Archives: August 2006
Thu Aug 31, 2006
The Problem...
GATORADE IS NOT THE PROBLEM By Bob Lonsberry
Toiletries don’t commit acts of terrorism. Muslims do.
So why can’t I take my toothpaste on the plane? How is it that
Gatorade is forbidden? Why can’t I have a bottle of water?
Because we aren’t really fighting a war with terror; we are losing a
struggle with political correctness. It is not so much the evil of
outsiders; it is the cowardice of Americans.
The cowardice that won’t let us call a spade a spade, that makes us all
live in an alternate reality, that puts survival secondary to
servility. We are fighting World War III with one arm tied behind our
backs.
Last week was a good example. A group of two or three-dozen fascist
Muslims in England and Pakistan plotted to blow up 10 or 12 passenger-
laden airliners in transatlantic flight. The purpose was to celebrate
and reprise the attacks of September 11th. The means was the
detonation of explosive liquids disguised as common liquids - like
Gatorade or shampoo. The plot was discovered, followed and, hopefully,
foiled by British intelligence with an assist from Americans and
Pakistanis. Immediately, new restrictions were put on airline
passengers. Because the plotters planned to use liquids, passengers
were forbidden to bring liquids onto airplanes.
Not medicines, not creams, not drinks, not nothing. Untold hundreds of
thousands of airline passengers immediately and indefinitely lost the
right to carry liquids or pastes on themselves or in their carry-on
luggage.
Which is stupid. Because Gatorade’s not the problem. Muslims are the
problem.
Can we be honest enough to just admit that for a minute? The plotters
uncovered in England were all Muslims. They all had Muslim names. All
but one or two of them were of Pakistani descent. They were motivated
by religious bigotry. They wanted to kill because they were Muslim,
and they wanted to kill the people they wanted to kill because they
weren’t Muslim.
Yet political correctness forbids us from mentioning that, much less
acting upon it.
In fact, on the ABC network news over the weekend, the plotters were
called, “British Extremists” - as if somehow the fact they were in
Great Britain was defining of their extremism! The fact is they were
Muslim extremists, but the American media is so in bed with the
diversity-training crowd that this fact cannot be mentioned.
Also on American newscasts over the weekend, the story was told of
three men buying thousands of disposable and untraceable cell phones,
an activity with possible terrorist linkages. Not surprisingly, very
few accounts noted that the men were Muslims with Muslim names.
Political correctness has sanitized this fight to such an extent that
we are not allowed to even identify the enemy.
Which is not toothpaste. It is Islam.
It is an Islam practiced by tens of millions of people around the world
and which repeatedly and consistently puts armies and cells of
terrorists in action around the world. No doubt there are peace-loving
Muslims, it’s just that they have an amazing capacity for keeping a low
profile - or demanding that people respect their religion.
Our desire not to offend Muslims and their culture stands great
potential to cost American lives. Countless American lives.
Here’s what I mean: Let’s lay aside political correctness for a moment
and use scientific analysis; let’s use reason and logic for just a
minute.
First Question: How many terrorist acts have been committed involving
liquids carried onto airplanes by passengers? Answer: Zero.
Second question: How many terrorist acts involving airliners have been
committed by Muslims? Answer: All of them.
Third question: Why are we focused on liquids instead of Muslims?
Answer: Beats me.
Why is it that the protection of our airline industry is focused on
products, and not on people? Why is it that we go to such extreme
lengths to screen materials, but purposely avoid screening the persons
who carry them?
Wouldn’t we be safer if we focused our security efforts largely on
Muslim passengers? Especially young, male Muslim passengers? Isn’t
the fact that every single act of airliner terrorism involved a young,
male Muslim relevant?
Does it make sense to take away a mother’s bottle of Children’s Tylenol
and a grandmother’s bottle of Coke, while at the same time purposely
not profiling likely terrorists?
Can’t we be honest enough to admit that profiling potential terrorists
by religion, national origin, gender and age is a good idea? Aren’t we
bright enough to understand that asking a few extra questions of a
young Muslim airline passenger is not the same as pulling over a black
man just because he’s driving in a “white” neighborhood?
A group of people was arrested last week for plotting a terrorist
attack. They were young Muslim men. Just like the group before that,
and the group before that, and the group before that. And the group
before that.
So, naturally, you can’t take Chapstick on an airplane.
Toiletries don’t commit acts of terrorism. Muslims do.
Maybe if the government spent less time looking at your carry-on bag
and more time looking at young male Muslim passengers we’d all be a lot
safer and a lot less inconvenienced.
This isn’t about Gatorade; this is about jihad. It’s time to stop
focusing on products and start focusing on people. People who happen
to be Muslim.
by Bob Lonsberry Aug 2006 www.boblonsberry.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0] comments (954 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Wed Aug 30, 2006
Betrayed faithful...
California Governor
Schwarzenegger Signs Bill
Violating The First Amendment
Traditional Values Coalition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 29, 2006—The Traditional Values Coalition charged today that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has traded the religious rights of millions of Californians in an attempt to win votes from homosexual anti-religious extremists.
“Governor Schwarzenegger needs to read a copy of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment,” said TVC Chairman Louis P. Sheldon. “He just signed SB 1441, a bill that clearly violates the religious freedoms of millions of Californians to appease the homosexual activist movement.”
SB 1441 will prevent private Christian, Catholic, Jewish and Mormon schools and universities or other religious institutions from receiving state financial aid for students if these schools refuse to endorse homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism.
“Gov. Schwarzenegger’s ignorance of the First Amendment is astounding,” said Rev. Sheldon. “No religious institution should be forced by the government to endorse behaviors that are clearly considered sinful or abnormal by these institutions. This violates the Constitutionally-protected religious freedom of these organizations to set their own moral standards—and violates the freedom of conscience of the leaders of these educational institutions.
“Schwarzenegger’s actions today should be immediately challenged in court. Homosexual behavior is not the same as race or ethnicity. Homosexual behavior is not fixed and thousands of ex-homosexuals prove that this behavior can be healed. This legislation is simply part of the homosexual agenda and is clearly unconstitutional. It should be quickly overturned by the courts.
“SB 1441 shows how far homosexual activists will go to push their agenda upon private schools and to violate freedom of religion and conscience.
“It is worth noting that every single Republican member of the State Assembly voted against this bill and all of the Republican State Senators opposed this bill. It sounds like the Governor is taking his lead from the Democrats which appear to be dominated by a handful of aggressive and unprincipled homosexual activists.
“Schwarzenegger appears to have forgotten his base.”
Contact the Governor of California and give him your personal feedback on this:
Governor’s Office
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
To send an Email please visit:
http://www.govmail.ca.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis Suspends
Police Psychologist
for Christian Beliefs
Matt Barber
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 29, 2006—In perhaps one of the most egregious cases of anti-Christian discrimination in America to date, the Minneapolis Police Department, at the behest of pro-homosexual activists, has suspended a “highly rated” psychologist, Dr. Michael Campion, because of his past affiliation with a Christian group, the Illinois Family Institute.
Americans for Truth Corporate Outreach Director Matt Barber decried Campion’s suspension as an act of “blatant, illegal discrimination and anti-Christian bigotry--one which should send shivers down the spine of every person of faith.”
“What was Campion’s crime? It seems that three years ago, he was a board member with the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a Christian organization which advocates traditional family values,” said Barber, who himself was fired by Allstate Insurance Company last year after writing an online article critical of homosexuality.
“This official government action by the Minneapolis Police Department is a transparent and egregious violation of Dr. Campion’s First Amendment rights to both freedom of association and religion,” Barber said.
“The message from Minneapolis is clear: The Constitution be damned! If you work for the city, and you happen to be a person of faith belonging to a church or public policy organization that advocates traditional family values, then you might as well clean out your desk now—because as soon as we find out…you’re done.”
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that despite the fact that the Minneapolis PD gave Campion “high marks” on his “general procedural goodness and specific cultural fairness” of his testing procedures; Campion was suspended soon after liberal city activists told Police Chief Don Harris about the psychologist’s past IFI affiliation. (Campion, whose firm Campion, Barrow & Associates is based in Champaign, Ill., sat on IFI’s Board of Directors from 1998-2005.)
Sgt. John Delmonico, president of the police federation, admitted that “it never had any complaints about Campion.” Despite that fact, Delmonico told the Star-Tribune “…Any issues that have been raised should be looked into.”
IFI reports that “this is not the first time Dr. Campion has suffered discrimination after having his character assassinated by liberal activists. Last year, the City of Springfield, Illinois, fired Campion as psychological reviewer for police and firefighter candidates after the left-leaning weekly Illinois Times ran an article about his role with Illinois Family Institute.”
Americans for Truth President Peter LaBarbera, who served as IFI’s Executive Director when Campion stepped down from the Board, urged Christians and traditionalists everywhere to stand by Dr. Campion: “I’ve known Mike Campion for years and he is a man of great Christian integrity and character,” said LaBarbera in his current role as IFI Policy & Media Advisor. “Mike is a fair and decent man, respected by his peers, who honors the ethical standards of his profession. Now he is being smeared by pro-homosexual activists.
“The message is growing across our nation: Christians are the only group that can be discriminated against--especially if they live out their faith in the public square,” LaBarbera said.
*Message from Alain at www.alainsnewsletter.com
[0] comments (677 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Tue Aug 29, 2006
ATTENTION : People in Ohio...
ATTENTION OHIO VOTERS:
TruthAboutTed.com Exposes Ted Strickland ( www.truthaboutted.com )
Columbus, OH – August 29, 2006 – Reform America, an Ohio based Christian non-profit organization, is drawing attention to the new website TruthAboutTed.com which exposes to Ohio voters the unbiblical positions of gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland. TruthAboutTed.com is the ONLY website designed for the Christians to compare Ted Strickland’s votes, positions, and statements to the bible. Ted Strickland says his faith helps guides his decisions on public policy. Unfortunately, Ted Strickland’s votes and public statements are not biblical.
Here is a sampling from TruthAboutTed.com:
Ted Strickland voted against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Ted Strickland voted multiple times in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions and the taxpayer-funded development of an abortion pill.
Ted Strickland voted against a measure that permitted the public display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
The 2004 Presidential election taught Americans that “values voters” are the prize of any candidate running for political office. Ever since 2004, liberal national and statewide office holders and candidates have repackaged themselves as holding to “family values” in order to contend for the coveted “values vote.”
Don’t allow Ted Strickland to hoodwink Ohio voters into viewing him as holding traditional Christian values.
If you live in Ohio here are few action points:
Forward TruthAboutTed.com to as many people as you can
Utilize the information on TruthAboutTed.com to write letters to the editor of your local paper
Educate people in your church using TruthAboutTed.com
Arrange for the information on TruthAboutTed.com to be presented on Christian radio and TV
Mark Harrington is President of Reform America, and hosts The Mark Harrington Show.
Mark Harrington, President
Reform America
www.reformamerica.com
[0] comments (702 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Book...
Issues That Matter : America’s Moral Battleground
by
Rob Hood
deals with the most controversial social and moral issues affecting America and the church today . It sells for $9.95 and can be purchased through most online book stores or ask for it at your local bookstore.
Mississippi author and Christian explain the facts about the culture war going on in America from a conservative Biblical Christian stand point.
Book Description
There is a growing culture war in today’s society. On one side, people believe in abortion as the right to choose, that the universe is here by accident, and that homosexuality is okay. They believe that Jesus was only a prophet or a good man, but on the other side, the direct opposite beliefs are being made known. In this book, the Mississippi author gives a traditional biblical point of view into what is wrong with the most fought about controversial moral and social issues facing America and the church today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can obtain a copy of Rob Hood’s book by logging on to www.standfortruthonline.com or calling 1-800-288-4677 ext. 501.
You can also buy online by logging on to:
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-35667-2
To obtain a SIGNED copy, please send $9.95 plus $2.50 shipping to :
STAND FOR TRUTH
c/o Rob Hood
P.O. Box 758
Starkville, MS 39760
Be sure to include a letter stating that you want a signed copy of the book and the quantity. Please allow two weeks for delivery. Checks or money orders only. Please do not send cash. Sorry, no credit cards.
* Make check or money order payable to Rob Hood.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0] comments (671 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Mon Aug 28, 2006
Conservative...
What is a “Conservative?”
With mid-term elections looming in the immediate future, Americans should review issues and candidates in light of their own belief systems.
I regard myself as an unabashed (and non-bashing) conservative and intend to vote for those who reflect my values and beliefs, including the following:
* God created all that is, ever was, and all that will ever be. He came to earth as Jesus Christ, and died on a cross as atonement for the sins of all.
* Eternal life is guaranteed to all that accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
* America’s founding fathers were Christian men of faith. The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are inspired documents that reflect Christian values.
* The U.S. Constitution reflects God’s will for America. As such, it is comprised of everlasting spiritual principles, and is not subject to change based on the ever-changing contemporary values of mortal men.
* Human life is a precious gift from God that must be treated with utmost reverence. Aborting an innocent fetus is not a Godly choice, rather it is murder.
* Government’s primary role is to protect We the People from enemies, both foreign and domestic. Overly intrusive government stymies creativity and individual opportunity, and promotes unhealthy reliance on fallible men.
* Government cannot replace God, nor should it attempt to.
* American Democracy is imperfect; but humankind has yet to devise a better, more just, solution to governance.
* War is hell. But the world is inhabited by evil forces intent on murdering millions of innocent Americans and destroying our way of life. Defending America with force is morally correct and responsible; to do otherwise would be immoral and irresponsible.
* Old Glory is a precious symbol of the most successful Democracy in human history. Burning or otherwise denigrating that symbol is not a valid expression of free speech, and should be prohibited.
* Parents, and not the state, are responsible for defining and enforcing moral standards and behavior for their children. The state must not act in a manner that circumvents or contradicts values taught in the home.
* Marriage is an institution established by God to sanctify a relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy are not Godly, and should not be recognized as anything but perversions.
* The United States is a sovereign nation with established borders and immigration laws and existing under the rule of law. America extends a hearty welcome to newcomers who respect our immigration laws and meet our requirements for coming here.
* Those that come here in violation of U.S. Borders and or laws are not immigrants; rather, they are invaders. Invaders have no legal or moral basis for being in America and are not welcome. They need to leave or be forced to leave.
As it turns out, acceptable conservative credentials are usually found in Republican candidates. However, I will support any candidate, without regard to party affiliation, provided that the candidate endorses genuine conservative values.
[0] comments (621 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Sun Aug 27, 2006
Values...
