Stories

Confronting Injustice

2012-02-24T17:31:00.003-08:00

Confronting Injustice
By Quin Hillyer on 10.4.11 @ 6:08AM

a repost...

In his new book, available today, J. Christian Adams chronicles lawlessness in the Obama machine.

I believe the day the New Black Panthers ensnared me was Wednesday, May 27, 2009. Thanks to J. Christian Adams, the Panthers may yet ensnare Barack Obama -- in a much more devastating way.

It was at lunch that day (unless it was the day before) that sources told me the Justice Department had dropped most of the charges in the civil rights, voter-intimidation case against several Panthers and against their party as a whole. I returned, on fire with the news, to the office of the Washington Times, which I served as a senior editorial writer. (As it turned out, fellow editorial writer John Lott had the story as well, as did Jerry Seper on the news side, working entirely independently. The superb Michelle Malkin ran with the story online the next day; for various reasons, the WashTimes held its in-depth reporting on it until Friday, May 29.) I didn't know it then, but it would be the first of several dozen Panther-related editorials I would work on during the next 22 months.

What kept me coming back were two things. First, from almost the very start the issue was far bigger than a single polling-place incident: The larger issue was that this case clearly appeared emblematic of a horrible, indefensible policy of the Obama/Holder Justice Department to the effect that civil rights laws would only be used to protect minorities against whites, never the other way around. This isn't equal justice under the law; it's using the law to "get even" for ancient injustices. It's "law" of the two-wrongs-do-equal-a-[civil]-right variety -- which, of course, is actually neither lawful nor just. Indeed, it is an abomination.

Second, I kept coming back because new facts -- not opinions, but facts -- kept coming, in a steady stream, in forms both accessible and incontrovertible. The facts backed up the growing narrative that the Obamites formed a thoroughly racialist cadre (not racist but racialist -- look up the difference) at the Justice Department, and that their actions again and again were and are driven not by the law but by raw, left-wing politics. And, though I would not even hear the name of, much less talk to, much less meet, Christian Adams for well over a month after that first Panther story, and while other sources aplenty would emerge in the meantime, it turned out that, once he could finally talk a year later, the best facts always came from Adams -- the man most directly responsible for bringing, and winning, the Panther case, until the Obamites nixed it. Moreover, I can think of not a single instance in which Adams gave me info he said was definite which he could not back up with documents, the testimony of others, or other original source material. Rarely have I had a source so valuable, so reliable, and so full of integrity.

This is a man completely dedicated to color-blind justice, deeply disdainful of white racists, deeply empathetic to black victims of racism -- and utterly determined to implement the law without fear or favor.

But now J. Christian Adams has outdone himself. As of today, his new Regnery Publishing book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial agenda of the Obama Justice Department, is available at bookstores. Even apart from some new photographs of Obama in close proximity to New Black Panthers, what I've read of the book already (I'm only halfway through) is explosive almost beyond belief. Adams names names, and dates, and places. He describes events in vivid prose. And he repeatedly makes an impassioned case that all of us should expect better justice than the law-trampling leftism of the Obamites that he describes in chilling detail.

Adams makes clear that the real dispute began three years before the Panther case, when he and a multi-award-winning civil rights lawyer named Christopher Coates -- later a whistleblower against the Holder team -- went to Noxubee County, Mississippi, to investigate and battle some of the worst vote fraud imaginable. The difference was that this time the violators were black, led by a virulently racist and corrupt Democratic official named Ike Brown, while the victims were both black and white -- all of them defrauded of their ability to vote for any white candidate for any office under the Noxubee County sun.

Liberal attorneys at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division repeatedly and deliberately ignored, downplayed, belittled, and fought against the very idea of stopping Ike Brown from his blatant civil rights violations. What Adams does, in mind-blowing detail, is show just how blatant, how despicable, how flagrant, and how gob-smackingly lawless those violations were. Semi-casual observers of the Adams chronicles during the Black Panther aftermath were aware that Justice Department officials were loath to bring a case against a black perpetrator in Mississippi -- but what Adams makes clear is that this wasn't just any case about just any technical violations. Instead, Ike Brown operated a virtual reign of terror in Noxubee, one from which no lawyer could possibly look away without violating their lawful duties and forfeiting all principles of normative ethics and any basic moral sense.

Please buy this book and read it for yourself. Its effect on your brain might feel like getting hit with a night-stick wielded by a black-clad thug who thinks the way to treat whites is to "kill some of they babies." What it also should do is make you seethe in anger at the president who appoints and promotes people who could possibly want to implement such racialist policies. Indeed, someone might even have to "act stupidly" to continue desiring the Oval Office presence of such a racialist-enabling lout.
_______________________________________________
A Funny "Injustice" Story
By Quin Hillyer on 10.4.11 @ 7:44AM

Here's a story I wanted to get in my article today on Christian Adams, but it interrupted the flow too much, so I'll put it in this blog post. Sometime more than a month into my covering the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, I decided to take the bull by the horns and call Adams directly at the Justice Department to see if he would talk on the record. As soon as I identified myself, he said, "You'll have to go to Schmaler for that."

Schmaler? Huh?

It turns out that the chief spokesman for the Justice Department is Tracy Schmaler (I had spoken to an assistant press person before), and Adams was adamant that he couldn't talk to the press and that I must talk to Ms. Schmaler. So I called and asked for her by name. What a trip. I don't think I was on with her for more than about 20 seconds, still well within my typical, almost overly polite introduction of self and topic which I'm known for using upon first introduction, when she began absolutely berating me for the WashTimes coverage of the case and for daring to ask any more questions. Within another minute, probably less, "berating" had turned into "yelling." And I hadn't even asked a tough question yet!

Obviously, "go[ing] to Schmaler" would never be worth a thing. The only couple of other times I even tried, the experience was only slightly less unpleasant. And when I tried calling Adams back another time (still to no avail), I opened the conversation by telling him that him sending me to Schmaler had been such a waste of time that he shouldn't try to pawn me off on her again. He laughed heartily, before again politely declining my request for him to talk about the case.

So, a year later, when Christian Adams finally went public with his testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, I paid attention when he left the room and followed him as he and his lawyer left the building by a back exit. Indeed, I walked along beside him for blocks, all the way to a garage where he had his car parked, before he would say much of anything.

"Look," I said, "you're public now. Now there's no reason not to go into some more details." Adams smiled. It was a sort of mischievous smile, a very quick one, before adopting a poker face and saying:

"I'm sorry, but you'll have to go to Schmaler for that." Then he burst out laughing. And then, finally, he answered a few questions.....
____________________________________________

To read another article by Quin Hillyer, click here.

15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican

2012-02-24T00:06:00.001-08:00

15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican
By Jeff Carter
2/22/2012

If you deny that there is liberal bias in the mainstream media, you are living under a rock. We saw George Stephanopolos take marching orders into debate questioning.

The only thing they don’t ask Republican candidates about much is economic questions and debt questions. Instead they ask horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We’ve heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt’s angry ex-wife, Cain’s employees, Romney’s personal wealth, Gardasil, etc. Newt’s rise was because of the way he attacked the media and Obama in the debates because of the stupid and obviously planted questions.

So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been murdered with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware of Fast and Furious and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, a company that donated heavily to your political campaign, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost over $500 million on loans that your administration knew might never be paid off when you made them. How do you respond to citizens who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, unions gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost $14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special $45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means you and your Democrat allies in Congress managed to force through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democrat Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower health care costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Congress has exempted themselves from the health care reform and instead has their own taxpayer-funded premium health care plan. Many large companies (that donate to Democrat political campaigns) have received special exemptions from the health care plan. Since the majority of the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, the national average for one gallon of gas was $1.89 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWAR, and rejected the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.54 per gallon and rising and is expected to reach $5 per gallon by May of this year. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded after serving just one month in office?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush did, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. Many prominent economists have concluded the stimulus plan was a total failure. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?
_____________________________________________

To read another article by Jeff Carter, click here.

Reclaiming Popular Sovereignty

2012-02-17T08:44:00.000-08:00

Reclaiming Popular Sovereignty
David Limbaugh
Friday, August 28, 2009

Here's an oldie but a goodie from 2009 - repost...

It's true that Barack Obama's approval ratings began at the North Pole and are already hovering around the equator. But given what he's said and done, it is quite remarkable, frankly, that they aren't firmly planted at the South Pole.

The deceptions and contradictions are astounding. His premises for policy change are consistently duplicitous. He's embarked on a course to deliberately bankrupt the nation; he is at war with mainstream American values; he is undermining our national security during wartime (prosecuting our protectors -- and otherwise); and he's pursuing unprecedented government control of the private sector.

Just look at his handling of Obamacare. His stated goals aren't arguably fraudulent, but verifiably so. He says he's motivated to cut costs, but the Congressional Budget Office, even using static economic analysis, says Obamacare would increase costs by $1 trillion. This is without factoring in the inevitable inflation that would occur from further dissociating health care demand from market prices.

Obama also continues to use the counterfeit figure of 47 million uninsured when he knows that only a fraction of those are American citizens who both can't afford insurance and are not eligible for government assistance.

Some experts have estimated this number to be less than 10 million, and yet Obama wants to wholly revamp the system to make sure they are covered. Note I said "covered," not "given access to health care." But the CBO has projected that millions would remain uninsured after Obamacare, and history shows that access to care would shrink drastically under the socialized system Obama envisions.

I use the term "envisions" advisedly, despite Obama's preposterous denial that he's aiming for complete socialization of the system. I could just as accurately have said "is hellbent on." As has been revealed ad nauseam by every outlet except the mainstream media, Obama has long been on record -- in context -- revealing his intentions.

Indeed, before the public rose up in spontaneous revulsion to Obama's socialized medicine scheme, he and his cohorts were bragging about their plans. During the Democratic presidential debates, Obama and Hillary Clinton were falling all over themselves trying to out-socialize each other on the issue.

So why must we waste time arguing with these Alinskyite propagandists about their intentions? Here they are, poised to leverage Sen. Ted Kennedy's death to enact Obamacare, and everyone knows that Kennedy's life ambition was to socialize our health care system. It's amazing conservatives have as much patience as we do, having constantly to argue with liberals about who they really are and what they stand for.

Daily they pretend not to advocate the very provisions their legislation includes, as in Obama demanding Congress immediately pass legislation the CBO says would cost $1 trillion while simultaneously insisting he won't sign legislation that isn't budget-neutral. If I weren't witnessing this with my own eyes and ears, I wouldn't believe it.

But as much as we've been harping on the Democrats' health care outrages, we want to make sure we don't lose sight of Obama's planned bankrupting of America apart from Obamacare. I say "planned" in light of the administration's recent revelation that it understated its already astronomical budget deficits by $2 trillion. Though we haven't spent this money ($9 trillion-plus) yet, Obama acts as if he is predestined to do so and powerless to stop himself.

Think about Obama's reasoning that we have to spend all this money to stimulate the economy. He expects us to believe that we have to bankrupt the nation to avoid bankrupting ourselves. He isn't just fiddling as he watches Rome burn; he's lit the match and is buying more combustibles. And we're not supposed to be alarmed?

Instead of our phony fretting over milk that hasn't yet spilt, why don't we just put a halt to this reckless spending now instead of acting like compulsive shoppers who end up so destitute they can't even afford shrinks? It's past time to say, "Hold on. We can't spend this money. We don't have it."

Truly this is mind-blowing. It's as if we are all sitting around premeditating a crime against our Founding Fathers, all our patriotic ancestors who sacrificed and died to preserve our liberties, and all present and future generations and acting as though we are mere passive observers. But we sure can pride ourselves in being civil and polite, can't we?

News flash: We have to readjust our mindset toward the government, which we treat as too enormous and unreachable to influence. We have no right simply to sit on our hands and say, "Well, lookie here, our deficits sure are horrifyingly high, but there's nothing we can do about it."

Recent events have disproved that notion, as even Democratic supermajorities are wavering at the awesome power of this widespread popular uprising. We can and must continue to fight to return sovereignty to the people by making our politicians accountable.
____________________________________________

To read a more recent article by David Limbaugh, click here.

Losing Liberty

2012-02-14T15:43:00.001-08:00

Losing Liberty
By Cal Thomas
2/14/2012

"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" -- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry

Liberty is always tenuous. Those who enjoy it seem to be a minority in the world. That's why liberty must not only be preserved by those who currently benefit from it; it must also be fought for and constantly renewed for future generations, because there are always those who wish to restrict or eliminate our freedoms.

The Obama administration's ham-fisted attempt to require that contraceptives and abortifacients be offered to employees of Catholic and other religious institutions is a serious threat to our civil liberties. Yes, federal (through EEOC oversight) and state governments already play this role and have for a time. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "Some 28 states have mandated coverage of birth control and 20 of those have some sort of exemption for religious employers." New York and California are among the 28. But do we really want government to continue to take the place of individual conscience? Should government continue to dictate to its citizens how to order and conduct their lives?

But wait. Didn't President Obama give in to the concerns of Roman Catholic bishops by excusing Catholic institutions from paying for contraceptives and "morning-after" pills for their employees? Not exactly. The president disingenuously shifted the burden to insurance companies, which have now been ordered to offer the pills "free" to any employee who wants them.

Nothing is "free." The cost will eventually be added to the price of the policies, which the employer will wind up paying for anyway. The cost will then be passed along to the employee.

The bishops weren't fooled. After initially expressing "cautious optimism" over the administration's "first step in the right direction," they issued a statement, reports the Wall Street Journal, saying they still have "serious moral concerns" and cannot support the announced compromise, despite the fact that many thousands of religious institutions will be exempted from the mandate.

This issue was always about more than contraceptives and who pays for them. It is about individual liberty and whether the government under "Obamacare" has the constitutional right to dictate to private businesses and church-related entities when such orders violate conscience and religious beliefs. Would the administration also order a conscientious objector to engage in combat? It's the same principle.

If the administration can get away with this, there will be no stopping it. If government can force an insurance company or institution to pay for a birth-control pill or a morning-after pill, it can, under the same authority, conceivably force them to pay for a euthanasia pill for those others have deemed unfit to live.

