 The Hans Zeiger Pagee-Mailbox ---
e-Mailbox 2 ---
This 'n' That 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." |
 Christmas is a time of exchanging presents, when gifts given can be much more rewarding than gifts received. Christmas is a time of reverence, when the birth of Jesus Christ is observed and honored. It's a time for renewing faith, giving thanks, and participating in meaningful religious traditions. Christmas is a time of family togetherness, when sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and sometimes aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, and nephews, too, gather together to enjoy family ties and turkey. Christmas is a time the ACLU and far-left liberals wish to erase forever from the American scene. Atheists demand that their joyless, "reverence-less", godless, December 25th replace the centuries-old tradition enjoyed by most Americans. Christmas is now a time when the country's faith and freedom are quite visibly under attack. If compassionate Christians continue to turn the other cheek, it won't be too long before they'll find Christ's birthday expunged from the calendar and from life in the good old U.S.A. And it won't be the Grinch who did it. By making a massive terrorist attack or by not making such an attack. With an attack (assuming it's at least as devastating as 9-11), the U.S. economy will stumble once more, Democrats will accuse Bush of "not doing enough" to protect the American people, and the voters -- I suspect -- will pull enough levers to elect a Democrat president. If there's no dramatic attack by the terrorists, the economy will in all likelyhood flourish (much to the left's dismay), and Bush will glide easily back into the White House. That's scary enough, but what's even more frightening is that terrorists are highly motivated to want a Democrat in office, because this will accrue to their advantage. Listen to what the Democratic candidates are saying: They would not have gone into Iraq. Since we're now there, they want us to depart with haste. They would, if not coddle, at least tolerate the terrorists. Heck, aside from the French and Russians, Democrats are the terrorists' best friends. So, with a Democrat president, terrorists can proceed along their merry way spreading death and destruction all around the globe, and the "newly-elected" commander in chief will urge understanding, sympathy, and compassion. Maybe if we just give them aid and comfort, they'll all be nice people. That's the left's mindset. Maybe if we all hold hands and sing "Give Peace a Chance," the bad guys will become good guys. Look what Clinton did in the face of terrorist attacks. Or, I should say, didn't do. Let's not take any action that would upset these hate mongers. Goodness, let's not take any action that might make them upset with President Clinton!. George Bush has taken a courageous, daring move to mount an all-out war against terrorism. He has placed the U.S. on a path to root out those who plot our demise and he intends to impose on them their demise. This is wise and patriotic policy, but anathema for the left. -- Are you turning your life topsy-turvy to lower your cholesterol? Don't bother. Cholesterol isn't the problem, so your efforts (and money) are being wasted.Are any of these statements correct? I wouldn't be surprised. Are they all correct? The powers that be seem to continually change their minds. Butter used to be bad for you. Now it's fine. Sugar used to be bad. Substitutes used to be good, but now they're bad. Meat was bad. Now it's good. It appears that if you wait long enough, any "present danger" will be re-catalogued as "fine and dandy". How can one sort out fact from fiction? How can one make proper decisions regarding diet and all other aspects of health management? I suppose there's no really satisfying answer to that question. We must each take responsibility for our own lives and not count on others to have perfect wisdom. More and more in this day and age, it seems those we used to trust are dispensing information that may make a greater contribute to their incomes than to our wellbeing. I've been interested in this matter because of its broader significance, both then and today: Would the U.S. government strive to keep the citizenry in ignorance about such a cataclysmic historical event? Or would every effort be made to uncover the truth and present it, no matter what the consequences, to the public? I'm amazed there's anyone brazen enough now, after looking at the evidence, to maintain the theory Oswald and only Oswald killed Kennedy. Just look at the Abraham Zapruder film carefully (it's shown several times in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" DVD; see also a critique). You'll see that as JFK raises his hands to about chin level, his head appears to "explode" and it is violently thrown back to his left, with the impact of a bullet. But the Book Depository, where Oswald was allegedly doing the shooting, was behind the President. Shots from there would only thrust the head forward! So there must have been at least two shooters. Yet, Arlen Specter's "single-bullet theory" remains the official explanation for Kennedy's assassination. And many in government today cling to that explanation in spite of overwhelming evidence, logic, and the laws of physics. I saw Gerald Ford on TV recently reiterating that Oswald acted alone. So, if the government is content to blatantly lie to us over such an important matter as the killing of a president, I can only assume the government can and will lie to us about other matters, big and small. No, I don't believe George Bush lied to us to get us into war in Iraq. I think he is immeasurably more truthful than his predecessor. But the government is not GWB alone. I think the inescapable conclusion is that our government has deceived us, is no doubt deceiving us right now, and will continue to deceive us in the future. For a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," this is intolerable. However, I noticed a series of tiny little letters and numbers at the bottom of the sheet. I cut them off before filling out the form and mailing it in. Some time later, I got a notice in the mail stating I hadn't returned the survey. Apparently the tiny little letters and numbers were as I suspected, a unique identification of me, in spite of assurances to the contrary. In my younger days I regularly watched the major TV network news programs, but then decided I don't want to be indoctrinated with leftist propaganda, and I haven't watched them since. Why would I wish to voluntarily subject myself to liberal brain washing? I used to enjoy watching "60 Minutes" on CBS. Then I saw "The 60-Minute Deception" video which reveals the hatchet job performed on NewsMax founder Chris Ruddy. I never want to see that program again. Moreover, I have no choice but to conclude that CBS and Mike Wallace ("60-Minutes" host) are equally complicit in the Ruddy smear. Now more than ever people realize the mainstream media are biased, strongly left-leaning, and shameless in their attack on anything conservative. And yet, countless numbers of conservatives continue their subscriptions to the New York Times, Time, and a host of other propaganda vehicles, and they spend "quality" time watching ABC, CBS, and NBC "news" programs on TV. I got