BIBLE VERSE OF THE WEEK
Show me your ways, O LORD, teach me your paths; guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior, and my hope is in you all day long. Remember, O LORD, your great mercy and love, for they are from of old.
Psalm 25:4-6
*************************************************************
Dear Friend,
Did you know that on average, 40% of pro-lifers may not even be registered to
vote? And of those that are registered, less than half will vote this year?
We urge you to reach out to your community and assist friends, family, co-
workers, constituents, clients, and contacts to get them registered to vote.
The majority of Americans favor traditional values; however, they do not engage
in the political process.
America is at a crossroads. Now, more than ever, people must get registered,
get educated, and vote their values. We have a simple and free website you can
go to register to vote.
I encourage you to visit
and check out the voter registration resource.
Please pass this message on to others!
Sincerely,
Linda Harvey
Mission America
www.missionamerica.com
[0] comments (630 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Sat Aug 26, 2006
Russia not our friend...
Russia Is Not a Friend of the United States
by Jim Kouri, CPP
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union embarked on
the most massive military buildups in history. Part of President
Reagan’s strategy for winning was to entice the Soviets into a competition it
could never even hope to win. A communist economy by its very nature is
ill-equipped to compete with a free-market, capitalist system whether
it’s foreign trade or weapons technology.
And so, slowly the Soviet economy became a basket case due to the
communists desire to exceed America in an enormously expensive arms race.
After the Cold War, with the Soviet threat gone and with Democrat
President Bill Clinton in the White House, terms such as “the peace
dividend” became commonplace within the Washington Beltway and in the
mainstream news media. No longer was the political establishment interested in
defense, and the new agenda for the US was domestic.
However, slowly and methodically Russia’s steel-eyed leader Vladamir
Putin began to rebuild and expand his nation’s arsenal and its fighting
forces. This new phase in Russia’s military buildup has created fear in
some quarters in the US that a new arms race exists. Recently the
Russians deployed a nuclear ballistic system that their generals made clear
could render US anti-missile defense systems ineffective, according to
reports in the European news media.
While Americans and Europeans celebrated the Christmas holiday in 2005,
the Russian army activated a large number of Topol-M class missiles
that can fit nuclear warheads and travel 6,000 miles, while rapidly
switching their trajectory in order to neutralize any US- or European-based
interception device.
As usual, the news media in the US is so busy bashing the
Commander-in-Chief regarding the Iraqi conflict and President Bush’s tactics for
combating terrorism, that they’ve failed to report on the Russian advances
in weaponry and the accompanying hawkish rhetoric of the Russian
military commanders.
In addition, most of the media have chosen to ignore the Russian
buildup because the liberal take on the Cold War was that it was a result of
a misunderstanding between two superpowers. During the height of the
Cold War liberals—some like Senator John Kerry who are still in power
-- were more concerned over how many missiles and weapons we had. That
mindset continues and it does no good for the liberal establishment and
their media echo chamber to allow the American people to learn that
their old enemy is quietly gearing up for a second arms race or worse
-- a new Cold War.
While Americans believe that the only problem facing the US is
terrorism, one Russian leader, General Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of the
Russia’s missile forces, has mobilized a brand new Topol-M missile
battalion, with each missile having a one megaton warhead. One megaton is over
35 times the power of both US bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
at the end of World War II.
The Russian general claims his missile system is able to penetrate any
missile defense system. He boasts that the Russian missiles are
unaffected by electromagnetic blasts used by current US anti-missile systems.
While Russia had disbanded two missile divisions last year to show the
US and European Union that they were serious about disarmament, it has
recently been discovered that they formed close to 25 new units—in
what’s considered the fastest increase of nuclear spending since the
days of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
According to the Military.Com, the US Navy carried out tests of an
anti-missile interceptor, which can be launched from an Aegis class cruiser
in the Pacific Ocean. A warhead from an incoming rocket was completely
neutralized and destroyed one hundred miles above sea level. Its
success marked the first time an anti-missile defense system succeeded in
tests when launched from a warship. While not vocally announced by the
Pentagon, experts believe this testing was a result of the Russian
buildup.
The debut of the Topol-M and Russia’s hawkish bravado mark the fastest
expansion of nuclear missiles since the SS-18 and Pershing II
technologies appeared during the Reagan Administration. Since that time
US-Russia arms control treaty was signed in 1993 at the Kremlin and Russia
struggled to fund technology to replace its aging war machine. Their
defense budget also withered away due to their depressed economy situation.
With the Russians now enjoying a certain amount of prosperity thanks to
its new oil wealth and weapons system sales, their nuclear missile
program reemerged. Just last month an almost $2 billion increase from the
Kremlin was earmarked for the military and Mr. Putin’s popularity also
increased as a result. Equally disturbing is that one of the larger
states from the old USSR, the Ukraine asked to come back under the former
Soviet military shield and they expect to be protected by the Topol-M
stationed in the Volga River.
Meanwhile, the European Union has denounced Putin’s intentions to sell
anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, whose president announced his desire to
“wipe Israel off the map.”
With most of the US intelligence and military resources concentrated on
the terrorism war, the Russians have taken advantage of the situation
and have once again taken a lead role in international affairs,
especially when it comes to nuclear arms and advanced weapons technology.
[0] comments (654 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Fri Aug 25, 2006
Purging Christians...
Georgetown University: Purging Evangelicals
“God’s peace be upon you,” begins the letter from Georgetown University’s Protestant Chaplain, Rev. Constance Wheeler. Her letter was sent to a number of Evangelical ministries at Washington’s oldest Catholic university. Her message was simple: Get out. Just weeks before the opening of classes, Rev. Wheeler chose to banish the Evangelical groups. Her letter gives no reason. But we apparently don’t need a reason. You see, she informs us God told her to do it. I’ve reported on the new $10 million Prince Alaweed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown. The full-page Washington Post ad for this “center” clearly showed the Muslim Crescent Moon and Star in the night sky above Georgetown’s cross. I’m informed the campus center originally included Jews in its search for “understanding,” but they were kicked out when the Arab money started flowing in. Now, we see Evangelical groups booted off campus by a liberal Protestant hireling. Apparently, Christians who might challenge the orthodoxy of political correctness are not welcome at Georgetown. We must pray for our enemies, it is true, but I won’t hypocritically say “God’s peace be upon you” to those who are purging Christian organizations from university campuses.
* A message from Family Research Council @ www.frc.org
Join today and make a difference in America!
___________________________________________________________
IN THE NEWS:
Ten Commandments litigation update
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaySekulow/2006/08/22/ten_commandments_litigation_update
The Bible as hate speech?
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/crampton/060818
Texas sheriffs says terrorists entering through Mexico border
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200608/SPE20060821a.html
ACLU still at odds with the Gideons Bible distribution
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/222006g.asp
Why you should consider homeshooling your children
http://www.christiannewswire.com/index.php?module=releases&task=view&releaseID=812
[0] comments (692 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Thu Aug 24, 2006
Holy War...
This is a Religious War
by Hans Zeiger
If there are doubts about the title of this article, perhaps it is because we
have not thought of this war on Islamic terror as a religious war. But it must
be a religious war.
Because the terrorists define it as a religious war. At a rally this week,
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad declared, “On one side, it’s corrupt powers
of the criminal U.S. and Britain and the Zionists…with modern bombs and planes.
And on the other side is a group of pious youth relying on God.”
Ahmedinejad and his young thugs are men of faith. The Muslim devotees in
England who would have blown up ten planes this week were young-ages 17 to 35-
and they were faithful. One young man among the arrested terrorists gave up
life as a slothful pothead to become a Muslim. These little groups of “pious
youth” are are on a ji’had to take the West, and they will not stop because a
postmodern, enlightened Westerner of the Left asks for tolerance and peace.
Islamic terrorists have the passion, energy, and determination to destroy
America if they are given the chance. And Europe seems to be giving them more
than a chance. So ultimately the question is, can the West survive the threat
of Islamic terrorism? It is easy to have doubts about Europe, and it is easy to
have doubts about the majority of young people in America.
But this is not about majorities. The terrorists understand that. For them, as
for us, it is about a minority of people who understand their capacity to make
a difference. Every social movement of any consequence in history has begun
with a small group of people who coalesced around a central theme, recognized
the urgency of advancing it, and devoted their lives together to winning some
victory.
It is by appealing to the deepest spiritual impulses in the human spirit that a
man or woman will respond and take up arms, or take up the pen, or teach, or
preach. This war on Islamic terror will not be won merely by dint of weapons
and security screenings. It pits a religion against our culture, and only by
religion can we entirely respond and win.
But Burke’s Law is not necessarily true in reverse: evil will triumph when good
men do nothing, but good will not always triumph when evil men do nothing.
Sometimes, it is a reaction to the works of the evil that the good are brought
to action. It is rare that men will act without a sense of emergency.
Though the nation is half asleep, there is hope, and we must build upon it.
Conservative Christians, it seems, have long sensed an emergency. They have
been aware that the Left has strongholds in places of cultural influence, in
the academy, and the media, and the law, and in much of the church. As a
result, conservative Christians have prepared their children far better than
liberals to fight the battles of our generation. Liberals, in fact, haven’t had
many children. They’ve aborted too many. And out of the curse of abortion has
come this blessing: the Left is losing
demographically.
And even though in the final analysis it isn’t about numbers, it is about
passion. The Left has failed to pass on the passion of the Sixties to the
rising generation. There are many young liberals, of course, but they are not
aspiring leaders. They are jaded. They are self-absorbed.
And so, we might fret about how the West, too, is losing demographically. But
there is enough of a conservative impulse remaining in this country, enough of
a sense that the values of popular culture and consumerism are insufficient to
sustain soul and civilization. “Reality” is the buzzword of our time.
To deny the reality of the soul, and of the eternity of the soul, is to deny
that the person of that soul exists. It is the height of disregard. That way of
thinking is dead. It has failed the rising generation, and young people long
for something more.
Young conservative Christians seek a more humane society, a return to the
enduring things of our civilization. Few though they are in number, they are
determined to fight the war of our time that will be fought not merely on the
battlefields of Iraq and Iran, but on the battlefields of Hollywood and the
university campus and the home and the Internet and the school classroom. If we
are to defend against the invasion of a growing Islamic extremism, we must
offend against the fortress of
postmodernism.
And we too must have a “pious group of youth relying on God,” not Ahmedinejad’s
merciless Allah, but on the Living God of the New Testament.
It is a time for young leaders. We cannot yield our civilization.
Hans Zeiger is a junior at Hillsdale College and author of Get Off My Honor:
The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America (Broadman and Holman, 2005). He is
also a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org) and the author
of a forthcoming book about the rise of young conservatives. www.hanszeiger
net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania needs your prayers and support in political battle of his life. Mr. Santorum is a God fearing family man that honors Christian family moral values, stands up for traditional marriage, and stands against abortion, socialism, and policies of appeasment in the war on terror. It is imperative that we re-elect and elect more traditional conservative Americans to public office this coming November to keep America safe from Islamic terrorists, dangerous liberal social policies that always fail, and to keep Christianity from being persecuted even further from what it is now. If you want to support Rick Santorum go to his website to make a contribute or learn more about how you can help in other ways. Most of all your prayers for conservative Christian politicians like Rick Santorum are desperately needed at this critical time in our nation’s history. Go to www.ricksantorum.com for more information.
[0] comments (661 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Holy War...
This is a Religious War
by Hans Zeiger
If there are doubts about the title of this article, perhaps it is because we
have not thought of this war on Islamic terror as a religious war. But it must
be a religious war.
Because the terrorists define it as a religious war. At a rally this week,
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad declared, “On one side, it’s corrupt powers
of the criminal U.S. and Britain and the Zionists…with modern bombs and planes.
And on the other side is a group of pious youth relying on God.”
Ahmedinejad and his young thugs are men of faith. The Muslim devotees in
England who would have blown up ten planes this week were young-ages 17 to 35-
and they were faithful. One young man among the arrested terrorists gave up
life as a slothful pothead to become a Muslim. These little groups of “pious
youth” are are on a ji’had to take the West, and they will not stop because a
postmodern, enlightened Westerner of the Left asks for tolerance and peace.
Islamic terrorists have the passion, energy, and determination to destroy
America if they are given the chance. And Europe seems to be giving them more
than a chance. So ultimately the question is, can the West survive the threat
of Islamic terrorism? It is easy to have doubts about Europe, and it is easy to
have doubts about the majority of young people in America.
But this is not about majorities. The terrorists understand that. For them, as
for us, it is about a minority of people who understand their capacity to make
a difference. Every social movement of any consequence in history has begun
with a small group of people who coalesced around a central theme, recognized
the urgency of advancing it, and devoted their lives together to winning some
victory.
It is by appealing to the deepest spiritual impulses in the human spirit that a
man or woman will respond and take up arms, or take up the pen, or teach, or
preach. This war on Islamic terror will not be won merely by dint of weapons
and security screenings. It pits a religion against our culture, and only by
religion can we entirely respond and win.
But Burke’s Law is not necessarily true in reverse: evil will triumph when good
men do nothing, but good will not always triumph when evil men do nothing.
Sometimes, it is a reaction to the works of the evil that the good are brought
to action. It is rare that men will act without a sense of emergency.
Though the nation is half asleep, there is hope, and we must build upon it.
Conservative Christians, it seems, have long sensed an emergency. They have
been aware that the Left has strongholds in places of cultural influence, in
the academy, and the media, and the law, and in much of the church. As a
result, conservative Christians have prepared their children far better than
liberals to fight the battles of our generation. Liberals, in fact, haven’t had
many children. They’ve aborted too many. And out of the curse of abortion has
come this blessing: the Left is losing
demographically.
And even though in the final analysis it isn’t about numbers, it is about
passion. The Left has failed to pass on the passion of the Sixties to the
rising generation. There are many young liberals, of course, but they are not
aspiring leaders. They are jaded. They are self-absorbed.
And so, we might fret about how the West, too, is losing demographically. But
there is enough of a conservative impulse remaining in this country, enough of
a sense that the values of popular culture and consumerism are insufficient to
sustain soul and civilization. “Reality” is the buzzword of our time.
To deny the reality of the soul, and of the eternity of the soul, is to deny
that the person of that soul exists. It is the height of disregard. That way of
thinking is dead. It has failed the rising generation, and young people long
for something more.
Young conservative Christians seek a more humane society, a return to the
enduring things of our civilization. Few though they are in number, they are
determined to fight the war of our time that will be fought not merely on the
battlefields of Iraq and Iran, but on the battlefields of Hollywood and the
university campus and the home and the Internet and the school classroom. If we
are to defend against the invasion of a growing Islamic extremism, we must
offend against the fortress of
postmodernism.