Too extreme? Most inhumanities begin with extremes. What is to stop the government from such behavior? If the Constitution's protection of religious freedom is to be annulled, along with the already voided "endowed" right to life written into the Declaration of Independence, by what moral or legal authority can anyone stop government from doing anything? This is more than a slippery slope; this is an avalanche and it threatens our most fundamental rights, without which we morph into something other than the America we have known.

Responding to the president's remarks in which he pulled back on his insurance company mandate, Amy Ridenour, chair of the National Center for Public Policy Research, weighing in on the cost of providing contraceptive benefits, said, "Here's the problem: The 'savings' substantially comes from pregnancy avoidance. That's what religious-based opponents of the birth control/early abortifacient mandate objected to in the first place."

There are two possible remedies: A decision expected this spring by the Supreme Court that Obamacare is unconstitutional, or a complete repeal of the health-care law, which would require a Republican Congress and a Republican president.

What other liberties does the Obama administration want to subvert? In his Super Bowl Sunday interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, President Obama appeared to complain about the Founding Fathers, whom he suggested, "...designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes." It's called the separation of powers, Mr. President, and it was created to protect the nation from a dictatorial executive branch.
_____________________________________

To read another article by Cal Thomas, click here.

Liberals are the True Aggressors in Culture Wars

2012-02-14T15:33:00.001-08:00

Liberals are the True Aggressors in Culture Wars
By Jonah Goldberg
2/14/2012

If you're not with us, you're against us. President Bush popularized this expression after 9/11 to describe his foreign policy doctrine: Countries couldn't support or indulge terrorists and be our friends at the same time. But his detractors quickly turned it into a fairly paranoid vision of domestic political life, as if Bush had been talking about domestic opponents and dissenters.

The irony is that few worldviews better describe the general liberal orientation to public policy and the culture war. The left often complains about the culture war as if it's a war they don't want to fight. They insist they just want to follow "sound science" or "what works" when it comes to public policy, but those crazy knuckle-dragging right-wingers constantly want to talk about gays and abortion and other hot-button issues.

It's all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn't so much the government imposing its values on people -- heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance, or even non-compliance with their agenda. "Why are you making such a scene?" progressives complain. "Just do what we want and there will be no fuss."

Consider President Obama's decision to require most religious institutions -- including Catholic hospitals, schools, etc. -- to pay for contraception, sterilizations and the "morning after" pill. When "ObamaCare" was still being debated, the White House had all but promised Catholic leaders that it would find a compromise to spare the church from the untenable position of paying for services that directly violate their faith. Now that ObamaCare is the law, the administration says the church, like everyone else, must fall in line.

Or consider the still-raging controversy over the Susan G. Komen For the Cure's entirely reasonable -- albeit very poorly handled -- decision to withdraw its funding of Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider. The Komen foundation is singularly dedicated to raising research money for, and awareness about, breast cancer. It's the folks with those pink ribbons. The organization decided to withdraw its comparatively meager funding in part because Planned Parenthood doesn't offer mammograms. (Planned Parenthood's president, Cecile Richards, was caught misleading people on this very point last spring.)

Other factors included the fact that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Congress and the obvious but unstated fact that the organization is wildly controversial. It's this last point that infuriates the left. Pro-choice activists and their allies believe that Planned Parenthood should not be controversial, nor should abortion be up for discussion, either. If you have a problem with either it is because you are an ideologue, an extremist or a zealot opposed to the interests of womankind. And any attempt to suggest that abortion should offend the consciences of mainstream Americans, never mind such a revered organization as Komen, is simply unacceptable.

It's clearly not about the money. Komen's $600,000 in donations amount to less than .01 percent of Planned Parenthood's budget (as opposed to the nearly half that comes from taxpayers). It's about making it very clear: Resistance is not just futile, but dangerous.

That was evident almost immediately. Komen's website was hacked, its Wikipedia page filled with smears. Various allegedly objective news outlets rallied to Planned Parenthood's defense as if the behemoth abortion provider was a victim of the tiny little breast cancer foundation.

Komen apologized and seemed to offer a reversal of its policy. This "just goes to show you, when women speak out, women win," responded House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

This, of course, is ridiculous propaganda. Women are not a monolithic political bloc and were not unanimously opposed to Komen's decision. Indeed, roughly half of women are pro-life and, you can be sure, Komen will lose donations from women and men who do not want to see their donations going to abortion providers. But for a certain type of upper-class liberal woman, it simply must be asserted, if not believed, that there is only one acceptable definition of a woman's perspective when it comes to issues such as abortion.

You can understand why Komen wants to get out of the culture war crossfire. It just wants to spend its finite resources on the race for a cure. But that's not good enough. The real motive behind this backlash is to make it very clear: You must choose a side -- ours. And once you choose our side, you can never change your mind without severe consequences. And what is true of liberal politics is also true of liberal public policy. As the Obama administration has made clear to the Catholic Church, there is no neutrality, no safe harbor from liberalism's moral vision. You're either with us, or against us -- which means we shall be against you.
_______________________________________

To read another article by Jonah Goldberg, click here.

Liberals Confuse Me

2012-02-14T15:17:00.001-08:00

Liberals Confuse Me
Walter E. Williams
Wed, Sep, 29, 2010

a repost from 2010.

Christine O'Donnell, U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware, has faced considerable criticism and news media attention about her youthful association with witchcraft. Have we seen similar news media attention given to other politicians who have made bizarre remarks that border on gross stupidity -- possibly lunacy?

During a congressional Armed Services hearing in March, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., expressed concern that stationing 8,000 Marines and their equipment on Guam, our Pacific territory, could cause the island "to become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize." Such a remark is grossly stupid but the liberal press didn't give it anywhere near the amount of attention and derision that they gave Christine O'Donnell.

On the campaign trail in March 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama told his Beaverton, Ore., audience, "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." Whether Obama misspoke or not, that's a grossly stupid remark, but white liberals among the intellectual elite and the liberal news media all but ignored it. Of course, when former Vice President Dan Quayle misspelled "potatoe," they pounced upon it and had a field day.

So what might explain the liberals giving Hank Johnson and Obama a pass whilst playing up the perceived shortcomings of Christine O'Donnell and Dan Quayle? The answer might be as simple as just looking at the colors involved. O'Donnell and Quayle are white and Johnson and Obama are black. That means the white liberal vision comes into play where to openly oppose, criticize and ridicule blacks is racist. The key term is openly. I bet that when alone, in trusted company, white liberals crack up over the things that some black people say and do. The white liberal vision holds one set of standards to which white people are obliged and another that's lower for blacks. I don't believe that white liberals are racists in the sense that Klansmen and neo-Nazis are; however, their paternalistic and demeaning attitudes toward blacks are far more debilitating.

There needs to be a bit of elaboration of the statement that to openly oppose, criticize and ridicule a black is racist. If the black in question is a conservative, possibly Republican, then any sort of criticism and treatment is acceptable. This was seen in the criticism and ridicule of Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" cartoon featured President Bush referring to Secretary Rice as "brown sugar." Pat Oliphant showed her as a parrot with big lips and Ted Rall's cartoon had Miss Rice proclaiming herself Bush's "House nigga." Don Wright's cartoon depicted Justice Thomas as Justice Scalia's lawn jockey. These cartoons were carried in major newspapers nationwide. Ask yourself what would happen to a nationally syndicated cartoonist, and the newspaper that carried it, depicting President Obama as a wide-eyed, fat-lipped monkey.

Racial double standards are nothing new. It has been the currency on jobs and college campuses where there is an acceptance of behavior by blacks that would be condemned if done by whites. Often misguided white liberal professors, in the name of making up for injustices of the past, give black students grades they didn't earn. Being 74 years old, I have frequently told people that I'm glad that I received just about all of my education before it became fashionable for white people to like black people. That means I was obliged to live up to higher standards.

More blacks need to be bold and challenge the demeaning attitudes of white liberals. During the early years of the Reagan administration, I had a number of press conferences in response to a book or article that I had written. At several of them, I invited the reporters to treat me like a white person -- just ask hard questions.
_________________________________________

To read another more recent article by Walter Williams, click here.

Nothing Gay About It

2012-02-14T15:15:00.001-08:00

Nothing Gay About It
Mike Adams
Mon, Sep, 20, 2010

a repost from 2010.

There are a couple of terms I need to stop using in my columns. One of those terms is “liberal” - most of the self-described liberals I write about in my columns are not tolerant enough to be called liberals. The other term is “gay” - most of the self-described gays I write about in my columns are not happy enough to be called gays. This is especially true of those who also call themselves “gay activists.”

The active aggression of gay activists is on full display each time they lobby for so-called gay marriage. These are the same people who argue that marriage is a form of patriarchal oppression, which benefits men more than women – despite the fact that this “patriarchal” institution shields women from violent crimes including rape. Feminists who claim to be anti-rape and anti-marriage simply suffer from severe intellectual hernia – in addition to the emotional weakness that causes them to rely upon feminism in the first place.

The common thread between opposition to heterosexual marriage and support of gay marriage is not a love of gays. It is a hatred of marriage rooted in a rebellion against God and all that He has ordained. But those who simply acquiesce on the issue of gay marriage are different. They are not engaged in active rebellion against God. They just lack the faith to believe that God will be there for them when they are subjected to personal attacks by decidedly un-gay activists seeking to destroy faithful Christians who stand in their way.

But there can be no indifference or acquiescence on this issue because same sex marriage hurts everyone. Some examples of the widespread harm that would follow in the wake of government-backed same-sex marriage follow:

1. Income taxes will be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples. We provide financial benefits to married couples because they produce and raise children. Why would we want to provide similar benefits to homosexual couples?

2. Social security taxes will be increased in order to pay survivor benefits to “widows” and “widowers.”

3. Medical insurance premiums will rise in order to offset healthcare costs associated with the bad lifestyle choices typically made by homosexuals. AIDS, colon cancer, and hepatitis are only a few examples of the costly consequences of these bad choices.

Of course, the detriments are not all financial. We all lose our liberties whenever the gay rights agenda advances. There is no more hostile group in this nation than homosexuals, especially when it comes to civil liberties. Right now, as you are reading this column, un-gay activists are writing to my employer demanding my firing - all in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity of thought.”

Such tactics can be deterred only by rebellion against political correctness. Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. And evil it surely is. Imagine a world in which everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage the way that God intended for us to live. This would produce dramatic reductions in crime, poverty, abortion, and child abuse. Now imagine the alternative. If everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage it would result in the end of the human race itself.

In which direction should a Christian nation turn? And by what justification can Christians remain silent?

Even a slight movement in the direction of government-backed same-sex marriage will be disastrous. It will open the door on a number of troubling issues: Should bisexuals be permitted to marry two people? No one is raising the issue now. But they will.

As a nation, we have fallen a long way in recent years by pretending that abnormal things are normal. But now we are on the verge of pretending that the same abnormal things are actually desirable. And that is unconscionable.

The APA is not likely to cease its double standard of opposing gay re-orientation therapy while supporting gay-affirmation therapy. But society-at-large need not employ the same double-standard. After all, the average citizen has far more common sense than the average psychiatrist.

Contrary to what many believe, traditional marriage is not all about affirming love. In fact, many, if not most, of the world’s marriages are arranged.

Nor is the push for same-sex marriage all about affirming love. The life span of the average gay man is about twenty years shorter than the lifespan of the average heterosexual man. With consequences as grave as an early grave no man who truly loved another would engage in homosexual acts with him.

This debate is about more than two people in love. It is about two factions of society, which are sharply divided. One chooses to live in accordance with God’s word and the other chooses to live in rebellion against it.

Because the stakes are so high the debate must be joined by everyone. It cannot be dictated by those who call themselves gay but use anger to silence those who object to the same-sex union. Now more than ever, we must speak now or forever hold our peace.

Source: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, by Frank Turek.
______________________________________

To read another more recent article by Mike Adams, click here.

OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT

2012-02-11T11:31:00.001-08:00

OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT
By Wayne Allyn Root, June 6th, 2010

Wayne Allyn Root.

Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent.

To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Hussein Obama was my college classmate....

(Columbia University , class of '83).

He is a devout Muslim do not be fooled.

Look at his Czars...anti-business...anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussein Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival, and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government.

Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

Universal health care - The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

Cap and trade - Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming.
It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state?
Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Barack Hussein Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants. - Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.

The ends justify the means.

Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).

Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussein Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussein Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

"Correctly attributed" says snopes!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp

If he is re-elected in 2012, the US is finished. The following is in simple language that everyone can understand. Not the gibberish that our government keeps telling people. Please read this carefully and make sure you keep this message going. This needs to be emailed to everyone in the USA.
_______________________________________

I posted an article similar to this one a while ago, click here.

Aborting Hitler

2012-01-30T16:20:00.001-08:00

Aborting Hitler
By Mike Adams
1/30/2012

Someone once asked me whether I would abort Adolf Hitler if I knew in advance he would try to launch a Holocaust against millions of Jews. I said I would not. That is because aborting Hitler would not have prevented the Holocaust. It would have justified it. The killing of millions of innocents does not begin with the killing of one innocent. It begins with the idea that in the larger scheme of things it is permissible to kill one innocent person.

The movie Judgment in Nuremburg (1961) shows that, even in Hollywood, Americans once appreciated this important principle. The movie is three hours long. But one only needs to watch the last ten minutes of the movie in order to see how far we have fallen in just a half-century.

For those who do not remember the end of the movie, Spencer Tracy plays an American judge who sentences former Nazis for their involvement in the Holocaust. One Nazi judge who sentenced innocents to death was himself sentenced to life in prison. As the sentence is read, he stares off in disbelief. He initially believes he is innocent because he was simply following the law. He later realizes his life sentence was just.

Only a couple of days after he is sentenced, the former Nazi judge requests that the American judge visit him in his jail cell. As he faces the man who sentenced him, he makes an odd request: he asks him to keep his personal memoirs - adding that they must be placed in the hands of a man who can be trusted. It is then that he declares the sentence passed upon him was just.

After pausing for a moment, the condemned Nazi judge says of the millions of dead Jews, “Those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that.” Spencer Tracy, playing the American judge, responds with one of the most profound lines of his storied acting career saying, “It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.”