a good engineering education at the University of Michigan (I still root for the football team), but over the years I've learned how influential U of M has been in the battle against conservative principles. Although I've given generously to another Michigan college, I haven't given one red cent (pun intended) to my alma matter. I think conservatism, freedom, and "the American Way" will be greatly advanced if we conservatives stop our support of those institutions dedicated to fighting what we believe in. But this endeavor has a decidedly negative consequences, for it focuses me on the many problems we face in politics and society. It directs my energies toward bad things: ills and evils I feel I must address. I need to take more time to focus on what's good in the world and the U.S. I need to thank my lucky stars for the multitude of blessings I enjoy, and all too often take for granted. Look around the globe and I think you'll find most people live in poverty. The riches we enjoy in this country are unique and spectacular. In spite of all our woes and worries, we are a lucky lot. We ought to realize that and acknowledge how truly fortunate we are. To be in good health, to have a kind and caring family, to have genuine and honest friends, to be well fed, well clothed, and living in a fine home are blessings billions of good people never realize. To be lucky enough to be American citizens who enjoy a degree of freedom and opportunity unmatched everywhere else in the world and anywhere else in history is something we should never take for granted. But, too often we do. I guess I need to depart from my usual tirade and this week at least pause and contemplate how truly fortunate I am. The media sell pain, misery, and despair -- and so, I suppose, do I -- but let me deviate from that message at least this once and strike a tone of thankfulness, humbleness, and reverence. Louis Farrakhan, organizer of the march, ranted on and on -- it seemed like it would never end -- about how blacks have been deprived of decent jobs, decent housing, decent wages, decent lives, etc., etc. He emoted to the assembled multitude how whites have been so cruel, so mean, so evil. He shouted that blacks should have their own land, their own country, that they should control their own destinies. His rhetoric droned on for three or more hours, as I recall. And somewhere during his tirade, I came to a realization. His preaching wasn't about tolerance, it was about intolerance. His teaching wasn't about getting along, it was about not getting along. His message wasn't about integration, it was about segregation and separation. I thought to myself: this man is spreading hate. As I saw it, whites had made enormous efforts and enormous progress accommodating blacks, assisting them, creating an environment where the two races could live together in peace and harmony, yet Farrakhan was sowing distrust, anger, and revenge. It was like you were working hard to get along with a next-door neighbor, only to discover the neighbor was plotting your demise. So what black leader stepped forward to disavow what Farrakhan had proclaimed? Not one. Jesse Jackson was silent. Al Sharpton was silent. There were no words spoken in opposition to Farrakhan's invective. And of course no white man spoke a word of opposition either. What are blacks to think? I suppose many are convinced whites hate them, whites plot against them, and indeed whites are the devil Farrakhan made them out to be. Why is it this destructive message is allowed to prevail? I suppose because liberals use it to round up black votes and conservatives are too worried about sounding cruel and uncaring to even discuss the matter. So all these "poverty" programs are giving your money and mine to folks who are pretty well off, it would seem. Robert Rector, author of the article that accompanied the table, said, "The bulk of the 'poor' live in material conditions that would have been judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation." Rector continues, "As a group the poor are far from being chronically under-nurished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100% above recommended levels." In conclusion, Rector states, "Still, in a sense, the poor will always be with us. The liberal grievance industry needs an abundant supply of apparent victims to keep its motors running. Without a permanent victim class, liberals cannot survive. Thus, in liberal imagination and rhetoric, the microwave must always be bare." (About 73% of "poor" households own a microwave.) Dr. Lehr continues, "The money comes largely from the sale of a single product: Fear. Scare people about dozens of environmental threats; offer to demand that governments 'do something' to overcome those threats; and sit back as the money pours in." There's only one trouble: the fears are fabrications. As is true with much of the rhetoric from the Left, the environmental message is constructed of lies. The Alar scare, the danger of DDT, the threat that man's actions cause global warming, acid rain, the ozone hole, asbestos, radon, PCBs, freon -- the list goes on and on. What troubles me is that when one deception is exposed, there are no consequences. The ESI skips merrily on with its other tricks and illusions. Stephen Schneider endorsed Lowell Ponte's book The Cooling, but then 13 years later wrote his own book, Global Warming and no one asks, "So which is it?" and "Why should we believe you?" DDT has been described as one of the most valuable and useful concoctions ever produced. It has no detrimental effects on the environment or animals or humans, but it remains banned. As Dr. Lehr notes, "Worldwide, a child dies of malaria every 30 seconds. The vast majority of these lives would not be lost if the Environmental Scare Industry did not continue to block the use of DDT." ESI representative Stephen Schneider let the cat out of the bag when he said, "we have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment], make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have . . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." So there you have it. The ESI can be effective or it can be honest. It has clearly chosen the former. You may have heard that the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a District Court decision that bans grace before evening meals at Virginia Military Institute (source). The Citadel has acquiesced to its assailants, announcing it will also ban prayers rather than risk the expense of a lawsuit (ibid). Demonstrating its bravado and audacity, the ACLU announced it will award a prize to anyone who discovers a Ten Commandments monument which can be used as a basis for the next ACLU lawsuit to remove the monument (ibid). You must know that our national motto, "In God We Trust" is in the ACLU cross hairs. And I'm sure you've heard that Christmas carols are now banned from numerous schools across the country. Even the word "Christmas" has been stricken from some school calendars, replaced by such insulting monikers as "Winter Recess" or "December Break". The ACLU has a conniption fit over the display of the Ten Commandments, but apparently is completely indifferent to the U.S. Post Office release of a stamp celebrating Muslims( USPS release - Article - Article). You'd think they'd go "postal", but apparently there's