Democracy - Page 2

"Time has proven that the UN has been unable to maintain world peace and cooperation, and often it has aided the spread of world communism." -- Abeka History textbook.

The Communist Manifesto calls for the destruction of the family, culture, science and religion (atheism), the confiscation of property and inheritance, control of communication and dictatorship. It also called for private central banks and income tax.

General Eisenhower Warned Us

It is a matter of history that when Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

This week, the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it'offended' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beat, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center, 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the U.S.?

My Apology to UNC-Charlotte
By Mike S. Adams
Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Last Thursday, I gave a speech at UNC-Charlotte called "Why Liberals Hate Freedom." The main point of the speech was that "liberals" hate freedom because they are not really liberals. Unfortunately, during and after the Q and A things got heated with a few of the communists who decided to awaken from their drug-induced stupor and attend the speech.

Since I was overly harsh with most of them I would like to offer the following apology, which truly comes from the bottom of my heart:

I am sorry that communists actually exist in the United States of America -- a nation so great that it must construct walls to keep people out.

I am sorry that these communists would like to turn this great nation into one that must construct walls to keep people in.

I am sorry that I sometimes end sentences with prepositions.

I am sorry that one of the communists attending my speech chose to accuse me of conflating the terms "communism" and "socialism."

I am sorry that it is not possible to conflate synonyms.

I am sorry that, in my mind, I may have conflated the terms "imbecile" and "idiot" while the aforementioned communist was speaking.

I am sorry that the communist who falsely accused me of falsely accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton of being a Marxist has not bothered to read her Master's thesis or "her" book, It Takes a Village.

I am sorry but it takes a family, not a village, to raise a child.

I am sorry that the communist on the back row pretended not to understand that the main point I was making with regard to Clinton was: There is already a trend towards socialism in America, which will be accelerated sharply if Clinton is elected president.

I am sorry that the aforementioned communist instead chose to claim that I said "Clinton will seize control of all private industry as soon as she takes office."

I am sorry that communists are unable to address smart arguments from capitalists, opting instead to refute dumb arguments that no one else but communists are making.

I am sorry that the communist love of straw man arguments is symbolic of the fact that communists are living in a make-believe world with make-believe enemies.

I am sorry that my articulation of the above observation caused this particular communist to scurry out the back door of the auditorium while I engaged in a rational point-by-point refutation of his "arguments."

I am sorry that they don't make communists like they use to.

I am sorry that I sometimes end sentences with prepositions.

I am sorry that I sometimes repeat myself.

I am sorry that another communist chose to approach me with the ridiculous argument that Jesus' multiplication of bread and feeding of masses was proof that Jesus, too, was a communist.

I am sorry that the communist who accused me of being "un-Christian" because I oppose socialism was unaware that I tithe 10% of my income to orphans in Africa -- and that 100% of them are black.

I am sorry that this does not bolster the argument that capitalism = racism.

I am sorry that this un-bathed communist was forced to admit that he donates 0% of his money to charity.

I am sorry that his excuse for giving nothing to charity was "But, I'm not a Christian."

Actually, I'm quite that happy he admitted the true basis of his hypocrisy.

But I really am sorry that he only halfway believes in the saying "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I am sorry that the half he believes in is the latter half of the saying.

I am sorry that the aforementioned communist did not shower because he believes that soap is bad for the environment.

I am sorry that his disdain for soap is wreaking havoc on my environment.

I am also sorry that yet another communist attacked my position on gay marriage by saying that the government should stay out of marriage altogether.

I am sorry that when I asked whether the government had the authority to keep a 43-year old from marrying a five-year old he could not give a straight answer.

I am sorry if the aforementioned communist was gay and, therefore, offended by my suggestion hat he could not give a "straight" answer.

I am sorry for my bad puns.

And, finally, I am sorry that the money I made giving my speech at UNC-C was spent on expanding a firearms collection that will help ensure that the Adams household will not soon be overtaken by un-bathed hippy communists who seek to re-establish the world's most vile and murderous ideology with the possible exception of radical Islam.

I am sorry if any Islamic Jihadists were offended by the previous run-on sentence. I was just trying to avoid using any sentence fragments that might make this apology sound sarcastic. I really mean that. Seriously. I do.

Congressional and Leftist Lies
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 14, 2007

An important component of the leftist class warfare agenda is to condemn President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. This claim is careless, ignorant or dishonest on at least two counts. First there's the constitutional issue. Article I, Section 8 reads, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes . . ." That means the president has no taxing authority.

Presidents can propose or veto taxes and Congress can override vetoes. The bottom line is that all taxing authority rests with the U.S. Congress. The next time you hear someone condemn or praise Bush's tax cuts, ask them whether the Constitution has been amended to give the president taxing authority.

But what about those tax cuts for the rich? Are the rich now sharing a smaller burden of the federal income tax because their fair share of the burden has been shifted to the poor? The most recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics can give us some guidance. In 2005, the top 1 percent of income earners, those with an annual adjusted gross income of $365,000 and higher, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes; in 1999, they paid 36 percent.

In 2005, the top 5 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $145,000 and higher, paid 60 percent of all federal taxes; in 1999, it was 55 percent. The top 10 percent, earning income over $103,000, paid 70 percent. The top 25 percent, with income of over $62,000, paid 86 percent, and the top 50 percent, earning $31,000 and higher, paid 97 percent of all federal taxes.

What about any argument suggesting that the burden of taxes have been shifted to the poor? The bottom 50 percent, earning $30,000 or less, paid 3 percent of total federal income taxes. In 1999, they paid 4 percent. Congressmen know all of this, but they attempt to hoodwink the average American who doesn't.

The fact that there are so many American earners who have little or no financial stake in our country poses a serious political problem. The Tax Foundation estimates that 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders had no 2004 federal income tax liability. The study concluded, "When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of the U.S. population -- who are outside of the federal income tax system." These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?

Similarly, what do you care about tax cuts if you're paying little or no taxes? In fact, you might be openly hostile toward tax cuts out of fear that they might lead to reductions in handout programs from which you benefit. Survey polls have confirmed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350 billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes.

Whether you're for or against President Bush matters little, but what do you think of politicians and their media dupes winning you over with lies about the rich not paying their fair share? And, by the way, $145,000 or even $345,000 a year hardly qualifies one as rich. It's not even yacht money.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

The Rich Aren't Made of Money
By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, November 14, 2007

"The question is, should we be giving an extra $120 billion to people in the top 1 percent?"

So asked Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton's chief economic advisor, at a recent National Press Club panel discussion. Translation: It's the government's money, and anything left over after Uncle Sam picks your pockets is a "gift."

Indeed, to hear leading Democrats talk about the "richest 1 percent" - a diverse cohort of investors, managers, entrepreneurs and, to be sure, some fat-cat heirs - one gets the impression that wealthy Americans are a natural resource, to be pumped for as much cash as we need.

Further, the Democrats don't think that well will ever run dry. "I no more believe that the hedge-fund managers are going to quit working at billion-dollar hedge funds because tax rates go up 5 percent than Alex Rodriguez will quit playing baseball because they put in a salary cap," Austan Goolsbee, Barack Obama's economics guru, said Friday.

This sort of thing used to be a staple of the hard left. "Look at the wealth of America, weigh its resources, feel its power," wrote the editors of The Nation back in 1988, endorsing presidential candidate Jesse Jackson's extravagant public spending plan. "There's enough money in this country to do everything Jackson asks, and more."

But now this vision simply defines liberal economics. John Edwards' unending campaign for president is based on the idea that there are two Americas and everyone will be better off when un-rich America mugs rich America. According to Democrats, it's greedy to want to keep your own money, but it's "justice" to demand someone else's.

Michael Boskin, Rudy Giuliani's economic advisor, said, "There is no - let me repeat - no example in the last quarter-century of a large, complex economy that has been successful with high taxes." He added: "The Western Europeans have seen their standards of living decline by 30 percent in a little more than a generation because of their high taxes." The U.S., meanwhile, has outperformed the competition over the last quarter-century.

I'm with Boskin. But I think there's a more pressing issue. What does it do to a democracy when people see government as something only other people should pay for?

Let's take seriously for a moment the notion that rich people are an inexhaustible army of Energizer bunnies that just keep going and going, no matter what taxes you throw in their path. You can see where Democrats get this idea, after all. The top 1 percent of wage earners already provide nearly 40 percent of federal income tax revenues. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers contribute only about 3 percent.

Taxes are a necessary evil. But their silver lining is that they foster a sense of accountability and reciprocity between the taxpayer and the tax collector. Indeed, democracy is usually born from this relationship. Widening prosperity brings a rising middle class, which in turn demands the rule of law, incorrupt bureaucracies and political representation in exchange for its hard-earned money. You might recall the phrase "no taxation without representation."

The one great exception is what development experts call the "oil curse." In countries "blessed" with oil wealth or similar resources, the relationship between the government and the governed gets distorted. These "trust-fund states" (author Fareed Zakaria's term) don't need taxes, so their rulers worry little about representation and accountability, opting instead for paternalism or authoritarianism. Worse, the people are less inclined to see government as their expensive servant and more as their goody-dispensing master.

Today, our politics seem to be suffering from a "rich people curse." We treat the rich like a constantly regenerating pinata, as if they will never change their behavior no matter how many times they get whacked by taxes. And we think everyone can live well off the treats that will fall to the ground forever.

Of course, typical wage earners pay plenty of taxes, but not in ways that foster a sense of reciprocity with the government in Washington. Their biggest federal payment is the regressive payroll tax intended to fund Social Security and Medicare. Even though, as a matter of accounting, these payments are no different from other taxes, they're sold simply as retirement and health insurance programs.

Meanwhile, Democrats keep telling the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that America's problems would be solved if only the rich people would pay "their fair share" of income taxes. Not only is this patently untrue and a siren song toward a welfare state, it amounts to covetousness as fiscal policy.

I don't know what the best tax rates are, for rich or poor. But I'm pretty sure that it's unhealthy for a democracy when the majority of citizens don't see government as a service they're reluctantly paying for but as an extortionist that cuts them in for a share of the loot.

Compassion Versus Reality
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Dr. Thomas Sowell, a distinguished economist and longtime friend and colleague, recently wrote a series of columns under the title "A War of Words." He pointed out that liberals succeed in duping the public because they are so clever with words that they give the appearance of compassion. Liberals talk about the need for "affordable" housing and health care. They tarnish their enemies with terms such as "price-gouging" and "corporate greed." Uninformed and unthinking Americans fall easy prey to this demagoguery.

Politicians exploit public demands that government ought to do something about this or that problem by taking measures giving them greater control over our lives. For the most part, whatever politicians do, whether it's rent controls to produce "affordable" housing, or price controls to eliminate "price-gouging," the result is a calamity worse than the original problem. For example, two of the most costly housing markets are the rent-controlled cities of San Francisco and New York. If you're over 40, you'll remember the chaos produced by the gasoline price controls of the 1970s. Socialist agendas have considerable appeal, but they produce disaster, and the more socialist they are, the greater the disaster.

Liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation. Let's examine just one reason for the superior morality of free markets.

Say that I mow your lawn and you pay me $30, which we might think of as certificates of performance. Having mowed your lawn, I visit my grocer and demand that my fellow men serve me by giving me 3 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're demanding that your fellow man, as ranchers and brewers, serve you; what did you do to serve your fellow man?" I say, "I mowed his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it!" That's when I hand over my certificates of performance -- the $30.

Look at the morality of a resource allocation method that requires that I serve my fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces and contrast it with government resource allocation. The government can say, "Williams, you don't have to serve your fellow man; through our tax code, we'll take what he produces and give it to you." Of course, if I were to privately take what my fellow man produced, we'd call it theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft -- the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.

Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.

There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

A War of Words
By Thomas Sowell

It has long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents. The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things.

Are you for or against "social justice"? A no-brainer. Who is going to be for injustice?

What about "a living wage"? Who wants people not to have enough money to live on?

Then there is "affordable housing" and "affordable health care." Who would want people to be unable to afford to put a roof over their heads or unable to go to a doctor when they are sick?

In real life, the devil is in the details. But the whole point of political rhetoric is to make it unnecessary for you to have to go into the specifics before taking sides.

You don't need to know any economics to be in favor of "a living wage" or "affordable housing." In fact, the less economics you know, the more you can believe in such things.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have a gift for phrasing things in terms that are unlikely to arouse most people's interest, much less their support.

Do words like "property rights," "the market" or "judicial restraint" make your emotions surge and your heart beat faster?

There are serious reasons to be greatly concerned about all these things. But you have to have a lot more facts and more understanding of history, economics, and law before you see why.

An issue can be enormously important and well within most people's understanding. Yet the way words are used can determine whether people are aroused or bored.

One of those issues is what legal scholars call "takings." There is a masterful book with that title by Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School.

But if you are in a bookstore and see a book with the title "Takings" on its cover, are you more likely to stop in your tracks and eagerly snatch it off the shelf or to yawn and keep walking?

Takings are not a complex idea. But it needs explaining.

Let's suppose you live in a $400,000 house.

If, on a Wednesday afternoon, the government announces that it is planning to "redevelop" the area where your home is located -- that is, demolish the area so that something else can be built there -- by Thursday morning, your $400,000 house could become a $200,000 house.

The market reacts very quickly in anticipation of future events.

Several years later, when the government actually gets around to demolishing the area, they may offer you $200,000 for your property -- or perhaps $150,000, if they use an appraiser who knows that he is more likely to get more business from the government if his estimates are on the low side rather than the high side.

In either case, you are out at least a couple of hundred grand. Has the government "taken" that much from you, without paying you the full compensation for your property, as required by the Constitution of the United States?

Such theoretical questions were made vividly real, and people were vividly outraged, when the Supreme Court in 2005 declared that governments at all levels had the power to seize private property, not only for such government activities as building reservoirs or highways, but also for turning the property over to private developers to build shopping malls, casinos, or whatever.

The Constitution says that government can take private property for "public use" if it compensates the owner. The Supreme Court changed that to mean that the government could take private property just to turn over to others, so long as they called it a "public purpose" like "redevelopment."

Politicians are experts at rhetoric, especially if that is all that is needed to justify seizing your home and turning it over to someone else who will build something that pays more taxes.

All hell broke out, once people now understood that the issue called "takings" was about politicians being able to seize their property, virtually at will, for someone else's benefit. But it was a liberal court decision, not the words of conservatives, which created that understanding.

A War of Words, Part II
By Thomas Sowell

With gasoline prices rising, political rhetoric is rising even faster. Liberals in Congress and in the media have launched a war of words, whose net result may well be a demand for some form of price control.

Price controls are not a new idea. There have been price controls in countries around the world. There were price controls during ancient times in Babylon and in the Roman Empire.

Whatever the hopes that may have inspired price controls, economists have studied their actual consequences, which have been remarkably similar from one place to another and from one time to another -- and almost invariably bad.

That history has even included higher prices in places with price controls. For example, New York and San Francisco have severe rent control laws -- and some of the highest average rents in the country.

But those pushing for price controls on gasoline are not likely to go into facts about the consequences of price controls, much less go into the economics that explains why such bad consequences have repeatedly followed price controls.

This issue, like so many others, is likely to be settled on the basis of rhetoric. And, on that basis, the left has always had the advantage.

As former House Majority Leader Dick Armey -- an economist by trade -- has put it: "Demagoguery beats data" in political battles.

The demagoguery in this case is that "price gouging" and "greed" explain rising gasoline prices -- and that price controls will put a stop to it.

It is an exercise in futility to try to refute words that are meaningless. If a word has no concrete meaning, then there is nothing that can be refuted. "Price gouging" is a classic example.

The phrase is used when prices are higher than most people are used to. But there is nothing special or magic about what we happen to be used to.

When the conditions that determined the old prices change, the new prices are likely to be very different. That is not rocket science.

How have conditions changed in recent years? The biggest change is that China and India -- with more than a billion people each -- have had rapidly growing economies ever since they began relaxing government controls and allowing markets to operate more freely.

When there are rising incomes in countries of this size, the demand for more petroleum for both industry and consumers is huge. Increasing the supply of oil to meet these escalating demands is not nearly as easy.

In the United States, liberals have made it virtually impossible, by banning drilling in all sorts of places and preventing any new refinery from being built anywhere in the country in the last 30 years.

Prices are like messengers carrying the news of supply and demand. Like other messengers carrying bad news, they face the danger that some people think the answer is to kill the messenger, rather than taking steps to change the news.

The strongest proponents of price controls are the strongest opponents of producing more oil. They say the magic words "alternative energy sources" and we are supposed to swoon -- and certainly not ask any rude questions like "At what cost?"

Then there are the famous "obscene" profits of oil companies. Again, there is no definition and no criterion by which you could tell obscene profits from PG-13 profits or profits rated G.

There is not the slightest interest in how large the investments are that produced those profits. Relative to the vast investments involved, oil company profits do not begin to approach the rate of return received by someone who bought a house in California ten years ago and sells it today.

Oil company executives make big bucks incomes, almost as much as liberal movie stars who are never criticized for "greed." And if Big Oil CEOs worked for nothing, it is unlikely to be enough to bring the price of a gallon of gas down by a nickel.

But facts are not nearly as exciting as rhetoric -- and the role of most political rhetoric is to be a substitute for facts.

When the Cold War Came to Los Angeles
By Bill Steigerwald
Monday, November 26, 2007

No military battles in the Cold War took place on American soil. But 30 years ago, the clashing civilizations of capitalism and communism slugged it out for 18 days in -- of all places -- downtown Los Angeles.

The bloodless 1977 skirmish started when the Soviet Union sent 200 bureaucrats and KGB agents to the Los Angeles Convention Center to put on a gigantic communist propaganda show called the "Soviet National Exhibition." The Soviets hoped to impress Americans with the glorious scientific, industrial and cultural achievements of 60 years of Communist Party rule.

But the rare exhibit, which ran Nov. 12-29 and attracted 310,000 visitors and hundreds of anti-communist protestors from the U.S.S.R.'s many captive republics, hurt the Soviet image more than it helped.