And we too must have a “pious group of youth relying on God,” not Ahmedinejad’s
merciless Allah, but on the Living God of the New Testament.
It is a time for young leaders. We cannot yield our civilization.
Hans Zeiger is a junior at Hillsdale College and author of Get Off My Honor:
The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America (Broadman and Holman, 2005). He is
also a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org) and the author
of a forthcoming book about the rise of young conservatives. www.hanszeiger
net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0] comments (606 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Holy War...
This is a Religious War
by Hans Zeiger
If there are doubts about the title of this article, perhaps it is because we
have not thought of this war on Islamic terror as a religious war. But it must
be a religious war.
Because the terrorists define it as a religious war. At a rally this week,
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad declared, “On one side, it’s corrupt powers
of the criminal U.S. and Britain and the Zionists…with modern bombs and planes.
And on the other side is a group of pious youth relying on God.”
Ahmedinejad and his young thugs are men of faith. The Muslim devotees in
England who would have blown up ten planes this week were young-ages 17 to 35-
and they were faithful. One young man among the arrested terrorists gave up
life as a slothful pothead to become a Muslim. These little groups of “pious
youth” are are on a ji’had to take the West, and they will not stop because a
postmodern, enlightened Westerner of the Left asks for tolerance and peace.
Islamic terrorists have the passion, energy, and determination to destroy
America if they are given the chance. And Europe seems to be giving them more
than a chance. So ultimately the question is, can the West survive the threat
of Islamic terrorism? It is easy to have doubts about Europe, and it is easy to
have doubts about the majority of young people in America.
But this is not about majorities. The terrorists understand that. For them, as
for us, it is about a minority of people who understand their capacity to make
a difference. Every social movement of any consequence in history has begun
with a small group of people who coalesced around a central theme, recognized
the urgency of advancing it, and devoted their lives together to winning some
victory.
It is by appealing to the deepest spiritual impulses in the human spirit that a
man or woman will respond and take up arms, or take up the pen, or teach, or
preach. This war on Islamic terror will not be won merely by dint of weapons
and security screenings. It pits a religion against our culture, and only by
religion can we entirely respond and win.
But Burke’s Law is not necessarily true in reverse: evil will triumph when good
men do nothing, but good will not always triumph when evil men do nothing.
Sometimes, it is a reaction to the works of the evil that the good are brought
to action. It is rare that men will act without a sense of emergency.
Though the nation is half asleep, there is hope, and we must build upon it.
Conservative Christians, it seems, have long sensed an emergency. They have
been aware that the Left has strongholds in places of cultural influence, in
the academy, and the media, and the law, and in much of the church. As a
result, conservative Christians have prepared their children far better than
liberals to fight the battles of our generation. Liberals, in fact, haven’t had
many children. They’ve aborted too many. And out of the curse of abortion has
come this blessing: the Left is losing
demographically.
And even though in the final analysis it isn’t about numbers, it is about
passion. The Left has failed to pass on the passion of the Sixties to the
rising generation. There are many young liberals, of course, but they are not
aspiring leaders. They are jaded. They are self-absorbed.
And so, we might fret about how the West, too, is losing demographically. But
there is enough of a conservative impulse remaining in this country, enough of
a sense that the values of popular culture and consumerism are insufficient to
sustain soul and civilization. “Reality” is the buzzword of our time.
To deny the reality of the soul, and of the eternity of the soul, is to deny
that the person of that soul exists. It is the height of disregard. That way of
thinking is dead. It has failed the rising generation, and young people long
for something more.
Young conservative Christians seek a more humane society, a return to the
enduring things of our civilization. Few though they are in number, they are
determined to fight the war of our time that will be fought not merely on the
battlefields of Iraq and Iran, but on the battlefields of Hollywood and the
university campus and the home and the Internet and the school classroom. If we
are to defend against the invasion of a growing Islamic extremism, we must
offend against the fortress of
postmodernism.
And we too must have a “pious group of youth relying on God,” not Ahmedinejad’s
merciless Allah, but on the Living God of the New Testament.
It is a time for young leaders. We cannot yield our civilization.
Hans Zeiger is a junior at Hillsdale College and author of Get Off My Honor:
The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America (Broadman and Holman, 2005). He is
also a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org) and the author
of a forthcoming book about the rise of young conservatives. www.hanszeiger
net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0] comments (641 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Tue Aug 22, 2006
The pastor with Guts...
This Pastor has guts!! Thought you might enjoy this interesting prayer
given in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate. It seems prayer
still upsets some people. Please read:
When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas
Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what
they heard:
“Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and
to seek your direction and guidance.
We know Your Word says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good,’ but that is
exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and
reversed our values.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called i
building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it
freedom of speech and _expression.
We have ridiculed the time honored values of our forefathers and
called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every
sin and set us free. Amen!”
The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during
the prayer in protest.
In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is
pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls
responding negatively. The church is now receiving international
requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, “The
Rest of the Story,” and received a larger response to this program
than any other he has ever aired.
With the Lord’s help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and
wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called “one
nation under God.”
[0] comments (695 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Mon Aug 21, 2006
ACLU and its onslaught...
The ACLU Continues Its Onslaught
by Jim Kouri, CPP
Even before the United Kingdom terrorist plot last week, the Transportation
Security Agency had begun revamping their airport security strategy. The
Department of Homeland Security and the TSA are finally taking some positive
steps to professionalize airport security. The initial step was designating
security screeners as security officers, which will require additional training
and supervision, as well as additional responsibilities.
Part of the professionalization process is the training of airport security
staff in what’s been called psychological profiling or behavioral analysis or a
number of other terms that all amount to the same thing—avoiding allegations
of racial profiling while at the same time effectively screening out potential
terrorists.
This is a welcomed program by those of us in law enforcement who’ve said for
years that psychological profiling should be used by airport security staff.
While representing the staff and membership of the National Association of
Chiefs of Police at lectures or during media interviews, I’ve often discussed
the need for upgrading the training of airport security staff with part of the
upgrade to include psychological profiling.
Most police officers and investigators are familiar with the concept since it’s
used during the interrogation and interview process to detect deception on the
part of the subject. Without going into too much detail, interrogators or
interviewers, while questioning a subject about the matter at hand, are
observing body language, eye contact, breathing, physical characteristics such
as dry mouth or profuse perspiration, and other criteria.
Israeli security agents and police have used kinetic interviewing for screening
people at airports and security checkpoints for years with much success.
In a press release the American Civil Liberties Union has warned that the
behavior analysis screening technique could result in racial profiling. Could
result? Creating public policy based on what “could result” is nonsense since
in this case the ACLU insinuates bad intentions on the part of US security and
law enforcement agencies.
“[Behavior detection] is a code word for targeting brown-skinned males between
ages 17 and 45 years. It’s not only racial profiling, it’s ethnic profiling,”
said Timothy Sparapani, who oversees privacy rights for the ACLU.
Mr. Sparapani doesn’t mention how he arrived at the age bracket. He also fails
to provide evidence that race and ethnicity enter into the behavior detection
process. The ACLU attorneys seem to hallucinate whenever they read the US
Constitution.
With recent events in Europe showing that certain whites are being recruited by
terrorists, psychological profiling may prove even more effective than
traditional criminal profiling. As usual, the ACLU is intentionally
mischaracterizing the technique. When not portraying Boys Scouts as members of
a Nazi-like organization, the ACLU is practiced in characterizing US cops as
storm troopers.
If Al-Qaeda or the international terrorism network wanted to create an anti-
American cell within the United States that would hamper efforts to protect
American lives, they couldn’t create a better cell than the ACLU. Each time a
new technique or strategy is proposed or put into operation, the knee-jerk
lawyers at the ACLU are right there trying to thwart the attempted innovation.
Can anyone cite one case in which the ACLU sued on behalf of the victims of
Islamofascists? Afterall, their
victims’ civil rights were obviously violated.
The ACLU is a non-profit organization, but it seems the have been empowered
with a quasi-governmental status. With their comrades in the judiciary—
liberal judges appointed by liberal politicians—they have been successful in
hampering law enforcement and intelligence officers.
__________________________________________________________
If you would like to see the ACLU defeated join a Christian group dedicated to doing so:
Liberty Counsel
www.lc.org
Family Research Council
www.frc.org
Alliance Defense Fund
www.alliancedefensefund.org
________________________________________________________
ATTENTION PEOPLE IN OHIO:
LAUNCH OF NEW RADIO PROGRAM and ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDATE FORUM
?Crossroads of Faith and Reason with radio host Chris Long (Executive Director of Ohio Christian Alliance)?. Begins Monday, August 21st on WHKW 1220 AM Salem Broadcasting, Cleveland, Ohio, with interactive political talk from a biblical perspective. Join Chris as he interviews candidates who are running for office and talks the issues of this upcoming election. The show airs Monday ? Friday at 3 p.m. daily.
Candidate Forum: Mark you calendar for Sunday, September 17th, 6 p.m. at Franciscan University, Steubenville, Ohio. Candidates for Governor, U.S. Senate, and the 6th Congressional race have all been invited to participate in this educational forum.
For those of you in the Steubenville area who would like to attend, contact our office at 330-887-1922 or email us. We are working on arrangements for online audio streaming and other broadcast arrangements. Keep checking our website for the latest updates at http://ohioca.org
Voter Guide: The Ohio Christian Alliance will be launching its online educational voter guide Sunday, October 15th. Print versions of the voter guide will be available in the Citizen USA Newspaper. Contact our office for more information at 330-887-1922.
_________________________________________________________________
[0] comments (636 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Thu Aug 17, 2006
Then what?
Pull Out of Iraq, Then What?
By Thomas E. Brewton
Liberal Republicans, Democrats, and independents declare that our invasion of
Iraq was based on lies, was immoral, and now is a failure. Glibly they demand
that we simply withdraw our troops from Iraq, but none of them has presented
any evidence of thinking about what happens next.
The standard rationale is that, by pulling our troops out, we can concentrate
on the presumptive real objective, capturing Osama Bin Ladin. In that
simplistic scenario, we end the terrorist threat, and everybody can go back to
watching American Idol on TV.
However dangerous Al Queda may be to the future hundreds or thousands of
victims of terror attacks, Al Queda cannot at this point threaten our national
survival. Iran can and does threaten our continued existence as a nation.
The Middle East situation is like a chess match, in this case against Iran.
Making a single move, then walking away from the board forfeits the match to
Iran. What happens then?
Iran is emerging as the dominant power in the Middle East, having boxed us and
Israel between Hezbollah on the west and Iran itself on the east.Ê Whether
Israel renews the military campaign and eventually destroys most of Hezbollah’s
military capability or not, Hezbollah emerges as the only military power able
so far to stand and fight successfully against the IDF, others having been
destroyed in a matter of days or weeks.
Worse, pulling our troops out of Iraq will leave us the defeated Great Satan in
the eyes of the Muslim world. For Muslims everywhere, our pullout will make
Iran and its surrogate Hezbollah the heros of the anti-American world.Ê
If liberals think that our presence in Iraq animates young Muslims to become Al
Queda recruits, just wait until Al Queda and Iran can broadcast that the
cowardly Americans really are paper tigers. Like sharks smelling blood in the
water, Muslim jihadists will attack all around the globe.
Iran almost certainly will attempt to crush Israel with renewed Hezbollah
attacks, perhaps in tandem with the Syrian army, counting on the United States
not to honor its commitments to defend Israel, especially if the Democrats take
control of Congress this Fall. Liberals and other Americans have increasingly
distanced themselves from Israeli survival, often joining the European voices
denouncing Israel’s “disproportionate and terroristic” retaliation against
attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.
Iran’s other move is likely to be seizing control of the Persian Gulf and
strangling the United States, Europe, and Japan economically by raising oil
prices exponentially or denying us access to Middle Eastern oil altogether.
To prevent that, neither the United States nor the UK has sufficient military
forces available for deployment on the ground, even if the public were to
support such moves (and the publics, here and there, emphatically reject any
military solution today). Ê
Israeli frustrations in Lebanon demonstrate the limitations of relying on air
power alone against Iran.Ê In any case, the mountainous terrain of Iran makes
air and missile power far less effective than was the case in Iraq.
That leaves us in the 1939 situation.Ê Will we and the Brits have the fortitude
to mobilize for full-scale war - drafts and all - should Iran launch nuclear or
other direct attacks? Or will we just hand it off to the UN?
Meanwhile, the even more gloomy assessment is that Iran no longer needs to
attack us directly.Ê Iraqi shiites failed to do their part in stabilizing their
renegade bands, after sunnis provided information leading to Zarqawi’s death.Ê
Now the prospect of civil war and dismemberment are much higher than a month
ago.
Iraqi shiites appear to have decided that they don’t want a united Iraq, but a
regionalized one in which they control all of the major southern oil-producing
region.Ê In that aspiration, Iran is supporting them all the way, and Iraqi
shiites appear willing now to be a client state within the sphere of Iran’s
influence.
After having split Iraq and dominated the southern, shiite section, Iran will
have a straight, unimpeded shot at Saudi Arabia, which hasn’t even remotely the
capacity to contend against the Iranian army.Ê Without actually invading Saudi
Arabia Ð moving Iranian troops through the shiite sector of Iraq, up to the
Saudi border, will suffice Ð Iran will scoop Saudi Arabia into its sphere of
influence.
Iran then will own the Persian Gulf and control the world’s major oil supply.Ê
Will hedonistic Americans have the stomach even for a blockade of the Persian
Gulf, our most effective potentiality at the moment?
At that point, it’s all too likely that Americans will adopt an updated version
of the 1960s liberal mantra, “Better Red than Dead.” ÊNed Lamont’s foreign
policy prescription Ð the same as that of Geroge Soros and other liberal
luminaries Ð calls for “negotiations.” What that means in practice is that we
will endeavor to appease the Iranians by humbly delivering regular financial
tributes to our Muslim suzerains.
Don’t forget, in the meanwhile, that liberal opposition to reforms in Social
Security, Medicare, etc., with all the Baby Boomers retiring, will bring us to
fiscal insolvency.Ê Foreign nations will no longer view the United States as
the safe haven for their export dollar receipts, and the dollar will
necessarily be radically devalued, which means inflation via higher import
costs.Ê With the huge imbalance between the numbers of retired Baby Boomers and
young workers, raising taxes sufficiently to pay for both the welfare state and
national defense will at that late date be impossible.Ê
The probability is that we will resort to the Nixon-Carter policy of rampant
inflation as a disguised tax. In the ensuing dissolution of American society
we will either be easy prey for Iran and Al Queda, or do as did Germany after
its hyperinflation and social corrosion under the socialistic Weimar Republic Ð
fall under the sway of an American Hitler who will promise to restore social
order by abrogating the Bill of Rights.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New
Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
_________________________________________________________
[0] comments (676 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Wed Aug 16, 2006
A Liberal Policy indeed...