nary a raised eyebrow at ACLU Central. So it seems clear the ACLU is not concerned about the separation of church and state, but rather the separation of Christianity and America. And why would that be? First, many of the elite in this country are atheists, and they wish to impose their religion -- atheism -- on one and all (see this week's "Must-Read" item). They bristle over the idea that Christian symbols might be displayed in the public square, but they're perfectly comfortable imposing their atheistic ideology on Christians. Second, they have concluded that their goal of a socialist America can't be achieved as long as Christian values -- moral values -- dominate the culture. So they're doing their part to achieve their political ends. And third, with help from their liberal brethren presiding in courts across the land, they're anxious to weaken even further the First Amendment and its guarantees of religious freedom, because by so doing, they weaken all the Amendments and indeed the foundation of our Constitutional government. The ACLU view of America's future is in sharp contrast with the view held by most patriotic Americans. America is not yet a secular society, but it appears on its way. The last chapter, "Conclusion: Why They Hate Us," is particularly good, and an Alexis de Tocqueville quotation there (page 289) is for me worth the price of the whole book: "[W]hile the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash or unjust." No words could be more significant or apropos today. They reveal the real danger liberals pose to this country. It's liberals, it should go without saying, who want to remove "annoying" reminders, like the Ten Commandments, that conduct must be constrained by morality. It's liberals who are spraying a gigantic can of "God-Be-Gone" from sea to shining sea. Liberals are the ones who preside over and encourage the moral degradation of America. They're the ones who want to allow the murder of unborn citizens. They're the ones who want no-fault, anytime-the-spirit-moves-you divorce. They're the ones who endorse and celebrate homosexuality. They're the ones who vigorously support and spread pornography, smut, and all manner of indecent expression. Howard Stern is no conservative. Nor is Larry Flynt. Nor Hugh Hefner. Or much of Hollywood and much of the recording industry. And when moral restraints are removed, what is the result? Immorality, debasement, malevolence -- the liberal's wish list. In her book Ann Coulter shatters the illusion that liberals are just as patriotic as conservatives, that liberals are as interested in our freedom as are conservatives, that liberals are just as anxious to support the Constitution and endorse American values as are conservatives. Of course liberals will rise up -- actually, they've already risen up -- in outrage over Treason. They'll say she has no right to castigate liberals, even though her allegations are substantiated with 47 pages of footnotes and references. They'll say she is mean spirited, hateful, and callous. They'll say her analysis, insight, and observations are not helpful and will engender antagonism and divisiveness. For liberals nothing should be restrained or controlled . . . except conservatives. The threat of communism -- posed by the Chinese?Before I give you my answer, let me make an observation. While thirteen sources of threats are listed, many -- as it turns out, ten of the thirteen -- are liberals, so our enemies fall into only a few different categories: the Communist Chinese, Muslims, liberals, and politicians (many of whom -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- are liberals). I consider the most threatening: growing immorality in the world and moral degradation in this country in particular. If our leaders and the general public were a little more interested in following the Ten Commandments rather than removing them from public view, I think we'd all be better off. Moreover, many of the other threats facing us today would be curtailed if not eradicated if moral principles were more in practice. And another point: none of the other threats, if lessened, would greatly reduce the dangers we now face unless morality is rejuvenated and given a greater role in the conduct of U.S. and world affairs. "I will . . . abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion."I understand doctors are no longer required to take the oath, and I understand many doctors do not take it. I guess the politically correct taking of a life in the womb now, for many, overwhelms decades of dedication to life. I've been told by a knowledgeable nurse that many (most?) hospitals have a room (hidden away from view) reserved for the performance of abortions. Are we to believe institutions ostensibly dedicated to healing are simultaneously dedicated to murder? If life is not worth saving in the womb, where else is it not worth saving? In the elderly? In the diseased? In the disfigured? In the incapacitated? But aren't these precisely the ones the medical profession should be caring for? As society -- well, liberals, really -- devalue life, denigrate the family, and demean moral values, it should be quite clear that these attitudes and their inevitable consequences will lead us to ruin. Who demonized and destroyed Senator Joe McCarthy and his campaign to rid this country of communists intent on subverting our freedoms? Who conducted highly efficient propaganda campaigns to convince Americans "McCarthyism" was evil, when in fact the decrypted Venona cables prove conclusively Senator Joe was doing the U.S.A. a necessary and monumental service? Who knew about Stalin's intentional mass starvation of seven million Soviet citizens in the 1930s, but choose to report to our citizens none of that news fit to print? Who set out on a deliberate and vicious crusade to discredit and vilify the John Birch Society? JBS, as it turns out, had focused its attentions on rooting out communists and communist influences from the federal government. But the anti-JBS crowd was determined to root out John Birchers, and they were remarkably successful. Who gave away to the communists our Panama Cannel, which was to be America's territory in perpetuity, and is absolutely vital to a two-ocean navy and U.S. commerce? Well, the canal was given to the Panamanians, but for all intents and purposes, it's in the hands of communists, for controlling both ends is the Hong Kong-based company Hutchison Whampoa Ltd, which has ties to Beijing and the communist Chinese military PLA. Who gave away incalculably vital national security information to the Chinese communists? It was a "gift" in exchange for illegal campaign contributions to the Democrat party. Doesn't it tell you something that communists back the Democrat party? The answer to all these questions: It's the left. It's liberals who favor communism, because they favor centralized control, they favor massively powerful governments, and in the final analysis, they favor oppression of the people over freedom. Yes, it's the liberal elite from Hollywood and the liberal politicians who flock to Cuba to fawn over Fidel. It was the liberal mainstream media that smeared and snuffed out Joe McCarthy. It was liberal Walter Duranty, writing for the liberal New York Times who knew about Stalin's atrocities, but chose to remain silent on