No doubt many children, movie actors and devout socialists were impressed by the government flea market of shiny Soyuz spacecraft, Armenian micro-art and 100-pound reel-to-reel tape decks. They'd have agreed with the Los Angeles Times, which called the exhibit "splashy" and "seductive."

But to any red-blooded capitalist who looked at the exhibit with a critical or malicious eye -- as I did during six visits -- words like "boring," "clueless" and "unintentionally hilarious" came to mind.

The show's 10 ceiling-to-floor propaganda banners and huge silk-screened panels celebrating great moments in Communist history were dumb enough. But what fool at the Ministry of Marketing thought ordinary Americans -- in hip, happening L.A.! -- were going to be interested in viewing large-scale models of things like hydroelectric dams and BN-600 fast-neutron reactors?

The official Soviet pamphlets and brochures were pitiful. Printed on cheap paper and dully written, they were rife with government statistics about electric power capacities, rolled ferrous-metal output and 10-year-plan goals.

And Orwell would have loved the print up of a translation of a speech Leonid Brezhnev gave to mark the 60th anniversary of the "Great October Socialist Revolution."

Delivering perhaps the Cold War's greatest series of 180-degree-wrong predictions, Brezhnev droned on for 32 pages about the Communist Party's heroic past, capitalism's imminent demise and the inevitable triumph of socialism. His ringing final line -- "Onward, to the victory of communism!" -- was followed by this parenthetical and unintended punch line:

"L.I. Brezhnev's report was heard with great attention and punctuated with prolonged stormy applause."

The Soviets also made another marketing mistake by scattering guest books around for Joe Six-pack to scribble such comments as "This is almost as impressive as the Berlin Wall," "No toaster, no microwave?" and "P.S.: Lenin needs a hair transplant."

Few of these quipsters probably realized that the Soviets' hapless PR road show -- which naturally was slobbered over by L.A.'s media and civic booster elites -- was a perfect microcosm of the Soviet Union.

Totally controlled by government, saturated with propaganda and devoid of consumer goods, the exhibit was manned by overworked employees who during off-hours were imprisoned in their motel and forbidden to go anywhere alone.

In 1977, many experts who should have known better were saying the Soviets were winning the Cold War. But if those "experts" had looked behind the smoke and shiny Soyuzes at the Soviet exhibition, they would have seen many hints that, at age 60, the fearsome Evil Empire was a clumsy, senile and sickly superpower.

Ideology Was Bush's Undoing
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Over lunch, a liberal friend expressed puzzlement. Citing the title of Tom Oliphant's new book about the Bush administration, "Utter Incompetents," he wondered aloud.

Like him or not, he said, Bush is not an unintelligent man, and he is a principled and energetic executive. As for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the others, almost all had long resumes of accomplishment in politics, government and business. Why, then, do they seem to have failed so dismally?

In my new book, "Day of Reckoning," published this week, I offer an answer. If there is a one root cause to the Bush failures, it has been his fatal embrace of ideology.

Ideology is substitute religion, a belief system based on ideas that are often contradicted by history and common sense. Yet men will adhere to ideologies with a zealotry that borders on fanaticism.

Marxism, fascism and socialism were are ideologies, gods that failed. So, too, is democratism, the Gospel of George W. Bush.

Democratism is a belief that all men are equally endowed with a desire for freedom and an aptitude for democracy. All can be uplifted, and all brought to see that democracy is the one true path to peace in our world. In democracy lies our salvation.

This conviction lay behind the invasion of Iraq, Bush's crusade to democratize the Middle East and his "global democratic revolution" to "end tyranny in our world." And, as Woodrow Wilson's crusade "to make the world safe for democracy" gave us Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, Bush's crusade for democracy is leaving us with ashes in our mouths.

Yet, Wilson's heart was pure, and he ever exhibited the serenity of the True Believer, the unmistakable mark of the ideologue. One imagines Bush will be preaching the dogma of free trade long after the last U.S. factory has closed and the dollar has reached parity with the Mexican peso.

Bush's "compassionate conservative" appears grounded in the ideological conviction that all children are endowed with the capacity to learn through the high school level. No Child Left Behind was going to raise the test scores of all our children above the national average, as in Lake Wobegon.

Why was it fated to fail? Because reality is otherwise. All children are not equal in their innate ability to learn English or math, as they are not equal in their ability to play sports, music or chess. A second-grader knows that, but our elites reject it as bigotry and blasphemy against the egalitarian dogmas that define who they are.

So we invest trillions, empower bureaucrats and enrich the education industry, demanding it produce what it has shown for 40 years it cannot produce. Today's SAT scores are far below where they were in 1964. Like socialists striving to make their system work in Cuba, China and Russia, we have been banging our heads against a brick wall of human nature.

Consider Katrina. Bush was indeed disengaged. But Katrina was a failure of government, not of Bush. The city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana and FEMA all failed at the simple rescue of 30,000 people stranded by a few feet of stagnant water, while TV anchors boated back and forth bellowing for government to come save them.

Where were the men of New Orleans?

Why did the men of New Orleans, after getting their families out, not come back in boats to rescue the black women and children? Why did so many cops defect and start looting? And why did the National Guard and 82nd Airborne succeed and end the hysteria in hours?

In New Orleans, society collapsed because its basic building block, the family, has collapsed, for all the reasons we know too well.

Yet while civil government is failing, institutions like the 82nd, Microsoft and the New England Patriots succeed -- because they operate on other than ideological principles.

You don't vote for the head of Microsoft or choose the coach of the Patriots or commanding officer of the 82nd by elections.

These institutions reject egalitarianism. They put excellence before equality. They do not believe in a "level playing field" for opponents, but, with Vince Lombardi, that "winning isn't everything, winning is the only thing." They demand our best. You fall short, you are gone. They are intolerant of excuses and self-pity.

All who labor there know if they do not perform, the penalties are real: loss of jobs, income, prestige. In the 82nd, incompetence can mean dead comrades or your own death. They are one-for-all and all-for-one people. They are exclusive, not inclusive. They reject racial, ethnic and gender quotas and affirmative action. To the 82nd and the Patriots, there are places women simply do not belong.

Thomas Jefferson believed that in a republic a "natural aristocracy" of virtue and talent should rule. Those who run these institutions believe the same. That is why they succeed, and why government, when we ceased to be a republic and degenerated into an egalitarian democracy, so often fails.

The World Doesn't Hate America, the Left Does
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

One of the most widely held beliefs in the contemporary world -- so widely held it is not disputed -- is that, with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats' major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls, the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world peace and harmony.

But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the world's left that hates America. However, because the left dominates the world's news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America.

That it is the left -- and those influenced by the left-leaning news and entertainment media -- that hates America can be easily shown.

Take Western Europe, which is widely regarded as holding America in contempt, but upon examination only validates our thesis. The French, for example, are regarded as particularly America-hating, but if this were so, how does one explain the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France? Sarkozy loves America and was known to love America when he ran for president. Evidently, it is the left in France -- a left that, like the left in America, dominates the media, arts, universities and unions -- that hates the U.S., not the French.

The same holds true for Spain, Australia, Britain, Latin America and elsewhere. The left in these countries hate the United States while non-leftists, and especially conservatives, in those countries hold America in high regard, if not actually love it.

Take Spain. The prime minister of Spain from 1996 to 2004, Jose Maria Aznar, is a conservative who holds America in the highest regard. He was elected twice, and polls in Spain up to the week before the 2004 election all predicted a third term for Aznar's party (Aznar had promised not to run for a third term). Only the Madrid subway bombings, perpetrated by Muslim terrorists three days before the elections, but which the Aznar government erroneously blamed on Basque separatists, turned the election against the conservative party.

There is another obvious argument against the belief that the world hates America: Many millions of people would rather live in America than in any other country. How does the left explain this? Why would people want to come to a country they loathe? Why don't people want to live in Sweden or France as much as they wish to live in America? Those are rich and free countries, too.

The answer is that most people know there is no country in the world more accepting of strangers as is America. After three generations, people who have emigrated to Germany or France or Sweden do not feel -- and are not regarded as -- fully German, French or Swedish. Yet, anyone of any color from any country is regarded as American the moment he or she identifies as one. The country that the left routinely calls "xenophobic" and "racist" is in fact the least racist and xenophobic country in the world.

Given that it is the left and the institutions it dominates -- universities, media (other than talk radio in America) and unions -- that hate America, two questions remain: Why does the left hate America, and does the American left, too, hate America?

The answer to the first question is that America and especially the most hated parts of America -- conservatives, religious conservatives in particular -- are the greatest obstacles to leftist dominance. American success refutes the socialist ideals of the left; American use of force to vanquish evil refutes the left's pacifist tendencies; America is the last great country that believes in putting some murderers to death, something that is anathema to the left; when America is governed by conservatives, it uses the language of good and evil, language regarded by the left as "Manichean"; most Americans still believe in the Judeo-Christian value system, another target of the left because the left regards all religions as equally valid (or more to the point, equally foolish and dangerous) and regards God-based morality as the moral equivalent of alchemy.

It makes perfect sense that the left around the world loathes America. The final question, then, is whether this loathing of America is characteristic of the American left as well. The answer is that the American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world's left, loathes that America.

So what America does the American left love? That is for those on the left to answer. But given their beliefs that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, it is a fair question.

Famous Quotes About Government

Constitutional Republic

We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
-- John Adams

Duty is ours, results are God's ...
-- John Quincy Adams

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.
-- John Quincy Adams; 6th President; July 4, 1821

There is but one just use of power and that is to serve people.
-- Inauguration of George Bush, Sr; 1989

The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.
-- Calvin Coolidge; 30th President

In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns ...
-- Benjamin Franklin

An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us.  But we shall not fight our battle alone.  There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations.  The battle sir, is not to the strong alone.  Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it almighty God.  I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.
-- Patrick Henry

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.
-- Patrick Henry

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
-- John Jay; first Supreme Court Justice

The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate...the minds of the people at large, and more especially, to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that they may...know ambition under all it shapes, and...exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson; 1779

Unless the mass [of people] retains sufficient control over those intrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression ...
-- Thomas Jefferson; 1812

Lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly.  Do not be frightened into their surrender...
-- Thomas Jefferson; 1816

In the maintenance of ... (our) principles ... I verily believe the future happiness of our country essentially depends.
-- Thomas Jefferson; 1819

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
-- Thomas Jefferson; 1823  (Contrast this with the current liberal judges' viewpoint that the constitution should be a "living document" that allows them to twist and distort it to suit their own personal views, which they then enforce upon us!)

The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best ... When all government ... shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as ... oppressive as the government from which we just separated.
-- Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
-- Thomas Jefferson

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.
-- John Locke

I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
-- General Douglas MacArthur

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation ...
-- James Madison, 1788

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
-- James Madison

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it.  We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
-- James Madison

Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens.  They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.
-- Justice Joseph Story; A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States; p 326

America, under an efficient government, will be the most favorable country of any in the world for persons of industry and frugality ...
-- George Washington; 1788

It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible.  Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters.  Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
-- George Washington in his Farewell Address; 1796


It's time to dump or fire all elected or employed members of government who are conspiring to change our Republic to a democracy.  To hell with democracy!
-- Jim Townsend; newspaper editor; California

How can we vote for candidates who don't know this is a Republic not a democracy?
-- Jim Townsend; newspaper editor; California

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent force of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse [benefits] from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasure, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always foiled by dictatorship.
-- Alexander Tyler

In General

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.  It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the state.
-- Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels; Hitler's propaganda minister

It is error alone which needs the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself.
-- Thomas Jefferson; Notes on Virginia

Wise men that refuse to participate in the affairs of government are punished by having to live under the rule of fools.
-- Plato

Who stole our freedom of speech?
-- Jim Townsend; newspaper editor; California

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years.  These nations have progressed through this sequence:  From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.
-- Alexander Tyler

Marxism -- Communism, Fascism, Nazism

Few of us survived the Joe McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s and of those there were even fewer whose understanding and insights had developed beyond the dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxism.
-- Saul Alinsky; Rules for Radicals

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.  They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.
-- Saul Alinsky; Rules for Radicals

I represent another Humanist Association -- the Communist Party.  For we who are Communist definitely believe in Humanism.
-- Gus Hall, General Secretary; United States Communist Party

When an opponent declares 'I will not come over to your side', I calmly say 'Your child belongs to us already.  What are you?  You will pass on.  Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp.  In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'
-- Adolf Hitler, 1939

Communism is socialism in a hurry.
-- Nicolai Lenin

The chief enemy of Communism is the Christian clergyman.
-- Nicolai Lenin

Humanism is the denial of God and the total affirmation of man.  Humanism is really nothing else but Marxism.
-- Karl Marx

I'm in favor of free trade - it breaks up old nationalities.
-- Karl Marx, 1848

It is enough that the people know there was an election.  The people who cast the votes decide nothing.  The people who count the votes decide everything.
-- Josef Stalin

Divide the world into regional groups as a transition stage to world government.  Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalty to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority.  Later the regions can be brought together all the way into a single world dictator.
-- Josef Stalin, 1942

Transformational Marxism; the quiet revolution.

What is happening in America today and what is happening to Kansas in the great plains is not simply a chance situation in the usual winds of change.  What it amounts to is a total transformation of our society ...

... So we have to anticipate what the future is and then move back and figure out what it is we need to do today.  That's called anticipatory socialization or the social change function of schools ...

... You have to understand the breadth of the task that's before us.  You cannot think about restructuring of education without understanding that our total society is in a crisis of restructuring and you can't get away from it.  You can't go into rural areas, go into the churches, go into government, you can't go into business and hide, for what we are facing is a total restructuring of the society ...
-- Dr Shirley McCune; National Governors' Association Conference on Education; Wichita, Kansas; 1989

What we know is that the earlier we intervene into the lives of people the cheaper it is.
-- Dr Shirley McCune; National Governor's Association Conference on Education; Wichita, Kansas; 1989

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.  It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years.  But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity.
-- David Rockefeller; Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); Bilderberg; Trilateral Commission (TC); June 5, 1991

On Minorities

Does anyone really believe that the Democrats are really friends of minorities anymore? While African-Americans and other minorities overwhelming support the Democratic ticket, the party they champion continually seeks to bring them down.

Liberals want to have nothing to do with equality. They don't care about equal rights. Ideology is the only fuel to their activism. Power is the only motivation for their efforts. Deceit is their method to obtain the power the need to force upon America their dangerous ideology.

Minorities who find success without the liberal civil rights? movement attached at their hips expose this shocking reality: minorities don't need the Democrats.

Miguel Estrada, long awaiting confirmation by the Senate, has been the target of criticism of Democrats despite his overwhelming qualifications for the job. He is the epitome of the Democrats worst nightmare: An immigrant minority who made it good on his own. Coming to this country from Honduras at 17, speaking little English, he ended up graduating magna cum laude from Columbia College a mere 5 years later and then went on to Harvard Law School.

His impressive qualification since then leave the Democrats no basis for which to deny him a simple confirmation vote in the Senate. However, he is a successful minority. That is the liberals worst nightmare. He cripples the liberal's belief system that minorities can't make it without their help.

To make matters worse, he's a conservative. A conservative minority just about the worst thing a liberal can face. As we've seen with Estrada, as we see again with Janice Rogers Brown.

A conservative black female judge from California, nominated in July by President Bush to serve on the federal circuit court of appeals in Washington. This has the Idiot Left screaming. The People for the American Way and the NAACP have said it would be disastrous.

Disastrous to the Democrats, perhaps. She's an anti-affirmative action African American, and a pro-life woman. Liberals generally can't understand anything or anyone conservative, let alone a minority female conservative.

So what's the best thing the Idiot Left had to say?

A joint report by People for the American Way and the NAACP said California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown is "committed to using her power as a judge" to work against civil and constitutional rights.

Yes, I'm so very convinced that Justice Brown is against civil rights. I suspect that Brown, as an African-American woman, wants to deny voting rights to blacks and women.

So what does the Idiot Left do in a situation like this? They play the Extremist Card. The President of People for the American Way, Ralph G. Neas, called Justice Brown 'the far right's dream judge, as well as saying that 'she embodies Clarence Thomas's ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia's abrasiveness and right-wing activism.?

Extremism. Activism.

To the Left, these are labels only applicable when attached to conservatism. Hillary Clinton calls the Supreme Court an activist court for its decision on Bush v. Gore, but attaches no such label to the same court when it ruled favor of affirmative action and gay sodomy.

To the Left, anything that strays from the liberal point of view is extremist, activist, or biased. For instance, Liberal Idiot Al Franken says in his new book that 'the mainstream media does not have a liberal bias ... ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and the rest -- at least try to be fair." Meanwhile, media outlets like Fox News, the Washington Times, and the New York Post are all biased and have an agenda.

And of course, the motives of President Bush come into question. The director of the NAACP's Washington chapter, Hilary Shelton, vocalized her 'suspicions? of the Bush Administration, suggesting they are hoping 'to get some kind of credit because she is the first African-American woman nominated to the D.C. circuit."

What they are essentially saying is that they feel Justice Brown isn't qualified, and this is just a stunt meant to improve the Republican's image of their record with minorities. They would like people to believe that Brown couldn't have been nominated on merit, but solely because of her color and gender. Ironic isn't it? It's almost like they're accusing the Bush Administration of practicing something that sounds awfully like affirmative action.

Did Bush nominate her to promote diversity? Was she chosen because of her race? Her gender? Yes or no, it doesn't particularly matter in this case, because her nomination puts Democrats in the Senate in a tough spot where they have to try to deny another conservative nominee a confirmation vote because they can't separate her race and gender from her politics. They can't filibuster Justice Brown, the conservative - but confirm Justice Brown, the woman, or Justice Brown, the African-American.

John Ashcroft was branded a racist for voting against the confirmation on one liberal black judge named Ronnie White. Ashcroft obviously was a racist, even though he voted to confirm 26 out of 28 black judges nominated by Bill Clinton. Ashcroft's issues with Ronnie White had nothing to do with race; it had to do with the fact that White was the only Missouri State Supreme Court Justice to dissent in a death penalty case of a man who murdered three police officers and an officer's wife.