The George Soros Foreign Policy
By Thomas E. Brewton
If Mr. Soros guided his investments and financial market speculations with the
same degree of precision he applies to foreign policy, he would long since have
been bankrupt.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article dated August 15, 2006, billionaire investor George Soros critiques the Bush administration’s reaction to the events of 9/11. Mr. Soros is, as most people know, a far-left liberal who spent a reputed $20 million or so backing socialist John Kerry in the last presidential election.
Readers hoping for specific plans from Mr. Soros will be disappointed.
Liberals like Mr. Soros continue to offer criticism, but no alternatives other
than vague platitudes and surrendering to Iran via troop withdrawal. Theirs is
a chess game without strategy beyond the opening move. To paraphrase Samuel
Johnson’s remark about second marriages, liberal foreign policy represents the
triumph of hope over experience.
Mr. Soros tells us, “The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to
counterproductive and self-defeating policies...… Osama bin Laden and Ayman
al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and
preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.”
[Comment: Exactly what different measures must we take to capture Al Queda
leaders? Should we alienate Pakistan by invading its territory and
precipitating the downfall of President Musharraf?
What specifically must we do to prevent future terror attacks that will not
instantly be denounced by the ACLU, the New York Times, and Congressional
liberals? Even random searches of handbags in New York City subways, after the
London bombings, were fiercely resisted by the ACLU.
Mr. Soros and his fellow socialists in Congress talk a good game, while
promoting an emasculated, ineffective intelligence policy. 9/11 might have
been prevented, had the ACLU and Democratic-controlled Congresses not gutted
the CIA’s staff of overseas operatives at the same time that they prevented the
FBI and the CIA from sharing information. The truth is that liberals don’t
want an effective domestic surveillance program, for fear that it will
spotlight their anti-American financial supporters and anti-American academics
in the sacred Halls of Ivy.
Even if we apprehend or kill Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, autonomous
Al Queda cells here and in Europe are in place for future terror attacks,
witness foiled plots in the United States and the bombing of Spanish trains and
London buses and subways. In the UK airline bombing plot, British intelligence
can discover no direct link with Al Queda, yet the modus operandi bears all the
earmarks of Al Queda.
Those terror cells were established, not in reaction to administration policies
since 9/11, but much earlier during the Clinton administrations. Bin Ladin
announced his intentions to destroy the West while Mr. Clinton was President,
both in tapes distributed via Al Jazeera and in interviews with Western
newsmen.]
Mr. Soros continues: “What makes the war on terror self-defeating? ÊFirst, war
by its very nature creates innocent victims. ....… The deaths, injuries and
humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and
communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.”
[Comment: Mr. Soros’s description applies, not just to Iraq, but to all wars.
Does he mean that we should have taken no military action against Hitler, but
have relied on negotiations? Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried that.
Non-combatants doubtless were bitterly resentful when the Allies retaliated for
the London Blitz and our armies swept across Europe, decimating German forces,
with inevitable destruction and death among civilians.]
Mr. Soros’s final insight is: “… terrorism is an abstraction. .… It
inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states
that support terrorist groups.”
[Comment: What, pray tell, have we, France, and Germany been doing for the
past three years with regard to Syria and Iran? There have been endless rounds
of negotiations with both countries and numerous fruitless efforts to get the
UN to exert some of its imagined influence.]
Then Mr. Soros goes for the jugular: “… the war on terror drives a wedge
between “us” and “them.”...… we fail to notice that we also become
perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That
is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.”
[Comment: The English language defines our actions as retaliation, not as
perpetrating aggression. Mr. Soros’s definition precludes self-defense if the
rest of the world wants the attackers to win.
A dozen years of UN “diplomacy” did nothing to prevent 9/11, yet Mr. Soros by
default is advocating that we do nothing to deter Islamic jihad other than
humbly leaving our fate in the hands of the third-world-controlled UN General
Assembly.
This is hardly a surprise. Mr. Soros is a socialist who, having made his money
under capitalist rules, now opposes our constitutional system of government (in
which private property rights originally were of equal stature with all other
personal rights) by funding socialist organizations here and abroad. Underlying
his critique of the Bush administration is the insupportable hypothesis of
Socialist Internationals in the 19th and early 20th centuries: that all
aggression and war are forged by the continuance of private property, that
redistributing wealth internationally will satisfy all the aims of Islamic
jihad and stop Muslim aggressions. That’s what he means by “negotiations.”
\
None of this accords with the facts. Organizers of the jihad are well educated
men from very wealthy families. No Islamic terrorist has demanded more foreign
aid or redistribution of our property to the rest of the world.
Leaders of the jihad repeatedly and uniformly have declared that their aim is
conquest of the non-Muslim world and its subjugation under sharia. Those are
non-negotiable demands.
The sad truth is that the jihadists respect only remorselessly wielded, lethal
power. And they are emboldened by the sense that the coming triumph of
liberals in our electoral process will begin removing all barriers to Islamic
world domination.]
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New
Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
[0] comments (645 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Tue Aug 15, 2006
The wrong way...
Surveillance the ACLU Way
By Thomas E. Brewton
British MI-5’s success in thwarting the plot to blow up a large number of
transatlantic airliners reminds us that hamstringing our own intelligence
forces by the ACLU and its sympathizers has a long history.
The op-ed page of today’s Wall Street Journal carries an article by David B.
Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey. The authors describe the important differences
between British and American legal doctrine that enabled British intelligence
forces to work more effectively than can our own intelligence and law-
enforcement community. Great Britain is the home of personal liberty and
limitations on arbitrary government power, but the British, in the area of
surveillance and apprehension of terrorists, have been considerably more
realistic than have we.
There is a long pedigree for the liberal mindset that leads to assiduously
blocking effective methods of surveillance and detention of enemies of the
United States, the same mindset that produced repeated, putatively criminal
revelations of top-secret national security programs by the New York Times.
It goes all the way back to the late 1800s, when socialist and anarchist
agitators began to make their presence felt in the United States. On
Manhattan’s Lower East Side and in Union Square, with Greenwich Village
intellectuals’ propaganda support after World War I, anarchists and socialists
staged protest rallies that blocked traffic and interfered with ordinary
business. Police often had to stop violence, which usually involved mass
arrests of demonstrators.
Those socialist and anarchist activists, in effect, demanded that the First
Amendment’s freedom of speech be interpreted as a suicide pact that would allow
them to carry out their openly avowed aim to destroy formal government under
the Constitution (in the anarchists’ case), or to replace the Constitution with
a collectivized socialist system that would seize private property and
redistribute it to the masses.
Socialist and anarchist leaders were involved in, and openly advocated,
assassination of political and business leaders. Emma Goldman, the most widely-
heard oratorical voice of anarcho-socialism, was the leftist version of Timothy
McVeigh, the radical right-winger who in 1995 bombed a Federal office building
in Oklahoma City killing 166 people.
Speaking of the assassination attempt on the life of industrialist Henry Clay
Frick by her paramour Alexander Berckman (for whom she had raised money and
procured the weapon), Miss Goldman wrote in her autobiography,
ÒThe inner forces that compel an idealist to acts of violence, often involving
the destruction of his own life, had come to mean much more to me. I feel
certain now that behind every political deed of that nature was an
impressionable, highly sensitized personality and a gentle spirit.Ó
This rationalization is not far removed from that of Islamic suicide bombers.
In September 1901 anarchist Leon Czolgosz assassinated President William
McKinley at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo. When he was arrested,
Czolgosz said that Miss GoldmanÕs oratory had inspired him. She reciprocated
by publicly and ardently defending him. In Free Society, an anarchist
newspaper, she wrote,
ÒLeon Czolgosz and other men of his type, far from being depraved creatures of
low instincts, are in reality supersentive beings unable to bear up under too
great social stress. They are driven to some violent express even at the
sacrifice of their own lives, because they cannot supinely witness the misery
and suffering of their fellows. My heart goes out in deep sympathy, as it goes
out to all the victims of oppression and misery, to the martyrs past and future.
Ó
Former Governor of Idaho George Steunenberg was assassinated with a dynamite
bomb in 1905, because he had opposed an illegal mining strike. In 1910
radicals bombed the Los Angeles Times building, killing twenty one workmen. In
1920, liberal activists planted dynamite in a wagon outside the Wall Street
headquarters of J. P. Morgan, timed to detonate shortly after noon, in order to
kill the maximum possible number of people on the street for lunch hour. With
shrapnel tearing through the packed sidewalk crowds, 38 people were killed and
some 300 wounded.
More than a hundred socialist and anarchist newspapers around the country
regularly featured articles describing how to make dynamite bombs and how to
plant them to inflict the maximum number of deaths. Albert Parsons was one of
Emma GoldmanÕs confederates and the publisher of Alarm, the leading English-
language anarcho-socialist newsletter; in it Parsons urged:
ÒDynamite! Of all good stuff, that is the stuff! Stuff several pounds of this
sublime stuff into an inch pipe (gas or water), plug up both ends, insert a cap
with a fuse attached, place this in the immediate vicinity of a lot of rich
loafers who live by the sweat of other peopleÕs brows, and light the fuse. A
most cheerful and gratifying result will follow.Ó
New Yorkers who came out of this milieu, even when highly successful
businessmen in later generations, still see all efforts to deal with subversive
elements in society as police brutality and suppression of workers’ rights.
The ACLU came into existence during World War I to defend anarchists and
socialists who endeavored to sabotage the United States government. They and
their flacks on the New York Times have never wavered in their devotion to that
mission.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New
Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
[0] comments (629 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Mon Aug 14, 2006
The Meaning...
Finding Meaning in a Meaningless World
By Thomas E. Brewton
Ecclesiastes’s message that things of this world are all ultimately meaningless
resurfaced with a bang when the Baby Boomer activists of the 1960s and 70s
rebelled against what they perceived to be the emptiness and hypocrisy of their
parents’ goal-oriented lives in the 1950s.
Novels such as 1955’s “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit” began American youth’s
rejection of business-dominated society. This theme came into full flower with
Mike Nichols’s 1967 movie “The Graduate,” starring Dustin Hoffman. Of it,
reviewer Tim Dirks wrote, “The theme of an innocent and confused youth who is
exploited, mis-directed, seduced (literally and figuratively) and betrayed by a
corrupt, decadent, and discredited older generation (that finds its stability
in “plastics") was well understood by film audiences and captured the spirit of
the times.” Works such as Paul Goodman’s “Growing Up Absurd” glossed this
inchoate search for meaning with the patina of intellectuality.
Disaffected young people tried drugs, Weatherman underground terrorism, rock
concerts, esoteric Eastern and American Indian religions, and a good deal of
self-centered, whining introspection.
Apparently none of it worked.
Twenty-six years later, in May, 1993, reporter Michael KellyÕs interview with
Hillary Clinton appeared in the New York Times Magazine. In that interview,
Mrs. Clinton spoke about the lack of spiritual meaning in contemporary society,
giving rise to the name ÒSaint Hillary.Ó
Ecclesiastes would not have been surprised.
In his sermon this morning, Pastor Robert Childs reminded us of Ecclesiastes’s
message that striving after worldly things is meaningless. True wisdom is
recognizing God’s gift of happiness in the blessings He has given us. His gift
of happiness is amplified by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the
redemption of our sins.
-------------------
Everyone is invited to visit us at the Long Ridge Congregational Church for Sunday morning services at 9:30 and for Bible study sessions on Wednesday evenings at 7:30.Ê We are in Stamford, Connecticut, on Old Long Ridge Road, about four miles north of the Merritt Parkway, via Exit 34 (Long Ridge Road).Ê Just follow the signs.Ê You may wish in the meanwhile to visit our website at http://www.longridge.org/ , where you can download the full sermon.
You will also want to know that we are a Bible-based church, no longer
affiliated with the UCC, which has drifted away from Christianity and into
moral relativism and rationalization of too many non-Biblical doctrines.
--------------------
Ecclesiastes tells us (6:2), “God gives a man wealth, possessions and honor, so
that he lacks nothing his heart desires, but God does not enable him to enjoy
them ....” And in 6:9, “Better what the eye sees than the roving of the
appetite. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.”
As Pastor Childs noted, we must strive for balance, avoiding extremes and
living graciously and lovingly with each other. There is nothing wrong with
working hard and striving for excellence in whatever you do. As with
Aristotle’s golden mean, however, too much of anything becomes a perversion.
Obsession with wealth, power, or sensual satisfaction is the opposite of the
Apostle Paul’s message in his letter to the Philippian church.
Jesus expressed it succinctly:
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other,
or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both
God and Money.” (Matthew 6:24)
Our ideal should be God’s love permeating our lives and radiating outward in
all our dealings with our fellows.
“And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge
and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may
be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of
righteousness that comes through Jesus ChristÑto the glory and praise of God.”
(Philippians 1:9-11)
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New
Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
_________________________________________________________
Morning After Mania
By Nathan Tabor
Forget the threat of terrorism…the price of gas…or the struggle for families to make the monthly mortgage payments.
No, the issue on the minds of many newspaper editorial writers is whether women can get pills.
At a time when some medical experts are wondering whether our population is, in fact, over-medicated, a number of editorial boards are demanding that the so-called morning-after pill be offered over the counter to women who have regrets about their sexual encounters of the night before.
Even if you don’t buy the notion that the morning-after pill can end an innocent human life—or even if you don’t care if it does—you should at least care about what impact easy access to this post-coital pill could have on women’s health.
Any woman who has taken the traditional birth control pill knows that there are possible side effects—everything from the possibility of stroke to weight gain. The idea that it’s A-OK for women to ingest “Plan B” without ever expecting to encounter any negative health effects is ludicrous.
Planned Parenthood, the largest purveyor of abortions in America, issued a statement claiming that Plan B “holds the potential for improving women’s health if the FDA keeps its word this time” and permits over-the-counter access.
But the fact of the matter is that the morning-after pill is actually playing Russian Roulette with women’s health.
As Concerned Women for America—a group which has more female support than the radical National Organization for Women—has stated, “The prescription process protects women’s health.”
At a time when the Food and Drug Administration has been forced to re-examine the safety of the abortion pill RU-486, it seems odd to throw caution to the wind and remove some of the regulatory protections that could prevent women from being hurt by the morning-after pill.