the subject, while at the same time the newspaper was showering communist dictator Stalin with lavish praise. It was liberal Jimmy Carter who give away the Panama Canal, an absolutely crucial waterway necessary for our national defense. It was Bill Clinton who gave away many of our top military secrets to communist China. And it was the liberal mainstream media that did the hatchet job on the John Birch Society. (Think my criticism's too harsh? Read Ann Coulter's book, Treason.) And yet, when election time rolls around, millions of patriotic Americans will line up at the polling places to pull the levers for liberals. It's a little like pulling the levers at a game of Russian Roulette, with the gun barrel pointed at America's future. And if there are any really stupid people, like those who said they couldn't vote correctly in the 2000 election, then there's the Tenth Amendment to elucidate their understanding. It says, ever so simply, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And when it says "are reserved to the States . . . or to the people" it means that the feds are out of the picture! But, oh no, that's not what the liberals want, so they choose to ignore that part about the federal government having no role with religion. What's regrettable is that something so absolutely obvious is today overwhelmed by emotional shouts and shrieks. "Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state!" What Jefferson meant by those words has been cleverly reinterpreted, with a meaning exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the original intent. Jefferson's point: an impenetrable wall of separation exists between the federal government and religion, not all government and religion. Note that the left is only able to advance its cause by misrepresentation, deceit, and treachery. His calling to the law was to serve others, and he considered his practice noble work. He enjoyed counseling his clients in legal matters, seeing justice done. He was on the ethics committee of the Detroit Bar Association. Today I believe he would be ashamed of the profession he once so prized. I remember his commenting that lawyers shouldn't advertize, because it wasn't "professional". It wasn't dignified. Such commercialism transferred his call to service, he thought, into nothing more than a money game. That wasn't the god he wished to serve. I wonder how many lawyers like Dad are left. Ten percent? Twenty percent? I'd like to think more, but I doubt it. "Winning", billable time, and billion-dollar class-action lawsuits now seem to be at the top of the lawyers' priority list. Justice, service, even ethics seem to be way down on the list; or even off the list entirely. I fear the liberals are in the lead, for they control the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, the education establishment (K through PHD), many large and powerful (and wealthy) foundations, apparently a majority of the legal community, and much of the rank and file of government - local, state, federal - bureaucracy. Many conservatives, I think, see the recent Republican election successes and surmise that the conservative cause is advancing big time. Yes, Republicans have been winning elections and presently control the U.S. House, Senate, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But while Republican numbers are up, it seems many conservative causes are down. Even George W., it seems, feels compelled to embrace liberal positions on major issues. Apparently his sense is that the citizens lean more left than right, and he chooses to lean with them. How can conservatives believe we are winning the "game" when most kids, in all their formative years, are being indoctrinated, big time, with a big-government mindset, a hate-the-U.S. philosophy, a private-property-is-wrong perspective, and an all-conservatives-are-evil orientation? I would guess that at least 90% of what U.S. kids, for the first 16 years or so, see on TV, read in magazines and newspapers, hear in their "music", and see in the movie houses is laced with a leftist spin. What amazes me is not that the liberals have been so successful, but that they haven't been more successful, given their overwhelmingly powerful position in all the mind-molding institutions and industries. If I had to guess, I'd say the score is about 65 to 35, in favor of the liberals. And this is bologna! Is the U.S. just the same as any other country? (No, the U.S. is the best.) Is one lifestyle any better than the others? (Yes, heterosexual behavior is the best.) Are murderers and rapists equally as good for society as law-abiding citizens? (Duh!) I wonder if liberals care just as much for all children in the world as they do for their own children. I wonder if liberals, in their quest for non-judgmentalism, would withhold criticism of their spouse if he or she was unfaithful. Would they be uncritical of the thief who robbed their home? Would they remain non-judgmental of someone who raped their daughter? I don't think so. Being judgmental is the essence of life. It's called making choices and decisions. Do you wish to make wise choices and proper decisions? Then you must be judgmental. You must seek to discern one thing as better than another. Who would be so stupid as to go through life flipping coins whenever a decision was called for? And the grand irony: In their campaign for non-judgmentalism, liberals want all ideas tolerated (that enables their agenda); all ideas, that is, except conservative ideas. And this, I think, relates directly to the struggle between liberals and conservatives. As I see it, liberals tend to want freedom without morality, whereas conservatives want freedom with morality. The liberals are the ones who want pornography in our lives; unrestrained, widely distributed, available even to kids. Liberals want free sex, paid-for sex, any sex anytime. Liberals want to not only tolerate but encourage homosexual behavior. Liberals want same-sex marriage. Liberals want less religion, they want fewer religious people in government, they want to remove all symbols of religious (moral) significance from the public square. Liberals sometimes seem to exhibit more compassion for the criminal than for the victim. They want us all to be more tolerant of rape. In short, they want freedom, but a freedom without guilt, a freedom without constraints, a freedom with no morality. Conservatives want freedom, too, but with strong moral underpinnings. Conservatives recognize that morals -- like those taught in the Bible -- put a leash on freedom, but liberals don't recognize that without morality they become slaves to their own weaknesses. Bill Clinton was so enslaved by his sexual passions, he let them overwhelm everything else. And it was only liberals who rushed to his defense to claim, wrongly, that what he was doing was just a private matter. In the name of freedom, liberals wish to cut the chains of moral constraints, but ironically, they wish, simultaneously, to impose, through governmental action, their amoral lifestyle upon the rest of us. Then I got to thinking. Where is all this hardware manufactured? Where did my dollars go to get this high-powered system? So I looked at the tags. I'm pretty sure the CPU was produced in China. The keyboard was made in Thailand. The display was made in Taiwan. The printer