According to liberals, conservatives can't be objective. It's nothing new. It's nothing out of the ordinary. Conservatives can't support minorities without being accused of 'trying to score points, and they can't oppose minorities without being accused of racism.

So, what happens when qualified conservative minorities get nominated? Out of fear, Democrats go for the filibuster.

Of course, the Democrats have made a complete 180 on the issue of using filibusters to block judicial nominees.

In 1995, Tom Daschle opposed nominee filibusters of Clinton's nominees, calling it a an issue one of fairness."

Back in 1999, Senator Patrick Leahy, who I've written about before when he recommended unconstitutionally that Bush consult with ranking Democrats on his judicial nominees to prevent more filibusters, said he opposed filibusters to hold up nominees, and believed the Senate 'should have an vote up or down.? Barbara Boxer said nominee filibusters disgusted her.

This is the Democrat's vision of fairness. They're struggling to remain the mainstream, and they continually find themselves losing their grip on America to the Right. Their subversive attacks on Bush and his nominees have nothing to do with fairness, they have to do with discrediting Bush by whatever means possible. They have to do with furthering their own agenda, and not the will of the people.

A poll back in June of 2001 showed that the majority of Americans trusted Bush to make the right choice in judicial nominees. What liberals, (and Senate Democrats in particular) are essentially saying is that they don't care about the will of the people, that their agenda is more important than the will of the people. The Democrat's only constituency is themselves. Their filibusters in the Senate show they are more than willing to hijack Democracy.

Liberals, leftists, and Democrats are the real extremists. They have been trying to take America hostage to their ideology. They are the enemies within.
- By Matt Margolis

Hannity igniting revolt against left-wing profs
Sick of indoctrination, Sean urges students to expose propaganda
By Joe Kovacs

College students bombarded with the personal political views of their professors are being urged by talk-show host Sean Hannity to fight back with hard evidence of purported indoctrination.

"All you college kids out there, check your state laws, check your campus laws," Hannity said on his national radio program.

"Get your little tape recorders if legal, and I want you to start recording these left-wingers. Bring it to this program and we'll start airing it every single time on this program. I'm sick of this indoctrination. I'm sick of this left-wing propaganda."

Hannity's call to action comes in the wake of the case of Rebecca Beach, a 19-year-old freshman at Warren County Community College in Washington, N.J., who, as WND first reported, was sharply rebuked by an English professor for her announcement of a campus program featuring decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter.

In an e-mail from professor John Daly to Beach, Daly wrote: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."
John Daly

He also said he would ask his students to boycott the event and vowed "to expose [her] right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like [Rebecca's] won't dare show their face on a college campus."

"That's free and open exchange of ideas and opinions on a college campus," Hannity commented sarcastically. "That's really cultivating freedom of thought."

WND broke the news that Daly submitted his resignation Tuesday just moments before an emergency meeting by the college's board of trustees to decide his fate.

But according to Hannity, the resignation is not the end of the case, saying, "This ought to be the beginning."

"This is now the new paradigm that I want to see college kids around the country pick up on," he said. "That is whenever you have the left-wing professors that are abusive to conservatives, that degrade you, that call you names, that use ad-hominem attacks, that are punishing you for your political point of view, that are purposely trying to indoctrinate you with extremist left-wing views -- if it is legal, tape them. If it is not legal, take verbatim notes, get witnesses, bring these articles to the school newspapers, bring it to the local media. Expose these people for the abusive professors that they are, and I guarantee you when there's a series of these instances where we expose these people, I guarantee you this indoctrination process is going to stop dead in its tracks. ...

"Fear is a great motivator, and the fear that these left-wingers are going to get fired or be held accountable for their mean-spirited comments against people or their indoctrination is going to be the single-biggest motivation we ever see to get them to stop doing what they're doing to college kids around the country."

Beach agreed, telling Hannity, "It is intimidating, and [professors] will tell you things to make you not want to stand out and expose them. The American people need to know what they're paying for, what they're paying for their children to receive at these schools. It's not an education, it's indoctrination, and they're intimidated from speaking out the truth that they know."

The scant newspaper coverage of the case was also blasted by fellow talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who noted the headline in New Jersey's Express-Times newspaper Wednesday read, "Provoked professor leaves WCCC post."

"Provoked professor? Unbelievable!" exclaimed Limbaugh. "Not that the student was provoked, not that the school was provoked, not that the Iraq war vet was provoked, and not that the commanding officers in Iraq were provoked, because it was suggested by this guy that they be shot."

On that aspect, Beach told Hannity, "They really turned the tables and they make it look like I am restricting his free speech rights now as an American citizen where that's not even what it was to begin with. ... It makes me look like the bad guy."

Hannity offered to speak at the college to help defend Beach, and is hoping to face Daly in person, despite the fact he quit his position.

"It's really brave of him to pick on a 19-year-old girl," Hannity said. "I want to see him send such an e-mail to me. And I dare this guy to come and debate me at this college. I'll even pay him to come debate me. And he needs a job now."

Related story:

Prof urges fragging of U.S. officers

Bush is a neoconservative

It's a positive sign when conservative commentators rush to defend President Bush from being defiled by the neoconservative label. The tag, thankfully, is becoming a pejorative. They will, however, have to pry Mr. Bush from the loving arms of the self-proclaimed "godfather" of neocons himself.

Irving Kristol, who emerged to "sex-up" the already flashy neoconservative "persuasion" in a Weekly Standard article, gave Mr. Bush the neocon seal of approval. The author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea," credits the "current president and his administration" with reviving the faith. Under Mr. Bush it "began enjoying a second life," says Kristol.

Well, the "godfather" has spoken. And you may not want to argue with Kristol. Neoconservatives have ways and means of making you see The Truth: "The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism," he writes, is "to convert" American conservatives "against their respective wills" into statists and imperialists. As you'd expect, Kristol doesn't quite admit to the program of statism at home and imperialism abroad, but by the time he is through counting the ways of neoconservatism, the writing is on the wall. Or as Prof. Paul Gottfried, author of "The Conservative Movement," explained: "Their belief in the welfare state has been a permanent aspect of their ideology," as has their affinity for a global democratic revolution.

Bush's domestic and foreign policy bear the birthmarks -- nay, the pockmarks -- of neoconservatism. It will not do for his defenders to say that if not for the trauma of Sept. 11, Bush would not have grown so abusive. Crisis need not result in conquest. (Besides, there is evidence that Bush came to power with a plan to remove Saddam.)

Where does it say that defending the homeland must translate into bringing about "the triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond," as the president said in his latest Address to the Nation? Sep. 11 could have just as well resulted in a circling of the wagons at home. But such prudence would have contravened the handbook of neoconservatism.

Kristol the elder insists that the neoconservative "persuasion" is in the "American grain." This is baffling considering that the main intellectual behind the movement was a German emigre by the name of Leo Strauss. Moreover, neoconservatism has its origins "among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s," many of whom were ex-Trotskyites. Liberalism, to say nothing of Trotskyism and its ongoing revolution, are decidedly un-American.

Indeed, while neoconservatives claim -- and even believe -- they are making "the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters," their impetus consists in marketing a bastardized idea of American conservatism. Where they haven't already converted people to liberal multiculturalism, pluralism and carefully crafted globalism, their strategy has been to alienate the natural Republican core constituency in favor of courting powerful, well-heeled minorities.

Bush's "triumph of triangulation" in the affirmative-action matter comes to mind. While pretending to oppose racial discrimination in colleges, he recommended the use of race-friendly recruiting methods, thus appeasing the "civil-rights" industry. The president's silence on immigration reform and his rumored impending amnesty for illegals is another neocon notch in the Bush belt.

Other initiatives that have caused no mandated conservative anxiety in Bush are the signing into law of an unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill, erecting various trade tariffs and barriers, and finding common ground with Ted Kennedy (shudder) on education. Bush's welfare wantonness culminated in his "signature initiative" -- a prescription-drug benefit that will, according to the Heritage Foundation's William Beach, add trillions to the Medicare shortfall.

But from the neoconservative "godfather," Bush can expect nothing but praise: "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."

An offshoot of this neoconservative article of faith, reveals Kristol, is a lack of aversion to budget deficits. A match again! Bush continues to evince no compunction about taking the nation from black to red. To use Congressman Ron Paul's analogy, the president continues to write himself endless billion-dollar loans using American labor as collateral.

But the real bailiwick of the neoconservative is to mask a contempt for the Constitution and an unprecedented expansion of government at home and abroad with a "great cause." (This is another catchphrase culled from the latest presidential address). Kristol is particularly chilling when he explains that a large nation like the U.S. has an ideological identity to live up to. Tellingly, he juxtaposes "the United States of today" with "the Soviet Union of yesteryear." This, presumably, serves to hammer home the importance of ideological interests to powerful nations. ("Trotsky's ghost is still wandering the White House ...")

We are, of course, aware of what happened to millions of people when the Soviets implemented their ideology -- that is what can happen when governments are allowed to put ideology into operation. It's why American government has the purpose of upholding the rights of citizens to peacefully pursue their ideals, while remaining powerless to do the same.

Still, Bush promised to "do what is necessary ... spend what is necessary" in what is shaping up as some sort of neoconservative Manifest Destiny. The Constitution he junked, one country (Iraq) he leveled and another (the U.S.) he is driving to the economic precipice. All this in the name of "ideas" -- freedom, democracy, nation-building -- Mr. Bush has no authority to "promote" and with blood and treasure he has no right to commit.

As Kristol said, "our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment."

Bush's bastardized 'conservatism'

Call it hope against hope, but I've been hoping the president's new Supreme Court nomination would prove to be the cathartic event to push his loyalists over the edge. Finally, they'd see him for the radical he is. The revolutionary foreign policy, the dangerous LBJ-like profligacy, the laissez faire about immigration (but not free trade), the contempt for civil liberties, and the love affair with Islam and big government -- these would all coalesce in the minds of conservatives into a composite of a fanatic, faithless to tradition, Judeo-Christian or constitutional.
Indeed, something is changing and it's not George Bush. A rebellion appears to be brewing among conservatives. Not unpredictably, George Bush has hit them where it hurts -- the Supreme Court -- and, thankfully, this has been "the final straw," the title of a column by the brave Bruce Bartlett.

Bartlett has aimed a shot across the bows of Bush's bastardized "conservatism," just as libertarians have been doing since the absolute ruler ascended to the throne. The unconstitutional campaign-finance reform bill and Sarbanes-Oxley Act (a pre-emptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime); the various trade tariffs and barriers; the Clintonian triumph of triangulation on affirmative action; the collusion with Kennedy on education; the welfare wantonness that began with a prescription-drug benefit that would add trillions to the Medicare shortfall, and culminated in the Kennedy-countenanced "New New Deal" for New Orleans, for which there is no constitutional authority; the gold-embossed invitation to illegals to invade and the "camouflaged amnesty" (where illegals are born-again as "guest workers" and then placed on a fast track to permanent residence) -- you name them, sensible libertarians have protested them.

For our troubles, we were ousted from polite company, as Bartlett has been. His courageous column was only part of the fusillade he intends to let fly. To pre-empt his forthcoming book, "The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," the former Reagan aid was dismissed from the National Center for Policy Analysis. My hopes for a conservative coup may have been premature.

Bartlett has deviated from the party line on matters upon which the GOP High Priests have pronounced. His dismissal tracks perfectly with the current anti-intellectual, "You-are-either-with-us-or-against-us," tribalism. Adherents of this tradition judge ideas and opinions not on their merit -- wrestling with substantive arguments is not an option -- but in accordance with whether they comport with preordained positions. Or according to who originates them. (If Nancy Pelosi seriously supported balancing the budget, Republicans would reject it as a liberal idea.)

In David Brooks' estimation, "establishment Republicans," which he distinguishes from conservatives, are suspicious of intellectuals and ideas. This claque, now gunning for Bartlett and other conservative rebels, is "more likely to believe that politics is about deal-making, loyalty and power" (sound familiar?), a stance that has crystallized in the clash over Harriet Miers. Roused by the president's "Trust me" and "I know Harriet's heart," establishment attack dogs charged snarling at the rejectionists, in defense of their man and his crony candidate.

In conformity to the clan (not the truth), these loyalists have framed Miers' manifest lack of qualifications, experience and mental prowess as assets. It takes "Chance the Gardener's" uncluttered mind to see the lost Constitution, or so they claimed. Never mind that the thing is buried and needs to be deftly pried from under decades of legal debris. Forgotten too (or never remembered) were Thomas Jefferson's laudable reflections on the virtues of a natural aristocracy. Or Sir William Berkeley's concept of a society governed by "gentlemen of honor, courage and breeding." The ever-so American idea of excellence was branded as elitist.

The problems of cronyism and Miers' lack of a discernable judicial philosophy notwithstanding, a cursory perusal of her "oeuvre" demonstrates beyond a doubt that, unless genuflecting to George Bush is a professional prerequisite, she is uniquely unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I've waded through some of this pedestrian piffle, but cannot best David Brooks' appraisal:

"I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers' prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided."

(Still no eureka moment?) Brooks is sufficiently perceptive to detect that Miers' work "presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things." If he concentrated a little longer, he'd have to concede Miers sounds remarkably like Bush. Yet Brooks persists in believing the fault lies with her, rather than with her handler, whom he credits with healing "the division between Republicans and conservatives by pursuing big conservative goals with ruthless Republican discipline."

Brooks has Miers pegged; her "mental style," he says, is "Republican on stilts." But so is Bush's. President Bush didn't "flinch from a fight on constitutional philosophy," as William Kristol carped; he flouts the Constitution almost daily. Frankly, Bush doesn't care whether Miers can tell Blackstone from Bentham, because he can't.

Whether Bartlett's colleagues will cross the Rubicon and join him in reclaiming conservatism remains to be seen. As much as I'd like to believe Bartlett is a bellwether, I suspect party Republicans will bury him, and crush the mutiny over Miers.

ACLU: The Abolishing Christian Legacy Union
by Chuck Norris

The combat called Christmas
Last year, in John Gibson's book, ''The War on Christmas,'' he discussed a growing cross-country counter culture (represented in every stratum of our society) that is on a mission to bring down the Christian-version of Christmas.

Notable evidence included the following:

In Rhode Island, local officials barred Christians from joining others in decorating the City Hall's lawn.

Arizona school officials declared it unconstitutional for a student to cite any references to the Christian history of Christmas in a class project.

A New Jersey school banned traditional Christmas carols, even instrumental renditions.

In Illinois, state government workers were prohibited from exclaiming ''Merry Christmas'' at work.
WND reported on this warfare as far back as 2002.

This year we see even more confirmation of this Christmas-culture war, particularly being led by its strongest advocate, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union).

Same ol' ACLU song and dance

The ACLU has been true to form this December in opposing any and all Christian practices and symbols in public arenas and elsewhere.

So far this season it has already muscled the city council in Berkley, Mich. to move a Christmas nativity off public property.

The ACLU also sued the Wilson County School System outside of Nashville, Tenn., because its Christmas program included ''Christian themes and songs'' -- what the ACLU calls ''unconstitutional and illegal'' acts through which its plaintiffs have ''suffered irreparable damage.''

Alongside its crusade to suppress Christmas, the ACLU of Tennessee also found time to write Cumberland County Mayor Brock Hill to assure the removal from the courthouse sidewalk of a wooden carved statue depicting Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

Just this past week, the ACLU opposed the Winston-Salem City Council's practice of opening its meetings with a prayer referencing Jesus or Christ.

Thankfully, along with the majority of veterans and patriots, I was very pleased to read of the ruling against the ACLU's mission to bring down the cross at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial near San Diego.

Religious paralysis was not the Framers' intent

The ACLU tries to justify and hide behind these anti-Christian crusades by saying its motivation is to preserve First Amendment and minority rights.

The first problem is that its not equally protecting the rights of Christians, when they are in the minority. If the ACLU wants to fight for the underdogs, then why not battle for the Christian voice that is being progressively suppressed every Christmas?

The second problem is that they are not preserving First Amendment rights but are perverting the subordinate Establishment Clause (which prevents government from establishing a national religion, like there was in England) and the Free Exercise Clause (which preserves our rights to worship as we want).

Both clauses were intended to safeguard religious liberty, not separate church and state. Nor was their objective to keep religious symbols away from public places! As is often noted, the Framers were seeking to guarantee a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion.

As Judge Roy Moore concluded in another WND article:

''The issue was addressed 150 years ago when the Senate Judiciary Committee, while considering the Congressional chaplaincy, said, '[The Founders] had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.'''

Time to stop ACLU tyranny

The ACLU is not anti-religion, just anti-Christian. By definition, it's the American Civil Liberties Union. By action, it has become the Abolishing Christian Legacy Union.

The ACLU will assure Muslim clerics and imams the right to pray on planes, fight for an atheist's rights to remove a cross, stand beside pro-abortionists, help illegal aliens cross our borders, and establish rights for the sexual deviant by forming the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, but what is it doing for Christians and Christmas censorship?

While allegedly fighting against the tyranny of the majority, the ACLU itself rules religiously by litigation, lobbying, and supporting counter-culture Christian movements.

So who died and appointed the ACLU as America's religious constitutional watchdog?

Membership for the ACLU is only 500,000. America's population is 300 million. I think it's time that we helped them feel their size!

I suggest the rest of us follow the passion of Thomas Jefferson, who spoke these words that are etched on the very wall of his memorial in Washington, D.C.: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

ACLU: Out of touch -- out of their minds

The fact is the ACLU is simply out of touch with mainstream America, as demonstrated recently by a group of Texas University students' placement of an ''ACLU Nativity Scene,'' complete with Gary and Joseph (instead of Mary and Joseph) and the three wise men: Lenin, Marx, and Stalin -- a ''tribute'' to ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's support of communism.

(Is this display an extreme Texan reaction or a symptom of an underlying wave of a pro-Christmas culture that is tired of being bullied around? I wholeheartedly believe the latter!)