That has been the story of the American Holocaust as well. It began in 1966 in my native state of Mississippi. Just two years after I was born, a law was passed that made it legal to abort in the case of rape or incest. But then, the very next year, Colorado passed legislation allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother.

Then the floodgates were opened. By the end of the year, several states were pushing legislation modeled after the Colorado statute. Within just six years, abortion for mere convenience was not just permitted by several states. It was enshrined as a fundamental constitutional right.

Some have declared that they will not rest until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Others say that is too lofty a goal. I disagree. I believe it is too shortsighted. We must reach further back if we want to reverse our moral free fall. Pre-1973 thinking is not enough. We must go back to the time when no state authorized the killing of innocents – a time when only the rapist, not the product of rape, was eligible for a sentence of death.

Ideas have consequences. And so do exceptions. One of the consequences of embracing an evil exception is that it hardens our hearts and clouds our thinking in advance of our consideration of other exceptions. Eventually we come to a point where we cannot imagine life without that initial exception.

It is fitting that it all began in Mississippi. We have a legacy of executing innocents by denying their personhood. It happened with slavery. It happened again with abortion. Now we have learned to justify our own Holocaust. We didn’t need Hitler after all.
________________________________________

To read another article by Mike Adams, click here.

Thou Shall Not Covet

2012-01-30T16:19:00.001-08:00

Thou Shall Not Covet
By Michael Prell
1/30/2012

Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house, your neighbor’s wife, not “anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Not anything.

If talk of Biblical Commandments makes you feel uncomfortable, then let’s call them “Ten Helpful Guidelines.”

On purely secular and practical grounds, is it better or worse for a society to follow the “Helpful Guideline” to not covet?

Imagine you are in a dark alley and you are approached by a gang. Would you feel better or worse if you knew that gang followed the Helpful Guideline to not covet your wallet?

What if it’s an “Occupy Wall Street” gang? Coveting is the foundation of their movement. A movement that – in a short few months of public coveting – has already racked up multiple counts of assault, rape, murder – and stealing wallets.

Which alley would you rather be in? Which society would you rather be in?

In November, when a group of Occupy Wall Street protesters shouted at President Obama, the President took their side and shouted back: “You’re the reason I ran for office.”

Taking the President at his word, is there any evidence – in his words, deeds or policies – of coveting?

“At a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Says who? The President of the United States. He also said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” In a CBS News story entitled “Obama Versus the ‘Fat Cats,’” President Obama “ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street” calling them “fat cat[s]” and scolding them for not showing “‘a lot of shame’ about their behavior and outsized compensation.” And Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign is built almost entirely on coveting – the promise to reach into the wallets of rich “Fat Cats” and take their money away.

I interviewed Economics Professor Walter E. Williams, a regular guest host on the Rush Limbaugh Show, and asked him what he thought about government playing the “Covet Card” to demonize so-called rich “Fat Cats.” He said: “Politicians use so much demagoguery along these lines. I’ve said to people: Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. What can Bill Gates make me do? Can he force me to send my kids to a school that I don’t want to send them to? Can he force me to use 1.8 gallons to flush my toilet…what can he do? But, by contrast [the] government…can make my life miserable. So, when people talk about the power of the rich, and government has to protect us against the rich, that’s BS.”

When you and I covet, it’s a sin. When government covets, it’s policy.

Government has the power to turn its covetous policies into coercive action.

Like the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform’ Act (which empowers the government to literally “occupy” Wall Street). Its co-author Barney Frank revealed the true covetous nature of the Bill to NPR: “When it comes to Wall Street’s bottom line, yes; if we do not see some reduction in profits at some of the largest financial institutions as a result of this Bill, I’ve wasted a year.”

The central theme of President Obama’s re-election campaign is coveting. His word for it is “fairness.” What’s “fairness?” According to the Ten Helpful Guidelines: it’s none of your business. Nor is it the business of the President.

If we minded our own business, and followed the Helpful Guideline to not covet, it would not matter to us if our neighbors had more. There would be no class warfare. We would never descend into the covetous madness of declaring what’s “fair” between what our neighbors have and what we don’t have. Following this one Guideline alone would end the most corrosive debate of our time: the covetous urge to take away from the “haves” and give to the “have-nots” in pursuit of some mythical fantasy of fairness in a world that has never been fair – not once, not for a second – since our Ten Helpful Guidelines were first etched into stone.

President Obama is not a stupid man. Therefore he knows that his covet-based promise of “fairness” is an empty promise. A manipulative ruse. A lie.

There’s a Helpful Guideline against that, too.
_______________________________________

To read another article by Michael Prell, click here.
_______________________________________

To read about another example of religious injustice, click here.

What Every Dad Should Know About Their Daughter

2012-01-28T07:28:00.000-08:00

What Every Dad Should Know About Their Daughter
Gina McClain | January 24, 2012

Last week I was dropping my daughter off for a birthday party. As I was leaving a man stopped me asking for direction. He was standing with one of my daughter’s school friends. Immediately recognizing her I put my hand out and introduced myself explaining that our daughters sit together at lunch often. His reaction was sarcastic as he gave his daughter a side-ways glance. I didn’t fully catch what he said but whatever it was it didn’t honor his daughter in any way. Looking at her I could tell this was not abnormal behavior.

I’ll be honest… I wanted to punch him.

It’s challenging to articulate the influence a father has on a little girl. How much of his attitude and actions toward her can determine her future relationships. I remember how much stock I placed in what my dad thought of me. I remember how much I wanted him to be proud of me. To affirm me. To show me my value.

I remember how he would brag about me on the sidelines of the soccer field.

How he would tell me I’m beautiful.

How he would hug me so hard I couldn’t breath.

How often he reminded me as a teenager, “Never date a boy you wouldn’t marry.”
(What a way to narrow the playing field!)

Dad’s, don’t lose sight of the impact you have today on your daughter’s future. Here are three things I encourage you to focus on:

Affirm Her

She looks to you for affirmation, encouragement, & guidance. As she grows through puberty (ESPECIALLY, as she grows through puberty), she needs your voice reminding her that she is beautiful, valuable and worthy of love. If she can learn to believe you, then she’ll believe her future husband when he tells her the same things.

Set the Standard

Be the husband you want her to have one day. Enough said. Is it difficult? Yes. Does it mean sacrifice? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes. I watch my husband daily making changes to be a better husband and dad. He’s amazing. He demonstrates for our daughter the kind of man he wants her to marry one day.

Talk About the Standard

Talk about the future. As you “Imagine the End” and think about the man you hope she marries… talk about it! Let her know what you expect. Set the bar. She’ll do everything she can to jump over it.

Let me level with you, dad. The more you affirm her today, the less she’ll seek affirmation in some teenage boy later.

Class Warfare - What Obama and the democrats foist upon us

2012-01-28T07:08:00.000-08:00

Class Warfare - Obama Style

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

I'M 100% for PASSING THIS ON !!! For all our sake PLEASE Take a Stand!!!

Obama: Gone!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

We, the people, are coming.

From a news article in 1949 - so class warfare has been around awhile. It goes from Marx to Lenin to Mao, to Castro, Alinsky, and to Obama.

An Old Democrat Poem...

Father, must I go to work?
No my lucky son.
We're living now on easy street
On dough from Washington

We've left it up to Uncle Sam,
so don't get exercised.
Nobody has to give a damn -
We've all been subsidized.

But if Sam treats us all so well
And feeds us milk and honey,
Please, daddy, what the hell
He's going to use for money

Don't worry, bub, there's not a hitch
In this here noble plan -
He simply soaks the filthy rich
And helps the common man.

But, father, won't there come a time
When they run out of cash
And we have left them not a dime
When things will go to smash?

My faith in you is shinking, son,
you nosy little brat;
You do too damn much thinking, son,
To be a Democrat.

An Ignored 'Disparity'

2012-01-17T15:49:00.001-08:00

An Ignored 'Disparity'
By Thomas Sowell
1/17/2012

With all the talk about "disparities" in innumerable contexts, there is one very important disparity that gets remarkably little attention -- disparities in the ability to create wealth. People who are preoccupied, or even obsessed, with disparities in income are seldom interested much, or at all, in the disparities in the ability to create wealth, which are often the reasons for the disparities in income.

In a market economy, people pay us for benefiting them in some way -- whether we are sweeping their floors, selling them diamonds or anything in between. Disparities in our ability to create benefits for which others will pay us are huge, and the skills required can develop early -- or sometimes not at all.

A recent national competition among high school students who create their own technological advances turned up an especially high share of such students winning recognition in the San Francisco Bay Area. A closer look showed that the great majority of these Bay Area students had Asian names.

Asian Americans are a substantial presence in this region but they are by no means a majority, much less such an overwhelming majority as they are among those winning high tech awards.

This pattern of disproportionate representation of particular groups among those with special skills and achievements is not confined to Asian Americans or even to the United States.

It is a phenomenon among particular racial, ethnic or other groups in countries around the world -- the Ibos in Nigeria, the Parsees in India, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Germans in Brazil, Chinese in Malaysia, Lebanese in West Africa, Tamils in Sri Lanka. The list goes on and on.

Gross inequalities in skills and achievements have been the rule, not the exception, on every inhabited continent and for centuries on end. Yet our laws and government policies act as if any significant statistical difference between racial or ethnic groups in employment or income can only be a result of their being treated differently by others.

Nor is this simply an opinion. Businesses have been sued by the government when the representation of different groups among their employees differs substantially from their proportions in the population at large. But, no matter how the human race is broken down into its components -- whether by race, sex, geographic region or whatever -- glaring disparities in achievements have been the rule, not the exception.

Anyone who watches professional basketball games knows that the star players are by no means a representative sample of the population at large. The book "Human Accomplishment" by Charles Murray is a huge compendium of the top achievements around the world in the arts and sciences, as well as in sports and other fields.

Nowhere have these achievements been random or representative of the demographic proportions of the population of a country or of the world. Nor have they been the same from one century to the next. China was once far more advanced technologically than any country in Europe, but then it fell behind and more recently is gaining ground.

Most professional golfers who participate in PGA tournaments have never won a single tournament, but Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods have each won dozens of tournaments.

Yet these and numerous other disparities in achievement are resolutely ignored by those whose shrill voices denounce disparities in rewards, as if these disparities are somehow suspicious at best and sinister at worst.

Higher achieving groups -- whether classes, races or whatever -- are often blamed for the failure of other groups to achieve. Politicians and intellectuals, especially, tend to conceive of social questions in terms that allow them to take on the role of being on the side of the angels against the forces of evil.

This can be a huge disservice to those individuals and groups who are lagging behind, for it leads them to focus on a sense of grievance and victimhood, rather than on how they can lift themselves up instead of trying to pull other people down.

Again, this is a worldwide phenomenon -- a sad commentary on the down side of the brotherhood of man.
________________________________________

To read another article by Thomas Sowell, click here.

Ron Paul and America's Alleged Racism

2012-01-17T15:14:00.001-08:00

Ron Paul and America's Alleged Racism
By Dennis Prager
1/17/2012

In the Republican presidential candidates’ debate on January 7, Congressman Ron Paul said: “I’m the only one up here . . . that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system.”

He said this racism has to do with “enforcing the drug laws,”and then added: “They [blacks] get the death penalty way disproportionately.”

Two groups immediately defended Paul – his supporters, and commentators on the Left. The former support anything Paul says; and the Left supports anything that Paul says that portrays America as ugly (see, for example, the defense of Paul by Left-wing USAToday columnist Dwayne Wickham, whose columns are regularly devoted to how much blacks suffer from American racism).

Just last month,Paul was asked by a representative of an organization (WeAreChange) that holds the government responsible for 9-11, “Why won’t you come out about the truth about 9/11?”

Paul’s response: “Because I can’t handle the controversy: I have the IMF, the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with.Because I just have more-too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do.” It is readily available on YouTube.

Whatever the implication of his cryptic response, when Paul is confronted by the mainstream media he denies that he believes the American government was involved in the 9-11 attacks. But what is undeniable is that Paul, like much of the Left, holds America largely responsible for 9-11 because of its foreign policy: its “occupying” countries all over the world, the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq which Paul and the Left claim killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the injustices against Palestinians that America has supported (through its support of Israel), etc.

He mocks the idea that the primary reason for 9-11 was that people of great evil attacked a very good country – because this is what the evil do, just as they did on the December 7, 1941 when the Japanese regime attacked Pearl Harbor.

It does seem that the Texas congressman’s description of the American justice system as racist is part of Paul’s generally dark view of America.

The claim that America disproportionately executes blacks is a falsehood, disseminated on virtually every Left-wing website from the ACLU to all the anti-death penalty sites. The only way it can be regarded as true is if the disproportion is in relation to the entire population of the country: Blacks make up about 12% of the population and since 1976 have been about 35% of those executed for murder. But this is a statistic that tells no truth because it is meaningless in terms of determining alleged racial bias.

This is very easy to prove. Males make up about 50% of the American population but make up about 99% of those executed. Is the American justice system wildly anti-male?

Of course, not.The statistic that matters in assessing bias in executions is the proportion of murderers of a given group that is executed, not the group’s proportion of the entire population.

And, here, it is clear that blacks are actually under-represented in executions.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death penalty organization, between 1976 and January 2012, 441 blacks (35% of the total) and 717 whites (55% of the total) were executed. Given that blacks committed more than half the murders during that time (52% vs. 46% by whites), if we are to assess racial bias based on proportionality of murderers executed, the system is biased against whites, not blacks.

Because this fact is both obvious and irrefutable, virtually none of the anti-death penalty sites note it. Instead they focus on the race of murder victims and even the race of prosecutors – in other words, the race of just about everyone except those convicted of murder.

It was bad enough for America and for moral clarity when Ron Paul’s views on American imperialism and systemic racism were confined to the Left. That about twenty percent of Republicans believe such things about America makes one anxious about the future of this country, not to mention about the eternal battle against evil.
_________________________________________

To read another article by Dennis Prager, click here.

I Voted Democrat because...

2012-01-16T10:26:00.001-08:00

I Voted Democrat because...
a friendly daily reminder...

1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

6. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

8. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle or gopher.

11. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised "HOPE AND CHANGE".