A number of individuals have also pointed out that Plan B promotes promiscuity. Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases which pose a serious threat to the health of young women. It is irresponsible for the leaders of the abortion lobby and the news media to promote non-prescription use of a drug that could conceivably cause our STD rates to soar.
And then there’s the key question of enforcement. You can say that the drug will only be marketed and sold to those women over age 18, but any clever teenager who knows how to lobby an older sibling or friend to buy cigarettes or booze for her will easily gain access to Plan B. And what’s to say that teen girls will not start binging on morning-after pills, once they become as common as KitKats on drug store shelves?
As Concerned Women’s Wendy Wright stated, “The person who buys the drug is not necessarily the person who will take the drug. What the FDA would have to consider is a foolproof plan to keep proxies from buying the drug and giving it to adolescents.”
And let’s be clear—those proxies could include sexual predators trying to exploit teenage girls.
And let’s be clear on another point: There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the drive for over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill are part of the abortion lobby’s propaganda campaign. The lobby knows that public support for contraception is much higher than public support of abortion—hence, its insistence on calling the morning-after pill “emergency contraception.”
But, one has to wonder—If groups such as Planned Parenthood are in the business of family planning, why would there be millions of emergencies requiring a pill to resolve? What Planned Parenthood is really promoting is irresponsibility, carelessness, and, in the end, surgical abortion.
Because, if a woman still finds herself pregnant after taking the morning-after pill, she’ll be lured into thinking that the only solution to her problem is to abort her baby the old-fashioned way.
And so the manipulation and exploitation of American women continue.
_________________________________________________________
[0] comments (729 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Sun Aug 13, 2006
Hollywood on Prayer...
THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE
Dear Colleagues,
There is different side of Hollywood that most people do not see.
This interview http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id85.html with television producer and Director of the Hollywood Prayer Network Karen Covell discusses the importance of prayer in and for Hollywood.
Blessings,
Michael Westfall
http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id85.html
http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judeo-Christianity and the Constitution
By Thomas E. Brewton
In 1639 representatives from the Puritan towns of Windsor, Hartford, and
Wethersfield in the Connecticut River Valley assembled in Hartford to create
the world’s first written constitution that established a functioning
government. It was the progenitor of the Constitution of the United States.
Students are not told anything about this aspect of our history. Instead they
are taught that Puritanism was a theocratic, and therefore wholly repressive
and undemocratic, mode of society. Thus, in the left-wing liberal
construction, to form the United States, Americans had to reject Judeo-
Christianity and the Puritanism on which New England was founded.
What progressive historians such as Charles A. Beard and Vernon L. Parrington
have taught since the early 1900s is that the true spirit of American history
is rooted in the 1789 French Revolution, which suppressed Christianity and
turned France toward the atheistic materialism of socialism. Students are
taught, by implication if not directly, that the French Revolution’s stirring
motto, “Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood,” expresses the true nature of
American democracy.
Students are taught that the Declaration of Independence was a hypocritical
document, because Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal (this
is a deliberate misrepresentation, as Jefferson was speaking not of slavery but
of the estate of mankind under God). Students are taught that the French
Revolution’s Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen expresses the true
aspiration of American democracy, which in liberals’ view ought to be the
French-style socialistic welfare-state.
Such falsifications are the ideological basis upon which the mythology of our
present-day left-wing liberalism rests.
The truth is starkly different.
Bancroft Prize-winning historian Clinton Rossiter, who described himself as a
centrist, somewhere between labor union radicals and the late Senator Barry
Goldwater, wrote in “The First American Revolution”:
ÒFinally, it must never be forgotten, especially in an age of upheaval and
disillusionment, that American democracy rests squarely on the assumption of a
pious, honest, self-disciplined, moral people. É Whatever doubts may exist
about the sources of this democracy, there can be none about the chief source
of the morality that gives it life and substance. From Puritanism, from the
way of life that exalted individual responsibility, came those homely rules of
everyday conduct Ð or, if we must, those rationalizations of worldly success Ð
that have molded the American mind into its unique shape. É The men of 1776
believed that the good state would rise on the rock of private and public
morality, that morality was in the case of most men and all states the product
of religion, and that the earthly mission of religion was to set men free.Ó
Nowhere was this better exemplified than in the Connecticut River Valley in
1639.
Puritanism was indeed exclusionary in the sense that the settlers of the
Plymouth and Boston colonies had come to these shores to establish Christian
communities that conformed as nearly as possible to the pious and moral life
prescribed by the Bible. Excluding individuals who rejected Bible-based
Christianity was the settlers’ right, because they had purchased the king’s
colonial charters with their own money and had endured great suffering and
death to establish their new homes.
For many decades this had no practical effect of excluding individuals from
church membership and civil government, because with very few exceptions
everyone was of like mind.
Nonetheless, groups who differed about specific Christian doctrinal matters
continually arose within older congregations and left to form new church
communities. In this manner, led by their minister Thomas Hooker, dissidents
in the Newtown, Massachusetts, congregation went to the Connecticut River
valley in 1636 and over the next few years settled the Puritan communities of
Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield.
Because their existence was threatened both by hostile Indians, and by Dutch
settlers from the Hudson valley to the west, they sought mutual protection. A
General Court was established at Hartford. It opened with a sermon by minister
Thomas Hooker who asserted among other things that:
“.… the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the
people.… that the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by
God’s own allowance.… [and that] they have power to appoint officers, and
magistrates have the right also to set bounds and limitations of the power and
place unto which they call them.”
These ideas of representative democracy were incorporated in the Fundamental
Orders of Connecticut adopted in 1639, the first written constitution in
history to establish a continuing civil government.
As historian John Fiske expressed it in “The Beginnings of New England”:
“The government of the United States today is in lineal descent more nearly
related to that of [Puritan] Connecticut than to that of any of the other
thirteen colonies. The most noteworthy feature of the Connecticut republic was
that it was a federation of independent towns, and that all attributions of
sovereignty not expressly granted to the General Court remained, as of original
right, in the towns. Moreover, while the governor and council were chosen by a
majority vote of the whole people, and by a suffrage that was almost universal,
there was for each township an equality of representation in the assembly.”
That constitution continued as the basis for the government of State of
Connecticut until 1818. Because of our socialistic educational doctrines, very
very few people today know that its adoption is the reason Connecticut is known
as the Constitution State. Nor do they know that Puritanism was the source of
our earliest institutions of representative democracy.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New
Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
[0] comments (645 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Sat Aug 12, 2006
Metaphor myth...
Q: How could the human race descend from a metaphor?
A: During an interview for a Roman Catholic newspaper in Ireland, the reporter told Ken Ham that a person of faith can believe in millions of years. The reporter started explaining that Genesis is a metaphor. So Ken asked him, “Does that make you a relative of a metaphor?” He pointed out to the reporter that the Bible lists the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way back to Adam.
Then Ken asked, “When did the real people stop and the metaphors begin?” The reporter responded, “Well, the late pope said you could believe in evolution as long as man and woman were created with souls.”
Ken went on to tell him about how Eve was made from Adam, and they were one flesh. This formed the basis of marriage, just as Jesus taught. If Adam and Eve came from animals, as evolution would have us believe, the whole doctrine of marriage is destroyed.
But not only marriage; all biblical doctrines, including the gospel, are based in Genesis. If Genesis is a metaphor, then our doctrines and the gospel would be meaningless.
------------------------------
Are there gaps in the Bible’s recorded genealogies? See our technical answer to this question at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/chronogenealogies.asp
* A message from AIG @ www.answersingenesis.org
__________________________________________________________________
Liberty Counsel needs your suppost in defeating and defunding the ACLU. Please help by joining the effort at www.lc.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Rifle Association needs your help in defending Second Amendment rights against gun hating liberals like billionaire George Soros and like democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and numerous others as well as numerous left wing anti-american organizations like MoveOn.org and such. Visit www.nra.org for more info.
____________________________________________________________________
If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.
Logon to SFT today and take a stand for the Truth at www.standfortruthonline.com
[0] comments (876 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Fri Aug 11, 2006
Democrats Must Stop!
Democrats Must Stop Waffling
By Thomas E. Brewton
We hear endless criticism of the administration’s foreign policy. It is long
past time for Democrats to tell us exactly what they plan to do after they
order troop pull-outs in Iraq.
Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. is dismayed that Vice President
Cheney attacks the shortcomings of Democrats’ foreign policy positions.
Unacknowledged is the fact that Democrats every day assault the President and
his advisors, often in grossly personal terms. In the instant case, Mr. Dionne
labels the Vice President’s disagreement “partisan,” as if that were
unacceptable conduct.
Given the nature of our political system, it would seem reasonable to permit
all parties to speak their minds freely. The result will be partisanship on
all sides. And there is nothing wrong with that.
There is, however, something wrong with Mr. Dionne’s specific arguments
respecting foreign policy.
In a column titled Who’s Guilty of ‘Petty Partisanship’? Mr. Dionne wrote:
“The rejection of Lieberman made Cheney wonder if “the dominant view of the
Democratic Party” is “the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat
behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here
at home.”
“Wow! I bet the 145,000 free citizens of Connecticut who voted for Lamont will
be shocked to learn that they were really sending signals of “retreat” to “al-
Qaeda types.”
“… From there it was an easy leap to saying a Democratic Party—cleverly
renamed the “Defeat-ocrat Party” by the RNC chairman—“that once stood for
strength now stands for retreat and defeat.” Translation: Anyone who dares
question our botched approach is in favor of surrender.”
Why is it unreasonable for the Vice President to infer that Democrats believe
that pulling our troops out of Iraq will eliminate our problems and forestall
future attacks by Islamic jihadists? That is precisely the foreign policy
position that Ned Lamont employed to defeat Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Connecticut voters might be shocked, as Mr. Dionne suggests, to learn that Al
Queda and Iran interpret their votes for Mr. Lamont as defeatism. If so, it’s
because Connecticut voters haven’t thought about what happens next.
If pulling our troops out of Iraq is not admitting that Al Queda and Iran have
defeated us, what does it signify?
What else will Bin Ladin conclude from Connecticut voters’ selection of Ned
Lamont, if not that the American public is succumbing to the defeatism of
Vietnam and no longer has the fortitude to resist Islamic jihad?
If liberal pacifistsÐ Democrats, Republicans, and independents Ð do not intend
to surrender via inaction after pulling out of Iraq, what explicitly do they
propose to do?
So far as I can discover, no opponent of the administration has offered
anything beyond returning to the status quo ante of feckless debate and passage
of unenforceable resolutions in the UN. None of that prevented the bombings of
our embassies in Africa or the atrocities of 9/11. Why should going back
around the track work this time?
What about Iran’s threat to destroy Israel and us too? Will the Iranian
leaders be so cowed by our pulling out of Iraq as to abandon those plans?
Connecticut’s Ned Lamont, in his campaign against Senator Lieberman, had
nothing more to offer than negotiating with the Iranians, getting our allies
involved, and “incentivizing” them, i.e., appeasing them. Incentivizing
failed earlier with Iran and with North Korea. Why might it work this time?
Even a foreign policy novice like Mr. Lamont surely must be aware that for
three years the administration has been doing all of the things he proposes, to
no avail. France, the UK, and Germany have repeatedly offered diplomatic
initiatives to the Iranians, with “incentive” carrots and no threats beyond
going to the UN to pass resolutions for sanctions.
The latter must really terrify the Iranians when they review the utter
ineffectiveness of such UN measures over a dozen years with Iraq. With Kofi
Anan at the UN helm, the Iranians might even welcome sanctions as a way to
pocket billions of dollars in another oil-for-food scam.
Many Bush-haters have, sotto voce, advocated throwing Israel to the Islamic
wolves, on the assumption that our support for the Jewish nation is the only
reason for 9/11. If that is really part of the Democrats’ foreign policy
plans, then they must have the courage to state it forthrightly.
The bottom line is this: Democrats’ criticism is cheap, but when it offers a
fictitious prospect for national security, it really does border on
criminality. Ordering troop withdrawals is not a deterrent to Al Queda or
Iran. It is way past time for the Democrats to tell the American public in
specific detail how they intend to deal with Islamic jihad.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New
Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0] comments (647 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Thu Aug 10, 2006
Something new...
SBC President Hopes More Churches Will Start Christian Schools
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=7740
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By abandoning, Joe Lieberman because of his support for the war on terror, Democrats have decided that Kool Aid will be the party drink of choice in November.
Poison will be provided courtesy of Howard Dean and the DNC. Mass graves are now being excavated, using only union labor of course, in anticipation of November election results.
Just a couple of months ago, liberals were basking in the glow of new public opinion polls showing Democrats gaining voter confidence in their ability to handle national defense and terrorism.
Imagine that--voters actually started trusting Democrats over Republicans when it comes to keeping America safe.
For the first time since George McGovern made Richard Nixon’s reelection a lead-pipe cinch and Watergate the most unnecessary crime wave in U.S. political history, Democrat was synonymous with defense, rather than defeatist
But as everyone knows, with success comes responsibility and Democrats have never been known as particularly diligent about anything.
That is, with the exception of raising taxes and kicking God out of all public venues where two or more “sensitive” Muslims with Jihad on their minds might congregate
Thus, Lieberman’s loss is a clear signal to the DNC elite: Defeatism is back!
In other words, the party of abortions, assisted suicides, and murders’ rights
has decided that “Hairy-Kerry” is preferable to winning.
Once again, Democrats are set to make G.W. Bush look like a political genius and clever strategerist--a feat G.W. could never accomplish on his own
John W. Lillpop
San Jose, CA 95111
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0] comments (634 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Wed Aug 09, 2006
Today commentary...
IN THE NEWS:
Fake photos. How far will the mainstream media go to liberalize America?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RustyShackleford/2006/08/09/reuters_admits_faking_photos,_still_in_denial
ACLU makes profits at taxpayer expense
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200608/CUL20060804a.html
2006 Interactive elections guide
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=126971
University of Wisconsin refuses to recognize Christian student organizations
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3820
How gay activist groups work to get into public schools
http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0041546.cfm
_______________________________________________________________
Read all about Communist Goals 1963 and NOW! Click here:
http://liberalsvsus.info/1963-congress.htm
_______________________________________________________________
NEA Member Troubled by National Union’s Liberal Political Activism
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/82006c.asp
Family Activist Warns Public of ‘Soft Rhetoric’ from Anti-Family Group
tp://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/72006b.asp
______________________________________________________________
Georgia Voters Reject Anti-war Racist
In a stunning victory for president G.W. Bush and the forces of common sense, cop-beater Cynthia McKinney was expelled from the U.S. House of representatives by Georgia voters on Tuesday.