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) noted that ''an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose censoring Christmas,'' citing the following national polls:

95 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 2005).

90 percent of Americans recognize Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ (Gallup, 2000).

88 percent of Americans say it is okay for people to wish others "Merry Christmas" and the majority of Americans are more likely to wish someone they just met "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays" (CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 2004).

87 percent of Americans believe nativity scenes should be allowed on public property (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 2003).
The ADF also has 930 pro-Christmas attorneys waiting to help any community in need.

''J'' to the rescue!

Thank God for organizations which are fighting against the censoring of Christianity and Christmas, like the ADF, The Thomas More Law Center and The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

The ACLJ has a great ''Christmas Resource Center'' where one can find information sheets on what is permissible in public displays of Christmas and how students can properly express their religious beliefs in school during this Christmas season.

I don't know if it was intentional, but I find it interesting that the only letter distinguishing the acronym of the ACLU and the ACLJ is the letter ''J,'' which stands for ''Justice.''

To me, it also stands for ''Jesus,'' without whom there would be no Christmas at all.

"Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion"

The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas

I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn't? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear that it will offend?
Schools are being forced to replace "Christmas vacation" with "winter break" in their printed schedules. At some major retail chains, the word is verboten, replaced as a matter of policy by the generic Happy Holidays. Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain locales. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.

How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn't mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country's population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious.

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn't, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn't a threat to anyone; it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world's melting pot was our nickname. It didn't mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, as you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists and the ACLU at the forefront.

Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two-week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, "It's a Wonderful Life" was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.

But the dirty little secret in America is that, in spite of the occasional over-publicized rants by the likes of Mel Gibson and Michael Richards, anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society; it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, much of the hatred spewed toward George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.

My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26 percent of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly one of the most pro-Israel presidents we've ever had in the Oval Office. Unlike Clinton, who had Yasser Arafat sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom so often even Monica Lewinsky got jealous, Bush saw to it that the Palestinian butcher was persona non grata at the White House.

It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase "separation of church and state" actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who at the drop of a "Merry Christmas" will slap you with an injunction will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver's license.

I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority.

I am getting the idea that too many Jews won't be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They're the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They're the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, "In God we trust" or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital "C." By this time, I'm only surprised that they haven't begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it's only for religious reasons -- Christian reasons -- that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group -- and one of the smaller ones at that -- I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

Merry Christmas, my friends.

Jamestown As It Never Was

On the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement, Queen Elizabeth II arrived to commemorate the great occasion. And it took some fancy footwork for Her Majesty to run the Powhatan gauntlet.
For Her Majesty had been to Jamestown before, 50 years ago, in a less progressive era. As the Associated Press reported, "The last time the queen helped Virginia mark the anniversary of its colonial founding, it was an all-white affair in a state whose government was in open defiance of a 1954 Supreme Court order to desegregate public schools."

Now, "massive resistance" is history. And Her Majesty was quick to embrace the change: "(S)ince I visited Jamestown in 1957, my country has become a much more diverse society, just as the Commonwealth of Virginia and the whole United States of America have also undergone a major social change."

True. But are we better societies now than 50 years ago?

The latest reminder of diversity in Virginia was the massacre of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech by a berserk Korean. And now that London is Londonistan, Muslim imams openly preach hatred of the West in mosques. Pakistani subway bombers find support in their community. Race riots are common in the northern industrial cities. Crime rates have soared. In areas of London, people fear to walk. Is this better than it was in 1957?

Last week, Scottish nationalists, many of whom wish to secede, swept past Labor to become the first party of Scotland. Welsh separatists also made gains. Following the Irish, the other Celts want out of the England of Elizabeth II. Is this better, Your Majesty?

The Great Britain of Tony Blair may be more diverse than the land of Victoria and Edward VII, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill -- but is it a better nation?

Only if one worships diversity can one say Britain is a better, stronger or greater country than she was on the eve of the Great War, a century ago, when Britannia ruled a fourth of the world.

But the new orthodoxy demands we say this. And Her Majesty was careful to conform. "Fifty years on, we are now in a position to reflect more candidly on the Jamestown legacy," said the queen, as she began to reflect less candidly.

At Jamestown, "Three great civilizations came together for the first time -- Western European, native American and African."

Well, that is one way to put it. Except that the Jamestown settlers were not Western Europeans but English Christians. And the first thing they did was build a fort to protect themselves from Powhatan's tribe, whom they thought might massacre them -- as they suspected Indians had massacred the Roanoke colony. Their leader, Capt. John Smith, barely escaped execution by Powhatan. Or so Smith tells it.

As for the Africans, they arrived in 1620 in slave ships and were not freed for 245 years. Then they were segregated for 100 years. There was no coming together of African, Indian and European civilizations. The African slaves were uprooted from their civilization and had to become part of ours.

Jamestown was no coming together of civilizations, but the opening of a war of imperial conquest by self-confident Christians who defeated and destroyed the pagan Indian tribes, drove them westward, repopulated their lands and imposed their own faith and laws.

When we came, the Indians had the land. We took it.

Backing away from her statements of half a century ago, the queen politely conceded, "With the benefit of hindsight, we can see in that event (Jamestown) the origins of a singular endeavor -- the building of a great nation, founded on the eternal values of democracy and equality."

That a great nation arose from Jamestown is undeniable.

But, again, what is this nice lady talking about? The American Revolution was not fought for equality or democracy, but to be rid of British rule. Four of America's first five presidents -- Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe -- were Virginia planters and slaveholders.

Before the Civil War, 250 years after Jamestown, almost no American, and certainly not Abraham Lincoln, believed in social or political equality for Africans. Jefferson had said a "natural aristocracy" of talent and virtue should rule.

And when we see what democracy and equality have produced in political leadership -- Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton and George W. -- did not Jefferson have a point?

In his farewell address, Ronald Reagan warned, "We've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important. ... If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication ... of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit."

The founding of this country does not conform to the dogmas of the present. But we had best discover why it was our forefathers, who created this country, rejected totus porcus, the nonsense we spout today about egalitarianism and globaloney.

Leftist Thought Control
by David Limbaugh

The political left, which holds itself as progressive, rational and fact-based, is becoming an enemy of academic inquiry, and a practitioner of thought control on a wide variety of issues. Increasingly, from the left's perspective, there is just one acceptable viewpoint.

Consider the subjects of evolution, global warming, special rights for homosexuals and abstinence education. Consider efforts of the left to silence conservative talk radio. Consider the mainstream media's arrogant denial of its transparent liberal bias, pronouncing itself to be above politics and inherently objective and its critics somehow skewed.

Consider the leftist refrain that red-state conservatives do not merely possess a different worldview, but are not part of the "reality-based community." Consider the near monolithic liberalism and secularism of our university faculties.Continued

The U.S. House is expected to pass a landmark federal law that would expand hate crimes legislation to include attacks against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens.

Opponents argue that it's conceivable under the bill that if a rabbi, priest or pastor reads to his congregation a passage from the Bible condemning homosexuality, he could be considered an accomplice to any parishioner who later commits a "hate crime" against a homosexual.

Various activists are behind legislation that would prohibit public schools from continuing to teach Abstinence Until Marriage (AUM) in North Carolina and would force them to teach comprehensive sex education.

In my book "Persecution" I described the trials of a university professor who was disciplined for making available, but not mandating, materials in her class that deviated from the dogma of homosexual activists. One school administrator, in defending the school's chilling action said, "We cannot tolerate the intolerable."

Global warming alarmists tell us there is an overwhelming consensus on the issue and further debate is pointless. Yet there are a significant number of genuine dissenters in the relevant disciplines. Many more would doubtlessly emerge from the closet but for the potential financial consequences that might ensue. Plus, many of those counted as experts by the alarmists are scientists with no appreciable expertise in the field. Despite arguably insufficient data and questionable techniques to measure climate change historically, not to mention questions concerning the extent of man-made warming, the global warming zealots brook no dissent. They ridicule and castigate anyone, including those every bit as credentialed as they are, who refuses to imbibe their Kool-aid.

Their uncompromising certainty demonstrates staggering hubris, especially considering the track record of many scientists who have issued unequivocal conclusions, for example, in the health field, only to retract them a few short years later.

By pronouncing an end to debate -- just because they say so -- they betray the very principles they claim to uphold: an adherence to scientific inquiry and a commitment to facts and reason in favor of ideologically and politically driven conclusions.

Tom Bethell, in his "Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," quotes author Michael Crichton as saying that consensus science "is an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

We are witnessing a similar phenomenon on the subject of evolution versus intelligent design. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins, explains Bethel, believes that evolution is not a debatable topic. "I'm concerned about implying that there is some sort of scientific argument going on," said Dawkins. "There's not." Meanwhile the Intelligent Design movement is gathering courageous and impressive adherents who would debate the notion that no debate is going on.

But when these recalcitrant upstarts refuse to toe the line, they sometimes pay the price. Bethell tells of the publication by the peer-reviewed "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" of an article on the Cambrian Explosion by the Discovery Institute's Steven Meyer. Though Meyer relied on the work of respected scientists in the article, its subject matter did not sit well with the "consensus" gods. Richard Stenberg, the editor of the journal, was virtually accused of being a religious fundamentalist and a right-winger for publishing the piece. He was required to "surrender his office and keys to the department floor, denying him access to the specimen collections he needed." And, according to Bethel, "A senior Smithsonian scientist complained that publication of the article 'made us into the laughing stock of the world, even is this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods USA.' Notice," wrote Bethel, "it was not the substantive claims about the Cambrian Explosion that caused such fury, it was their publication in a peer-reviewed journal."

If this trend continues, it's hard to imagine what we'll see in next decade. How the left can consider itself fair and open-minded in view of such developments is beyond comprehension.

Warning! Snoop rant (

This is funny: after reading this it reminded me of Ahmadinejad's recently completed incoherent propaganda rant.

All hell, how many times and how many ways can I say "liberals have issues!"

Again this is an example of not necessarily giving a shit about what this moronic dude has to say, only to point out the exorbitant level of illogic exhibited by these people.

The bad thing about the Daily Kos site these days is there are so many of these people writing diaries and I believe that in order to get noticed they write crazier and zanier entries ranting like little children in order to get attention.

It's one thing to have a valid political point, it is quite another to pull out the vestiges of a truly evil time period where the shadow of a murderous dictator loomed over the entire world.

Here we have some young jackass supposedly educating the rest of us dolts, no doubt living with his parents or barricaded in some college dorm or dank dark apartment complete with video games galore and no doubt the latest Halo, stale pizza, cigarette butts acting as carpeting reeking with the stench of your typical discharge accident from too much alcohol consumption.

I'm a 43 year old black man and it would be disingenuous of me to write entries talking about the evils that existed back in the true Jim Crow era, whites only signs, segregated hotels, restaurants, drinking fountains or to try and process the pending threat that was Hitler and communism.

How could some young mentally challenged individual even begin to process the notion that America is slipping into this fascist state, when I just finished watching some pinhead moronic dictator speak at one of this nations most prestigious universities not to mention that the event was simulcast on FOX NEWS!

The University of Florida student was a prankster and a typical college aged jackass, brash, arrogant spoiled ***. I see all too often these self-absorbed frat boy Sorostitutes types wandering the university grounds, cell phones stuck to the ear paying little or no attention to the world around them or that car about the strike them.

This generation of emotionally challenged individuals find it difficult to respect those outside of their entourage.

As much as I detest John Kerry, he and that audience deserved respect, but college aged pranksters have hindered free speech by acting like a bunch of ignorant *** which is precisely why few right leaning types venture to college campuses anymore.

Foolish and moronic behavior is the norm.

Here in Lawrence we have an institution where national and world leaders, not to mention prominent political figures and Pulitzer Prize winning columnists, regularly speak and the only time you see students attending is when they are offered "extra credit" or some incentive for attending.

When the speaker does not fit the typical liberal ideology the talk is ether ignored or some phony protest is held with the stereotypical passing out of "fact" sheets with erroneous information. Liberals are not interested in acquiring knowledge -- only promoting their twisted spin on the world and crying when the would does not fit in their little bow wrapped gift box.

I'll give you one example: Recently while speaking to a student, very nice young lady, smart, motivated in the process of getting her Masters, we were discussing Iraq and setting aside the particulars the point I want to focus on was she said she "hated George Bush for getting us into this war."

Now I never want to get into a debate on the semantics of whether or not we should or should not be in Iraq with folks, what I always focus on when speaking to a young person is "when does your history on Iraq begin?"

You see to me if you want to tell me we should not have been in Iraq, and only want to focus on the history while G Dub has been in office and totally ignore anything prior to G Dub taking office, there is nothing to discuss.

This young lady is 24 and knows nothing about what was said prior to Bush's presidency.
There are tons of clips on You Tube featuring Mrs. Bill's ever changing stance on Iraq and virtually every Democrat morphing views on the issue.

All I asked of her was to truly study the issue. While listening to her all she could do was regurgitate Democrat clichés, she was ridiculously clueless on the issue other that what she read in the New York Times (she said it) or what was discussed in her political science class.

The point is do liberals choose to be ignorant of all the facts? Many choose not to acknowledge what was said before or simply choose to only put political blame on a policy that no one individual can carry out.

Liberals selective ranting is all political. Think about it: If you believe in gay marriage and you somehow think that by berating the current president on an issue that you really don't give a *** about, can get you closer to electing an individual with your political values, then why not join the "Iraq is wrong, impeach Bush" bullshit.

Who cares if *** Democrats doesn't have the (courage) to stop funding.

Bottom line: when you read Liberals rant about whatever, you always have to ask yourself what their real motive is.

Referring to a 4 star general as an "***-kissing chicken***" tells you everything you need to know about the absence of logic that exists in the minds of most young liberals today.

This dude is unlikely to give a *** about the growing fascist state of America while attending a pep rally for his favorite college sports team or licking the tequila and salt off the stomach of some skank in a bar.

Keep in mind that the Democrats actually court this twisted moronic demographic.

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class.  One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back.  He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.

When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you! Just maybe you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America.

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson

Honorable Exit From Empire
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 07/25/2008

As any military historian will testify, among the most difficult of maneuvers is the strategic retreat. Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, Lee's retreat to Appomattox and MacArthur's retreat from the Yalu come to mind. The British Empire abandoned India in 1947 -- and a Muslim-Hindu bloodbath ensued.

France's departure from Indochina was ignominious, and her abandonment of hundreds of thousands of faithful Algerians to the FALN disgraceful. Few American can forget the humiliation of Saigon '75, or the boat people, or the Cambodian holocaust.

Strategic retreats that turn into routs are often the result of what Lord Salisbury called "the commonest error in politics ... sticking to the carcass of dead policies."

From 1989 to 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and breakup of the U.S.S.R., America had an opportunity to lay down its global burden and become again what Jeane Kirkpatrick called "a normal country in a normal time."

We let the opportunity pass by, opting instead to use our wealth and power to convert the world to democratic capitalism. And we have reaped the reward of all the other empires that went before: A sinking currency, relative decline, universal enmity, a series of what Rudyard Kipling called "the savage wars of peace."

Yet, opportunity has come anew for America to shed its imperial burden and become again the republic of our fathers.

The chairman of Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang Party has just been hosted for six days by Beijing. Commercial flights have begun between Taipei and the mainland. Is not the time ripe for America to declare our job done, that the relationship between China and Taiwan is no longer a vital interest of the United States?

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government wants a status of forces agreement with a timetable for full withdrawal of U.S. troops. Is it not time to say yes, to declare that full withdrawal is our goal as well, that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq?

On July 4, Reuters, in a story headlined "Poland Rejects U.S. Missile Offer," reported from Warsaw: "Poland spurned as insufficient on Friday a U.S. offer to boost its air defenses in return for basing anti-missile interceptors on its soil. ...

"'We have not reached a satisfactory result on the issue of increasing the level of Polish security,' Prime Minister Donald Tusk told a news conference after studying the latest U.S. proposal."

Tusk is demanding that America "provide billions of dollars worth of U.S. investment to upgrade Polish air defenses in return for hosting 10 two-stage missile interceptors," said Reuters.

Reflect if you will on what is going on here.

By bringing Poland into NATO, we agreed to defend her against the world's largest nation, Russia, with thousands of nuclear weapons. Now the Polish regime is refusing us permission to site 10 anti-missile missiles on Polish soil, unless we pay Poland billions for the privilege.

Has Uncle Sam gone senile?

No. Tusk has Sam figured out. The old boy is so desperate to continue in his Cold War role as world's Defender of Democracy he will even pay the Europeans -- to defend Europe.

Why not tell Tusk that if he wants an air defense system, he can buy it; that we Americans are no longer willing to pay Poland for the privilege of defending Poland; that the anti-missile missile deal is off. And use cancellation of the missile shield to repair relations with a far larger and more important power, Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Consider, too, the opening South Korea is giving us to end our 60-year commitment to defend her against the North. For weeks, Seoul hosted anti-American protests against a trade deal that allows U.S. beef into South Korea. Koreans say they fear mad-cow disease -- yet, when a new deal was cut to limit imports to U.S. beef from cattle less than 30 months old, that too was rejected by the protesters. Behind the demonstrations lies a sediment of anti-Americanism.

In 2002, a Pew Research Center survey of 42 nations found 44 percent of South Koreans, second highest number of any country, holding an unfavorable view of the United States. A Korean survey put the figure at 53 percent, with 80 percent of youth holding a negative view. By 39 percent to 35 percent, South Koreans saw the United States as a greater threat than North Korea.

Can someone explain why we keep 30,000 troops on the DMZ of a nation whose people do not even like us?

The raison d'etre for NATO was the Red Army on the Elbe. It disappeared two decades ago. The Chinese army left North Korea 50 years ago. Yet NATO endures and the U.S. Army stands on the DMZ. Why?

Because, if all U.S. troops were brought home from Europe and Korea, 10,000 rice bowls would be broken. They are the rice bowls of politicians, diplomats, generals, journalists and think tanks who would all have to find another line of work.