12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really

2012-01-14T13:01:00.001-08:00

Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really
Posted By Kevin DeYoung On January 13, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

UPDATE: Since I posted this article, Jefferson Bethke and I have had a chance to talk by email and over the phone. I included some of our conversation in a follow up post. I hope you will be as encouraged by the exchange as I was.

******

There’s a new You Tube video going viral and it’s about Jesus and religion.

Specifically how Jesus hates religion.

The video—which in a few days has gone from hundreds of views to thousands to millions—shows Jefferson Bethke, who lives in the Seattle area, delivering a well-crafted, sharply produced, spoken word poem. The point, according to Bethke, is “to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion.” In the past few days I’ve seen this video pop up all over Facebook. I’ve had people from my church say they like it. Some has asked me what I think. Others have told me there’s something off about the poem, but they can’t quite articulate what it is. I’ll try to explain what that is in a moment. But first watch the video for yourself.

Before I say anything else, let me say Jefferson Bethke seems like a sincere young man who wants people to know God’s scandalous grace. I’m sure he’s telling the truth when he says on his Facebook page: “I love Jesus, I’m addicted to grace, and I’m just a messed up dude trying to make Him famous.” If I met him face to face, I bet I’d like Jefferson and his honesty and passion. I bet I’d be encouraged by his story and his desire to free people from the snares of self-help, self-righteous religion.

And yet (you knew it was coming), amidst a lot of true things in this poem there is a lot that is unhelpful and misleading.

This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? That’s the question we must always ask. And to answer that question, I want to go through this poem slowly, verse by verse. Not because I think this is the worst thing ever. It’s certainly not. Nor because I think this video will launch a worldwide revolution. I want to spend some time on this because Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.

Verse 1

What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion
What if I told you voting republican really wasn’t his mission
What if I told you republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian
And just because you call some people blind
Doesn’t automatically give you vision

Okay, so the line about Republicans is a cheap shot (if you vote GOP) or a prophetic stance (if you like Jim Wallis). While it’s true that “republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian” and in some parts of the country that may be a word churchgoers need to hear, I doubt that putting right-wingers in their place is the most pressing issue in Seattle.

More important is Bethke’s opening line: “Jesus came to abolish religion.” That’s the whole point of the poem. The argument—and most poems are arguing for something—rests on the sharp distinction between religion on one side and Jesus on the other. Whether this argument is fair depends on your definition of religion. Bethke sees religion as a man made attempt to earn God’s favor. Religion equals self-righteousness, moral preening, and hypocrisy. Religion is all law and no gospel. If that’s religion, then Jesus is certainly against it.

But that’s not what religion is. We can say that’s what is has become for some people or what we understand it to be. But words still matter and we shouldn’t just define them however we want. “Jesus hates religion” communicates something that “Jesus hates self-righteousness” doesn’t. To say that Jesus hates pride and hypocrisy is old news. To say he hates religion—now, that has a kick to it. People hear “religion” and think of rules, rituals, dogma, pastors, priests, institutions. People love Oprah and the Shack and “spiritual, not religious” bumper stickers because the mood of our country is one that wants God without the strictures that come with traditional Christianity. We love the Jesus that hates religion.

The only problem is, he didn’t. Jesus was a Jew. He went to services at the synagogue. He observed Jewish holy days. He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He founded the church (Matt. 16:18). He established church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He instituted a ritual meal (Matt. 26:26-28). He told his disciples to baptize people and to teach others to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). He insisted that people believe in him and believe certain things about him (John 3:16-18; 8:24). If religion is characterized by doctrine, commands, rituals, and structure, then Jesus is not your go-to guy for hating religion. This was the central point behind the book Ted Kluck and I wrote a few years ago.

The word “religion” occurs five times in English Standard Version of the Bible. It is, by itself, an entirely neutral word. Religion can refer to Judaism (Acts 26:5) or the Jewish-Christian faith (Acts 25:19). Religion can be bad when it is self-made (Col. 2:23) or fails to tame the tongue (James 1:26). But religion can also be good when it cares for widows and orphans and practices moral purity (James 1:27). Unless we define the word to suit our purposes, there is simply no biblical grounds for saying Jesus hated religion. What might be gained by using such language will, without a careful explanation and caveats, be outweighed by what is lost when we give the impression that religion is the alloy that corrupts a relationship with Jesus.

Verse 2

I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars
Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor
Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce
But in the old testament God actually calls religious people whores

These claims say very little because they try to say too much. Have there been religious wars in the last two thousand years? Yes. Have there also been wars over money, land, ego, women, slavery, democracy, freedom, communism, fascism, Nazism, terrorism and just about everything else you can imagine? Yes. Furthermore, if you want to blame conflict on religion, you can’t neatly excise Jesus from the equation. You may not like the Crusades, but many of the Crusaders thought they were sincerely fighting for Jesus by trying take back the Holy Land from the Muslims.

More to the point, Christians need to stop perpetuating the myth that we’ve basically been huge failures in the world. That may win us an audience with non-Christians, but it’s not true. We are sinners like everyone else, so our record is mixed. We’ve been stupid and selfish over the years. But we’ve also been the salt of the earth. The evangelical awakening in England in the eighteenth century is widely credited for preventing the sort of bloodbath that swept over France in the “enlightened” French Revolution. Christians (and conservatives in general) give more to charitable causes than their secular counterparts. Christians run countless shelters, pregnancy centers, rescue missions, and food pantries. Christians operate orphanages, staff clinics, dig wells, raise crops, teach children, and fight AIDS around the globe. While we can always do more and may be blind to the needs around us at times, there is no group of people on the planet that do more for the poor than Christians. If you know of a church with a dozen escalators and no money and no heart for the hurting, then blast that church. But we have to stop the self-flagellation and the slander that says Christians do nothing for the poor.

As for divorce, it is often (but not always) wrong. Even when it is wrong, there is forgiveness when people repent. Shame on any church that doesn’t think or demonstrate that there is room at the cross for unwed or divorced moms.

And about the harsh language in the Old Testament—it cuts both ways. All people in the Old Testament, and in the entire ancient near east for that matter, were religious people. Some of them were fakes and hypocrites and whores. Some were idolaters and adulterers. Some performed their rituals and went on to ignore the weightier matters of the law. And some of the religious people were God’s remnant, God’s holy people, and God’s friends. In both Testaments, God has no problem rebuking religious people and no problem loving them either.

Verse 3

Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice
Tend to ridicule God’s people, they did it to John The Baptist
They can’t fix their problems, and so they just mask it
Not realizing religions like spraying perfume on a casket
See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core
It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores
Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat
But it’s funny that’s what they use to do to mummies
While the corpse rots underneath

I’ve already said that I don’t think “religion” is the right term for what Bethke is talking about. But he has done a great job here of describing false religion. Jesus blasted the Pharisees for being “whitewashed tombs,” for looking beautiful on the outside and full of dead people’s bones on the inside, for appearing righteous but being full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (Matt. 23:27-28). It is possible for churches and churchgoers to have the reputation for being alive, but actually be dead (Rev. 3:1). Some churches claim to love grace, but all they give you is legalism. Bethke is hitting on a real problem.

Verse 4

Now I ain’t judgin, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there’s a problem
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook
I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic’s unworthy
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey
You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography
See on Sunday I’d go to church, but Saturday getting faded
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness

I wish Bethke, and critics like him, would admit that they are “judgin.” He is evaluating Christianity. He is criticizing church as he sees it. The whole poem is a harsh judgment on religious people. Granted, judging is not the same as judgmentalism. After all, I’m judging this poem. So I don’t think what Bethke is doing is wrong. I just wish he wouldn’t try to claim the moral high ground.

Other than that, this is another good verse. Bethke tells his own story to prove that we can be real good at fooling everyone, including ourselves. We need to realize that there are plenty of people in many of our churches who seem to have it all together but don’t. They are kidding themselves and we should not encourage such self-deception.

Verse 5

Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean
It’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken
Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin
Because it doesn’t depend on me it depends on him
See because when I was God’s enemy and certainly not a fan
He looked down and said I want, that, man
Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools
Don’t you see so much better than just following some rules
Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and yes I believe in sin
But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in
See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men
But the Son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then

There is much that is good and a few things that are confused in this verse. The church should be an ocean of grace. We don’t have to hide our sins before God. It doesn’t depend on us. We should love the church and the Bible and believe that sin exists. Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. Jesus never supported self-righteousness. All of that is wonderfully and powerfully true.

But let me raise a few other points.

One, we have to remember that the purpose of a hospital is to help sick people get better. I’m sure Bethke would agree with that. But there is no indication in this poem that the grace that forgives is also the grace that transforms. Following Jesus is more than keeping rules, but it’s not less. In one sense, loving Jesus is also all about keeping rules (John 14:15, 21, 23-24). I’m not sure how the Jesus of John 14 fits in the world of Bethke’s poem.

Two, there is no inherent dignity in being broken. Jesus likes the honesty that acknowledges sin, hates it and turns away, but he does not love authenticity for its own sake. We have to be more careful with our language. When Paul boasted of his weakness, he was boasting of his suffering, his lack of impressiveness, and the trials he endured (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:9). He never boasted of his temptations or his sins—past or present. That’s not what he meant by weakness. Being broken is not the point, except to be forgiven and changed.

Three, as I’ve mentioned before, the religious leaders hated Jesus, first and foremost because they thought he was a blasphemer who dared to make himself equal with God (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71; and less clearly in John 18:19-24). It’s true that many of the religious elite found Jesus too free with his meals and his associations. They called him a “glutton and drunkard” (Luke 7:34), though he wasn’t either. But they also said John the Baptist “has a demon” (Luke 7:33). They were just as opposed to John’s asceticism as they were upset with Jesus’ liberty. More than hating grace, the Jewish leaders hated the truth about Christ and found ways to reject God’s messengers.

Verse 6

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention
How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums
See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention
See one is the cure, but the other’s the infection
See because religion says do, Jesus says done
Religion says slave, Jesus says son
Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see
And that’s why religion and Jesus are two different clans

I won’t repeat my initial comments about religion and Jesus and whether they are really “on opposite spectrums.” I don’t think they are. That point notwithstanding, Bethke speaks the truth in this section. The differences between slavery and sonship, bondage and freedom, blindness and sight are all biblical themes.

I think the line about “religion says do, Jesus says done” can be misleading. Too many people hear that as “relationship not rules” when we’ve already seen that Jesus wants us to do everything he has commanded (Matt. 28:20). But if “do” means “do this to earn my favor” then the contrast is very appropriate.

Verse 7

Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man
Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own
Not based on my merits but Jesus’s obedience alone
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face
He took what we all deserved, I guess that’s why you call it grace
And while being murdered he yelled
“Father forgive them they know not what they do.”
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb
Which is why I’m kneeling at the cross, saying come on there’s room
So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it
Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it

There is a lot to like with this final section. Great affirmation of Jesus active obedience. Great focus on the cross. Great invitation for sinners to come to Christ. I think Bethke understands justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. I would have liked to have heard something about the wrath of God being poured out on the cross as opposed to simply “absorb[ing] all of your sin.” But given Bethke’s previous video criticizing Love Wins, it’s best to give him the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, I’m not sure it’s best to so emphasize that Jesus was thinking of us on the cross. The “joy set before” him in Hebrews 12:2 was the joy of being seated at God’s right hand, not the joy of being with us as Bethke advocates in another video. But these are smaller points that do not negate the strong message of grace and forgiveness.

Conclusion

I know I’ve typed a bunch of words about a You Tube video that no one may be talking about in a month. But, as I said at the beginning, there is so much helpful in this poem mixed with so much unhelpful—and all of it so common—that I felt it worth the effort to examine the theology in detail.

The strengths in this poem are the strengths I see in many young Christians—a passionate faith, a focus on Jesus, a love for grace, and a hatred for anything phony or self-righteous. The weaknesses here can be the weaknesses of my generation (and younger)—not enough talk of repentance and sanctification, a tendency to underestimate the importance of obedience in the Christian life, a one-dimensional view of grace, little awareness that our heavenly Father might ever discipline his children or be grieved by their continued transgression, and a penchant for sloganeering instead of careful nuance.

I know the internet is a big place, but a lot of people are connected to a lot of other people. So who knows, maybe Jefferson Bethke will read this blog. If you do, brother, I want you to know I love what you love in this poem. I watched you give your testimony and give thanks to God for his work in your life. I love the humble desire to be honest about your failings and point people to Christ. I love that you love the church and the Bible. I love that you want people to really get the gospel. You have important things to say and millions of people are listening. So make sure as a teacher you are extra careful and precise (James 3:1). If you haven’t received formal theological training, I encourage you to do so. Your ministry will be made stronger and richer and longer lasting. I encourage you to speak from the Bible before you speak from your own experience. I encourage you to love what Jesus loves without tearing down what he also loves and people are apt to misunderstand. I encourage you to dig deep into the whole counsel of God.

Thanks for reminding us about Jesus. But try to be more careful when talking about religion. After all, there is one religion whose aim is to worship, serve, know, proclaim, believe, obey, and organize around this Jesus. And without all those verbs, there’s not much Jesus left.
_____________________________________

To read more articles from the "GOD" thread, click here.

European Semis - Optical Illusions

2012-01-10T10:01:00.001-08:00

Here are 7 pictures of (European) semi-trucks whose trailers are decorated to look like the sides are missing. The products they are hauling are painted on the sides and back.

The Ridiculousness of the Payroll Tax Cut

2012-01-09T11:45:00.001-08:00

The Ridiculousness of the Payroll Tax Cut
By Bruce Bialosky
1/9/2012

To even write a column with this title risks being classified as someone out of touch with average Americans. Nevertheless, I’m confident in my conviction on this issue; and, furthermore, it is clear evidence – as if we needed any more – that this President will say or do whatever is necessary to stay in power.

You may remember that this “temporary” payroll-tax reduction was passed in a last-minute bill by the previous Democrat-controlled Congress. It was part of their economic program, which originated with the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes, advisor to our government during the Great Depression. His policies may have sounded good, but they simply did not work. Unfortunately, they are part of Democratic legend that it was FDR’s deficit spending and public-works programs that got us out of the Depression. But you can’t really blame them – after all, they were educated first in our pathetic public school systems and then in universities riddled with leftist professors.