Georgia voters thus did a bit of “Housekeeping” in Nancy Pelosi’s Culture of Corruption. Housekeeping that the bug-eyed airhead from San Francisco should have done on her own.
McKinney, known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks, was demolished by Attorney Hank Johnson, a former county commissioner, who won the nomination with 59 percent of the vote, surpassing McKinney by more than 11,000 votes. Source:
The defeat of this racist dunce is proof positive that anti-war Democrats are about to commit hairy-Kerry on a grand scale in November--again!
But why try to stop them? After all, ending ones life, political and otherwise, is a personal choice best left to the individual. Right?
Besides, anti-war nutcases like McKinney and Cindy Sheehan are the best thing the Republicans have going this election!
John W. Lillpop
San Jose, CA 95111
[0] comments (620 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Tue Aug 08, 2006
Hello, friend of Life and Liberty...
Hello, friend of Life and Liberty.
By now you know that Florida State Senator Jim King—the highest profile elected official in the state of Florida who starved Terry Schiavo to death—is in the political fight of his life against Randall Terry, a man who served Terri’s family faithfully, and fought valiantly to save her from starvation.
Why do I make the assertion that Senator King is on the verge of losing? Because I’ve seen the polling data with my own eyes.
Senator Jim King is a RINO—“Republican in name only”—and oddly enough, he is the Senator in an extremely conservative Republican district in Florida—District 8. The area is overwhelmingly and unashamedly Christian, pro-life, against homosexual marriage, and against euthanasia.
Hence, Jim King is completely out of step with the district.
You may wonder: “Then how is it that Jim King is the State Senator?”
It’s simple: he has never had a primary opponent since 1986!
That’s right! In every election since 1986, Jim King has not faced a primary opponent in the Republican primary.
This area of Florida is an overwhelmingly Republican area. The winner of the primary is almost automatically elected in whatever seat he or she is running for. In fact, many times the Democrats do not even run a candidate. It’s hopeless.
Hence—for whatever reason—Jim King has had a free ride for 20 years because no one had the vision, or the courage, or the money, or the passion to run against him.
But his free ride is up.
After the death of Terri Schiavo, many members of the Republican Executive Committee of Duval County (Jacksonville, Florida) urged Randall Terry to run against Senator King. They were fed up with King’s antics.
You see, Senator King wasn’t just wrong on Terri Schiavo; his record over 20 years was virtually indistinguishable from that of a Democrat.
In fact, Scott Maddox, the Chairman of the Democrat Party of Florida said: “We love Jim King. We think he’s doing a great job!” (Quoted in the Orlando Sentinel)
When the leader of the Democrat Party—a party that promotes homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, higher taxes, amnesty for illegal immigrants, the removal of the 10 Commandments from public buildings, more government regulations, the prohibition of school
prayer, and a dozen other ethical and political evils—praises you, YOU HAVE A BIG PROBLEM!
However—Republican State Senator Jim King has been on the wrong side of all of these issues. That’s why the Democrats love him!
In fact, Jim King just voted to give illegal immigrants college tuition with taxpayer money! That was like hanging a sign on the wall saying, “Y’all come over here, and make Florida the base of your illegal operations!”
And that’s why we must defeat him, and elect a proven champion of life and liberty: Randall Terry. Click here to donate NOW:
https://secure.responseenterprises.com/randallterry2006/?a=6
Randall Terry has been on the frontlines for over 20 years; he is a proven leader, and a courageous defender of life and liberty; he has appeared as an eloquent spokesman for conservative causes on Oprah, 60 Minutes, Hannity and Colmes, Larry King Live, Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and hundreds of other television and radio shows in America and around the world.
My friend—it is time for political payback.
Political payback for the death of Terri Schiavo…
Political payback to the liberal Republican leadership in Washington, DC and in our states that ignores our voices concerning illegal immigration…
Political payback for left-wing Republicans who want to make our party pro-abortion and Pro-homosexual marriage…
Having Randall Terry win this election to the Florida State Senate will be a great victory for conservative Republicans and pro-lifers from coast to coast. If Randall Terry wins this primary, I believe it will be one of the most significant stories of the entire 2006 political season.
That is why I am volunteering for Randall’s campaign;
That is why our PAC has given money to Randall’s campaign;
And that is why I am asking you to join in “piling on” this corrupt Republican, Senator Jim King.
I’m asking you to help elect Randall Terry to the Florida Senate. No matter where you live in the nation, if you value conservative politics, and if you want to send a message to the Republican leadership that you are sick and tired of being ignored or marginalized or vilified, this is your chance to be heard.
This is your chance for political payback.
There are only 14 days left until early voting begins; 29 days left until the primary election on September 5. Randall needs every possible penny from committed conservatives and pro-lifers.
Randall will use your contribution to raise the conservative banner, and herald the pro-life message; he will also expose Jim King’s record—which is the opposite of Republicanism.
Randall has mounted a huge grassroots campaign, with an incredible volunteer force…
But Randall and his team are out of money.
THIS IS LIKE HAVING AN ARMY THAT HAS PINNED DOWN THE ENEMY, BUT HAS RUN OUT OF AMMUNITION!
We need to be the supply line! We need to send these front line soldiers the ammunition they need to win this battle! Will you join me? Political payback is a beautiful thing! Click here to donate NOW:
https://secure.responseenterprises.com/randallterry2006/?a=6
Friend, you can surely sacrifice $10 or $20. If everyone reading this challenge would simply give $35, Randall would have the money he needed to handily defeat Jim King!
You may be able to give $100 or $200. Or you might even be able to give $500—the legal maximum in the state of Florida. And by the way—if you have a corporation, corporate gifts are allowed for Florida State elections. The legal limit is also $500.
If you want to volunteer on the ground, call his campaign headquarters right now at 904-246-7337 if you can go door-to-door, or distribute literature at church, or help with their phone bank from your home.
Let us seize this moment and do everything in our power to eject Senator Jim King from public office—a man who embodies the corruption, deceit, doubletalk, and death that has marred and poisoned American politics for too long.
Let’s do everything in our power to elect a true Ronald Reagan Republican—Randall Terry.
Please, give whatever you can today. To volunteer, call 904-246-7337.
To give online, click here:
https://secure.responseenterprises.com/randallterry2006/?a=6
Randall Terry for Florida State Senate
Dept. Code 6
P.O. Box 3886
St. Augustine, FL 32085
I hope you’ll be a part of this political payback. It’s long overdue.
Sincerely,
William Greene, President
RightMarch.com
* A message from Right March @ www.rightmarch.com
BE SURE TO FORWARD IT TO FRIENDS SO THAT LIBERAL EXTREMISTS CAN NO LONGER STARVE INNOCENT PEOPLE AGAIN!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Go get ‘em Israel!
Felicia Benamon Felicia (Fee) Benamon
August 7, 2006
Israel is doing what it should do, eliminating the threat of Hezbollah and Hamas from its borders. Israel has taken flack for doing what the U.S. would do in response to any aggressive action by the enemy; we would hunt those down who is responsible. Now is not the time to play cease fire games.
I’m shaking my head as the U.S. tries to draw up a plan for a lasting peace in the Mid-East. We should know by now that peace will not come when terror organizations like Hezbollah continue to exist.
The tactics used by them are deplorable. They were the aggressor against Israel in the beginning. If it were not for the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers and the rocket attacks, Israel would not be advancing into Lebanon right now.
Instead of collaborating with the U.N. to put together a peace plan and cease fire, Secretary of State Condi Rice should state the truth, that Hezbollah should be eliminated. The Bush administration should not have to feel like they have to fall lockstep behind other nations in calling for some sort of peace plan.
If President Bush is serious about going after terrorists and the countries that harbor them, as he stated soon after 911, then he would let Israel finish the job.
Israel has made it their mission to root out Hezbollah, even giving civilians time to leave before their massive campaign against Hezbollah. Their goal is not to harm citizens of Lebanon. They are acting in the most humane way in this war. You think Hezbollah would extend the same courtesy to Israeli civilians?! I think not!
Civilians were told time and again to leave Lebanon, and if people ignored that warning and refused to leave, I have no sympathy. I truly believe that if only Lebanese civilians realized why Israel is targeting Lebanon, and realize that the reason for many of their problems has to do with Hezbollah, then there would be no outcry about a cease fire.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora screams for an immediate ceasefire. Yet, he has failed to uproot and dismantle operations of Hezbollah in Lebanon, allowing them to operate freely,
so Israel is doing it for him.
In this ongoing campaign, Israel has been blamed for deaths across Lebanon. Specifically for the death of civilians in Qana, a village in Lebanon. But as the Israeli army investigates, the findings point to Hezbollah:
Lebanese website blames Hizbullah for Qana deaths
Anti-Syrian elements in Lebanon openly point finger at Hizbullah as guilty of killing of dozens of civilians in order to curtail plans for disarming group. ‘Hizbullah has placed rocket launcher on building’s roof and brought invalid children inside in bid to provoke Israeli response,’ they write Roee Nahmias
Is Hizbullah behind the tragic incident in the village of Qana that claimed the lives of some 60 people? While the Israeli army continues to investigate the circumstances leading to the building’s collapse, some in Lebanon do not hesitate to point the finger at the Shiite organization and claim it is to blame for the death of dozens.
The Lebanese website LIBANOSCOPIE , associated with Christian elements in the country and which openly supports the anti-Syrian movement called the “March 14 Forces,” reported that Hizbullah has masterminded a plan that would result in the killing of innocents in the Qana village, in a bid to foil Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s “Seven Points Plan,” which calls for deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon and the disarming of Hizbullah.
(See: Lebanese website blames Hizbollah...below for more details)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One has to surmise that Hezbollah is not incapable of using deplorable tactics to sway the outcome of their war against Israel. For that reason, they should be removed from this earth. We should NO MORE, placate the evil that exists in the form of terrorism! Hezbollah is not an organization which exists to help the people of Lebanon, like it is believed to be, but a murderous organization. The organization of Hamas falls into the same category among the Palestinians.
One main tactic used by terror groups is that they use children, whether it is indoctrination of extreme beliefs to take up martyrdom for “the cause,” or they are strategically placed, as in the Qana case, in harms way for propaganda against their enemies...using children as human shields.
Another tactic; firing from among civilians, and in this case, from where I’d least expect them to, from Christian areas of Lebanon. In the mainly Christian area of Wadi Chahour in Lebanon, Hezbollah set up position in the town to launch rockets at Israel, so says an Australian journalist who obtained photos of Hezbollah fighters (See: Photos that damn Hezbollah below). It’s a disgusting, sneaky tactic.
This is why Israel has rained down attacks on Christian areas in Lebanon. They are simply firing back at Hezbollah fighters. Certainly, Israel has no beef with Christians, and has no reason to strike in those areas of Lebanon.
Israel must strike back at enemy combatants no matter where they hide. The condemnation should be put on Hezbollah for conducting their sleazy war amidst civilian populations. But the U.N. seems to be biased in favor of Hezbollah.
It has been said that Hezbollah fighters have taken up position behind the U.N. and the U.N. seems to be playing Big Brother to Hezbollah and the Arab cause. Israel recently came under fire from the U.N. for the bombing of a U.N. post on the southern Lebanese border, killing 2 U.N. observers and leaving 2 more displaced. Israel has apologized and expressed regret for the deaths of the observers, but one has to wonder why the U.N. post was hit. Perhaps Hezbollah was present?
These terror organizations want only to see the blood of their enemy, Israel, and are not interested in living in peace. They will use whatever tactics necessary to bring down their opponent. The only solution is to uproot these terror organizations, to fight back.
Israel is fighting for her life, and let’s be reminded that terrorists will not stop with Israel. Al-Qaida’s second in command Ayman al-Zawahri issued a statement for all Muslims to expand
their war on “tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America.”
Al-Qaida, he says, believes “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.”
Is this not a reason to stand firmly against terrorism? Those of us in the U.S. used to have the same mentality of Israel, to fight back, and not to appease. But we have grown weary and complacent when it comes to the War on Terror. Israel now is setting the example, and we should not tie their hands, but stand firmly behind them.
So, as I watch Israel’s war with Hezbollah unfold, I am chanting, for good reason..."GO GET ‘EM ISRAEL!”
Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites, including RenewAmerica.us, Daley-Times Post, RealityCheck.org, Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, and many more. Felicia is currently branching out, and hopes to do more freelance writing, and eventually carry a column in her local newspaper. She hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections. Felicia is also an occasional guest speaker on KYAL2K, conservative talk radio (www.k-talk.com), Salt Lake City, UT.
................................................................................................................…
[0] comments (649 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Sat Aug 05, 2006
Contact Reid...
Tell Senator Reid to Unblock Major Pro-Life Bill
August 3, 2006 | Refer a Friend
Senator Harry Reid needs to hear from you today. He is blocking the most important pro-life legislation to pass the Senate this session! Senator Reid is tying up S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA), by using Senate rules to prevent it from going to conference with the House-passed bill. Please call 202-224-5556 now.
Here is some background: On July 18, the Senate passed Senator John Ensign’s Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403) by a wide margin of 65-34. This bill passed with the support of 14 Democrats, including Minority Leader Harry Reid!
But as soon as the bill passed, Senator d*** Durbin, Senator Reid’s deputy, objected to the motion to go to conference--effectively blocking the bill from moving forward. The final language must be negotiated in a House-Senate conference and approved by both chambers before it can be sent to the President for his signature.
This bill could die for this year in Congress, which would be tragic.
The Child Custody Protect Act (CCPA) would make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion if this action gets around the application of a state law requiring parental involvement in a minor’s abortion.
Twenty-nine (29) states have laws in effect that require the consent or notification of at least one parent, or court authorization, before a minor can obtain an abortion. Yet it is legal for a complete stranger to take a teenage girl across state lines so that she may undergo an abortion without her parents’ knowledge. The CCPA would curb much of the current interstate circumvention of these laws, protecting the rights of parents and the well being of minors.
Sadly, the interstate transportation of minors to procure an abortion often serves to conceal criminal activity such as statutory rape. Moreover, abortion clinics on state borders often advertise in the yellow pages of phone books in states with parental consent laws in order to attract minors across state lines. These clinics intentionally market to minors to evade state laws.
Here’s a real story which shows why CCPA is so necessary. Marcia Carroll is a Pennsylvania mother whose daughter was taken without her knowledge to New Jersey for an abortion. The family of the girl’s boyfriend wanted her to have an abortion. They helped transport her to New Jersey, then threatened to leave her if she didn’t have the abortion. Unfortunately, she did have an abortion. Marcia thought that Pennsylvania’s state parental notification law would protect her daughter, but did not learn until after the fact that the state law was easily evaded.