And that is why the Empire will endure until disaster befalls it, as it did all the others.

Peaceful Protesters Become Terrorists in a Federal Database

by Patty Donovan

(NaturalNews) According to documents released on Thursday, July 17, 2008, undercover state troopers in Maryland infiltrated at least three groups peacefully protesting the death penalty and advocating peace. These troopers illegally sent reports of the activities of these groups to U.S. intelligence and military agencies. The Maryland chapter of the ACLU was able to obtain these documents through a Freedom of Information lawsuit claiming the state police refused to release the documents proving they illegally spied on peace activists.

This illegal, clandestine reporting occurred from March 2005 to May 2006. The officers involved used false names or "covert identities" to open special email accounts in order to receive messages from the groups. They participated fully in these groups, attending meetings and protests.

Within these 46 pages of documents is an account of an activist's name being entered into a federal database of terrorist and drug trafficking suspects. This particular database is termed HIDTA for the (Washington-Baltimore) High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and was formed to enable local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies to share information on such suspects.

Activist Max Obuszewski, whose only "crime" was opposition of the death penalty was listed in the database as a terrorist. His "primary" crime was "terrorism-anti-government" with a secondary crime of "terrorism-anti-war protesters".

According to ACLU attorney David Rocah, federal laws prohibit departments that receive federal funds from maintaining databases of political activities and affiliations and state police violated these laws. Mr. Rocah stated: "This is not supposed to happen in America. In a free society, which relies on the engagement of citizens in debate and protest and political activity to maintain that freedom... you should be able to attend a meeting about an issue you care about without having to worry that government spies are entering your name into a database used to track alleged terrorists and drug traffickers." He called the surveillance "Kafka-esque insanity."

The unlawful surveillance of Mr. Obuszewski and his group, Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, was exposed during his trial for trespass and disorderly conduct in a 2004 protest outside the National Security Agency's headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. These documents indicate that the undercover state troopers from Maryland's Homeland Security and Intelligence Division infiltrated 3 groups. These include Mr. Obuszewski's group: the Coalition to End the Death Penalty; and the Committee to Save Vernon Evans, a murderer slated for execution.

These pages highlight at least 288 hours of surveillance. Officers attended at least 20 meetings and a dozen rallies against the death penalty. Some of these rallies took place at the SuperMax jail in Baltimore. The documents reference a proposed sit-in at the offices of Baltimore County State's Attorney Sandra A. O'Connor. They contain No reports of violence or even any threat of violence. In fact, they show how the organizers repeatedly stressed the importance of peaceful and orderly demonstrations.

A report about a demonstration at the jail contains the following: "There were about 75-80 protesters at the rally and none participated in any type of civil disobedience or illegal acts. Protesters were even careful to move out of the way for Division of Correction employees who were going into the parking lot for work."

Even though these meetings and protests were carried out peacefully and in full compliance with all laws, the information about the protesters and their activities was sent to seven agencies, including the National Security Agency and an unnamed military intelligence official.

"Americans have the right to peaceably assemble with others of a like mind and speak out about what they believe in," Mr. Rocah said. "For state agencies to spend hundreds of hours entering information about lawful and peaceful political activities into a criminal database is beyond unconscionable. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars, which does nothing to make us safer from actual terrorists or drug dealers."


When I first read this article, I was completely appalled. The inferences for all of us are huge. Are we already living in a police state? Are all of us reading this, because we are non-conformists, targeted and in terrorist databases?

About the author

Patty Donovan was in a wheelchair and could only walk around her house with a cane. She was on over 20 medications. When told to "take the morphine, get in the wheelchair and learn to live with it" by a neurosurgeon, she knew her life had to change. She is now almost a fanatic when it comes to healing through the use of "whole foods" and and natural remedies. Since that time, she has spent countless hours researching nutrtion and alternative health. After spending 30 years in the allopathic health care industry in both pharmacy and as an RN, she brings a unique perspective to Natural News readers. Since committing to this new life style, she no longer uses even a cane, has gotten off over 20 medications, lost over 50lbs and returned to work.


Plato: The Allegory of the Cave, from The Republic

Plato, the most creative and influential of Socrates' disciples, wrote dialogues, in which he frequently used the figure of Socrates to espouse his own (Plato's) full-fledged philosophy.

In "The Republic," Plato sums up his views in an image of ignorant humanity, trapped in the depths and not even aware of its own limited perspective. The rare individual escapes the limitations of that cave and, through a long, tortuous intellectual journey, discovers a higher realm, a true reality, with a final, almost mystical awareness of Goodness as the origin of everything that exists. Such a person is then the best equipped to govern in society, having a knowledge of what is ultimately most worthwhile in life and not just a knowledge of techniques; but that person will frequently be misunderstood by those ordinary folks back in the cave who haven't shared in the intellectual insight.

If he were living today, Plato might replace his rather awkward cave metaphor with a movie theater, with the projector replacing the fire, the film replacing the objects which cast shadows, the shadows on the cave wall with the projected movie on the screen, and the echo with the loudspeakers behind the screen.

The essential point is that the prisoners in the cave are not seeing reality, but only a shadowy representation of it. The importance of the allegory lies in Plato's belief that there are invisible truths lying under the apparent surface of things which only the most enlightened can grasp. Used to the world of illusion in the cave, the prisoners at first resist enlightenment, as students resist education -- but those who can achieve enlightenment deserve to be the leaders and rulers of all the rest.

At the end of the passage, Plato expresses another of his favorite ideas: that education is not a process of putting knowledge into empty minds, but of making people realize that which they already know. This notion that truth is somehow embedded in our minds was also powerfully influential for many centuries.

Judging by this passage, why do you think many people in the democracy of Athens might have been antagonistic to Plato's ideas? What does the sun symbolize in the allegory?

Is a resident of the cave (a prisoner, as it were) likely to want to make the ascent to the outer world? Why or why not? What does the sun symbolize in the allegory? And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened:--Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision,--what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them,--will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?


Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.


He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner? (1)

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; (2)and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death. (3)

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed--whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, Here Plato describes his notion of God in a way that was influence profoundly Christian theologians. and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.

Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.

Yes, very natural.

And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conception of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?

Anything but surprising, he replied.

Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.

That, he said, is a very just distinction.

But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.

They undoubtedly say this, he replied.

Whereas our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

(1) This refers to a famous passage in Homer's Odyssey in which the ghost of the great hero Achilles, when asked if he is not proud of the fame his deeds has spread throughout the world, answers that he would rather be a slave on a worn-out farm than king over all of the famous dead. Interestingly, Plato quotes the same passage elsewhere as disapprovingly as depicting life after death in such a negative manner that it may undermine the willingness of soldiers to die in war.

(2) The comic playwright Aristophanes had mocked Socrates by portraying Plato's master, Socrates, as a foolish intellectual with his head in the clouds.

(3) Plato undoubtedly has in mind the fact that the Athenians had condemned to death his master Socrates, who Plato considered supremely enlightened.

Democracy -- A Flickering Star?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 08/08/2008 ET

In his 1937 "Great Contemporaries," Winston Churchill wrote, "Whatever else may be thought about (Hitler's) exploits, they are among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world."

Churchill was referring not only to Hitler's political triumphs -- the return of the Saar and reoccupation of the Rhineland -- but his economic achievements. By his fourth year in power, Hitler had pulled Germany out of the Depression, cut unemployment from 6 million to 1 million, grown the GNP 37 percent and increased auto production from 45,000 vehicles a year to 250,000. City and provincial deficits had vanished.

In material terms, Nazi Germany was a startling success.

And not only Churchill and Lloyd George but others in Europe and America were marveling at the exploits of the Third Reich, its fascist ally Italy and Joseph Stalin's rapidly industrializing Soviet state. "I have seen the future, and it works," Lincoln Steffins had burbled. Many Western men, seeing the democracies mired in Depression and moral malaise, were also seeing the future in Berlin, Moscow, Rome.

In Germany, Hitler was winning plebiscites with more than 90 percent of the vote in what outside observers said were free elections.

What calls to mind the popularity of the Third Reich and the awe it inspired abroad -- even after the bloody Roehm purge and the Nazi murder of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss in 1934, and the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws -- is a poll buried in The New York Times.

In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.

"Eighty-six percent of Chinese people surveyed said they were content with the country's direction, up from 48 percent in 2002. ... And 82 percent of Chinese were satisfied with their national economy, up from 52 percent," said the Times.

Yet, China has a regime that punishes dissent, severely restricts freedom, persecutes Christians and all faiths that call for worship of a God higher than the state, brutally represses Tibetans and Uighurs, swamps their native lands with Han Chinese to bury their cultures and threatens Taiwan.

China is also a country where Maoist ideology has been replaced by a racial chauvinism and raw nationalism reminiscent of Italy and Germany in the 1930s. Yet, again, over 80 percent of all Chinese are content or even happy with the direction of the country. Two-thirds say the government is doing a good job in dealing with the issues of greatest concern to them.

And what nation is it whose people rank as third most satisfied?

Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Moscow is today more nationalistic, less democratic and more confrontational toward the West than it has been since before the fall of communism. Power is being consolidated, former Soviet republics are hearing dictatorial growls from Moscow and a chill reminiscent of the Cold War is in the air.

Yet, wrote the Times, "Russians were the third most satisfied people with their country's direction, at 54 percent, despite Western concerns about authoritarian trends."

Of the largest nations on earth, the two that today most satisfy the desires of their peoples are the most authoritarian.

High among the reasons, of course, are the annual 10 percent to 12 percent growth China has experienced over the last decade, and the wealth pouring into Russia for the oil and natural gas in which that immense country abounds. Still, is this not disturbing? In China and Russia, the greatest of world powers after the United States, people seem to value freedom of speech, religion or the press far less than they do a rising prosperity and national pride and power. And they seem to have little moral concern about crushing national minorities.

Contrast, if you will, the contentment of Chinese and Russians with the dissatisfaction of Americans, only 23 percent of whom told the Pew poll they approved of the nation's direction. Only one in five Americans said they were satisfied with the U.S. economy.

Other polls have found 82 percent of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, only 28 percent approving of President Bush's performance and only half that saying they approve of the Congress. In Britain, France and Germany, only three in 10 expressed satisfaction with the direction of the nation.

Liberal democracy is in a bear market. Is it a systemic crisis, as well?

In his 1992 "The End of History," Francis Fukuyama wrote of the ultimate world triumph of democratic capitalism. All other systems had fallen, or would fall by the wayside. The future belonged to us.

Democratic capitalism, it would appear, now has a great new rival -- autocratic capitalism. In Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, nations are beginning to imitate the autocrats of China and Russia, even as some in the 1930s sought to ape fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

The game is not over yet. We are going into extra innings.

(For more articles like below, see news headline links at:
Campaign for Liberty
P: 703-347-6886
F: 703-347-9130

800-RON-PAUL (1-800-766-7285)

Obama and McCain: Pawns of the Global Elite?
Animated as ever. It's interesting that the grievances are more or less the same as the Ron Paul Republicans and libertarians. The causes for the problems and the solutions are different however. These statists seem to ignore the primary fact that it is government intervention which is the common thread which ties all those grievances together. Their monopoly of force is a honey pot for those seeking advantages and a breeding ground for corruption. By ignoring economic law and advocating larger government they are also asking for more wealth destruction, more corruption, more of the same failing policy we've had for the last 100+ years. You can't "get the right people." They don't exist. The system is flawed.

"We're being taxed to blow up bridges in Iraq and rebuild them, while ours at home are falling down." -- Ron Paul

America - The Newest Third World Nation

ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors
Asa Eslocker Was Investigating the Role of Lobbyists and Top Donors at the Convention
Aug. 27, 2008

DENVER -- Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

(Link to watch video of the arrest -- go to web page to use link)

A cigar-smoking Denver police sergeant, accompanied by a team of five other officers, first put his hands on Eslocker's neck, then twisted the producer's arm behind him to put on handcuffs.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

Eslocker was put in handcuffs and loaded in the back of a police van which headed for a nearby police station.

Video taken at the scene shows a man, wearing the uniform of a Boulder County sheriff, ordering Eslocker off the sidewalk in front of the hotel, to the side of the entrance.

The sheriff's officer is seen telling Eslocker the sidewalk is owned by the hotel. Later, he is seen pushing Eslocker off the sidewalk into oncoming traffic, forcing him to the other side of the street.

It was two hours later when Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.

During the arrest, one of the officers can be heard saying to Eslocker, "You're lucky I didn't knock the f..k out of you."

Eslocker was released late today after posting $500 bond.

Eslocker and his ABC News colleagues are spending the week investigating the role of corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention for a series of Money Trail reports on ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson."

Cologne's Speech-Killing Politico's Reek of 'Fascism'
Diana West
Thursday, September 25, 2008

Readers of my blog ( know that over this past week, as a maelstrom of buffeting economic crises has sucked the air out of the news atmosphere, I have been all-but-transfixed by events unfolding in the German city of Cologne. With the unabashed fascination of the rubbernecker, I have watched in horror, combing online foreign press reports and a few favorite blogs (Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna, Atlas Shrugs), as local authorities yielded their charge of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly -- indeed, yielded civic space and civic peace -- to a lawless band of violent leftists, who, in their weekend stint of mob rule, successfully prevented a political rally against the Islamization of Europe from taking place.

What's more, these same authorities, including the mayor of this fourth-largest German city (about 1 million people), yielded to the mob happily and with much self-congratulation. Indeed, Cologne Mayor Fritz Schramma called the episode "a victory for the city of Cologne and a victory by the democratic forces of the city."

Schramma may well count squelching peaceful political discourse with a violent mob as a victory for his city, but there is nothing "democratic" about it, or about the "forces" responsible. This twisting, weasel-use of language, however, is only one example of the campaign of disinformation waged against reality in Cologne this past weekend.

In brief, elected officials from several different countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy), politicians who campaign and win elections on the politically incorrect issue of resistance to the spread of Islamic law (Sharia), were invited to speak in Cologne.

Why Cologne? After a long and contentious battle, the city council last month narrowly approved the construction of a giant mosque complex funded by a group called the Turkish-Islamic Union to serve some portion of the city's 120,000 Muslims. While the American take on any house of worship going up is generally one of approval based on a straightforward belief in freedom of religion, in Europe, given the heavy influx of Islamic populations, there is a political and legal dimension to such mosque construction that we just don't recognize here. For example, Germany's Muslim population is largely Turkish; and it is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan who is infamous for having said in 1998, "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers." Such a declaration of, well, religious war from someone who is now a head of state adds the threat of conquest to any serious mosque debate.

And that's not all. Earlier this year in Cologne, Erdogan declared before 20,000 cheering Turkish expatriates that "assimilation is a crime against humanity." On that same trip to Germany, the Turkish leader also proposed the German formation of Turkish-language schools. What's going on here? If Turkish assimilation is out, is Turkish colonization in? Isn't it the duty of politicians to debate these and other transformational questions within the political process? As a crossroads of Islam and Europe, as a frontline in the colonization of Europe, Cologne becomes the logical meeting-place for such a debate.

But it wasn't to be, not in "democratic" Cologne. As some 1,500 Europeans prepared to assemble to listen to the political opponents of Islamization make speeches last weekend, many more thousands of counter-demonstrators converged on the city specifically to deny rally supporters their right to assemble, and the politicians' right to speak. And yes, by whatever means necessary.

The thugs among the counter-demonstrators mounted a rock-and-bottle attack that shattered windows on a river boat plying the Rhine where the politicians attempted to hold a pre-rally meeting. They blocked urban trains in order to keep rally participants away. They ringed the city center with barricades (tolerated by German police), hurled paint bombs, lit fires and launched violent attacks on some of the participants who managed to draw near the rally location. One would-be rally participant, a Jewish man, sent in an account of his ordeal to Gates of Vienna, writing: "I was wearing my kippah and readily identifiable as a Jew; however, they (the leftist counter-demonstrators) screamed at me 'Nazi Raus.'" He reported they also shoved him, spit on him, and called him a fascist pig. "I was pummeled in the head several times and then shoved to the ground where I was beaten and kicked with steel toe boots in plain sight of police who did nothing." He later discovered he had a broken rib.

And yet, the consensus narrative, dutifully repeated in the mainstream European media, is that it is the silenced and hounded politicians and their supporters who are the "fascists"; while it is the silencers and hounders who are the "anti-fascists."

Such lies and distortions are probably what help convince our own media to ignore such events altogether as just so much marginal "extremism" going on somewhere in Europe. Anyway, how does it affect us? Nothing like that is happening here, right?

Yes and no. As in Europe, huge mosque complexes are opening across the States -- one very recently in Boston and another in Atlanta. Do they portend the extension and entrenchment of Islamic law in the United States? One difference between the United States and Europe is that we don't have street thugs enforcing a code of silence on the subject. That's because of the other difference: We don't have any political parties willing, or even able to discuss it.

Of Generals and Victories
Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, October 07, 2008

"(O)nce war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

"War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."

Familiar to every graduate of West Point, the words are from the farewell address of Gen. MacArthur, to Congress on April 19, 1951, after he was relieved of command in Korea by Harry Truman.

Two years later, however, Dwight David Eisenhower, a general as famous as MacArthur, would agree to a truce that restored the status quo ante in Korea.

For the first time since the War of 1812, the United States was not decisively victorious. We had preserved the independence of war-ravaged South Korea. But the North remained the domain of Stalinist strongman Kim Il-Sung for 41 years.

After Korea came Vietnam. The United States did not lose a major battle and departed in early 1973 with every provincial capital in South Vietnamese hands. But the war was lost in April of 1975, when Saigon, its military aid slashed by Congress, fell to an invasion from across the DMZ.

Vietnam introduced us to what no generation of Americans save Southerners had ever known: an American strategic defeat.

Now we are about to enter our eighth year in Afghanistan and our sixth year in Iraq. In neither is victory, in the MacArthurian sense, assured. Indeed, "victory" may be unattainable, says America's most successful general, David Petraeus, who asserts he will never use the word in speaking of Iraq. "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade."