There were several problems with this “temporary tax reduction.” First, it did nothing to stimulate new employment. The only reason for the recent modest reduction in the unemployment rate is because people have given up looking for jobs. Second, we have never before reduced the money paid into the Social Security System to provide a fiscal stimulus. As I have written previously, Democrats refuse to admit that Social Security is not a retirement plan. If Democrats actually believed that it is a retirement plan, they would never have done this.

Alternatively, they might have said “We’re going to let you pay less money in now, but you’re going to get less money when you retire.” Had they been honest – instead of telling Americans that they would magically get $80 more in every paycheck – the country would have roundly rejected this. But truthful and pandering politicians don’t inhabit the same planet. In the end, it gave working folks a small, year-long tax break, but did nothing for those seeking a job.

Flash forward a year: a tax holiday that was supposed to end has now became the focal point of the Democrats’ propaganda. Other than the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the President has done nothing to justify his re-election so he tries to convince middle-income Americans that he’s their friend. They may be losing their jobs, losing their homes, and paying higher prices for everything. But in Obama’s twisted world, if you give them a fabricated tax reduction out of their own future retirement fund, they’ll be suckered into voting for him (again).

The President proposes this malarkey and his Democrat and media allies fall into line, telling us that they cannot tolerate “raising taxes on the middle class.” In fact, they actually tried to pay for this by raising taxes on other citizens. This leads to the question that no one seems to be asking: What happens a year from now? Are the Democrats going to pander again? Are they going to again mislead Americans about their pension plans? How are they going to pay for that extension? Don’t they get the idea that temporary tax changes – enacted for political purposes only – do nothing for long-term planning?

You now know the rest of the story. The Republicans stuff some things into the bill that will actually create jobs, like the Keystone XL pipeline. The President, in what I believe is his stupidest political move since being elected, vetoes the pipeline. He chooses support of the tree-hugger lobby over union members who need jobs. Sorry, Mr. President, the environmental wackos will vote for you, but the union members and their friends who are still looking for jobs will not.

For some mysterious reason, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, usually a brilliant strategist, agrees to a two-month extension of the payroll cut. That is just insane. Payroll is done quarterly. Only people who have never worked for a living would do such a thing. Even the payroll processing companies say this is nuts. The IRS should have concurred because they might have to create new forms with two different rates, but they don’t want to abuse their bosses. The Republicans in the House, most of whom have actually had jobs or employed people, point out the folly of the plan and pass a bill with a full-year extension – only to get hammered by the equally clueless mainstream media for not being “bipartisan.” The concept of “sensible” never comes into play. The House agrees to the two-month deal.

The punditry in Washington then tells the American people that the Republicans were routed; thereby giving the President the ability to claim that he is a friend of the middle-class. Has everyone lost their minds? How in the world is a two-month extension better than a year? How does a President, who has spent trillions on keeping his union friends employed while the rest of us suffer with fewer homes, fewer jobs, greater inflation and larger government debt, all of a sudden become a friend of the middle-class by handing us our own money and driving the nation into greater debt?

If you ever thought that our national government was totally screwed up and needed a makeover, here is your time. And if you ever had any doubt that this President will say anything, do anything, or embrace any policy whatsoever to promote his re-election, then you should be convinced by now. This man is nothing but a Harvard elitist who has never had and will never have a clue what we Americans face. I am once again reminded why so many people are so utterly disgusted with our political system.
______________________________________

To read another article by Bruce Bialosky, click here.

Freedom and Jeff

2012-01-07T18:19:00.001-08:00

This is the kind of story you need when it seems like the world is spiraling out of control.....

Not many people get a picture of this proud bird snuggled up next to them!

Freedom and Jeff

Freedom and I have been together 11 years this summer. She came in as a baby in 1998 with two broken wings. Her left wing doesn't open all the way even after surgery, it was broken in 4 places. She's my baby.

When Freedom came in she could not stand and both wings were broken. She was emaciated and covered in lice. We made the decision to give her a chance at life, so I took her to the vet's office. From then on, I was always around her. We had her in a huge dog carrier with the top off, and it was loaded up with shredded newspaper for her to lay in. I used to sit and talk to her, urging her to live, to fight; and she would lay there looking at me with those big brown eyes. We also had to tube feed her for weeks.

This went on for 4-6 weeks, and by then she still couldn't stand. It got to the point where the decision was made to euthanize her if she couldn't stand in a week. You know you don't want to cross that line between torture and rehab, and it looked like death was winning. She was going to be put down that Friday, and I was supposed to come in on that Thursday afternoon. I didn't want to go to the center that Thursday, because I couldn't bear the thought of her being euthanized; but I went anyway, and when I walked in everyone was grinning from ear to ear. I went immediately back to her cage; and there she was, standing on her own, a big beautiful eagle. She was ready to live. I was just about in tears by then. That was a very good day.

We knew she could never fly, so the director asked me to glove train her. I got her used to the glove, and then to jesses, and we started doing education programs for schools in western Washington. We wound up in the newspapers, radio (believe it or not)and some TV. Miracle Pets even did a show about us.

In the spring of 2000, I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. I had stage 3, which is not good (one major organ plus everywhere), so I wound up doing 8 months of chemo. Lost the hair - the whole bit. I missed a lot of work. When I felt good enough, I would go to Sarvey and take Freedom out for walks. Freedom would also come to me in my dreams and help me fight the cancer. This happened time and time again.

Fast forward to November 2000.

The day after Thanksgiving, I went in for my last checkup. I was told that if the cancer was not all gone after 8 rounds of chemo, then my last option was a stem cell transplant. Anyway, they did the tests; and I had to come back Monday for the results. I went in Monday, and I was told that all the cancer was gone.

So the first thing I did was get up to Sarvey and take the big girl out for a walk. It was misty and cold. I went to her flight and jessed her up, and we went out front to the top of the hill. I hadn't said a word to Freedom, but somehow she knew. She looked at me and wrapped both her wings around me to where I could feel them pressing in on my back (I was engulfed in eagle wings), and she touched my nose with her beak and stared into my eyes, and we just stood there like that for I don't know how long. That was a magic moment. We have been soul mates ever since she came in. This is a very special bird.

On a side note: I have had people who were sick come up to us when we are out, and Freedom has some kind of hold on them. I once had a guy who was terminal come up to us and I let him hold her. His knees just about buckled and he swore he could feel her power course through his body. I have so many stories like that..

I never forget the honor I have of being so close to such a magnificent spirit as Freedom.

Hope you enjoyed this!

But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. Isaiah 40:31

Cancer is a strange cell. You can go along for years in remission and then one day it pops its head up again. If you ever have it you will never be free of it. Pray for the day there will be a permanent cure. A SMALL REQUEST...

93% won't forward, but I'm Sure You Will.

A small request.....Just one line.

Dear God,

I pray that You will guide someone to find a cure for cancer in 2012.

Amen.

All you are asked to do is keep this circulating. Even if it's only to one more person. In memory of anyone you know who has been struck down by cancer or is still living with it.

I will post it to this blog.

Good Old Days

2012-01-06T09:33:00.001-08:00

A Kim-Less Christmas

2012-01-05T20:53:00.001-08:00

A Kim-Less Christmas
By Paul Kengor
1/5/2012

Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at American Thinker.

This past Christmas, the people of North Korea were without their messiah. That is, their self-anointed messiah.

For a sense of just how bad was Kim Jong-Il, I thought I’d share a few anecdotes reflecting the singularly pernicious nature of this man and what he created in his own image.

Kim was truly a modern Stalin—in some ways, worse. His cult of personality began with the advent of his birth, which North Korea heralded as a second coming, eerily akin to the birth of Jesus Christ. Kim was born February 16, 1941, a date accorded the status of a national holiday and treated like Christmas. On that date, all North Koreans are allowed off work for the grandest parade, the highlight of which is a float marked by a glorious double rainbow and star—indicative of the double rainbow and new star that miraculously appeared in the sky the moment of Kim’s birth.

Speaking of miracles, the totalitarian state’s propaganda machine churned out outrageous distortions, easily exceeding even Stalin standards. State media claimed that in the first round of golf Kim ever played, he broke the all-time world record for the best round of golf in history. The government press also reported that Kim composed more and better operas—and at a younger age—than anyone who ever existed. Songs like “Dear Leader Dispels Raging Storms” were karaoke hits in North Korea.

An eyewitness to the madness was Kang Chol-hwan, author of the frightening memoir, "Aquariums of Pyongyang." Kang recalled how as a child he and his wide-eyed classmates were taught that Kim and his late father were “Edenic” human beings, so perfect that neither man defecated or urinated. They were born without sin, if not purer. My faith teaches that Christ was both 100 percent human and 100 percent divine. North Korea tipped the scales even higher.

Kang Chol-hwan remembered how North Korean children were told that Kim was a “kind of Father Christmas,” because of whose benevolence every child was graciously entitled to a new pair of shoes.

The regime was hell-bent on this messiah complex. The consistent, dogged application of this divine narrative was unrelenting and sickening. I could give example after example that would make you cry. It was evil, just plain evil.

Compounding the obscenity is this tragic truth: no modern people have been so repressed and persecuted. North Koreans experienced a government-induced famine where two-to-three million people (10-15 percent of the population) starved to death from 1995-98. The place is a living, breathing (actually, dying) tragedy. At its apex sat Kim, whose omnipresent face and figure literally hovered above the masses in murals and statues and screens.

I recall one day watching a C-SPAN broadcast of U.S. senators returning from a fact-finding trip to this prison state. It was one of the first overseas trips of Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who had replaced Bob Dole. Roberts was asked what term he would use to classify the North Korean regime, perhaps “Stalinist,” maybe “totalitarian,” or simply “communist?” I’ll never forget Roberts’ response: He quickly said “theocracy.”

Yes, very good. This viciously atheistic regime that pursued a classic communist war on religion was devoutly religious itself. Ironically, it had not banned religion; it had nationalized it, centralized it, redistributed it—all in the form of Kim Jong-Il. Just as North Korea’s communist government had taken over all industry, all agriculture, and even all crime, it had also seized all faith.

When Whittaker Chambers once commented on the ultimate crime of communists, he explained that they had grossly repeated humanity’s original mistake: “Ye shall be as Gods.”

Ah, in that sense, Kim was indeed “Edenic.”

Kim Jong-Il presented himself to his suffering people as their god and their salvation. Instead, he was their downfall. He was the worst embodiment of the fall of man, and he in turn felled a nation and a people in the ugly process.

Christmas is no time for false messiahs. The worst of them, Kim Jong-Il, spent this season no longer among the living. His people can rest in peace. I have a strong suspicion Kim is not. This Christmas time, little old Kim finally had some explaining to do. He is at long last accountable for his sins.
________________________________________

To read another article by Paul Kengor, click here.
________________________________________

To read more articles about North Korea, click here.

The Needle and the Damage Done

2012-01-05T20:51:00.001-08:00

The Needle and the Damage Done
By Mike Adams
1/5/2012

Last semester, I was giving a lecture on the history of the Supreme Court from 1953 to present. Toward the end of the lecture, I asked my students if they could name the current Chief Justice. None were able to do so. There were thirty students in the class. This was in a college classroom, mind you.

I was annoyed by the failure of a single student to know the name of one of the three most powerful men in America. But, whenever annoyed, I have a tendency to make jokes to lighten the atmosphere. So I told my students to go to the SCOTUS website next time they were in the tattoo parlor and had a couple of spare hours to surf the internet on their iPhone. They laughed and then I casually asked “How many of you have tattoos?” About twenty students raised their hands, which was far more than I expected.

Asking that question was a big mistake. The next time I walked into class, a young man was asking a sorority girl where her tattoo was located. She lifted up the back of her shirt and showed him a giant tramp stamp across her lower back. It was as sad as it was surprising. Apparently blond hair, blue eyes, and natural beauty aren’t enough to attract college boys these days. She needs a tattoo to let him know that his chances of getting sex on the first date are close to 100%.

Over the last few years, tattoo parlors have been popping up like weeds here in Wilmington. I have always assumed that their popularity was easily explained: Young people just want to draw attention and tattoos give them something to show off. They are just another way of helping young people feel different. Even if most kids have them, theirs can be unique. They can even tell a story.

But the narcissistic and short-sighted component of tattoo accumulation is just half the story. I had an epiphany about the other half of the story as I was talking to a woman we will call Brooke. We’re going to call her Brooke because that really is her name. Brooke was complaining to two of her friends (who are also my friends). She was complaining about the thing single women complain about most often: the boyfriend who won’t respect her even though (maybe because?) she is sleeping with him regularly.

Brooke’s complaint with her boyfriend was that he desired to stay in her bed after they were finished having “fun.” This TMI moment was topped off by a deep philosophical argument: “My bed is an intimate place. Until we’re married, he’s not welcomed there overnight. That’s just too presumptuous. It’s too intrusive.”

Translation: You can have my body but not my bed. The former is of less value to me. Some will say it’s just one anecdote. Of course, it is. But it is part of a larger pattern I am seeing among younger adults. Like virtually all other unhealthy aspects of our culture, it is being nurtured in the university setting. Thinking about these three campus cultural trends will add some perspective:

*Sexual experimentation is encouraged by the administration. Free condoms are available, free birth control is often available. Students are taught to give themselves away and that the only concern is that they remain physically healthy enough to continue to do so.

*Abortion is strongly encouraged on campuses - often to the unconstitutional exclusion of competing ideas. Use of RU 486, which is a dangerous toxin causing the death (and then expulsion) of the unborn, is encouraged. Rarely is there an intelligent discussion of the drug’s harmful side effects.

*Genital mutilation is promoted as a means of increasing diversity. College students – even as young as 18 - are encouraged to resolve sexual confusion with the blade of a knife. This permanent disfigurement of their genitalia is simply another form of sexual expression. It’s no longer stigmatized. It’s celebrated!

There is a dangerous undercurrent here. It is obvious that immediate gratification appeals to young people. But it is compounded by something that is lacking. And what is lacking here is any sense that we as humans are made in the image of God – and that our bodies, therefore, have some intrinsic value. If we were still willing to nurture that idea in our culture – and allowed to do so by the Supreme Court - these trends would not be engulfing us and destroying our children.