came from China, as did the speakers, mouse, and surge protector. So, is this country completely out of the personal computer manufacturing business? Are all the jobs to produce computer components overseas? (The FedEx guy who delivered my computer told me he delivers about three computers every day on his route.) Well, no. I forgot to mention: my new mouse pad was made in the good old U.S.A. It's wonderful to have low prices on high-tech products. Of course. But what will become of our economy if the rest of the world is making advanced equipment while we're just stamping out cheap and crummy mouse pads? (More on this subject.) Just what was it exactly that entitled her to all the fawning, adulation, and hoopla? Did she achieve some great military accomplishment? No, I don't think so. As I understand the story, she was in a vehicle that crashed (driven apparently by a woman, who died in the incident) and Jessica was severely injured. She was unable to use her weapon, it has been reported, because it jammed. She was taken to an Iraqi hospital where she may have been treated badly. An Iraqi citizen, at great risk to himself and his family, informed U.S. military forces of her whereabouts. Members of a special team, at great risk to themselves, raided the hospital and rescued her. She was moved to Germany where she received medical treatment, then moved to Washington, DC for more treatment. So, tell me once again what it was she did that qualifies her to receive the reception of a conquering hero. Oh, wait. She's a woman! I guess that's enough to merit the governor of the state appearing at the ceremony to praise her and commend her. I guess that's enough to get national news media to cover the event. I guess that's enough to interrupt radio and TV programs for a live report. I guess that's enough to beam around the world images of her triumphant return home. If you're a man, you have to actually do something heroic and notable to get such acclaim. "Today's moral relativism and selfish agendas are moving through the body of society like a cancer, putting all of us at risk."Interesting reading. . . . you to be unable to protect yourself -- at least with any gun.Whereas conservatives want . . . . . . freedom. Is diversity of religion something all schools should seek? No. Diversity of political views -- liberal and conservative? Goodness no! Diversity of intellect? Well, of course not; that's ridiculous. The questions would have to asked: How many idiots is enough? How many is too few? So, is it diversity of student height? Weight? Hair color? Left-handedness and right-handedness? No, no, no, and no. Only skin color diversity is embraced by the Supreme Court, ruling that all men are not created equal. Or perhaps the proper language would be that some men are just created more equal than others. The egalitarian Left is not content with the concept "all men are created equal." Leftists continue their harangue that all men must be made equal by the state. The Founding Fathers must be retching in their graves. "Britton Chance, a biophysicist at the University of Pennsylvania leads [a lie-detector] headband project, which uses near-infrared light to peek at the brain's prefrontal cortex, where decisions are made -- and where lies are born. Research subjects wearing the headband are told to answer some questions truthfully and others deceptively. The moment a subject makes the decision to lie, before even uttering it, there's a milliseconds-long burst of blood flow. Those bursts are read by the sensors and show up as spikes on a laptop computer." [Lucky for Hillary she finished her book before the headband is perfected.] . . . Critics agree. 'There's only one thing worse than a lie detector that doesn't work, and that's a lie detector that does work,' said physicist Robert Park, a longtime polygraph critic. 'It's the last invasion of privacy that you can imagine, and it frightens me that we seem to be almost able to do it.'"As with all technology, these developments can be used for good or evil . . . or both. I sort of like the first device. Just imagine if politicians had to wear the headband whenever they gave a speech! Who knows where these technologies will eventually lead us? That being the case, how do you explain this news item I came across recently: "Between six and eight million people living in America are dual-citizens -- implying that they share their political and ideological loyalty between America and some other country? (Source: "Dual Citizens," Border Alert, May 2003, page 3. Address: U.S. Border Control, 8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1070, McLean, Virginia 22102. Website.) I chose that excerpt not because of its reference to religion, but in spite of the reference. I chose the excerpt because of its emphasis on the role responsibility plays in the exercise of freedom. Maybe a few examples will better illustrate the point I wish to make: -- Many blacks have relinquished some of their freedom by acquiescing to the liberal proposition that they are unable to succeed in life without government assistance in the form of affirmative action and other programs. Some blacks, such as Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and others, have chosen to assume full responsibility for their destinies and have achieved great success as a result.One of the e-mails I received said, "I thought the writer's point of view was 'interesting and largely accurate.' [But,] he made one huge error: to wit, '. . . people pay tribute to churches (tithes) . . .' Clearly, [the author] has no clue what constitutes tithing! Perhaps, he thought to enhance his erudite bona fides by indicating that he was familiar with the term. According to the figures that I have seen, only around 10% of the world-wide Christian populace practices tithing. As you can likely appreciate, members of this minority group would hardly fit the mold of those who are shifting their responsibilities. He pushed it one set of parentheses too far and, thereby, invalidated half of his argument!" I agree with this. With his harangue against religion, the author discredited much of what he said. But textbooks in the government schools are trying to revise that simple language, which The Federalist Papers make clear relates to the individual's right to own and use weapons. Look how liberals are trying to corrupt the Second Amendment: "A citizen's right to bear arms is related to the maintenance of a militia." It astounds me that "history" writers would choose to be so deceitful, dishonest, so despicable in their representation of "facts". If they are so blatant with revisionism, how can school kids believe anything in their text books? And how can parents tolerate their offspring being exposed to such propaganda? The above quotes are from "Textbooks and the Second Amendment," America's First Freedom, June 2003, page 28. Address: National Rifle Association of America, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, Virginia 22030-9400. Phone: 703-267-1000. Website. What % of U.S. judges sometimes make rulings they know are improper or unjustReviewing my answers, I conclude I have a rather grim view of the moral climate in America. I wonder if your guesses are more optimistic. Many liberals apparently reject religion and in fact "fear" conservatives who believe it's "wrong" (it conflicts with their core values) to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and even to kill. Liberals wish their own kind -- those with "dubious" core values -- to be in public office and make public policy decisions. Many citizens prefer liberals in office, it would seem, because this gives them license to behave in ways many conservatives consider improper, imprudent, or just plain wrong. Liberals had no trouble endorsing Bill Clinton's Oval Office conduct (though a CEO, school principal, or church leader exhibiting the same activity would be canned on the spot), for it empowered them to engage in similar conduct. They were quick to excuse Clinton's perjury to a grand jury (an absolutely illegal act), because it made more acceptable their lying with their income tax or with business transactions. It's your set of core values that convinces you that homosexuality is OK or it's not; that bugs and biomass are more or less important than human beings; that animals have or have not as many "rights" as people; that government should or should not be significantly more powerful; and on and on. The bad news is that the instilling of core values is more and more an undertaking of the government schools. Correspondingly, it shifts more and more away from the home and the church or synagogue. Also: the mainstream media and Hollywood and most of our institutions of higher learning have been teaching core values to the public for decades, and almost everyone on the Right believes it's the wrong set of values. The sum of an individual's core values is generally referred to as his or her "character". Liberals don't like to talk about character because it's their soft underbelly. How would you prefer to die?And that's just the tip of the iceberg. School tests ask about drinking and/or drug use in the home. They ask if parents are divorced or never married. They ask how important religion is to the student. They ask about who died in the student's family. And a whole lot more. Why aren't the tests asking math questions, history questions, American government questions, science questions, etc., etc., instead? (Questions above from "A Student's Guide to Nosy Questions Your School Should Not Ask You" by the Eagle Forum, Media Bypass, April 2003, page 43. American Alternative Media LP, 4900 Tippecanoe Drive, Evansville, Indiana 47715-3234. E-mail. Website.) I asked if I should wait while the machine "did its thing". No, that wasn't necessary, I was assured. I won't bore you with all the details of my travel ordeal -- the lightening storm, the heavy rain as baggage was loaded onto the plane, the long delays, the late arrivals, etc. -- but when I finally arrived at the baggage claim area in Las Vegas and got my bag, I noticed all four locks I had used to secure the zipper openings were missing. In their place were four tough-plastic slide loops; miniature versions of the plastic "hand cuffs" used by police. I went to the American Airlines office for an explanation. I thought perhaps my locks had been cut and some contents stolen. No, she explained, there's a regulation now that all baggage must be unlocked for inspection. (Did you know that? I certainly didn't.) My locks had been severed and my bag searched. Wouldn't it have been nice to tell me about this before the fact rather than after. I was in my hotel room at 10:30 p.m. and only then realized the "other" result of the lock incident. The plastic loops were every bit as secure as my metal locks had been, but I didn't have a "key"! For the next hour and a half I tinkered, tugged, and tussled with those miserable loops. Obviously, I didn't have a sharp instrument to cut them because if I had, it would have been confiscated by airport security. I tried to force my car key into the middle of the tight loop, twist it, and break through the plastic. Then it occurred to me that I might twist or bend the key making it impossible to get my car started when I got back to Ft. Lauderdale! Then I had an inspiration. I'd use the iron in the room and melt the plastic. I turned the iron heat to high. Unfortunately, the unit was tethered to the ironing board, so I had trouble getting it to reach the little loops. I had everything spread out on the bed and I imagined the iron igniting the bed spread and burning down the whole room. This was a learning experience. I learned that a hot iron will not melt those miserable plastic loops. But, thankfully, it must have weakened them just a little. After more tugging, twisting, and turning, the plastic yielded. I was then able to get inside my bag and retrieve a pocket knife, which, surprisingly, was quite ineffective at cutting through the plastic of the other three loops. An attachment, a tiny scissors, thankfully did the trick. I got the four loops cut without setting the room on fire, without bending or breaking my car key, and without cutting myself, but it was after midnight (3 a.m. Florida time) before I was able to do so. Thanks, federal airport security people. (Are these folks taught by U.S. Post Office personnel?) However, it seems the agency wasn't very responsible and was simply dumping the materials in a field somewhere. Well, of course the government stepped in to assure the "spill" was cleaned up and to make certain laws that "protect the environment" are obeyed. But what action did the bureaucrats take? They sued the gas station owner, even though he did nothing unlawful or improper. He is now being hounded to clean up the "pollution" resulting from oil he had paid good money to be properly disposed of. It's a clean-up that will cost more than a million dollars, an amount he has no chance of ever raising. The government is also after a friend of mine, whose father -- some 40 years ago or so -- bought property and established a plating company. He carefully followed all the laws and regulations and had a successful business for many years. Then one day a federal government bureaucrat stopped by and explained the property had to be cleaned up. Because of improper handling of plating chemicals? Or because required disposal procedures had not been adhered to? Oh, no! A clean-up, costing millions, was demanded because a prior owner of the property -- in the late 1800s -- had not taken proper steps to dispose of the chemicals he used in his tanning business. His operations were in accord with laws at the time, but now the laws have changed and the government demands retribution from a subsequent owner who had nothing whatsoever to do with the tanning business. There may be good and honorable individuals in key government leadership positions, but many bureaucrats are buried deep in the bureaucracy. Consequently, they persevere from one administration to the next, and develop their own perspective and agenda. As I understand it, this is the very criticism Newt Gingrich is now leveling at the U.S. Department of State. It's not surprising. Corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence build up over time and the sheer size of the federal government assures that it only worsens over time. Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of museums and artifacts and antiquities, but if a Marine is shot and killed, he's gone forever, too. I just think the weenies have a disconnect with reality. And besides, it's not as if the museum was critically central to life in Baghdad. The building has been closed for about a decade or so.* And many artifacts apparently had been commandeered by the country's head archaeologist (Saddam) for display in his various "exhibition halls" (a.k.a.: palaces)* -- about the last place on earth in which any Baghdad resident would ever be allowed to set foot. In the final analysis, if the only criticism the weeneis can come up with is a trashed museum, that by itself is a pretty stunning tribute to the incredible success of the Iraqi Freedom campaign. Another factor I consider very serious is the perception that unleashed American might may now be able to eliminate any enemy and vanquish any foe. The idea that the U.S. can topple an evil regime and instill in its place a peaceful and free government is thrilling, but at the same time chilling. For it's a two-edged sword. That America can do and does do good deeds is surely gratifying, but with all its power and might it can do and has done bad deeds as well. We must not be lulled into a euphoria that condones any action the government might wish to undertake. We must not conclude that our armed forces have achieved a great good and thus will only undertake noble and worthy tasks. We must also continue to be cautious and suspicious of all central-government actions, for freedom is a zero-sum game. As the bureaucracy in Washington gets more and more powerful, it does so only at the expense of freedom for the citizens. How ironic, indeed, if our enthusiasm for America's quest to topple evil in Iraq and install good, empowers our own government to extend its reach and influence over everyday life here at home. We must resist the temptation to embrace the force what has freed an enslaved population, for that same force could also enslave the people here. We have been warned that "power corrupts", so we must be vigilant. We must be dedicated. We must be resolute. If we are not, then Walter William's prediction might just come to pass: "A historian writing 200 or 300 years from now might view the liberties that existed for a tiny portion of mankind's population, mostly in the western world, for only a tiny portion of its history, the last century or two, as a historical curiosity that defies explanation. That historian might also observe that the curiosity was only a temporary phenomenon and mankind reverted back to the traditional state of affairs -- arbitrary control and abuse." (Quote from Walter William's "Introduction" to The Law, by Frederic Bastiat, 1998, page vi. Published by: The Foundation for Economic Education, 30 South Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533. Phone: 914-591-7230.) Within the first hours of the war, Iraq fired Scud missiles -- that Hans Blix could not find and Saddam claimed not to have -- at American and British troops.But what will the liberals be yelping about next? That too many of the enemy were killed, too much Iraq infrastructure was destroyed, that WMD (yes, WMD will be found) wouldn't have been used by sweet and sensitive Saddam, and on and on. Oh yes, and that the war really was about oil, although anyone paying attention knows that's absolutely nonsensical. -- We compromise our principles to those who refuse to compromise, so as to leave their feathers unruffled. -- To show how open-minded we are, we allow our greatest adversaries to freely spread their propaganda throughout our land. We allow them to focus their anti-Americanism on our most vulnerable, the children in our public schools. -- To demonstrate our compassion, we side with sympathy for the criminal, not his target, and in the process we dilute and dissemble justice. -- To pander to those atheistic or agnostic, we voluntarily remove all things spiritual from our schools, airways, print media, movies, and even the public square. We rewrite many of our sacred Christmas carols and centuries-old traditions to cleanse them of any religious overtones. -- We surrender to the eco-extremists and their agenda which is disguised as benign environmental platitudes. -- To placate feminist extremists, our military allows women to join the front lines, thereby weakening our force and subjecting women -- whom we should endeavor to protect -- to great danger, capture, even torture. -- We insult and belittle blacks by assuming they are unable to compete with whites without affirmative action and other prejudicial programs. -- In our race to multiculturalism, we praise the ways of other peoples and nations, while we deride and demonize our own culture and achievements. -- To avoid accusations of xenophobia, we open our borders to all manner of thugs, drug smugglers, those with serious communicable diseases, and our most vicious enemies. -- Rather than hurt the feelings of the sodomy sector, we not only tolerate a dangerous homosexual activity, we embrace it. We even encourage it aggressively with programs in K through 12 and beyond. -- We remain mute and placid in the face of wave after wave of assault on the family. -- We look the other way when pornography and/or blasphemy, masquerading as art, are funded -- and therefore encouraged -- by our taxpayer dollars. Those who hate America, those who wish us harm, those who scheme our demise must be very proud. After reflecting briefly on how bizarre that thought was, I got myself settled comfortably in an easy chair in my safe, comfortable home, in my safe, gated community, and watched the war with Iraq unfold on the screen before me. This is almost like a football game. I'm rooting for my "team", America, while thousands of nincompoops are running around the streets of this country with signs and shouts rooting for their "team", Iraq. Thank goodness my team is winning! How could the U.S. of A. disintegrate to the point where so many "Americans" so loathe America? How can a country with such abundance, success, and freedom cultivate a crop of citizens with such anger and resentment toward this land of opportunity? I believe the answer is that Marxist, leftist influences have invaded and heavily influenced many of our major cultural institutions -- schools, media, the entertainment industry -- and we the people have not been sufficiently diligent in countering their attacks. Terrorists around the world are not the only foes of America. Many right here at home despise us with as much intensity. And all too often, wish us as much destruction. [R]ecycling household waste is a load of, well, rubbish, say leading environmentalists and waste campaigners. . . . [T]hey argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food left-overs is better for the environment and the economy than recycling. . . . The assertions, likely to horrify many environmentalists, are made by five campaigners from Sweden, a country renowned for its concern for the environment and advanced approach to waste. . . . The use of incineration to burn household waste -- including packaging and food -- 'is best for the environment, the economy and the management of natural resources,' they wrote in an article for the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. . . . Recycled bottles cost glass companies twice as much as the raw materials, and recycling plastics was uneconomical, they said. 