Why will Operation Iraqi Freedom not end like Gulf War I, where Gen. Schwarzkopf led the victorious army up Constitution Avenue? Because, whenever a truce is achieved through power-sharing, it often proves to be the prelude to a new war, when the power shifts.

In Iraq, the Shia-Sunni struggle remains unresolved. The Maliki regime wants the Americans gone so it can settle accounts with the Awakening Councils and Sons of Iraq we armed to eradicate Al-Qaida. The Kurds are moving to cement control of oil-rich Kirkuk and expand into Iraqi Arab provinces.

Of that other war over which he has assumed command, Gen. Petraeus says: "Obviously the trends in Afghanistan have been in the wrong direction. ... You cannot kill or capture your way out of an insurgency that is as significant as the one in Iraq, nor, I believe, as large as the one that has developed in Afghanistan."

"We can't kill our way to victory," adds Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs. We are "running out of time."

Mullen earlier said he's "not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan."

The British commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, is even gloomier. The British people, he says, should not expect a "decisive military victory. ... We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghani army."

Carleton-Smith is euphoric alongside Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, ambassador in Kabul, who is quoted in a letter to the prime minister as saying NATO strategy in Afghanistan is "doomed to fail."

Before either a President Obama or McCain sends 10,000 more troops into Afghanistan, he should conduct a review as to whether this war is winnable, and at what cost in blood, money and years.

Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S. history. Why have we not yet won? First, because we lack the forces. In World War I, we put 2 million men in France in 18 months. In World War II, 16 million served, with 12 million in uniform at war's end. Today, we have 31,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Why so few troops? Because, despite what Americans say, few truly believe the survival of the Hamad Kharzai regime is vital to our security or that we would be in mortal peril should the Taliban return. Indeed, Petraeus says we should seek "reconciliation," presumably with the more moderate of the Taliban.

Converting enemies into allies with bribes or access to power may not be as dramatic as a Marine flag-raising on Mount Suribachi. But if reconciliation can end these wars successfully -- assure us neither nation is used as a base camp for terror -- would that be unacceptable? As Sun Tzu wrote, the greatest victories are those won without fighting.

For America's great wars, MacArthur and Eisenhower were the right generals. For today's wars, where the threat is not mortal and there will be no surrender signing in a railway car at Compiegne or on the deck of a battleship Missouri, Petraeus seems the right man -- and appears to have no need of an Eisenhower jacket or corncob pipe.

Some comments from :

We're with you, General. by Mad as Hell (not verified) - 2010-11-17 23:00 We're with you, General. I've known this stuff ever since I started listening to Glenn Beck, hearing it from their own mouths, on tape and video! I'm so mad I can't see straight. The thing that amazes me is how stupid these supposed intellectuals are! They strive for a system that has never worked anywhere it has been tried. All men are created equal, but there is no way that all outcomes will ever be equal. Societies and economies could not function if everyone was guaranteed equality. They actually believe they can create a Utopia on Earth! Idiots and fools! The truth is, in Communism, all are not equal. The party leaders always live high on the hog, and the people stand in line for their 6 potatoes a week. And the nonsense that comes out of Pelosi, Reid, Obama and all of them is astounding. I believe some of them are clinically mentally ill. They and all the Progressives have made the Biblical prophecy come true....."men will call evil good, and good evil". I'm trying not to hate, but it's hard when I know that they're not just misguided and wrong; they're doing all this deliberately. If I met him, I would never call him, Mr. President. He is not my President. I would call him, Mr. Obama, look him in the eye, and spit on the ground. Their actions are unforgivable. I think not only of the early patriots who died, but all the precious military men and women who have died for this unique Republic. These people aren't worthy to speak their names. We may have to go through some tough times, but the Tea Parties and the recent election give me some hope that we'll win. I am so proud of America and this election! I thought there weren't enough of us who saw the truth and cared. It renewed my faith to see that so many are awake now. Jefferson said the people would get it wrong sometimes, but they would correct it. I hope that if we stand with God, and do our part, we can still correct it. Thank you for your service, General. God bless you and God bless America. And all I can say is, may God reward them according to their works.

Kamal Saleem by Tom W. (not verified) - 2010-11-10 09:14 Should you have the opportunity, listen to Kamal Saleem as well. He walked and talked Islam before his conversion. I am totally blown away that the feminist movement is not up in arms about sharia law. Rather than support the Christian culture, they would much rather embrace a religion that in the end, will strip them of their dignity.

Every word is true by Anonymous (not verified) - 2010-11-04 22:10 I grew up in post war Germany, I saw what the communists did in East Germany, It's called the Salami-Effect. They take one slice of freedom away at a time and before you know it is gone. FOREVER. Dear General, God bless you. You studied Communism by training, I learned it by experience. The only thing Communism is successful of is killing people. By the millions. The first rule : Disarm the people !!!

Progressivism=Marxism=communism by a fellow patriot (not verified) - 2010-11-03 19:50 "The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin

Wake up America by Anonymous (not verified) - 2010-11-02 17:02 As the old saying goes, "History repeats itself." I've been reading some history of how Hitler became such a force of death and destruction in Europe. He had a vast army, he clothed and fed by taking it away from his own people and the surrounding countries around Germany that he exploded. No one believed the dirty little man would dare invade their borders, after all didn't they have a piece of paper as a treaty with the headman of Germany? Yes, it was blames on the Jews.....Didn't this little man's armies invade France and Poland? Then there were Vienna and Czechoslovakia. Of course, England was busy living the high life of Royalty. History will also remind us that England was suffering, too. There poor destitute country men with families were jobless, hungry and homeless. So when the bombs started dropping, some people took notice, hid in their royal bedrooms. They had uniforms made gave them to those homeless and sent the destitute men and boys to fight the enemy they had heard about and ignored. American at that time was the same. Most of the leaders were to posh and fat to worry about those across the sea. Yet they got those men off the soup lines, put uniforms on them gave them a rifle with bullets and said. "You represent American, go and fight like men. And they did... Most of them were fed and had housing. But don't fret, we do have an army in America. yes thousands and thousands, to the poorest cities to the affluent cities from 10 year of age to 50+. They have the best of guns and bombs of any Army. Our Police Officers are overwhelmed and out-rigged. Life goes on..... I believe that any child 16 years and older should be registered and sent to Military school to keep them from roaming around the street getting into gangs and trouble. At 20 they can then go on into the military as productive adults and serve America with honor. I don't believe in any way that a soldier and his family required to serve America for 4 years cost the government as much as an 80 year rep. that sleeps through the meetings in congress, the house of reps. and the courts for one year. American is outraged at the dishonest, selfish, self-imposed, government that is failing our country. I ask God to Bless American from the bottom of my heart, in prayer.

If you look at history, in areas where Islam bordered other religious groups too big to conquer, Muslims took similar stances, and went about making sure they had more children than those they bordered. Once they had sufficient numbers to take control, that stance changed drastically. Look at Europe and unless we stop this now, we will suffer the same fate in 40-50 years or less.

Marxism Vs. Socialism by Bill5105 (not verified) - 2010-11-04 16:41 Socialism most certainly is associated with Marxism. If you bother to read any of Karl Marx's literature you will discover he coined the term "socialism". Both center on the idea that the state can save you from yourself and the state (not God) is the supreme authority to which men must give account.

A Communist/Marxist is just a socialist who is in a hurry

Marx was a teacher of're right. .No man is so blind as he who refuses to see by PHenry (not verified) - 2010-11-02 12:31 The Lt. General has likely seen a lot in his time and speaks from personal, first hand experience. Consider the canary in the mine. When the canary keels over, two types of people will be revealed - the kind who act and the kind who die. Slavery is worse than death and when our government takes from one by rule of law to give to another, no matter how deserving - this IS slavery. Don't take my word for it - consult better men, say, Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Samuel Adams, Isaac Davis, and so many other great men of vision and foresight. The Lt. General counciled us to get up and get involved. Funny, that's exactly what John Adams asked us to do in his diary on April 20th, 1775. If u r not familiar with that date - attend an Appleseeds event. WWW.RWVA.ORG


History of Liberty in America

America's First Move Towards Socialism? A review of Plymouth Plantation's experiment with socialism.
A call to action to defend Liberty from today's pending experiment with socialism.
America has had socialist thoughts before, always ending in failure.
by Ken D. Berry, MD
Saturday, November 15, 2008

An outside observer without a working knowledge of true American history might think that recent events such as the taxpayer bailout of the banking industry herald the initial movements of America towards a more socialist state. Indeed, there are many in positions of influence who would like nothing better than a socialist revolution within our borders. Truth is, American history is littered with examples of the fallacious thought process of socialism and the results of its attempted implementation. One of the earliest examples of American leaders thinking they could legislate away the laws of human nature was recorded by William Bradford in his journal, Of Plymouth Plantation (1620-1647). This example should be studied and understood by all who profess to love Liberty today.

Most everyone feels in their heart that Americans today suffer from at least some degree of moral decay, lack of principle, and wavering resolve. As is human nature, we tend to project our own current state of morals and mores onto any story we hear from the past. So rather than project ourselves onto this story, let me briefly remind the reader exactly who we are talking about in this story. Plymouth Plantation was peopled by Pilgrims who had endured terrible hardship that few today could understand; and in search of religious freedom, had traveled farther that most today would dream of venturing. They were rock-solid Christians, ready to stand together against any foe, who believed that God was always watching and ready to mete out punishment for those who transgressed. They were totally and completely committed to family, church and community in ways we find difficult even to fathom today. So, if any society of like-minded, charitable people would ever be able to work together in common for the good of their society, it should have been the people of Plymouth Plantation. We will find, however, that human nature prevails even in so devout a group as this, and despite the best intentions of the learned men of Plymouth, their experiment with the socialist idea was a quick and painful failure.

One of the first things thought of by the Plymouth leadership upon founding the settlement was food procurement and storage. They settled on the entirely reasonable plan of having a common area to raise crops that would be tended by all according to their abilities and skill, the harvest of which would be shared by all in a like manner. On its surface, this sounds very Christian, equitable, and fair; everyone would work as hard as they could to raise food and then it would be used by all who needed it. For such a kindly, dutiful, and upright group, this plan should have been a success. Turns out that even in the most devout gathering, yes even among Pilgrims, the laws of human nature always apply, just as surely as the temperature will fall in winter.

For two growing seasons this plan was adhered to with rather disappointing results. It seems that many workers were frequently sick, not being able to work, and that many while working were noticed to be giving what seemed less than their all. All work done was mediocre at best, and theft of the pending harvest was common. What, Pilgrims stealing from their own group? Yes, it seems even the strict black-and-white beliefs of the Pilgrims grayed when taking (borrowing, stealing) from the collective was contemplated. In their mind, we can imagine them thinking that part of the crop was surely theirs to take as they needed without permission; we can also imagine the thoughts of the rest of the community whose feeling was that they personally had been robbed. How bad did this system of "Social Equality" perform? Here is a quote from Bradford about this situation:

"All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. " (the spelling has been modernized a bit for clarity, and the underline is mine)

After the second dismal harvest and pending starvation under this plan of production, the community leaders realized their error and proposed a new plan, the results of which affirmed the laws of human nature and began to set the stage for the coming American success. Again, here is Bradford in his own words:

At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the cheifest amongest them) gave way that they should set corve every man for his owne particuler, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use ... This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then othewise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would alledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The following point cannot be over-belabored; even the most devout group of Pilgrims willing to semi-circle the globe in search of religious self-determination was unable to retain its morality when shackled with the soft chains of socialism. Even devout Pilgrims malingered, pilfered and waivered while living under socialism. If upright Pilgrims cannot be made to toil productively for their collective community, what do we expect to happen when such ideas are fostered on this current generation raised on television and text-messages and junk food?

When Bradford and the cheifest of his leaders allowed the inhabitants to claim and farm their own land and to harvest what they themselves had sown, the colonies produce production skyrocketed and those who previously found nothing but oppression in the corn-field began to take their children with them to help to plant and tend. This beautiful lesson concerning human nature was not lost upon the founding fathers, who took their opportunity to shackle and cripple the new federal government, to prevent such social programs from oppressing the people. American history is filled with stories of the ebb and flow of new "social" programs, their unfortunate and unexpected outcomes, and their eventual demise. The truth that must awaken America today is that a federal (central) government not continually watched and repetitively re-shackled by the people will slowly become a behemoth which is essentially unstoppable. Jefferson said, "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories."

Our current problem is the enormous size and scope of the socialist programs being proposed and implemented. It is possible that we will not be able to look back someday at the folly of our present leaders; even the unstoppable engine of good that is America can be stopped if The People continue to neglect their duty. I fear the hour comes when men and women who yet hold Liberty dear will be called upon to do more than rant and blog. Perhaps that moment is even at hand.

Excerpt from:


The Virginia Colony at Jamestown and Socialism

Jamestown's biggest problem was the common-store system established by its charter. Each man was required to place the fruit of his labor in a common storehouse, and each was entitle to receive food and supplies from the storehouse according to his need. This communal (belonging to the community) system meant in reality that the industrious man must provide for the idle. Many yielded to their sinful nature and spent their days in idleness or searching for gold. With everyone benefiting from the common storehouse but few contributing to it, the food supply was quickly depleted. Thus America's first experiment with a form of socialism failed miserably.

In 1608, Captain John Smith took charge of the colony and saved it from self-destruction by ruling with a firm hand. He established the policy that "any who would not work should not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). As one historian put it, "Those who tried to live without working soon found that they must also try that harder thing -- to live without eating."

The Plymouth Colony's Experiment with Communism/Socialism

In the spring of 1623, Governor Bradford led the colony in an important decision. The Pilgrims' original charter had established a communal, or common-store, system, similar to that tried at Jamestown. This system had failed in Jamestown, where greedy men had spent their time seeking ease instead of working to produce food. But even in Plymouth, where most of the people had a deep Christian commitment, the communal system promoted a lack of diligence and efficiency. The situation threatened to destroy the colony in its infancy. To solve the problem Governor Bradford divided the land among the colonists and made each family responsible for itself, establishing a free enterprise system. By the time of the fall harvest, the wisdom of this decision was evident:

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." -- Modern spelling taken from "Of Plymouth Plantation", ed. by S. E. Morison

Americans learned from the experience at Plymouth that even among godly people the free enterprise system is far superior to the communal system (socialism or Communism). (1) Faith in God, (2) a strong belief in the Protestant work ethic, and (3) the exercise of the free enterprise system made Plymouth a successful community.

Establishing Political Liberty The Pilgrims gave America an early example of republican self-government, and elected "deputies" to act as their representatives in the General Court. The Pilgrims were able to successfully exercise representative self-government because (1) they were dominated by Scriptural concepts, and (2) they had great respect for the law and for their leaders.


What Really Happened at Plymouth by Murray N. Rothbard

This article is excerpted from Chapter 18 of Conceived In Liberty, Volume I, now available as a free eBook (PDF):

The first successful settlement in New England was something of an accident. By 1617 the Pilgrims had determined to leave the Netherlands, where their youth were supposedly being corrupted by the "licentiousness" of even the Calvinist Dutch, who, for example, persisted in enjoying the Sabbath as a holiday rather than bearing it as a penance.

Deciding to settle in America, the Pilgrims were offered an opportunity to settle in New Netherland, but preferred to seek a patent from the South Virginia Company, which would provide an English atmosphere in which to raise their children. The Pilgrims formed a partnership in a joint-stock company with a group of London merchants, including Thomas Weston, an ironmonger, and John Peirce, a cloth maker. The company, John Peirce and Associates, received in 1620 a grant from the Virginia Company for a particular plantation in Virginia territory.

In this alliance, each adult settler was granted a share in the joint-stock company, and each investment of 10 pounds also received a share. At the end of seven years, the accumulated earnings were to be divided among the shareholders. Until that division, as in the original Virginia settlement, the company decreed a communistic system of production, with each settler contributing his all to the common store and each drawing his needs from it – again, a system of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Just over a hundred colonists sailed from England on the Mayflower in September 1620. Of these, only forty-one were Pilgrims, from Leyden, Holland; eighteen were indentured servants, bound as slaves for seven years to their masters; and the others were largely Anglicans from England, seeking economic opportunity in the New World.

Bound supposedly for the mouth of the Hudson River, the Mayflower decided instead to land along what is now the Massachusetts coast – outside Virginia territory. Some of the indentured servants began to grow restive, logically maintaining that since the settlement would not be made, as had been agreed, in Virginia territory, they should be released from their contracts. "They would use their own liberty, for none had power to command them."

To forestall this rebellion against servitude, the bulk of the colonists, and especially the Pilgrims, decided to establish a government immediately, even though on shipboard. No possible period without governmental rule was to be permitted to the colonists. The Pilgrim minority straightway formed themselves on shipboard into a "body politic" in the Mayflower Compact, enabling them to perpetuate their rule over the other majority colonists. This, the first form of government in the New World established by colonists themselves, was by no means a gesture of independence from England; it was an emergency measure to maintain the Pilgrim control over the servants and other settlers.

In mid-December 1620 the Mayflower landed at Plymouth. In a duplication of the terrible hardships of the first Virginia settlers, half of the colonists were dead by the end of the first winter. In mid-1621 John Peirce and Associates obtained a patent from the Council for New England, granting the company 100 acres of land for each settler and 1,500 acres compulsorily reserved for public use. In return, the Council was to receive a yearly quitrent of two shillings per 100 acres.

A major reason for the persistent hardships, for the "starving time," in Plymouth as before in Jamestown, was the communism imposed by the company. Finally, in order to survive, the colony in 1623 permitted each family to cultivate a small private plot of land for their individual use. William Bradford, who had become governor of Plymouth in 1621, and was to help rule the colony for thirty years thereafter, eloquently describes the result in his record of the colony:

All this while no supply was heard of... So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length... the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves... And so assigned to every family a parcel of land... for that end, only for present use... This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's... that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing... For this community... was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong... had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice... Upon... all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought... one as good as another, and so... did... work diminish... the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst men... Let none object this is men's corruption... all men have this corruption in them... (William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, New York: Knopf, 1952, pp. 120–21.)

