwarted or even exposed any of the September 11th terrorist hijackings before they occurred. On the trip home the day after Christmas, I departed from the USAir Express terminal (F) at Philadelphia. This was very good, because the lines at the other terminals extended outside the buildings. Maybe 100 people were waiting in each queue in the near-freezing temperature. My gate (#22) was at the very end of the terminal, about a fifth of a mile beyond the security checkpoint. Once there, I was about to put my belt back on, when a piercing alarm sounded and bright lights began to flash. Moments later a loudspeaker announcement instructed everyone to evacuate the building. Hundreds of people waiting at 39 gates made their way back to the checkpoint and out the doors to wait in the near-freezing temperature. A couple of passengers (including me) found we could wait just inside the door, where it was warmer, without raising the ire of airport personnel. Happily, the wait was brief, as the all-clear announcement followed shortly. The evacuation was a false alarm; an erroneous fire indication. At least that's what we were told. The bigger problem was to get all the people back through security. Once again everyone had to show IDs and put their coats and carry-ons through the scanners. This time we had to take our shoes and boots off and send them through the scanner, too. I'm convinced the evacuation was an excuse to get everybody's footwear scanned. Another first: I was directed to a machine just beyond the scanner where a paper-tipped wand was rubbed across the top and sides of my carry-on bag. The paper, an inch or two across, was then removed and placed in the machine. I overheard that it checked for minute fragments of explosive materials. The flights themselves were uneventful, but the bureaucratic nonsense now being demanded just to get on the planes is a real pain. Won't we all be glad when government employees are in charge of airport security. Do you suppose these people will be like IRS agents? I don't see air travel getting better any time soon.  Thoughts for 1999. Thoughts for 2000. Thoughts for 2001.The way back home. |