CCPA is necessary to protect parents’ rights and the health of minors who may be seduced into abortions. Parental notification laws are supported by 80% of Americans.
Please call Senator Reid today at 202-224-5556. A suggested message is below:
“I strongly support the Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403), as do 80% of the American people, especially parents. Your use of procedural tactics to block it from moving to conference with the House-passed bill is an unacceptable frustration of the will of the American people and the well being of families. This bill will uphold state laws designed to protect minor children from exploitation. We ask you stop playing politics and allow this bill, for which you yourself voted, to go to conference!”
Thank you and God bless you.
* A message from the Family Research Council @ www.frc.org
[0] comments (629 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Fri Aug 04, 2006
John Bolton...
One More Reason Why John Bolton is Good for America
by
Rob Hood
There have been many fought over issues in the world of partisan politics since George W. Bush has been president. One issue is the nomination of people to different positions of power with our government. Supreme Court justices have been fought over tooth and nail and so has the nomination of John Bolton to the UN.
I really don’t know what all the fuss is about here. Bolton seems to have been doing a good job representing America and has taken a stand in many areas where a liberal appointed official would have gone along with foreign ideas that Americans oppose.
One such issue is the UN Gun Ban. The UN has been known to be ineffective and corrupt, not to mention anti-Semitic and anti-American at times because of our conservative policies and our strength to stand up behind them without wavering.
The UN has been caught red handed in making deals with dictators and terror sponsors such as Saddam Hussein. Remember the food for oil scandal? We know the mainstream media wants us to forget it but we won’t because it’s too important to forget.
We all know that the UN has been a driving force behind left wing sponsored gun ban proposals that all Americans should reject to even listen to. John Bolton alone has had the guts to do what no liberal representative of the United States would do by standing up to the bullies at the UN and letting them know that America is sovereign, free, and will remain that way and in no way will we ever adhere to foreign law in our land. No way will we ever give up our Second Amendment rights because a foreign government says we should.
Recently our hero on the right, John Bolton slammed the UN for unnecessary remarks about conservatives living in “fly-over country”. UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown stated that the United States is to blame for lost efforts he deemed “good works”. He blamed outlets such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for failed UN policies. In short, he just said that public outcry against the UN was to be blamed on American conservatives. This seems to be a trend these days. When you fail, just blame someone you don’t like.
Of course this radical, out of touch from reality fantasy enraged John Bolton. Bolton referred to it as a grave mistake. Bolton told the Secretary-General Kofi Annan that this was the worst mistake made by a UN official since the entire time that he personally knew Kofi Annan from 1989. Bolton is quoted for stating “To have the deputy secretary-general criticize the United States in such a manner can only do grave harm to the United nations.”
I am glad that President Bush picked John Bolton for this job. He knows how and when to take a stand for America and what we believe in. He knows what the majority of America stands for. He knows how to represent a people of great integrity and moral values and this alone is one more reason why America needs a man like John Bolton.
[0] comments (633 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Thu Aug 03, 2006
Fined for speaking out...
Canadian Professor Fined for Stating Opposition to Homosexuality
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/262006b.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuals Seek to Shut Down Canadian Pro-Family Websites
“This is becoming the biggest battle in Canada’s history for freedom of speech
and freedom of religion”
By Peter J. Smith and John Jalsevac
CALGARY, Alberta, July 31, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Homosexual activists have
denounced three Calgary based websites to the Alberta and Federal Human Rights
Commissions, demanding that the sites which post information critical of
homosexual behaviour be shut down.
Homosexual activists in Alberta have targeted these websites run by Craig
Chandler, a Canadian conservative and talk-radio host. The sites contain
postings of letters, calls for action, and archived copies of a radio show
called Freedom Radio Network. The radio program hosted by Chandler with co-host
Erik Gregson describes itself as “conservative without apology” and “a breath
of fresh air in a world inundated by left wing liberal media”.
LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Chandler, who explained that his long and expensive
battle with the human rights commissions began over two years ago. At that time
the Executive Director of Concerned Christians Canada, Rev. Stephen Boissoin
wrote a letter to the editor denouncing the homosexual agenda. Dr. Darren Lund
of the University of Calgary then filed a complaint with the Alberta Human
Rights Commission about the letter, which Boissoin and Chandler have been
forced to fight to the tune of close to $100,000, with no end to the case in
sight.
Not only was Boissoin brought before the Commission, but Lund and other
homosexual activists attempted to have three affiliated websites, all of which
are following and publicizing the case, shut down. The three websites are
concernedchristians.ca, freetospeak.ca, and freedomradionetwork.ca. The
Alberta Human Rights Commission, however, dismissed the complaint, says
Chandler, allowing the sites to continue running. The homosexual activists,
however, not lightly to be brushed aside, then filed a complaint with the
Canadian Human Rights Commission.
“Now we’re on another front that’s going to cost us thousands and thousands
more,” complained Chandler, estimating that by the time the two cases are
finished they will have spent some $250,000 on legal fees, simply to defend
themselves against a complaint. “The thing about a Human Rights Commission
complaint is that it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, you still have to
foot the bill. If I want to get our money back, I have to take them to civil
court,” which, Chandler pointed out, will only incur further expense without
the assurance of winning.
Chandler vociferously denies any accusations of hatred against homosexuals on
the part of him or any of the websites. “They’re saying the websites are anti-
gay,” he said to LifeSiteNews.com. “We’re not. We’re not anti-gay. Hate’s not a
family value.”
However, he adds that “Sometimes the truth hurts…That’s exactly our perspective
on it. The gay and lesbian community, homosexual activists, they don’t want
anything but complete silence to any disagreement to their views on the
issue.”
“This is becoming the biggest battle in Canada’s history for freedom of speech
and freedom of religion. Freedom of the press is gone.”
“Our freedoms are being taken away very quickly. This may end up with one or
another of us in jail, because I won’t pay the fine. If that’s what it takes, I’
m willing to go behind bars.”
Chandler also warned pro-life and pro-family forces throughout the rest of
Canada, that if his case is lost in the Alberta Human Rights Comission, then
there is little hope for freedom of speech for the rest of Canada, since
Alberta is considered Canada’s most conservative province. “If we get defeated
out here, no one’s going to survive out East. If you’ve lost in Alberta you’ve
lost everywhere. It’s done. We need to unite behind this fight. We need to
start realizing in the social conservative movement in this country we’re being
relegated to the sidelines because we don’t stand together.”
Chandler requested the support of pro-life and pro-family advocates across
Canada. Please pray for us,” he added. “If you can’t give us money, then surely
you can get on your hands and knees. “
Read a history of Boissoin’s case at http://www.concernedchristians.ca
Contact Craig Chandler or donate to his fight against the Human Rights Commissions at: http://www.freedomradionetwork.ca or http://www.freetospeak.ca
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Growing Support for Alberta Pastor Facing Human Rights Hearing Over Letters
Against Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05091407.html
Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal For Letter to
Editor on Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05090204.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSAGES FROM MISSION AMERICA @ www.missionamerica.com
[0] comments (645 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Wed Aug 02, 2006
Judicial tyranny...
Puritan Theocracy vs Judicial Tyranny
By Thomas E. Brewton
Puritans believed in the democracy of New England town meetings. Liberals
believe that unelected judges have an unlimited prerogative to create law, even
when it is overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of citizens.
-------------------
As elaborated in Theocracy: the Origin of American Democracy, Congregational (Puritan) churches were the original towns of New England in the 17th century. And they were models of democratic government in which each church member had a direct voice in the governance of the church and the civil authority.
In sharp contrast, liberals today impose their minority views upon the majority
through judicial fiat.
Groundwork for this anti-democratic hegemony was laid by later-to-be- Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., with his 1881 “The Common Law.” That
work was an attack on tradition, holding that the ancient common law,
originating under Henry II in 12th century England, was no longer sufficiently
modern and should be largely scrapped to reflect the new doctrines of
socialism.
Holmes was an advocate for the theory of “legal realism,” which holds that the
law is no more than whatever a judge says it is in a given case at a given
time. Never mind what the Constitution states, nor what the founding
generations intended, the Constitution may be arbitrarily reinterpreted by
judges to suit the latest social-justice fad of the liberals.
The ACLU, embodying the most militant of the liberal voices of World War I and
the 1920s, found Holmes’s legal realism entirely congenial. Roger Baldwin, the
early head of the ACLU, worked to give socialists and anarchists complete
freedom to attack the Constitution in word and deed, including bombing and
assassination. His tactic was to use Holmes’s legal realism to get courts to
expand the definition of First Amendment free speech to include any action, no
matter how destructive to established social standards of the great majority of
the nation.
We see the result in the February, 2004, ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court overturning more than 5,000 years of bedrock social standards.
By a split decision, 4-3, the court ordered the Massachusetts legislature to
change the ancient laws of the state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Whatever your opinion about the desirability of legalizing same-sex marriage,
it is indisputable that the overwhelming majority of citizens in every state
vehemently oppose it.
Thus far have we come since the days of democratic town meetings in New
England. From every person having a voice in public affairs to four liberals
arbitrarily imposing their social-justice precepts upon the people. This is
nothing less than judicial tyranny.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New
Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0] comments (688 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Tue Aug 01, 2006
Spirituality...
Spiritual Religion is Essential to Freedom
By Thomas E. Brewton
Liberals are not really pushing for separation of church and state; there has
never been an established spiritual religion. Their goal is no less than to
destroy spiritual religion and to impose socialism as the secular state
religion under the banner of social justice. They call it scientific progress,
the same terminology employed in the French Revolution’s bloody Reign of Terror
and in Adolph Hitler’s Holocaust.
Survival of our formerly inalienable individual liberties is now purely a
matter of chance, of public-opinion-of-the-moment. ThatÕs why liberal
intellectuals place such a high value on ÒevolvingÓ public opinion, as a sort
of Darwinian creation of successive new species of acceptable government
powers. If the public can stomach it, the government can do it, no matter what
the Constitution actually says.
-------------------
Under our present-day secularity and moral relativism, there can be no such
thing as inalienable individual liberties of the kind intended when the Bill of
Rights was written. Liberal secularism contends that the Federal government
has no limits on the powers it may assert or the areas of individual life that
it can bring within the ambit of its regulation. All three branches of the
Federal government have long since discarded the original Constitutional limit
on arbitrary government power that was based on natural law and individual
morality.
ThatÕs what the New York Times calls ÒmainstreamÓ thinking. Like a river, it
has no permanence and can spill over its former boundaries, drowning formerly
secure places.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, our first socialist Supreme Court Justice, became a
liberal icon by adopting the standard of public opinion to justify ÒimpliedÓ
powers of government. Justice Holmes advocated the theory of Òlegal realism,Ó
declaring that there was no such thing as natural law that supported the
concept of inalienable rights. The law, he said, is nothing more than whatever
a judge rules in a specific case.
Within the past seventy years the Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of
Rights to mean that some rights are subordinate to others. The Court has also
adopted an interpretation of the Òestablishment of religionÓ clause of the
First Amendment that documentation from the Constitutional Convention proves to
be completely false.
As Alexander Hamilton warned in The Federalist papers, written words alone, in
a Bill of Rights or any other document, can readily be distorted to the ends of
a person intent upon doing so. Liberties can be preserved only by an aroused
public that knows and understands traditions and is prepared to defend them.
American voters today qualify in neither respect, because public education has
failed them.
Religion has been under attack in Europe since around 1750, in America, since
the 1880s. Liberals in the United States today have sensors far more efficient
than any airport bomb detectors. Every whisper of religion is instantly
dragged into the interrogation room and given the third-degree to extort a
confession that the intent was to establish an unconstitutional, official
national religion.
No rational person can sustain a case that expressing moral values and
connecting them with religion amounts to any such thing, and it is barely
credible that liberals themselves actually believe it. Why then is voicing
opinions about religion and morality absolutely forbidden, but attacking such
opinions and indeed expressing anything else, however gross and revolting,
protected by the First AmendmentÕs right of free speech?
The answer lies in the long skirmish between liberals aiming to institute
socialism and traditionalists hoping to protect the original intent of the
Constitution. Traditionalism stands for individual liberty, that is, a society
in which natural law restrains government from arbitrary exercises of power
that infringe the rights of individuals. Liberalism stands for state-imposed
equality and welfare-state security in Big BrotherÕs sheltering arms.
Liberals think that only Federal technocrats have the smarts and the capacity
to improve peopleÕs lives. Liberals prefer the bureaucrat whom they know to
the individual whom they canÕt control, as former Senator Bill Bradley
observed. In theory, after the United States has been fully transformed into a
secular and amoral nation, liberal social engineers will be free to perfect
humanity and create heaven-on-earth.
Our political ancestors were of a very different mind. For them, religion was
an essential element in their political liberties. Understanding that requires
a brief excursion into history and some basic concepts.
The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were founded in 1620 and 1630 to
escape political and religious persecution in England under the absolutist
kings James I and Charles I. Town governments in Puritan New England were
operated through the local church congregations. But early on, individualism
and political liberty repeatedly were asserted. The church was the town
governing body, but the church members appointed the minister. Members who
disagreed with what was preached in the pulpit or who disagreed with political
and economic decisions of the church congregation pulled up stakes, moved
elsewhere, and formed new towns built around their own new churches. Most of
the early New England towns were established in this manner. The large number
of those towns makes clear that religion was no barrier to personal liberty.
Whatever their disagreements about specific church doctrine, they all were in
agreement that pursuit of moral conduct was the essence of good government.
This understanding, while elemental within Christianity, dates from Socrates,
Plato, and Aristotle. Western European tradition called for governments to
craft laws and to support religion and traditions that fostered moral conduct.
Political societies can be organized on one or the other of two fundamental
premises about human nature. One imposes order from above by decree of the all-
powerful sovereign government. It assumes that people are amoral beings who
respond only to pleasure or pain. The other depends upon social order flowing
upward from individuals who are voluntarily self-restrained by codes of
morality and civic virtue. The first says that people follow societyÕs rules
only because they fear punishment if caught. The second says that most people
follow the rules, even in the dead of the night when all others are asleep,
because their consciences tell them that they should do so.
Our present-day liberal government is based on collectivized rule by regulatory
decree. The Constitution was based on expectation of individualsÕ behaving
responsibly and doing their duty voluntarily.
Spiritual religions, especially the Protestant Christianity predominant in
colonial times, place responsibility for personal conduct and duty to others
squarely on the individual. One can not escape moral responsibility for
reprehensible acts by claiming that he was just following orders or executing
the collective will of the people. He is obliged by religion to consult his
conscience and strive to do the right thing, from the view point of others, as
well as himself. This ethos promotes independence of judgment in political and
social life. And it coincides exactly with political liberty, the axiom that
government may not infringe arbitrarily on an individualÕs conscience or his
inalienable rights.