The antipathy of communism to the nature of man here receives eloquent testimony from a governor scarcely biased a priori in favor of individualism. Plymouth was destined to remain a small colony. By 1630 its population was still less than four hundred. Its government began in the Mayflower Compact, with the original signers forming an Assembly for making laws, choosing a governor, and admitting people to freemen's citizenship. The governor had five assistants, elected also by the freemen. This democratic setup signified a very loose control of the colony by the Peirce Company, which wanted to accelerate the growth of the colony, and saw the Pilgrim dominance as an obstacle to such growth.

Religious exclusiveness in a colony necessarily hampers its growth; we have seen that Lord Baltimore soon abandoned the idea of Maryland as an exclusively Catholic colony in order to encourage its rapid development. Thus, persecution of non-Separatists for playing ball on Sunday and for daring to observe Christmas as a holiday was hardly calculated to stimulate the growth of the colony.

To inject some variety into the colony, the English merchants therefore sent the Rev. John Lyford, a Puritan within the Church of England, with a group of colonists to Plymouth. As soon as Lyford began to administer the sacraments according to the Church of England, his correspondence was seized by Governor Bradford, and Lyford and his chief supporter, John Oldham, were tried for "plotting against Pilgrim rule both in respect of their civil and church state."

To the charge of Lyford and Oldham that non-Pilgrims were being discouraged from coming to Plymouth, Governor Bradford replied that strangers were perfectly "free" to attend the Pilgrim church as often as they liked. When Bradford spread the stolen letters, critical of the government, upon the record, Oldham angrily called upon the Assembly to revolt against this tyranny, but no one followed his lead. The Reverend Lyford instantly recanted and groveled in his errors before the court.

Both men were ordered banished from the colony. Oldham went thirty miles north, with a number of the discontented, to found a settlement at Nantasket (now Hull). Included in this company were Roger Conant and William and Edward Hilton, who shortly traveled further north to join David Thompson, a Scottish trader who had established a settlement at what is now Portsmouth, New Hampshire, at the mouth of the Piscataqua River. The Hiltons were later to found the nearby town of Dover, New Hampshire.

In return for his abasement, the Reverend Lyford was put on six months' probation, but again some critical letters to England were purloined by the government, and this time Lyford was truly expelled and went on to join the Nantasket settlement.

The Pilgrims, however, had not seen the last of the rebellious band. In the spring of 1624, the Pilgrims built a wharf some sixty miles north, on the current site of Gloucester, at Cape Ann in northeastern Massachusetts, only to find the following spring that Lyford, Oldham, and their group had moved there. They had been invited to Gloucester by the Dorchester Company of merchants from western England. The company's founder, the Rev. John White, a Puritan, had already established a fishing village at Gloucester in 1623. Roger Conant was now installed as superintendent of the community, and Lyford became its pastor.

Upon returning to Gloucester to find the dissidents established there, the first instinct of Plymouth's military leader, Capt. Miles Standish, was, typically, to demand the surrender of the unwelcome wharf, but cooler heads prevailed and a peaceful compromise was soon reached. The Pilgrims, however, could not make a go of this fishing station and abandoned it at the end of the year. Upon the bankruptcy of the Dorchester Company the following year, the Conant-Oldham group left Gloucester, and moved fifteen miles down the coast to found the town of Naumkeag, later known as Salem. Lyford was its Anglican minister.

In 1625, Thomas Morton, gentleman lawyer and an agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, organized another settlement, Merrymount, north of Plymouth at the present site of Quincy, Massachusetts. Merrymount was an Anglican settlement, and the citizens did not comport themselves in the highly ascetic fashion to which the Plymouth Separatists wished them to conform. Apparently Merrymount was merry indeed, and whiskey and interracial (white-Indian) revelry abounded, including the old Anglican (but denounced by the Pilgrims as pagan) custom of dancing around a maypole, a practice which King James I had urged in his Book of Sports (1617).

Plymouth had established friendly relations with the Indians, but Merrymount was now threatening to compete most effectively with Plymouth's highly lucrative monopoly of the beaver trade with the Indians. Merrymount was also a place where Morton set his servants free and made them partners in the fur trade, and thus it loomed as a highly attractive haven for runaway servants from Plymouth.

The Pilgrims denounced Morton's colony as a "school of atheism" – "atheism" apparently signifying the use of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, the maypole, and selling rum and firearms to the Indians (and buying furs in exchange). The sale of rum and firearms was condemned even though relations with the Indians had been perfectly peaceful. Then, in 1628, Plymouth established a virtual New England tradition of persecution by dispatching Captain Standish with an armed troop to eradicate Merrymount.

Having surrendered on the promise of safe treatment to himself and the settlement, Morton was assaulted by Standish and his men and almost killed, the Plymouth forces "not regarding any agreement made with such a carnal man." Hauled into a Plymouth court – despite Plymouth's lack of legal jurisdiction over Merrymount – Morton was almost executed; his death was urged at great length by Miles Standish. Finally, he was deported back to England, with Standish still threatening to kill Morton personally before he could leave the colony. Before deportation, Morton was confined alone for over a month of severe winter at the Isles of Shoals without a gun, knife, or proper clothing.

Despite the destruction of Merrymount, and the failure of other attempts at settlement, the 1620s saw several settlements dot the Massachusetts coast. Most important was the Roger Conant group at Naumkeag; another was a settlement at Boston led by the Puritan minister, Rev. William Blackstone.

In 1627 the inherent conflict between colony and company in Plymouth was finally resolved, by the elimination of the company from the scene. In that year, the seven years of enforced communism by the company expired, and all the assets and lands were distributed to the individual shareholders. Grants of land were received in proportion to the size of the stock, so that the larger shareholders received larger gifts of land.

This complete replacement of communism by individualism greatly benefited the productivity of the colony. Furthermore, the colonists took the happy occasion to buy up the shares of the Peirce company. Plymouth was now a totally self-governing colony. By 1633 the entire purchase price had been paid and the colonists were freed from the last remnant of company, or indeed of any English, control.

There still remained, of course, the overlord Council for New England. In 1630 the Council granted a new patent to the Plymouth Colony, clearly defining its territory, and recognizing its right to freedom of trading and fishing. But Governor Bradford limited the privileges of trade to the original Pilgrim partners – the Old Comers – and kept the patent in his own possession before relinquishing it in 1641.

Plymouth was destined to remain a small colony in which the nominal rulers, the freemen, were rarely consulted, and the governor and the Council imposed an oligarchic rule. But after the Council for New England was dissolved in 1635, Plymouth nevertheless became a fully self-governing colony.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Copyright 2006 Ludwig von Mises Institute All rights reserved.


False Philosophies Introduced in the Late 19th Century

In the early 1900's, the people of the United States experienced a wonderful time of philanthropic giving, social advances, great industrial productivity, law and order, and the highest standard of living in the world up to that time. The U.S. had become a world power both politically and economically.

She had also become a leader in Christianity and world missions, but false, anti-Biblical philosophies were hatched that would eventually erode our Christian heritage, including the ideas of evolution, Marxist-socialism (Communism), progressive education, and modern psychology in the latter half of the 19th century, but they did not affect society until the 20th century and did not come into full bloom until the latter half of the 20th century.


Modernism began in German universities when German theologians began to exalt their own reason above God's word, teaching that the Bible was a collection of myths, legends, and a few historical facts. They denied the existence of Heaven, Hell, and the sin nature, insisting that Jesus was not the Savior of man but only a great man whose teachings could help men evolve into perfect beings. The German modernists introduced the word evolution to the academic vocabulary. As ministerial students from America attended these German schools, they were filled with doubts and disbelief in the Bible. They brought their unbelief (modernism) back to American seminaries and universities.


Without the Bible, the world had no answer to the question of origins until 1859, when Charles Darwin (1809-1882) proposed his philosophy of evolution and the survival of the fittest. Darwin said that man had "evolved" from some apelike creature. If man were an animal and had not been created in the image of God, man could not be answerable to God for his actions. The false philosophy of evolution seemed to free man from the burden of sin without the need of God.

In the United States, the reaction to Modernism and evolution was threefold: (1) some university professors turned their backs on Christianity, (2) Bible-believing pastors and churches rejected these false philosophies, and (3) many prominent seminaries tried to work out a compromise between the new ideas and their faith.


The father of modern socialism (Communism), Karl Marx (1818-1883), gladly embraced the Modernism and evolution taught in German universities. Marx compared Darwin's struggle for survival among animals to his own ideas of the struggle between social classes. They believed that government should take all private property and eliminate the upper classes.

The socialism that American university professors had gone to Communist Germany to learn had little effect on America in the 19th century; but in the early part of the 20th century, some politicians and university professors were calling for the government to get involved in man's social welfare.

Progressive Education

In the last half of the 19th century, German universities started to apply evolutionary thought to the field of education. By the 1880's, the philosophy department at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore was teaching the philosophy of the German modernists. John Dewey (1859-1952), the father of progressive education in America, based his work on studies done at Johns Hopkins. Dewey, an atheist who believed that man was an animal and solely the product of his environment, integrated the philosophy of evolution into the American educational system.

Dewey emphasized "permissiveness in the classroom", saying that children should be permitted to "do their own thing" because they learned best when allowed to follow their own instincts. He stressed social adjustment rather than academic learning. According to progressive education, problems are a result of social environment; this philosophy eliminates individual accountability and responsibility. Progressive education eventually led to the breakdown of academic and moral standards in American schools in the latter half of the 20th century.

Modern Psychology

German and Austrian universities helped produce the father of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Freud believed that man is a social animal, a product of evolution. Thus, man is not responsible for his actions. He believed that man's basic problems are related to the sex drive. Freud dismissed Christianity as a primitive myth and denied the reality of sin. To rid people of guilt (the inward personal testimony that man does sin), Freud suggested psychoanalysis, a method of treating mental disorders which attempts to blame others or their environment for personal failures and wrongdoings. Americans who studied in Germany and Vienna brought Freud's views back to the United States. Few Americans took Freud seriously until the 1920's.

Most Americans held to Biblical morality throughout the 19th century and most of the 20th century. However, as liberal professors in universities and seminaries began to promote Modernism, evolution, Communism, progressive education, and modern psychology, these false philosophies slowly began to permeate the American educational scene and some churches. In time, they would have a devastating effect upon American life.

Communists in America

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia started a worldwide Communist movement. In March 1919, the leaders of international Communism met in Moscow to form the Third International, a terrorist organization dedicated to a worldwide revolution. A small group organized a Communist party in America in 1919. Socialist and Communist sympathizers in America supported Moscow's program for the overthrow of capitalism by revolution. Communist organizers were a guiding force behind many labor strikes in the U.S. in 1919. William Z. Foster, a key figure in the early American Communist movement, planned and led a violent steelworkers' strike. Many labor union members were influenced by Communist propaganda.

In June 1919, Communists mailed bombs to a number of prominent American citizens, and the bombs exploded within minutes of one another in 8 American cities. The fear of a plot of revolution gripped many Americans. Scoffers called the panic the "Red Scare". People often referred to Communists as "Reds".

In August 1919, Attorney General Palmer ordered the Dept. of Justice to gather information about terrorists, or radicals, who wanted to overthrow the American government. Palmer established the General Intelligence Division, later known as the FBI, and J. Edgar Hoover (1895-1972) took charge of the investigations into Communist activities. Government authorities raided Communist headquarters in 33 cities and sent 500 people back to their homelands. Some socialists who opposed violence were also arrested and later releases. The Communist menace was a real threat to the nation. Terrorists sponsored by Moscow were at work to overthrow American institutions and establish dictatorial rule.

Gradually, a theological debate arose, especially in the northern denominations, as seminaries began to embrace German liberal theology, called Modernism. Those opposed to Modernism became known as Fundamentalists.

Modernism came to America through university professors, ministers, and university students (some of whom were future politicians, lawyers, clergy and politicians) who studied at liberal German universities, where Darwin's theory of evolution was often combined with sympathy toward Marxist socialism. Soon, Modernist teachings had infected many seminaries and church denominations, denying Biblical truths and teaching that man was only an animal -- the highest product of the evolutionary process. Modernist preachers believed the Bible to be a collection of ancient myths or fairy tales, that it was full of errors and unreliable, man is basically good, and Jesus is not God, and there is neither Heaven nor Hell.

The noted scholar, J. Gresham Machen effectively challenged the compromise of religious liberals (Modernists) and wrote against the errors of Modernism, as did his successors, R. A. Torrey, and many others. Many Bible-believing churches left denominations that embraced Modernism, and became known as "fundamentalists" because they held to the fundamental doctrines of biblical Christianity which the Modernists denied. A great struggle took place between fundamentalists and Modernists in many of the northern denominations. The fundamental churches that came out of the Modernist denominations grew and prospered, while the Modernist denominations eventually shrank in size and combined with other liberal denominations.

During the Depression, some American writers and politicians saw the Marxist-socialism of the Soviet Union as a way out of the Depression. As the government interfered with the American economy, many people began to depend upon it for their financial needs. Communists claimed that life was much better in the Soviet Union, but many Russians starved to death because of the brutality and failure of Marxist-socialism in their country. The poorest people in America were far better off than those living under Communism. While the free enterprise nations of the world would eventually recover from the Depression, Russia would remain locked in a seemingly permanent depression.

FDR believed that the government could spend its way out of the Depression by providing public relief and jobs for everyone. He based his New Deal on the ideas of a socialist economist from Great Britain, John Maynard Keynes. The idea that government can live beyond its means is called "Keynesian economics", the creed of "tax and Spend" politicians. Under FDR, the government began to operate of a deficit (spending more than received from taxes and other revenues).

Thus, on April 19, 1933, the U.S. abandoned the gold standard. FDR announced that all privately held gold, except jewelry and coin collections, should be returned to the Federal Reserve Banks in exchange for paper money (which could no longer be redeemed for gold); this allowed the government to inflate the currency, or print more money, to pay for more government programs.

Social Security

In 1935, Congress passed the Social Security Act, introducing it as a voluntary program. This act established a government fund for unemployment and old-age insurance. Each pay period, a certain amount of money would be withheld from the worker's paycheck and deposited in this fund; an equal amount would be contributed by the employer. At first, only a small amount of money was withheld, and the government promised that the Social Security tax would remain small.

The Social Security Administration soon blossomed into an enormous agency and began to transfer vast amounts of money to welfare programs. As more people were needed to contribute more money to keep the system afloat, Social Security became mandatory for most workers (but not for politicians). Instead of saving Social Security money for its original purpose, the government used the fund to pay for public welfare programs, and was able to get away with this because there were more people working and paying into it than were retired and drawing out from it. Now, more people are retired than are working and there is talk about decreasing the already too-low to live upon meager Social Security payments, or of eliminating it altogether. Some politicians and younger people, who are not familiar with Social Security's history, think that retirees who contributed all their lives to Social Security are freeloaders because the government forcibly took their money and spent it, and now think that the government is taking ever-increasing amounts of money from the younger workers and giving it to the retirees.

In 1935, the Supreme Court began to challenge the New Deal, and declared the National Recovery Administration unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate the supply and demand of goods, depriving the consumer of a just price. In order to keep the court from ruling his other programs unconstitutional, FDR packed the court with younger, more liberal justices who supported the New Deal.

Many professors at Harvard and other universities promoted socialism in the mid-1930's. These social planners, known as the "brain trust", helped FDR organize his New Deal programs, and they re-interpreted the Constitution to mean that the government had broad powers to provide for people's needs. Families, churches, and private charities met the needs of the unemployed, and most people still had food, clothing and shelter, but liberal politicians called for more government relief and job programs. FDR's New Deal program laid the foundation for a social welfare state by making more and more people dependent on the government, and by controlling business, industry and agriculture.

Italy and Germany had great economic hardships after World War I, and the fascists in Italy and the Nazis (socialists) in Germany took control of many factories and businesses as people looked to the government for a solution. Adolph Hitler convinced the German people that an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers, Western capitalists (mostly from Britain, France, and the U.S.), and Communists was out to conquer Germany. He then used the fear and distrust that he had created to seize the property of businesses in the name of the German government. As a socialist, Hitler believed that the government should own the nation's industries and take responsibility for its people. Hitler's creation of a socialist state gave him the power he needed to become the absolute dictator of Germany. By embracing socialist, the German people lost their freedoms to a tyrant.

Hitler combined Marxist-socialism with Darwin's theory of evolution, proclaiming that the German people had evolved into a superior or master race, and called for a world war to kill off the weaker races (especially the Jews) and assure the "survival of the fittest" (the German people). Because many Germans believed the notion of evolution and had been taught socialist ideas in their schools, they accepted Hitler's ideas. Soon, public hospitals began to practice euthanasia (killing the terminally ill, mentally retarded, and those with physical handicaps) and abortion. Millions of "racially inferior" ethnic groups -- Eastern Europeans, Gypsies, and Jews -- were rounded up and killed, along with Germans who disagreed with Hitler. Hitler especially hated the Jews and had over 6 million Jews murdered between 1934-1945; this horrible slaughter became known as the "Holocaust".

Americanism sees the government as the protector of human life, private property, and the family. Under Americanism, people are free to make their own choices and are responsible for their everyday lives. They are free to worship God as they choose. Communism views the government as the controller of people's lives. Communist leaders insist that the individual become completely subject to the government (or state). If individuals are not willing to surrender their freedoms and possessions to the state, the Communist government uses physical and psychological force or terror to control the people. Communist countries are atheistic; they deny the existence of God and persecute those who believe in God. Many who disagreed with Communism were sent to slave labor camps. Ordinary people needed the government's permission for practically everything; only the small ruling class of Communist leaders had any privileges. A person living in a Communist country must have the government's permission to move from one apartment to another, or to travel within the country. Few are allowed to travel outside the country. Housing is poor, food is scarce, medical care is inadequate, abortions are encouraged, children must go to state controlled nurseries an schools, working conditions are harsh and unsafe, and no one can marry or get a job without state approval. Christians were persecuted, churches destroyed and church leaders killed. Communism is oppressive; it is a slavery of the mind, body and soul.

Communists from Russia infiltrated the U.S. government and even supplied the Soviets with enough atomic secrets for Russia to develop an atomic bomb by 1949. Senator McCarthy investigated Communist activity in the U.S. army early in 1954. The Senate decided to allow television coverage of the Army-McCarthy hearings. Although many Americans supported Senator McCarthy, liberals in the media, press and labor union leaders denounce "McCarthyism" and accused him of conducting a "witch hunt". The power of television was so great that McCarthy's sarcastic manner and stern face gave him a poor public image, and many saw him as a bully rather than a patriotic American. The main points of his message were later verified to be true, but public hearings and attacks from liberal news reporters hurt McCarthy's image with many people.

By the early 1960's, the teachings of humanist philosopher John Dewey, the father of progressive education, had permeated public education. Dewey was a leader in the secular humanist movement, which put man in place of or above God. Moral absolutes, such as those once taught in the "McGuffey Readers", were replaced by humanistic ideas such as encouraging children to "follow their animal instincts" and to practice permissive "self-expression" in the classroom. After Madalyn O'Hair used her teenage son, William, to protest daily Bible reading and prayer in the public schools of Baltimore, MD, a liberal Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in a way that our founders (who had great respect for prayer and God's word) would not have agreed with and ruled that even voluntary Bible reading and prayer were unconstitutional because they "discriminated against" non-Christians. It was because of our Christian heritage that most schools had included prayer and Bible reading in their daily routines for years. William wrote a letter of apology to a Baltimore newspaper in 1980, apologizing for his role in the removal of Bible reading and prayer from the public schools. He said that his mother had brainwashed him into accepting Communism and atheism, but after years of misery and despair, he had found faith in God and now he prayed that God might somehow use his testimony to restore prayer to the classroom.

As "progressive" educators removed godly values from the classroom, America's youth became ripe for the spirit of rebellion that moved across the nation in the late 1960's, opening the door to drug abuse and sexual immorality. As discipline, dress codes, and moral standards relaxed in the public school systems, test scores continued to decline.

A liberal in American politics is a person who believes that the government should have more control over people's lives that the government through taxes should provide more of people's needs, and that Biblical, traditional values are not strong considerations. A conservative is a person who believes that the government's main responsibility is to protect people and property from crime and from foreign invaders, give people freedom to handle their own economic responsibilities, and conserve the traditional, Biblical standards of right and wrong upon which America was built.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is not necessarily linked to a political party label: in America, Democrats have tended to be more liberal and Republicans more conservative, but there are liberals and conservatives in both parties.

While imprisoned in a slave labor camp, the Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote several novels, including One Day in the Life of Ivan and The Gulag Archipelago, in which he exposed the human cruelty of the Communist system. His works were published throughout the Free World without Communist approval, and when they became famous, he was exiled to America deported for opposing Communism through his writings. When asked why the evil system of Communism was in the world today he replied, "Men have forgotten God: that's why all this has happened." Commenting on the decline of morality and traditional values in the U.S., he said, "Evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system. Atheist teachers in the West are bringing up a younger generation in a spirit of hatred of their own society. All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today's world are fruitless unless we direct our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all."

The above excerpts are from "America: Land That I Love, in Christian Perspective" by A Beka Books, and are part of the A Beka homeschooling curriculum that I highly recommend (


Also see my Public Eduation web page for more about Progressive Education methods and how they are destroying today's youth (


The State vs. Doctors and America's Previous Attempts to Make Socialism Work at Plymouth Plantation by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

Note: Dr. Ron Paul was the June 2001 commencement speaker at the University of Texas-Houston Medical School.

There are two short stories I want to tell, one medical, the other political and economic.

First, when George Washington got a serious illness, the best physicians in the country were called in. Three of the best consulted and agreed that bloodletting was the treatment of choice, and the leeches were put in place.

Washington's weakened condition that was the result of a serious respiratory infection promptly worsened and he soon died. (There was no malpractice lawsuit filed.) Good intentions and conventional wisdom were not helpful in saving the life of the father of our country. Medical care involves more than good intentions.

Second, in 1620 the Pilgrims, under the guidance of Governor Radford, landed at Plymouth Rock. For the first two years the guiding principle was "from each according to ability, to each according to need - and by force."

Starvation ensued and the colony neared extinction. However, in the third year, Radford, in consultation with the adults of the community, agreed on a system of private plots and self-reliance. Results the next summer were astounding. Productivity shot up, and a community spirit of voluntary sharing replaced the harsh laws that guided the first two years.

Freedom solved the problem of starvation.

The second story reminds me of one of my early lectures in medical school. We were told that Kwashiorkor was the most common illness in the world, killing more persons than any other. Immediately, with delusions of grandeur, I dreamed of being the physician to find a cure for this devastating malady.

But later in the lecture I learned that Kwashiorkor was a different kind of illness - it is the end result of starvation. Later it dawned on me that the solution to this problem was more political than medical.

Because we in this country have enjoyed the benefits of the freest society ever known, true famine has never existed here. But a headline a few weeks ago read: "Rickets on the rise in the U.S." I wondered at the time, could this be an early sign that something is wrong? Have we undergone a reversal back toward the philosophy that nearly destroyed the Plymouth colony?

Currently the method of distribution of medical care in the United States is coming under attack by politicians, bureaucrats, hospitals, labs, service providers, doctors, and patients. More laws and more money are demanded from all quarters.

But could it be possible that distribution of medical care is now being criticized because of a return to a system of government similar to the early rules of the Plymouth colony?

Or is it possible that freedom combined with self-reliance no longer works? A basic understanding of economics helps one to understand why distribution of medical care today is becoming more difficult; quality is down while costs are rising; and everyone seems dissatisfied.

We have, unfortunately, at least for medicine, accepted the rules used in the Plymouth colonies for the first two years ... "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs by force."

I'm not convinced that more regulations and government laws - which are demanded on a daily basis - will solve this problem any better than Congress' similar attempts to deal with most other problems.

Managed care is not market-driven, it's government-mandated.

It has driven charity out of the system.

No more church-financed hospitals and free care for the indigent. Everyone is charged the maximum, and no test is left undone for fear attorneys will be ridiculing us in court alleging our negligence.

And if it's not the attorneys, it's the HCFA [Health Care Finance Administration] agents threatening us with fines and prison if we misinterpret any of the 132,000 pages of regulations. This system artificially pushes costs up, bringing calls for price controls, which only mean rationing and shortages. HCFA has actually requested authority to carry guns on their audits!

Greater understanding of freedom and economics by the next generation of doctors would go a long way toward heading off the approaching crisis: the day when the taxpayer has been bled dry and no funds are available.

Even during the Great Depression, most people received medical care because of the system. Today that system won't function without taxpayers' money and can't function very well even with it.

Managed care is the accepted method of delivering medical care today - to the frustration of many.

Read up! There are 132,000 pages of Medicare regulations, compared with only 17,000 pages of the tax code.

A compliance plan to guard against mistakes in filing government forms is offered by your friendly attorney for a mere $7,000.

Additional employees are needed to file insurance forms and keep up with regulations in operating laboratories. Even more employees will soon be needed to implement the 1,500 pages of regulations protecting patient privacy - regulations that in reality turn control of all our medical records over to the US government and establish a national medical data bank.

Fines of up to $25,000 and 10 years imprisonment are possible for fraud and for mistakes that are hard to distinguish from fraud.

Capitation depersonalizes medicine. FDA regulations, though designed to help, often delay the arrival and raise the cost of new drugs. An average new drug now requires 15 years of testing and $500 million in costs. Many question whether or not this process is cost-effective. A more liberalized approach to allowing patients and doctors to use experimental medicines could speed up the process and lower costs.

Medical privacy rules are expected to cost $22 billion over 4 years to implement - costs that must be passed on to the taxpayer or to the patient.

(Article continues at:

Is martial law almost here now? The words have been uttered. The cat is out of the bag. Is it true?
by Sematary
Monday, October 6, 2008

I've been hearing more and more often the term "martial law" bandied about. The first time I heard it mentioned that really sticks in my mind, was this summer when I attended the March on Washington for Ron Paul. Naomi was one of the speakers and let me tell you, she makes quite an impression.

I'd heard of her before, of course, because of her book "The End of America". But, this was the first time I'd heard her speak and the terminology stuck. She scared me. She was talking about the end of our nation - our belief system, the constitution. Scary. And I believed her. Her "ten steps to fascism" as noted here:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

are already in place. You could do a youtube search and listen to her eloquently describe how and why.

For those of you who do not know who Naomi Wolf, I would suggest taking a look at her wikipedia page:
and then shortly thereafter - check out this video:

She is trying to send us a warning. The coup has happened. The administration of George Bush has taken our nation and he used the threat of martial law to do it. If you believe her (and I do), she says that George Bush and those who helped him do it need to be arrested for treason and insurrection. In another article I spoke about how we now have UNITED STATES troops stationed in America, for the purpose of "crowd control", and Bush has signed an agreement with Canada and Mexico to "borrow" their troops to come on U.S. soil in the event of civil unrest (foreign troops allowed to shoot U.S. citizens with our government's approval!)

Also, if you have been paying attention to the bailout debacle you would have seen this video of Congressman Brad Sherman describing how Representatives were threatened with martial law if the bailout wasn't passed:

THAT is scary. Naomi speaks about that in the first video link above. We are close, my friends, and possibly closer than many of us think. Naomi seems to believe that it will happen before Bush leaves office. I think it's just as likely that the next president will use the signing orders of George Bush if he loses the opportunity. If Naomi is right - it will happen this month, before the elections. I hope she is wrong.

Democracy -- A Flickering Star?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 08/08/2008 ET

In his 1937 "Great Contemporaries," Winston Churchill wrote, "Whatever else may be thought about (Hitler's) exploits, they are among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world."

Churchill was referring not only to Hitler's political triumphs -- the return of the Saar and reoccupation of the Rhineland -- but his economic achievements. By his fourth year in power, Hitler had pulled Germany out of the Depression, cut unemployment from 6 million to 1 million, grown the GNP 37 percent and increased auto production from 45,000 vehicles a year to 250,000. City and provincial deficits had vanished.

In material terms, Nazi Germany was a startling success.

And not only Churchill and Lloyd George but others in Europe and America were marveling at the exploits of the Third Reich, its fascist ally Italy and Joseph Stalin's rapidly industrializing Soviet state. "I have seen the future, and it works," Lincoln Steffins had burbled. Many Western men, seeing the democracies mired in Depression and moral malaise, were also seeing the future in Berlin, Moscow, Rome.

In Germany, Hitler was winning plebiscites with more than 90 percent of the vote in what outside observers said were free elections.

What calls to mind the popularity of the Third Reich and the awe it inspired abroad -- even after the bloody Roehm purge and the Nazi murder of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss in 1934, and the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws -- is a poll buried in The New York Times.

In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.

"Eighty-six percent of Chinese people surveyed said they were content with the country's direction, up from 48 percent in 2002. ... And 82 percent of Chinese were satisfied with their national economy, up from 52 percent," said the Times.

Yet, China has a regime that punishes dissent, severely restricts freedom, persecutes Christians and all faiths that call for worship of a God higher than the state, brutally represses Tibetans and Uighurs, swamps their native lands with Han Chinese to bury their cultures and threatens Taiwan.

China is also a country where Maoist ideology has been replaced by a racial chauvinism and raw nationalism reminiscent of Italy and Germany in the 1930s. Yet, again, over 80 percent of all Chinese are content or even happy with the direction of the country. Two-thirds say the government is doing a good job in dealing with the issues of greatest concern to them.

And what nation is it whose people rank as third most satisfied?

Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Moscow is today more nationalistic, less democratic and more confrontational toward the West than it has been since before the fall of communism. Power is being consolidated, former Soviet republics are hearing dictatorial growls from Moscow and a chill reminiscent of the Cold War is in the air.

Yet, wrote the Times, "Russians were the third most satisfied people with their country's direction, at 54 percent, despite Western concerns about authoritarian trends."

Of the largest nations on earth, the two that today most satisfy the desires of their peoples are the most authoritarian.

High among the reasons, of course, are the annual 10 percent to 12 percent growth China has experienced over the last decade, and the wealth pouring into Russia for the oil and natural gas in which that immense country abounds. Still, is this not disturbing? In China and Russia, the greatest of world powers after the United States, people seem to value freedom of speech, religion or the press far less than they do a rising prosperity and national pride and power. And they seem to have little moral concern about crushing national minorities.

Contrast, if you will, the contentment of Chinese and Russians with the dissatisfaction of Americans, only 23 percent of whom told the Pew poll they approved of the nation's direction. Only one in five Americans said they were satisfied with the U.S. economy.

Other polls have found 82 percent of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, only 28 percent approving of President Bush's performance and only half that saying they approve of the Congress. In Britain, France and Germany, only three in 10 expressed satisfaction with the direction of the nation.

Liberal democracy is in a bear market. Is it a systemic crisis, as well?

In his 1992 "The End of History," Francis Fukuyama wrote of the ultimate world triumph of democratic capitalism. All other systems had fallen, or would fall by the wayside. The future belonged to us.

Democratic capitalism, it would appear, now has a great new rival -- autocratic capitalism. In Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, nations are beginning to imitate the autocrats of China and Russia, even as some in the 1930s sought to ape fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

The game is not over yet. We are going into extra innings.

Obama spreads wealth -- to non-taxpayers
Author rips senator's universal mortgage credit as socialist 'welfare'
By Chelsea Schilling
Friday, December 12, 2008

After John McCain ripped his opponent's universal mortgage credit as "welfare" because it would give funds to non-taxpaying citizens, Barack Obama's campaign announced a work requirement for the proposal -- but "The Audacity of Deceit" author Brad O'Leary said the plan remains a form of socialist wealth redistribution.

"No matter how Barack Obama tries to dress-up his tax welfare plan, it is still a welfare plan," O'Leary said in a statement. "Under Obama's massive plan for wealth redistribution, 44 percent of Americans will never pay federal income taxes, and many of these folks will also receive bonus, or 'welfare,' checks from the government."

According to ABC News, Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee said a work requirement was added to silence critics such as O'Leary who claim the plan takes money from working citizens and redistributes it to people who do not pay taxes.

"They started saying this was welfare," Goolsbee said. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we'll simply add a work requirement."

The Obama campaign claims its tax proposal will give an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners making less than $50,000 per year, ABC News reported. The campaign says the mortgage credit is meant to provide money to taxpayers who don't itemize.

Goolsbee and McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin discussed Obama's 10 percent mortgage credit plan Tuesday at a Council on Foreign Relations debate. Goolsbee said each of the working recipients of the mortgage credit will have paid Social Security and Medicare contributions through required payroll taxes, even though some don't pay actual income taxes.

Get Brad O'Leary's authoritative blockbuster, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values."

"All of the people that are receiving this credit are paying payroll taxes under Obama's program," Goolsbee said. "So it's completely not true that they aren't paying taxes. They aren't paying income taxes, but they are paying payroll taxes. To say that it's welfare, as John McCain has said when John McCain's own health-care credit of $5,000 is completely refundable and going to every single one of the people that they're saying is on welfare, is almost unbelievable. It makes my head want to explode."

Goolsbee said the work requirement was added to the proposal two weeks ago, though it had not been publicly announced. However, Holtz-Eakin suggested the camp simply came up with the idea for the debate.

"I think they just made it up," Holtz-Eakin told ABC News. "They will say anything in the moment. This is like trying to pin Jello to the wall."

Holtz-Eakin argued Obama's tax plan isn't consistent with his record. He said Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes in the Senate and promised trillions of dollars in new spending, despite the fact that 44 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes.

"How do you sustain those three fundamental contradictions for any length of time?" he asked. "Well, he's very good. He's verbally one of the most talented people we've ever seen. And he did it for a long time until he walked into some plumber's driveway. That was his mistake."

In a widely publicized moment, Obama explained his economic policy to an Ohio plumber Oct. 12 saying, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

However, O'Leary, author of "The Audacity of Deceit" and president of ATI News, condemned Obama's tax proposal, saying it threatens the fiscal wellbeing of the country.

"Obama's economic plan is clear," he said. "He wants to achieve his brand of social justice through wealth redistribution, while completely ignoring economic growth. When you combine his socialist redistribution plan and his plan to raise barriers to free trade, you have toxic mix that could drive the American economy deep into depression."

O'Leary referenced an Oct. 17-20 ATI-News/Zogby poll that shows a majority of undecided voters disagree with plans to "spread the wealth around."

"Our poll results show that undecided voters overwhelmingly reject Obama's economic plan to redistribute wealth," he said.

The poll surveyed 1,214 likely voters who were asked the following question: "John McCain and other critics say Barack Obama is heavily influenced by people and organizations which seek social justice through redistribution of wealth in America. Do you agree or disagree with efforts to bring social justice by the redistribution of wealth?"

A total of 57 percent of undecided voters said they disagreed with efforts to redistribute wealth, while only 24 percent agreed (19 percent said they are not sure).

"In his candid conversation with 'Joe the plumber,' Obama made clear that his main economic goal is to redistribute wealth, not strengthen and grow our economy," O'Leary said. "This is pure socialism, albeit thinly veiled, and it does not resonate with hard-working Americans who would rather keep their money than have Obama redistribute it to his favorite constituencies."

O'Leary said Obama is less like the young and inexperienced John F. Kennedy, as many of his supporters declare, and more reminiscent of another former U.S. leader who failed to end America's downward spiral into deep depression.

"Obama isn't the second coming of JFK," he said. "He's the reincarnation of Herbert Hoover."

Constitution rewrite only 2 states away
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'

Friday, December 12, 2008
By Bob Unruh

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.

"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."

DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.

State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.

According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.

The final vote from the 1787 Constitutional Convention

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."

Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The video is available here.

DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.

"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."

He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.

"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."

DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."

The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.

"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.

"We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said.

The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.

"However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said.

American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

"This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.'

"And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said.

A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children."

"When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said.

American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.

WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."