'Plastics are made from oil and can quite simply be incinerated.' [From: "A Load of Rubbish? Swedes Trash Old Wisdom of Recycling," by David Harrison, The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, March 10-16, 2003, page 24. Address: 3600 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002. E-mail. Website.]Just like so many other "remedies" offered by the Left, recycling, apparently, is largely symbolism over substance. Let's do something that feels good, even if it doesn't make economic sense. And there you have the nub of it: the Leftists imposing their intellectual "solutions" on society, rather than letting natural market forces (i.e. economics) and freedom determine outcomes. If you worry about the next terrorist attack, the next stock market downturn, the next bad business report, then I suggest you head for Uganda, where you can totally immerse yourself in animal watching, hiking through the forests, cruising on the rivers, and all manner of other grand diversions. There's no better prescription, I'd say, for getting "out of this world" than a serious appointment with nature. And Uganda can provide it. There's really only one major drawback. Eventually, you have to come home. But that's not all bad. While the terrorist network is still active, the stock market weak, and business iffy, I now have a mountain of magic memories to reflect upon and vie for my attention. Moreover, I have a video tape filled with sights and sounds of hippos, crocodiles, lions, elephants, gorillas, and numerous other animals, plus magnificent scenes from the Uganda countryside: flat savannahs, steep mountains, inactive volcano craters, banana plantations, tea plantations, schools, communities, and more. For years I've had a special fondness for Africa -- I've been there a half-dozen times or more -- and now I have a special fondness for Uganda as well. "[B]uying American is a term that goes much deeper than looking for the 'Made in USA' label."Roger says many companies we take for granted as being American, are actually foreign owned. Some examples: 7-Eleven, GNC, CompUSA, Holiday Inn, Dunkin' Donuts, Shell. As the book explains, to buy American "is sometimes more easily said than done." However, How Americans Can Buy American, can be a valuable reference for all those who wish to achieve that goal. It occurs to me that my hot chocolate is the U.S. immigration problem in microcosm. Too much immigration, like we've experienced since the mid-1960s (and Ted Kennedy's legislation), and it lumps together, never blends properly, and produces an unsatisfactory mixture. If we'd only slow down the influx, we might achieve a rich and satisfying meld of ingredients. A week or two ago I got an "Explanation of Benefits" statement indicating approval for medication charges -- just for the eight tablets -- of $236.79! I went back to the drug store and asked the clerk to correct the records. She told me the order had been entered into the computer system once, then deleted, then entered a second time, then deleted, then entered a third and final time. Apparently, the first and second entries weren't deleted. Nevertheless, that would put the price of the drug at about $90, or around $11 per tablet! They probably cost maybe 25 cents apiece. Heck, maybe two or three cents apiece. Some mark-up! But the drug store clerk said she couldn't correct the records. I'd have to call the company, which I tried to do, but found there was no telephone number on the "Explanation of Benefits" statement. So I wrote a letter explaining the whole situation. I haven't received any response so far. I may never receive a response. Some clerk somewhere may decide it's too much trouble to correct the records. Worse, he or she may attempt to correct the records and only compound the error. Meanwhile, I'm wondering how many thousands of times (millions?) similar outrageous billings have been passed along through the system without correction. How many millions of dollars (billions?) have been paid to drug stores and other health facilities as a result of billing errors? Most people, I presume, aren't motivated to follow up on such over-charges. After all, there's next to no motivation to do so. I don't get any refund when the records are corrected. So the costs go out of sight, everyone wonders why, and the government rushes in to "fix" things. Take a few minutes to read through the U.S. Constitution. You won't find a word in it that allows the federal government to provide drug benefits to the citizens. If we human beings did indeed evolve from the ape and/or chimpanzee, why is it that not one of the evolutionary "beings" between them and us is around? Clearly, if an ape or chimpanzee descendant was robust enough to endure and have further descendants which evolved into Homo sapiens, how come these "intermediate" beings are in evidence nowhere?And the same can be said about all the other amazingly unique animals on earth like elephants and giraffes. How come there aren't any "half-way" critters between their evolutionary "parents" and them? It's rather significant, I think, that Charles Darwin made the statement, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Yet, his "apostles" continue to merrily sing the "Evolution-made-us-all" song in blind faith a theory that explains some adaptations explains all creation. (Darwin quote source: Whistleblower, August 2002, page 27.) I was interested in a couple of observations forwarded to me in an e-mail dated November 13, 2002 (thanks, Bob): Question: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? Answer: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate.The Republicans need to let the American people know all the "wonderful" things Democrats have done with Social Security. First, what a racist isn't. A racist is never a Black, a Hispanic, or alien (legal or illegal, but particularly illegal). A racist is never a woman. And there is a group of white males that is never racist. That group has a special name: "liberals". When Trent Lott alludes to states rights, as (ostensibly) protected by the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, he's a racist. But Robert Byrd, who used the word "nigger" several times on national TV not too long ago, is not a racist, because he's in the protected group of liberals. Consequently, it's clear a racist is anyone who's a White and a conservative (or in Lott's case, one who occasionally supports conservative causes). All the Whites who owned slaves two to three hundred years ago were racists. None of the Blacks who owned slaves back then were racists. All of the Founders were racists. Anyone who doesn't support reparations is a racist. Anyone who doesn't vote for a black candidate is a racist. Anyone who doesn't like someone who is Black is a racist. Any White nominated by George Bush is a racist. And of course George Bush himself is a terrible racist. In other words, a racist is anyone who the Left believes can be demonized for the Left's political advantage. (Supporting evidence.) And that's the vocabulary lesson for today. Well, according to reports I've heard, Bill Clinton has now collected more than ten times that amount (twenty times?), 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 faces give 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.  Thoughts for 1999. Thoughts for 2000. Thoughts for 2001. Thoughts for 2002.The way back home. |