A constitution establishing a government of limited powers can not survive if
its citizens are not similarly constrained in their conduct by the higher
authority of moral law. One is a counterbalance to the other. Morality, the
vital component, has always been the domain of religion, from which morality
originates, in which morality is preserved, and by which citizens are
instructed in morality.
The French Revolution of 1789 offers a compelling illustration. As Alexis de
Tocqueville ("The Old Regime and the Revolution,” 1859) noted, the brutal mass
murders of the Reign of Terror came, not when mobs stormed the Bastille, but
four years later in 1793, only after the French revolutionaries had debauched
the church and confiscated its properties. The authority of the monarchy a
shambles, destroying religion removed the last restraint on systematic,
barbaric, state-controlled terrorism.
Uniquely in the United States, there was to be no established national church,
partly because so many different Protestant denominations had already taken
root. But everyone took for granted that those religious denominations would
be the principal agencies to preserve and teach the codes of morality and civic
virtue.
Religion in this sense is vital to political governance, but is not part of the
political power structure. Its realm is with its followers, as individuals.
For that reason alone it is absurd to claim that discussion of religion and
morality in schools or anywhere else amounts to establishing an official state
religion.
The First Amendment says, ÒCongress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion,ÉÓ That phrase, Òestablishment of religion,Ó was
clearly understood to refer to the English Test Act, when the Bill of Rights
was written. Indeed it was so spelled out several different times in the
debates at the Constitutional Convention. Under the Test Act, English public
office holders were required to be members of the Anglican Church.
Additionally, English citizens, regardless of their personal religious faith,
were taxed to support the Anglican Church. Though some American states had
established official religions on the English model, no one wanted that at the
Federal level.
Trusting that a citizenry ignorant of history wonÕt know the difference,
liberal commentators now go so far as to assert that the First Amendment
guarantees Americans freedom from religion. They are offended by hearing
public figures proclaim their religious faith, and they maintain that people of
religious faith threaten the alleged wall between church and state (a fiction
that appears nowhere in the Constitution).
Squaring First Amendment guarantees of free speech with this liberal thesis
would, in the past at least, have been difficult. It makes freedom of speech a
one-way street, available only to secular liberals. Religious believers
presumably must endure continual legal attacks and ridicule from the media
without rebuttal. Their rights of free speech are trumped by the sensitivities
of agnostics and atheists.
In addition to specious use of the First Amendment, liberals attack religion
and morality as unscientific value judgments. Yet clearly liberals hold very
definite value judgments under the rubric of social justice.
Were they actually concerned about the progress of science, they would not
object to open classroom discussions of both socialism and traditional values.
For liberals, however, the issue was settled by what they regard as revelation
of absolute truth in the French Revolution Ñ end of story, no further
discussion.
That revolution gave birth to socialism and in time to liberalism, its American
sect. Thus forces driving American liberalsÕ crusade against spiritual
religion can best be understood in light of the parallel phenomenon of the
RevolutionÕs secular religion.
Tocqueville noted that, while the Revolution consciously aimed to destroy
traditional religion, ÒÉÉ the French Revolution, though ostensibly political
in origin, functioned along the lines, and assumed many of the aspects, of a
religious revolution.ÉÉthe ideal the French Revolution set before it was not
merely a change in the French social system but nothing short of a regeneration
of the whole human race.ÉÉIt would be truer to say that it developed into a
species of religion, if a singularly imperfect oneÉÉÓ
Yet another point of attack by liberals is the charge that religion both
oppresses people and causes vicious strife and wars. Many feminists, for
example, see religion as a male-dominated institution to keep women
subjugated. Liberals point out that Islam was a motivating force behind the
savagery in Bosnia and Serbia, as well as the World Trade Center destruction on
September 11, 2001.
AristotleÕs answer to similar charges regarding private property rights was
that the unavoidable source of anti-social behavior is human nature itself.
People are born with the potentiality for both good and evil. Religion calls
upon the individual to do unto others as he would have them do unto himself.
It doesnÕt always work. Neither does the existence of a code of criminal law
and police forces, but no sane person would call for their abolishment just
because some crimes continue to be committed.
No evidence exists to support the idea that religion and morality were to be
wholly excluded from public life when the Constitution was ratified. To the
contrary, all the daily practices of government involved deferences to
Divinity, from opening sessions of Congress with a chaplainÕs prayer, to formal
references to God in most public speeches.
Religion in the United States has been, since the MayflowerÕs voyage, the
citadel of individual liberties and individual responsibilities. Early New
England community governments were centered on the local churches. Their town
meetings were the model for self-government and the exercise of political
freedom. It was not by chance that opposition to George III was first
organized in Puritan New England.
LiberalsÕ contention that public education should be secular has no basis in
history. Colleges such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were established
expressly to train ministers of the Gospel. Horace Mann, the founder of free
public education in the 1830s, became chairman of the nationÕs first state
board of education. In his address to the Massachusetts legislature, he stated
that the justification for expenditures of public funds on education was the
vital need to instruct young people in the commonly-accepted core of religious
morality and civic responsibility.
Not until John DeweyÕs progressive education theories gained acceptance among
intellectuals and academics in the 1920s did this begin to change. A life-long
socialist and the most influential intellectual of his era, Dewey taught that
public education should dispense with the ÒdeadÓ past and inculcate the
ideology of socialism. He aimed to restructure the whole of society on the
Soviet model that he and his fellows at Columbia UniversityÕs Teachers College
praised so lavishly.
ÒFreedom from religionÓ would have voided the Declaration of Independence,
which based the colonistsÕ right to independence specifically upon Òthe Laws of
Nature and of NatureÕs GodÓ that applied to a people Òendowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights.Ó
The abolition of slavery, our nationÕs greatest single moral act, was not a
liberal social-justice program, but the product of forty years of religious
campaigning by Protestant ministers that began during the Second Great
Religious Awakening in the 1820s. It was these preachers who organized the
first abolition societies. People of the Northern states stood fast during the
bloodiest war in history to that date, because preachers, Sunday after Sunday,
called upon them to live up to the precepts of Christian morality.
The Battle Hymn of the Republic projected the Civil War with majestic clarity
as a Christian moral cause. LincolnÕs Gettysburg address immortalized the
ultimate sacrifice of so many for Òthis nation, under God.Ó
As recently as 1953, President Eisenhower said in his first inaugural speech,
ÒIn our quest for understanding, we beseech GodÕs guidance.ÉThis faith is the
abiding creed of our fathers. It is our faith in the deathless dignity of man,
governed by eternal moral and natural laws. This faith defines our full view of
life. It establishes, beyond debate, those gifts of the Creator that are manÕs
inalienable rights, and that make all men equal in His sight.Ó
HumansÕ instinct for spiritual religion is hard-wired in our genetic makeup.
Every society documented by historians or studied by anthropologists and
archeologists has had some form of religion as its fundamental ordering
principle. Historically, the collapse of a religion-based moral consensus has
led to a greatly weakened political state, riven by internal dissension and
vulnerable to a domestic tyrant or a foreign foe.
The Etruscans became an irreligious people who, like present-day Americans,
were obsessed with hedonistic sensual gratification. The disciplined Roman
Republic crushed them, leaving their tombs as the only evidence that Etruscan
society had ever existed.
France was the most powerful nation in Continental Europe before the 1789
Revolution wiped out its religious and political institutions. The bloody
Reign of Terror was followed by NapoleonÕs seizure of imperial power and his
brutal military subjugation of Europe. France then collapsed into political
instability that has involved more than a dozen different constitutions, five
different socialist republics, a restoration of the Bourbon kings, the
institution of the royal House of Orleans, the Second Empire under Napoleon
III, and the collaborationist Vichy government during the Nazi occupation in
the 1940s. France is now a third-rate nation under its most recent
constitution imposed when General Charles de Gaulle seized power in a 1958
military coup.
Germany, after World War I, sank into a cesspool of irreligion and hedonism so
gross that even the Parisians were shocked. The struggle between the socialist
Weimar Republic, which rejected religious and moral codes, and those who longed
for a return to stability and decency was ÒresolvedÓ in 1933 when President von
Hindenburg asked Adolph Hitler, the winner of German public opinion, to become
Reichs Chancellor.
President Lyndon JohnsonÕs socialistic Great Society in 1965 promised
government-imposed equality of economic and social status, based on class
membership. Instead it produced riots, burning cities, soaring crime rates,
plummeting educational standards, the highest illegitimate birth rates in
history, and four generations of ever-growing welfare dependency.
Liberals are undeterred by such empirical facts. Their zealous faith in
secular socialismÕs ultimate worldly redemptive power is impervious to
experience.
Historical experience also appears to have had little effect on the voting
public, who remain committed to the welfare state. One is compelled to admit
that the promise of a free lunch has a powerful appeal to a public ignorant of
history. They love the benefits, but donÕt understand their cost
After more than seventy years of efforts to inculcate secular socialism in
public education, liberal educators have formed a nation of people who know
almost nothing about what the Constitution stood for when it was written. Like
people in boats drifting with the tide on a dark night, we no longer know where
we came from, nor where weÕre headed.
Since 1932, Americans have been willing to sacrifice political liberty for the
servility of womb-to-tomb welfare-state security. Otto von Bismarck, creator
of the German Empire, knew what he was doing when he imposed the worldÕs first
welfare system in 1881. His purpose, Bismarck declared, was to make Germans
servile and dependent upon the national state, so that they could be herded
like cattle.
TocquevilleÕs description of France under socialism in the 1850s applies
equally well to the United States since 1932. ÒÉthe passion for equality,
first to entrench itself in the hearts of Frenchmen, has never given ground; ÉÉ
while the urge to freedom is forever assuming new forms, losing or gaining
strength according to the march of events, our love of equality is constant and
pursues the object of its desire with a zeal that is obstinate and often blind,
ready to make every concession to those who give it satisfaction. Hence the
fact that the French nation is prepared to tolerate in a government that favors
and flatters its desire for equality practices and principles that are, in
fact, the tools of despotism.Ó
Today, our collectivized Federal government regulates an ever-widening spectrum
of actions and thoughts. Our socialist regulatory state permits, even
encourages, individuals to look out only for themselves, to do whatever they
can get away with. The Federal government certainly does nothing to encourage
or teach religious moral values that would lead people to heed their
consciences and to do the right thing.
Our secular educational system teaches Òtolerance,Ó i.e., moral relativity,
along with the liberal philosophy of pragmatism, which says that the only guide
is whatever works for the individual. In pragmatism, the end of socialism
justifies any means, so there is no longer a limit on governmentÕs arrogation
of power or abrogation of individual rights. Since 1937, provisions of the
Bill of Rights have been selectively discarded by the courts, as owners of
private property repeatedly have experienced. Our government routinely grants
special benefits based solely upon membership in favored social classes, making
a mockery of Òequal justiceÓ under the law.
All of this is in direct opposition to the government of limited powers
instituted by the Constitution. And all of it is contrary to individual
liberty supported by the precepts of morality and instructed by religion.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New
Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Adults” Missing in Stem-Cell Debate
by Robert E. Meyer
Once again, the consequences and motives of the president’s veto regarding the
bill to expand embryonic stem-cell research have been grossly misrepresented.
The issue is depicted as though the president deliberately invoked this issue
to energize the conservative base. But was it Bush who initiated this new bill?
Wasn’t it Bush who has been consistent on this stem-cell policy since day one?
Embryonic stem-cell research has not been banned. It simply won’t be subject to
additional federal government funding beyond the current scope of existing stem-
cell lines. If this method has so much short-term potential, why aren’t private
companies flocking to sink money into this venture? For those that have, are
the results so unpromising that only government money will save the venture?
After all, does the federal government need to fund companies that are in the
businesses of oil
exploration and refining? Private sector lack of progress is betraying and
contradicting the emotional appeals of those who are expecting embryonic stem-
cell research to deliver tomorrow’s miracles.
It’s interesting that secularists often complain about government money (their
tax money) being used to promote social policies based on religious principles,
yet nobody sees a problem with using government money to promote an activity
many find so morally objectionable.
Let’s also get over the silly rhetoric that those who support the president’s
position, or a similar one, are ignorant Luddites opposed to scientific
progress, or that they’re harming people by deliberately blocking research.
The real shame is that the alternative is rarely spoken of in glowing terms:
that is, adult stem-cells, or those extracted from umbilical cord blood. Each
time the subject of “stem cells” is brought up in the public arena, we are
presented with a phony scenario where some people are against it, while others
are for it. We rarely hear--in fact I have never yet heard--the merits, or the
pros and cons of the embryonic versus adult stem-cells issue ever objectively
debated. That’s what makes this
whole approach so disingenuous. You can’t help but wonder what dirty little
secret is being hidden.
Why put all efforts into embryonic research when you can get virtually everyone
who currently objects on board by promoting adult stem-cell research instead?
The liberals who support the unfettered exploration of embryonic stem-cells,
are so often the ones telling us that we need to compromise, that we need to
negotiate, that we need to quit harping on issues that divide people, as it
pertains to different issues. Well, who are the ones acting in opposition to
their own cherished procedures?
We seldom hear the truth; that any advances realized from embryonic stem-cells
for curing diseases would be achieved well into the future, if at all. This
glimmer of potential, of course, mitigates any “absurd” moral objections that
opponents might bring into the discussion. Such people are ridiculed for
prostrating to a “clump of cells.” or POC. We see the same euthanasia/abortion
mindset projected into the stem-cell debate. Any number of fearless philosopher-
kings dogmatically declare that “aZygote isn’t a person,” but can any of them tell you when personhood starts? It reminds me of the cogency of an argument I got from an atheist once; “there is no God, but I don’t know how the universe came into being.” Anything not
functioning at its full cognitive or developmental potential can be deemed as
not fully human, and thus expendable.
It may well be that the embryonic variety of stem cells has greater long-tern
potential, but the adult cells have already shown positive results. We just
never hear much about them. Some of the euphoria about embryonic research
should have been tempered by the discovery that a South Korean cloning expert,
under governmental pressure, had fabricated positive research findings. Chances
are, most people have already forgotten.
All too often, when we attempt to make decisions on the basis of utilitarian
ethics, we ask only the question of what can be done, when we should be asking
what ought to be done instead. Let’s be certain that bioethics keeps a tether
on biotechnology.
Robert E. Meyer writer is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The
New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,
journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
[0] comments (2379 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks