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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Crazy Scenario
Posted here for 6-15-09

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

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

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

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

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

The media seek a means of removing him from office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the peasants rejoiced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alliance with Alinsky
Posted here for 5-18-09

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

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

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

The DiscoverTheNetworks website states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These scientific developments won't change Al Gore's mind, or any other leftist politician's mind. That's because the global warming issue has nothing to do with CO2. It has everything to do with implementing a political agenda, a leftist political agenda. Obama's cap and trade scheme, for example, is proceeding at full speed. Science has shown there is absolutely no need for it, but that doesn't matter. As Timothy Wirth said in 1990, "We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning from History
Posted here for 4-20-09


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Source of graphic.]

White Slaves
Posted here for 4-13-09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four Simple Questions
Posted here for 3-30-09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accomplishments
Posted here for 3-23-09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking Ahead
Posted here for 3-9-09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's change you can believe in.

Lots of Questions
Posted here for 3-2-09

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

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

And these are only a few of the questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must turn this ship around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transforming Society
Posted here for 1-19-09



There are some who seem to have an uncontrollable urge to transform something with natural beauty into something really rather ugly. To them, presumably, the God-given characteristics of their own faces, for example, must be "enhanced" by hideous piercings, tattoos, and other disfigurations.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe the vast number of beholders would judge the alterations above unattractive, distasteful, even repulsive.

And so it is on the political scene. What if someone comes along anxious to transform our political system into something most Americans would consider foreign, inappropriate, or totally unacceptable? What if he or she wishes to remake our society into his or her distorted, convoluted vision of society? Very often it is difficult or impossible to restore conditions to their original state after dramatic transformations have been achieved.

Thus, we must be especially suspicious of the politician who beguiles us with honey-sweet words and alluring rhetoric. Once in power, such a person may take action directly in opposition to the people's desires.

We must be vigilant in the selection of our leaders.

(Photos from the Internet. Photographers not known.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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