Tattoos are a lot like guns. Soon after you get one, you want another. But unlike guns the tattoo always leaves a permanent mark. Whenever the desire to cover one’s body with ink sets in, one thing is clear: there is a void in one’s soul that desperately needs filling. Like all such voids it is of a spiritual nature and cannot be filled by physical things. At its core, every desire we experience is really a longing for God.

I should not be surprised that so many of our children are covering themselves with ink. They have been separated from transcendent meaning. Now they must create meaning for themselves in order to fill that void. Too often, they try to recreate themselves altogether. And they mask their God-given beauty in the process.
_______________________________________

To read another article by Mike Adams, click here.

Hannah and Allison

2012-01-02T22:47:00.001-08:00

Hannah and Her Brothers
By Mike Adams
1/2/2012

Shelby wasn’t expecting such difficult questions when she took a job teaching grammar school in middle Tennessee. But it was an election year and little Emily had been hearing a lot of talk about politics. So she raised her hand on the first day of class and asked “Miss Shelby, what is the difference between a conservative and a liberal?” Miss Shelby thought for a while before she replied with a story that was dated but true. It happened when Miss Shelby was just about Emily’s age:

“When I was in the fifth grade, there was a girl named Hannah. She was beautiful and athletic. She used to try to beat the other boys in the 100 yard dash. She lost time and time again. But one day in fifth grade, she beat all the other little boys in a race. Patrick, who used to be the fastest boy in school, got mad. He got really mad. In fact, he picked on Hannah so badly that the school teacher grounded him from recess for an entire month. That made Patrick madder still.

“The boys in the class all picked on Patrick for losing his title as the fastest kid in school to a girl. They even went so far as to say that Patrick probably couldn’t beat Hannah in a fistfight. They teased and teased and teased poor Patrick. Then one day he just snapped did something really stupid: he challenged Hannah to a fistfight after school.

“Being a lady, Hannah declined to fight. That meant Patrick got to save some face. But, unfortunately, Patrick would not give up trying to fight Hannah. So finally, she told Patrick to meet her at the baseball field after school one day. The entire school was buzzing over the fact that Hannah agreed to fight Patrick. There were at least fifty kids who showed up for the fight. There were also a couple of dozen people waiting in the bleachers when Hannah arrived at the ball park. Among them were Hannah’s four older brothers; Ben, Peter, Rob, and Luke John.

“Patrick put up his dukes to fight Hannah. She remained calm with good reason. Patrick never saw the punch coming. He didn’t even see Ben come down from the bleachers and approach him from his weak side. But he felt Ben’s punch to his lower stomach. He also felt it when Ben rolled him over on his back, climbed on top of him, and gave him his very first broken nose. Ben pounded Patrick until his face was a bloody mess. It was made worse by the fact that he was crying uncontrollably.

“It should go without saying that Patrick never picked on Hannah again. In fact, he never picked on anyone again. He was greatly humbled by the experience of getting his nose broken by Ben. He just told his parents he was hit in the nose by a pitch and let the matter go at that. Hannah and her family are all conservative Republicans, by the way.”

When Miss Shelby was done with her story, Emily looked very confused. So Shelby started talking again – sort of the way Jesus did with his disciples when they were too dumb to understand a parable:

“Emily, I know you don’t know much about politics so I’ll explain why I shared this story with you. It illustrates four important characteristics of conservatism. I’ll explain them all in relation to Hannah and her brothers:

1. Conservatives believe the individual has unique talents given by a Creator.

In the fourth grade, the girls started to sprout above the boys in height. In fact, many of the girls could have beaten Patrick but they did not try. Hannah was taught that it was a sin not to fully exploit her God-given talents. So she always tried her best. Even when she was splitting infinitives.

2. Conservatives are more interested in competing than in sparing the feelings of their inferiors.

Hannah knew she would upset the fragile feelings of Patrick. But she didn’t care. The joy of competition outweighed the fear of causing personal offense. At first, she kind of enjoyed the reaction of Patrick. Being the target of jealousy and covetousness is much better than being ignored altogether.

3. Conservatives understand that human nature is ugly and must be controlled through fear.

Hannah had an opportunity to sit down with Patrick and negotiate over their differences. But Hannah’s parents instilled in her a deep distaste for the United Nations approach to avoiding conflict. She was raised to believe that peace could best be kept by an overwhelming demonstration of force. Ben certainly supplied that show of force. Why negotiate with a punk who fights girls when you have four brothers who play junior and senior high school football? It is better to overwhelm a relatively weak opponent than to risk an embarrassing upset. Just ask the 1980 Russian Olympic Hockey team.

4. Conservatives believe that the family, not the government, is the foundation of society. Hannah could have called the police or told the principal that Patrick was threatening her. But that is not the way she was raised. Hannah and her three sisters, four brothers, mother, and father all have a saying: “Our family is sort of like the Ten Commandments. When you violate one of us, you violate all of us.” Hannah was raised to believe that, unlike the police, her family can always be counted on to respond in a time of need.

When Miss Shelby finished, she knew she had only told half of the story. But she promised she would later tell the story of another friend so little Emily could also understand the liberal mindset. And, dear reader, I promise to share that story with you in my next column about a little girl named Allison who lived in Illinois.
_____________________________________________
Allison Wonderland
By Mike Adams
1/3/2012

She wasn’t always like this. She was raised in a middle class home by educated parents – both of whom are lifelong self-described liberals. They loved her and cared for her. But they also gave her some poor advice, which largely accounts for her downward spiral over the course of the last several years.

Trouble began for Allison when she was in junior high school. A boy named Barry fell in love with her and started asking her out on dates. She wasn’t interested in Barry. She did not even think she was old enough to start dating. But Barry was persistent to the point of making Allison nervous. So she talked to her parents in the hopes that she could get some good advice.

Because Barry was black, Allison’s parents urged her to go out with him at least once. As old 1960s hippies, they had marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. They wanted to make sure Allison gave Barry a chance and that her initial rejection of Barry wasn’t due to latent racism. “Who knows? You might end up liking him,” they told Allison. So Allison went on the date. It was an unmitigated disaster.

It should go without saying that Allison had a much more difficult time with Barry after agreeing to go out on a date with him. But she firmly and steadfastly rejected his advances even as they grew more assertive. When things started to overwhelm her, she did what she always did: she talked to her parents.

Both of her parents urged her to go out with Barry a second time. This time, however, the point of the meeting would be to negotiate the intensifying conflict between the two of them. “Let him know how uncomfortable he is making you and, above all, make sure he knows it’s just a matter of personalities. It has nothing to do with race. There’s no conflict that cannot be resolved by free and open communication.” Allison went on that second date. The evening concluded with Allison being sexually assaulted by Barry.

It took her several weeks, but Allison eventually told her parents. They reluctantly alerted the authorities. Because Barry was only 13, he was tried as a juvenile. He was adjudicated to be delinquent in Illinois, the first state to create completely separate juvenile and adult justice systems back in 1899.

Prior to the disposition hearing, Allison’s parents pleaded with the juvenile court officer. They asked him not to recommend incarceration for Barry. Instead, they urged him to recommend probation and intensive counseling. The juvenile court officer complied with their request. And the judge affirmed the juvenile court officer’s recommendations.

Five years later, Barry sexually assaulted a second woman. He was tried in adult court for second degree rape. As a result of a negotiated plea, he was sentenced to just four years in prison. Upon graduation from high school, Allison took a job working in a topless bar.

Allison paid her way through college with the money she earned doing lap dances in The Alchemist, a local gentlemen’s club. Her degree in Women’s Studies was supplemented with a minor in African American Studies. She used the degree to get a job working as an intake counselor for Planned Parenthood. Two years into her tenure with Planned Parenthood, Allison told a pregnant teenaged woman (of African extraction) that abortion was “not a big deal.” She went on to say that, “Most black babies are aborted anyway.” Planned Parenthood fired her for sharing that well-kept secret with a non- white client. So Allison moved back home with her parents. Today, she works for billionaire George Sourpus as a paid commenter on various conservative websites.

Her story is a sad one. But it is also educational. It teaches us four important lessons about the liberal mindset:

1. For liberals, group judgments supersede the judgment of individuals. In their zeal to make certain they are not engaging in racism, liberals often take race into consideration – even when it is simply irrelevant. This means they often form relationships they would not have formed by merely judging an individual as an individual – rather than evaluating the individual as a group representative. This happens most often in the context of employment relations. It is not always confined to race.

2. For liberals, faith in negotiation is more important than concerns over personal safety. When it comes to avoiding war or violent confrontation generally, negotiations sometimes fail. Liberals understand this. But the threat posed to their own physical safety must be weighed against other threats. When it comes to faith in the inherent goodness of man, evidence is often deemed irrelevant. The view of the “good man” corrupted by “bad society” is the lynchpin of the liberal worldview. It cannot be disturbed by anything, “facts” included. Additionally, a liberal’s confidence in his own capacity to negotiate differences is often central to his self-image. His preoccupation with his self-image explains his constant search for “solutions” to societal “problems.” When he appears to be fixing “society,” the liberal is often trying to fix himself.

3. According to liberals, crime is simply a disease that only man can cure with the benefit of science. The notion of sin has no place in the liberal worldview. The only solution to sin is a Savior. Liberals prefer to use disease terminology – whether they are talking about sociological or psychological maladies. This allows them to step into the role of savior. It also provides them with government employment opportunities.

4. Liberal ideas are not only emotionally driven but also emotion driving. Liberals eventually realize that man isn’t good and that the world does not operate according to liberal principles. But the emotionalism that draws them into liberalism never dissipates. The naiveté simply congeals. Usually, it hardens into anger. In some cases, it permanently confines the liberal to a life of anonymous posting on conservative websites.

The story may be a simple one but that is okay. Liberalism is a simple way of viewing the world. It lacks the complexity and even the nuance of conservative thought. Although simple, this story is not actually true. It is an Ally-gory meant to show the depth of the divide between conservatives and liberals in America today. It is a divide so deep that it simply cannot be negotiated away. Barry can only get what he wants by forcing himself upon us all. Right-thinking people judge him according to his merits and not according to his race.
_________________________________________

To read another article by Mike Adams, click here.

Christmas Story - according to children.

2011-12-22T12:34:00.000-08:00

The Christmas Story - according to children. Click here.

Merry Christmas!

No Fault of Their Own

2011-12-21T15:15:00.001-08:00

No Fault of Their Own
By Ross Kaminsky on 12.21.11 @ 6:09AM

It's official: Democrat compassion and legalized plunder are synonymous.

In Tuesday's House of Representatives debate, Rep. Chris van Hollen (D-MD) said that Congress had a responsibility to extend unemployment benefits to those who are "unemployed through no fault of their own." Minority leader Nancy Pelosi used the same rhetoric in a floor speech a week ago, saying that the Senate's two-month payroll tax and unemployment benefits band-aid "would secure a critical lifeline for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own." The Democratic Party's website crows, "Democrats have provided relief for hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own."

In a recent Michigan state legislature debate about insurance reform, a Democrat state rep discussed "those, who through no fault of their own, will lose insurance coverage…" Democrats in Washoe County, Nevada, ruing the failure of the U.S. Senate to pass the DREAM Act, said of illegal aliens who were brought here as children, "These are young men and women who, through no fault of their own, came to this country and consider this country their own."

It's an interesting rhetorical device, one that allows Democrats everywhere to sing from the same sheet of guilt-inducing music. But, at the risk of sounding like Rick Perry's "have no heart" believers in liberty, limited government, and the power of incentives, why should the question of fault be an important factor in how the federal government treats adult Americans?

Charity is only charity if given willingly. Money taken by threat of force, whether by a mugger or by government, is theft. As for the latter, Frédéric Bastiat properly termed it "legalized plunder."

In his seminal work The Law, published in 1850 just before Bastiat's death, the French economist elaborates on the proper role of government and its "almost universal perversion." Speaking of men's need to work to satisfy his wants and needs:

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

…[T]he law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

The inclination to feel sorry for, and want to help, someone who has lost his job is understandable. But when government subsidizes unemployment for two years, it discourages people from finding new jobs. It's not just common sense; the data show it.

So the key question for policy makers should not be one of fault. It should be one of economics, and perhaps of law and justice. When I say "law and justice," I do not mean to imply that they are the same. Bastiat addressed this directly:

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

So why do Democrats keep mentioning the lack of fault of beneficiaries of redistributionist largesse? In order to confuse the non-socialist majority of Americans into believing that law and justice are, in the case of these laws, the same. Two years of unemployment benefits is no more just than any other mugging is, regardless of the law.

Furthermore, how does one draw a line between an unemployed person who lost his job "through no fault of his own" or someone who was simply not a very good employee? Do you really want bureaucrats making that decision one day? And what about the employer whose business was shrinking and thus he had to lay off employees? How about paying them for profits that fell "through no fault of their own"? No, there is no end to what might befall good people through no fault of their own, but our nation is built on a guarantee of a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a right to other people's money.

A perfect example of politicians "moving the line" to buy votes followed by the inevitable result of massive redistribution bureaucracies comes from SCHIP, the federal program that gives matching funds to state health insurance systems that cover uninsured children in moderately low-income households. In New York, the legislature passed a law allowing SCHIP eligibility for children in families up to 400% of the federal poverty level -- or about $89,000 for a family of four. It also covers pregnant women, parents, and -- wait for it -- childless adults. A 2007 Inspector General report of New York's SCHIP operations estimates that the state made over 300,000 payments to ineligible recipients, totaling over $25 million in cost. Another quarter million payments totaling almost $15 million were made without file documentation that "adequately support[ed] eligibility." And that was just the federal share of the cost, and just for six months.

The results of these infrastructures designed to implement legalized plunder on a massive scale do not change based on "fault."

But make no mistake: Overpayments -- meaning excessive theft from some citizens to give that money to other citizens -- are, for the left, a small price to pay. Indeed, they would see the NY SCHIP outcome as preferable to the opposite, where eligible people were not receiving taxpayer-funded benefits, whether through fault of their own or not.

The more people become dependent on government, even if they are not technically eligible to do so, the more they will vote for politicians who promise to continue giving money for nothing despite Margaret Thatcher's warning that socialist governments "always run out of other people's money."

A perfect example comes from a commenter on the far-left web site DemocraticUnderground.com: "…those who may be unemployed or homeless because of some ‘fault' of theirs -- whether illness, or a mistake, or bad judgement [sic] -- why the hell are these people any less worthy of help to survive?"

That's right: Someone who is unemployed because of bad judgment is just as "worthy of help" -- which is to say worthy of some of your money -- as anyone else. It's pure and simple Marxism. And it is exactly what Pelosi and van Hollen are selling us when they want to extend unemployment benefits because some of the recipients are in an unfortunate situation "through no fault of their own."

This particular Democrat rhetoric is the other side of the coin from their routine claims that high unemployment was caused by "the 1 percent" or "Wall Street" or some other evil limousine-driven elites working hand-in-hand (and this part is actually true) with government to rig the system in their benefit. So, if the misdirection about "fault" isn't enough to get ordinarily anti-beggar-thy-neighbor Americans to play along with socialism-lite, perhaps a misplaced desire for retribution will be.

Bastiat's analysis is again remarkably clear and prescient:

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution -- some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

Now, Bastiat never met Nancy Pelosi, so there is a particularly subtle brand of evil that even he did not fully anticipate. Legal plunder is not against the interest of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party because it is only by funneling as much money as possible through the sticky fingers of government (and unions) that they maintain political power.

Thus it is that Democrats continue to offer "through no fault of their own" as a key reason to transfer money from one American to another. Sadly, while House Republicans are correctly opposing a two-month tax policy as more confusing than beneficial (not that this misguided Keynesian tax cut is economically beneficial anyway), Bastiat-like language is nowhere to be found. It is a rare politician, even a "Tea Party" politician, who will stand up in the well of the House and proclaim the immorality of basing economic policy on mellifluous Marxist language like "fault" and "need." Our Republic is not safe until such language is no longer vanishingly rare in public.

Fault is the wrong yardstick by which to measure the appropriateness, either economically or morally, of government's tax and spending policies. Instead, the proper question is this: Putting aside the claimed need for the money or lack of blame for the need, is the government's action really anything more than legalized plunder?
__________________________________________

To read another article by Ross Kaminsky, click here.

Poverty Doesn't Make Thieves -- Liberalism Does

2011-12-21T15:13:00.003-08:00

Poverty Doesn't Make Thieves -- Liberalism Does
By Ben Shapiro
12/14/2011

This week, the Los Angeles Times reported a wave of theft plaguing area high schools. The objects at stake? Tubas. According to South Gate High School music teacher Ruben Gonzalez Jr., thieves broke into the band room and stole nothing but tubas. A few weeks before, thieves took eight sousaphones from a Compton high school. Either the original cast of "The Music Man" is criminally eager for a revival, or these thieves are selling the horns on the black market.

Now the left loves to claim that crime waves like this are caused by poverty. If you're poor, the logic goes, you'll have to steal a loaf of bread -- or a trombone -- to feed your child. Criminality thus becomes a moral act.

There's only one problem with this logic: It's absolutely wrong.

During the Great Depression, levels of crime actually dropped. During the 1920s, when life was free and easy, so was crime. During the 1930s, when the entire American economy fell into a government-owned alligator moat, crime was nearly non-existent. During the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was excellent, crime rose again.

In Britain, where the social safety net is more like a social swaddling cloth, crime rates other than murder are significantly higher than in the United States. Actually, the highest rate of car theft in the world is in peaceful, socialist, unicorn-riding Switzerland. Next comes New Zealand. Then Britain, Sweden, Australia, Denmark, Scotland, Italy, Canada and Norway. That's right -- the U.S. isn't even in the top ten.

Why is that? It's not that these other countries are impoverished -- far from it. It's not that their poor are Dickensian urchins following the advice of newfangled Fagins. It's that these countries have bred generations of people who think they are entitled to the property of others.

That mentality predominates in poor areas more than rich ones. There's a reason for that: Those who succeed economically in a free market system do so based on the notion that they don't deserve anyone else's property unless they work for it. They don't sit back waiting for someone to take care of them. They don't wait for welfare checks. They go out into the world and earn their way forward.

In poor areas, the opposite is true. Spend five minutes with many poor inner city kids and the sense of entitlement drips from them. Many of these folks are refugee thugs from "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre": "Work? We ain't got no work. We don't need no work! I don't have to show you no stinkin' work!" And, by the way, they don't need no stinkin' badges, either -- because the people with the badges work for them, teaching them that sense of entitlement, impoverishing hard workers on behalf of those who think they're owed something by the world.

Persistent poverty, in short, is more often than not a moral problem, not an economic one -- stealing springs from that same moral failing. That is why affordable housing, provided for free by the government, is usually covered in graffiti, trashed and burned out. You'll never see a private, single-family home treated like that by its owner.

There's a basic rule in business: If you tell people that a product is free, they treat it like it has no value. We've spent the last 70 years in this country telling our poor that money and property are free. Of course, they don't attribute any value to money or property, then. Of course, they treat others' property as though it's valueless, to be stolen or taken at whim.

The liberalism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and President Obama hasn't turned thieves into sudden lovers of big-band swing. It's turned more and more Americans into thieves. Don't blame poverty. Blame morality. And blame a government and a society that have abandoned the notion of responsibility for juvenile delinquency.
________________________________________

To read another article by Ben Shapiro, click here.

Conservative Videos

2011-12-16T17:13:00.001-08:00

The New Deal Was a Failure - Michelle Fields Click here.

Seven Reasons Why Tax Increases Are the Wrong Approach
Click here.

Four Reasons Why Big Government Is Bad Government - Blayne Bennett
Click here.

The European Fiscal Crisis and Lessons for America - Sylvia Morandotti. Click here.

Free Markets, Not Redistribution, Is Best Way to Reduce Poverty - Hadley Heath. Click here.

Debunking the Palestine Lie. click here.

Bill Maher Gets Owned By George Will. Click here.

The History of "PALESTINE" Click here.

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Economic Growth Causes Consumer Spending, Not the Other Way. Click here.

The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws. Click here.

Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place. Click here.

Milton Friedman Versus A Socialist. Click here.

Milton Friedman & Thomas Sowell vs. A Welfare Administrator. Click here.

Inequality in Perspective

2011-12-09T17:45:00.001-08:00

Inequality in Perspective
By Ron Ross on 12.9.11 @ 6:08AM

Liberal thinking is all we need to know about life's fundamental unfairness.

Mother Jones contributor Kevin Drum says that "The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism." From what I've observed Drum has it right. Merriam Webster's defines egalitarianism as "a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people." The Occupy Wall Street's 99 percent mantra is fundamentally about economic inequality. On the class warfare battlefield, the classes are defined according to wealth and income. Inequality was the underlying theme of President Obama's much-discussed Osawatomie speech.

What is it about equality that makes it the foremost policy objective of liberals? Why do they apparently have the belief that equality is synonymous with justice and fairness?

There are a number of problems with making equality a policy objective. Foremost perhaps is it's a whole lot more complicated than its proponents might believe. Liberals seem never to take the effort to analyze or diagnose the sources of what they see as problems. Their concern rarely penetrates the surface. Those who are the most upset about inequality never seem to reflect on why there is economic inequality in the first place or what other societal goals we would have to sacrifice in order to achieve it.

The kind of equality liberals focus on is economic equality. Why do they fixate on that one dimension? There are, of course, several explanations. Liberals see income leveling as a cash cow. The government needs money, wealthy people have money, ergo, go get 'em!

Other reasons include the fact that liberals believe that money can buy happiness. It also demonstrates how much they are ruled by envy.

Liberals believe that wealth causes poverty. Whether or not they realize it, they are Marxists. Marxism is an ideology based on the belief that owners unfairly expropriate wealth that should be going to labor. Marx would be proud of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Marx's "labor theory of value" is not so much a theory as a lame attempt to sell the exploitation myth.

A well-known quote from The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels is "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." That is a gross distortion of history, but it is a perfect synopsis of the bedrock philosophy of liberalism. The left perceives the world as a battle between the oppressed and the oppressors.

The equality crusaders rely on what could be called a "quantity theory of good and evil." The enemy has been quantitatively defined, rather than the usual qualitative approach. It consists of ranking the population from top to bottom as measured by income or wealth. The degree of evil corresponds to the percentiles. Those in the hundredth percentile, the so-called "one percent," are especially evil. The quantitative method excuses them from actually having to think about the flesh and blood individuals in the one percent. It provides an easy way for simple-minded people to know who to hate.

This way of defining villainy makes it a renewable resource for class warriors. If the current population of the top one percent got fed up and moved to Australia, there would be a brand new top one percent to demonize.

If equality is a prerequisite for happiness, we will never be happy. Even if it were possible to achieve economic equality, numerous other kinds of inequality would still exist -- beauty, IQ, athletic ability, health (physical and mental), creativity, and talent, to name just a few.

Obviously, equality is unattainable. Making it a precondition for happiness is an extremely bad idea. It makes as much sense as saying you can't be happy unless the planet stops rotating -- "I simply must have daylight 24 hours a day!" Liberals would have a much higher likelihood of being happy if they accepted inequality as a fact of life rather than something to be battled against. If we can't have fairness and justice without equality, then we will never have fairness and justice. As is the case with the rest of liberalism, equality is a utopian fantasy.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that less inequality would be a good thing. As is true of all objectives, more equality can only be achieved at a cost in terms of other objectives. If we insist on cutting the economic pie into equally sized pieces, we will end up with a smaller pie since it would eliminate any economic incentive to produce.

Most people who earn high incomes have made significant sacrifices to do so. They typically have stayed in school longer than most people, studied harder, worked longer hours, and taken more risks. Do we not feel they ought to be rewarded for these sacrifices? Isn't being rewarded for such behaviors itself an important aspect of fairness? There is simply no way to distribute income that is "fair" in every way.

The left's obsession with equality is the primary reason they despise the market. A market economy generates unequal wealth and incomes. That bothers them so much they are willing to forego all the advantages of a market economy.

In regard to many of life's most important dimensions we are, in fact, equal. Most important is the fact that "death is the great equalizer." Sooner or later we all die. No one, no matter how wealthy, lives forever. Rich or poor, if you eat too much you're probably going to gain weight. If you act like a jerk you will have no real friends. In many ways, life treats us all the same. The same basic rules apply to us all.

Both liberals and conservatives care about equality. They differ, however, in regard to what they mean by equality. Conservatives want equality of opportunity, liberals want equality of outcomes.

In his book Free to Choose Milton Friedman wrote, "A society that puts equality -- in the sense of outcome -- ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom…. On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality."

Cuba is one of the left's favorite countries. Almost everyone in Cuba receives the same income: $15 a month. Grinding poverty in a country in spite of their amazing natural and human resources, but at least they have economic equality! (And, of course, "free" health care.) Cuba is a case study illustrating the real cost of making economic egalitarianism "the heart and soul of liberalism."
________________________________________

To read another article by Ron Ross, click here.

The Gospel According To Wright

2011-12-09T17:21:00.001-08:00

The Gospel According To Wright
By Charles C. Johnson from the December/January issue

How much of Pastor Jeremiah Wright's race-based "theology" does Barack Obama really share?

In 2008 America elected a president whose pastor for 20 years preached anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, advocated bizarre pseudo-scientific racial ideas, opposed interracial marriage, praised communist dictatorships, denounced black "assimilation," and taught Afrocentric feel-good nonsense to schoolchildren. When Americans discovered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's views during the 2008 campaign, they rightly wondered if Barack Obama, like his pastor, really believed that HIV/AIDS was created by the American government to kill black people. Even to this day, no one knows for sure whether Obama shares the views of Wright, whom the Chicago Sun-Times once described as Obama's "close confidant."

Candidate Obama tried to dismiss his support for Wright, telling Charlie Gibson of ABC News, "It's as if we took the five dumbest things that I ever said or you ever said…in our lives and compressed them, and put them out there, you know, I think that people's reaction, would be understandably upset." And rightly so. In sermon after sermon, Wright's radical black nationalist ideas were clearly and emphatically stated. They were not an aberration, but the focal point of Pastor Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Obama was an active member for 20 years.

Nor has Wright renounced any of his anti-Americanism. In a sermon last September 16 marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11 entitled, "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall," Wright seemed to celebrate white America's comeuppance. "We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon--and we never batted an eye!" Wright preached. "We supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black south Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards." He closed, invoking Malcolm X's statement about the assassination of J.F.K, "America's chickens! Coming home! To roost!" White America, he was saying, had gotten its just deserts.

Candidate Obama tried to distance himself from Wright's more damning comments. But, crucially, he didn't disown the pastor himself. In fact, in his rise to political fame, he had made Wright's sermons his own, drawing on Wright's "Audacity to Hope" sermon and appropriating its theme for his political coming-out speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004. He even borrowed the sermon's title for his second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, in a bid to get Wright and other black churches to support his candidacy.

The question is why Barack Obama, raised without any faith at all, chose one of the most incendiary preachers in Black America to preach the word of God to him. Wright became, in Obama's words, "like family to me. [Wright] strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children." Obama told a group of ministers in June 2007 that Wright helped "introduce me to my Christian faith." But what, exactly, is Barack Obama's faith? Just as important, what is Jeremiah Wright's?

JEREMIAH WRIGHT WAS BORN on September 22, 1941, in Germantown, a racially mixed, middle-class Philadelphia suburb. His father, Jeremiah Wright, Sr., became the minister of the local Grace Baptist Church in 1938 and served there for 42 years. His mother, Mary Elizabeth Henderson Wright, was a schoolteacher who eventually became the first black vice-principal at the Philadelphia High School for Girls, one of the city's top-performing magnet schools.

Education mattered deeply to the Wrights. They helped their son with his homework while they bettered themselves with part-time courses. They enrolled him at Central High School, an all-male magnet establishment considered among the nation's best public schools at the time. It was 90 percent white. The class yearbook announced, "Always ready with a kind word, Jerry is one of the most congenial members [of his class]." But Wright himself dismissed that period of congeniality in a later sermon. "I used to let my behavior be determined by the white world's expectations," he recalled ruefully.

The young Jeremiah was off to a promising start, but at age 15 was arrested for grand larceny auto theft. His parents sent him to the all-black Virginia Union University. But Wright quit after two years and joined the Marines. Wright later said he hated being educated at "black schools founded by white missionaries." Still, during his short time at VUU he met fellow students who made a lasting impression: a young PhD student named John Kinney who had studied under both Martin Luther King, Jr., and James Cone, the founder of black liberation theology; and Samuel DeWitt Proctor, a longtime friend and mentor of King.

After quitting the Marines, Wright joined the Navy, where he served for four years. He was stationed mostly in Washington D.C., and was there to help operate on President Lyndon B. Johnson as a cardiopulmonary technician before enrolling in college again at Howard University, earning a bachelor's degree in 1968 and a master's in English in 1969. At Howard, Wright heard firebrand Stokely Carmichael, a.k.a. Kwame Ture, lecture on black power. He was further influenced by Cheikh Anta Diop's racialist tomes advancing Afrocentrism, the theory that Africa was the cradle of modern civilization. After that, it was off to the University of Chicago Divinity School for six years. Then Wright, 31, joined Trinity United Church of Christ as pastor on March 1, 1972. In his provocative words, "the fun began."

Trinity, on its last legs when Wright joined it, was an odd choice. After all, as Bill Moyers of PBS recalls in his new book, Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues, Wright "could have had his pick of large, prosperous congregations, but instead chose one with only 87 members in a largely black neighborhood" of Chicago. Wright often compared Chicago to apartheid-era South Africa: "Just as Blacks could not be caught inside the city of Johannesburg after dark…the same held true for Blacks on the Southside of Chicago." Breaking with his parents' Baptist denomination, Wright recognized that at Trinity he could have complete authority to implement his vision.

There were, of course, impediments to that goal, not least his white colleagues. Many couldn't understand his love of black-style worship or emphasis on the role of Africans in biblical history. Wright recalls nearly coming to blows in 1978 with a white associate minister who called his church a "cult" and derided him for having a "big ego."

TWENTY-TWO BLACK church members who did not like the direction in which Wright was taking Trinity lodged a complaint with the UCC, then left the church. Wright attacked them as Uncle Toms "running to ‘massa' to tell a white man what they thought was happening to their Negro church." He had nothing but contempt for these middle-class blacks. They were, he noted, "bourgeois Negroes who wanted to be white." Wright considered himself a "new Black who is not ashamed of his Blackness."

Wright had come under the sway of the writings of James Cone, a professor of divinity, father of the black theology movement and author of the seminal Black Theology and Black Power (1969). Cone taught that Christianity needed to be freed from "whiteness." He and Wright conceived of a Christianity in which black rage and the black power ideology fused with Marxist thought. According to Cone, "black people must find ways of affirming black dignity which do not include relating to whites on white terms." Integration was impossible because it was brought about by "black naïveté" and "white guilt." Cone approvingly quoted Malcolm X: "The worst crime the white man has committed has been to teach us to hate ourselves." Freeing blacks would require getting them to love their inner African and Wright would do just that--Trinity's longtime parishioners be damned.

Trinity gave Wright a chance to introduce ordinary blacks to these writings. During the initial media dustup over Wright's views in 2007, the media couldn't understand Wright's, or Obama's, Christianity because they couldn't understand the underlying phenomenon of black liberation theology.

It didn't help that the mainstream media had decided to take the issue of Obama's faith off the table. The New York Times ludicrously editorialized in 2008 that Obama's "religious connection" with Wright "should be none of the voters' business." Unlike George W. Bush, Obama wouldn't "carry religion into government," the Times promised. In fact, Obama often invokes religion in areas--health care and economics--where it isn't normally mentioned. An analysis by Politico found that Obama invoked Jesus far more than George W. Bush did, and cited the Sermon on the Mount to make the case for his economic policies.

Wright was Obama's missionary in a sense, so it is worth looking at how he educated his parishioners. "I had as my goal in starting a weekly Bible class the idea of connecting the study of God's Word to where it is we lived as Black people in Chicago in 1972," he recalled. It would be the Gospel according to Wright. Trinity's slogan would be "Unapologetically Black and Unapologetically Christian." It was to be black first and Christian second. Preaching black theology, Wright made his dashiki-wearing flock the largest--and blackest--church in the largely white UCC.

In his church-associated Kwame Nkrumah Academy, the congregation's children learned such canards as the claim that "[h]istorically, Europeans tried to build themselves up by tearing down all that Africans had done." Obama biographer David Remnick notes that Obama approved of this "African-centered" grade school, where Wright's God loves all people, but black people especially. And why shouldn't he? Jesus, Wright taught, was "an African Jew," as were most of the figures of the Bible. As Wright said in Africans Who Shaped Our Faith (1995), "evidence exists within and outside of the Bible to support the notion that the people of Israel…were of African descent!"

It is in this context that Wright's comments on Zionism should be seen. Attacking Israel's right to exist, Wright held that "[t]he Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for more than 40 years now." America, by defending Zionism and its apartheid-like regime, had too long practiced "unquestioning" support of Zionism. Given his hostility to Zionism and non-"African" Jews, it wasn't surprising that Wright's anti-Semitism reared its ugly head in June 2009. "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," he told the Daily Press of Hampton Roads, Virginia. They were "controlling" Obama and therefore preventing the United States from sending a delegation to an anti-racism United Nations conference. (America boycotted it on the grounds that it would descend into an anti-Jew hate fest as it had in previous years.)

Wright remained loyal to Malcolm X (Trinity United Church celebrates his birthday) and to Louis Farrakhan.

Wright even joined Farrakhan on a trip to meet with the latter's benefactor, Muammar Gaddafi, in 1984. (Wright has also routinely bragged about his trips to Castro's Cuba and Ortega's Nicaragua. He predicted that his trip to Libya would cause trouble for Obama in 2008: "When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gaddafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell," he said.)

To further his claim that the white man was an active enemy of the black man, Wright has often recommended a favorite book of the Nation of Islam, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident, or Intentional? (1996), a self-published screed by Leonard G. Horowitz, a conspiracy theorist and former dentist, who argues that HIV began as a biological weapons project. "Based on this Tuskegee syphilis experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything." As white people were responsible for the makeup of its government, white America bore a collective guilt, Wright said. It could not accept a black man as president of "this racist United States of America," "the United States of White America," and "the U.S. of KKK-A."

WRIGHT GOT ON OBAMA'S BUS early, in the mid-1980s, when he supported Obama's efforts to organize blacks for "social change" (i.e., to increase government welfare), and only left in 2008 when there was an increasingly serious chance of his winning the Democratic nomination and becoming president. It was, after all, Hillary Clinton--not John McCain--who used Wright as a campaign issue against Obama.

Wright had remained on the bus for so long because his friendship gave Obama an authenticity on the South Side that he otherwise lacked as a highly educated black man who grew up in white and multiracial environments. Had Obama not successfully defined himself as an ordinary African American, had he not worked the streets on poverty wages, his political career probably would have gone nowhere.

Obama came to join Wright's church in a roundabout way, as Stanley Kurtz argues in his well-researched Radical-in-Chief (2010). We don't know if he encountered Wright before he moved to Chicago, but it seems safe to assume he had. David Remnick recounts a significant meeting between the young Obama and Pastor Alvin Love of Lilydale First Baptist Church in Chicago. Obama and Love had organized blacks through the churches starting in 1985, so "[Obama] knew it was inconsistent to be a church-based organizer without being a member of any church, and he was feeling that pressure," according to Love. "He said, 'I believe, but…I want to be serious and be comfortable wherever I join.'" A pastor whom Love recommended--Pastor L. K. Curry--suggested that Obama meet Jeremiah Wright. Obama apparently liked what he saw at their meeting and he began to attend Trinity in 1988.

Obama's decision to join Trinity was very much one of convenience. Even though he plotted his every move, we're supposed to believe that he just happened to join the largest black church in America, whose pastor had a record for getting blacks elected to higher office. (In 1983, Wright led a coalition of black churches to help elect Harold Washington as the first black mayor of Chicago.) Obama liked to try out his ideas on Wright. "What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," he told the Chicago Tribune in January 2007. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics." Wright was a means to an end.

Steeped in Marxist thought and the community organizing tactics of the radical Saul Alinsky, Obama was probably comfortable with the view that religion was the opiate of the masses and black liberation theology the opiate of blacks. Trinity Church is a place where black movers and shakers congregate. "My commitment is to the church, not to a pastor," Obama said in May 2008. But left unsaid was just what the members of that church believed.

According to Wright, leading members have included Jawanza Kunjufu (author of Countering the Conspiracy to Destroy Black Boys, which blames, among other things, interracial marriage), Iva Carruthers (who coined the term "Afrocentric" and whose work at the Jew-hating Durban Conference on Racism Wright enthusiastically endorses), and Bobby Wright, psychologist and author of The Psychopathic Racial Personality, which argues that white attitudes toward blacks are psychopathic. Other influential members include the black entertainment elite, like the rapper Common and Oprah Winfrey.

Winfrey, who joined the church in the mid-'80s, eventually left in the early '90s. An article entitled "Something Wasn't Wright" in the May 12, 2008, issue of Newsweek explains that she knew Wright's rants were too radical for her fans. Interestingly, though Oprah endorsed Obama and helped catapult his books to the top of the bestseller lists, she has declined to endorse him for 2012.

Common frequented Wright's pews, occasionally rapping for its congregants. With Wright's approval, Common even "free-styled sermons" against interracial marriage in 2005 when the Obamas were attending Trinity nearly every Sunday. (Perhaps that's why Michelle Obama invited Common to perform at the White House in May 2011.)

Growing up in a heavily "segregated" Chicago, Common noted, you had to "enforce" black culture.

Ironically, Wright's Afrocentrism, implicit segregationism, and explicit reverse racism didn't prevent him from retiring to a $1.6 million home his church built for him in the lily-white Tinley Park neighborhood in 2008. The luxurious four-bedroom house features an elevator, a butler's pantry, exercise room, four-car garage, master bedroom with a whirlpool, and spare room for a future theater or swimming pool. It abuts the Odyssey Country Club and golf course. (Its mortgage was paid for by the corrupt ShoreBank, with which Wright, along with most of the Chicago black elite, always had a cozy relationship before it went bust in 2010.)

WHERE DID OBAMA FIT in all of this? It seems he too rejected assimilation in favor of Wright's separate-but-equal-yet-superior status for black Americans. A December 1995 article, "What Makes Obama Run," by Hank De Zutter in the Chicago Reader, a local black newspaper, suggests as much in its profile of Obama's first bid for the Illinois Senate. Obama, thanks to Reverend Wright's Trinity Church, "learned that integration was a one-way street, with blacks expected to assimilate into a white world that never gave ground." Obama bristled at the "unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks ‘move up, get rich, and move out.'"

Obama was merely following the teachings of Wright when he railed at Trinity against corporations that, Wright explains in his history of Trinity, "discriminated against women, corporations that discriminated against Blacks and Browns, corporations that supported sweatshops in Third World countries and corporations which stood in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Capitalism was part of what led to slavery, Wright had argued. He often mentioned the black sociologist Chancellor Williams's jeremiad, The Destruction of Black Civilization, which argues that African civilization was destroyed by the acquisitiveness--the capitalist nature--of white European civilization.

But when Wright became too embarrassing, it was time for Obama to distance himself from him. That was the not so subtle message behind Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech in March 2008 in which he rejected Wright, not because he disagreed with him, but he had to protect himself from the charge that Wright and Trinity disliked white people. "Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect," Obama improbably claimed. The speech, much celebrated and quickly forgotten, did what it had to do: it derailed the whiteness issue as a campaign issue.

And yet Obama never explicitly rejected the black power, anti-capitalist core of Wright's teachings. That includes beliefs like Wright's credo that "White folks' greed runs the world in need." For all Obama's talk, he can't claim to never have heard Wright say it. Obama titled his second book, The Audacity of Hope, after the very sermon where that line appears. Candidate Obama's declared intention to "spread the wealth around" echoed what he had absorbed at those Trinity sermons. Now President Obama's thinking clearly shows the same imprint, as when he preaches that "at a certain point you've made enough money."

"Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., took me on another journey," Obama once said. He merrily went along, every step of the way.

Pujols Goes to Anaheim

2011-12-09T09:55:00.001-08:00

Pujols Goes to Anaheim
By Aaron Goldstein on 12.8.11 @ 1:07PM

Albert Pujols, a St. Louis Cardinal since 2001, is heading west to Anaheim via the Gateway Arch. Pujols has signed a 10-year contract with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim worth between $250 and $260 million.

My first reaction is did the Angels just pay in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars for a DH? Pujols has played the bulk of his career at first base. But the Angels have a talented young first baseman in Mark Trumbo who finished runner up in the AL Rookie of the Year voting. (Interestingly, both Pujols and Trumbo share the same birthday - January 16th.) Of course, they could move Trumbo to left field and DH Vernon Wells. But even if Pujols plays first base for the Angels this season, I think he will become a full time DH in the not too distant future. In which case, the Angels overpaid him and for far too long.

Don't get me wrong. Pujols comes to Anaheim with Hall of Fame credentials. He enters the 2012 season with a lifetime batting average of .328 with 445 homeruns and 1329 RBIs. Pujols not only has a good chance to pass Barry Bonds on the all-time homerun list (if A-Rod doesn't get there first) but pass Hank Aaron for the all-time RBI lead with 2297. He'll also likely reach the 3,000 hit mark to boot.

But if Pujols is relegated to the DH spot and Angels become a second division team then they could be put in a position where they have a tight budget which keeps them from maintaining a viable minor league system and acquiring established big league role players because of their obligation to Pujols not to mention his no trade clause. Then, of course, Pujols could also follow Ken Griffey, Jr's path and get hit by the injury bug. Of course, that's a risk in free agent signing or major trade but in Pujols' case it is a big one.

It appeared that Pujols would sign with the Miami Marlins. However, the Marlins withdrew their offer yesterday after they and Pujols apparently could not come to an agreement over a no trade clause. It would have been great to see Pujols and Mike Stanton hit three-four in that lineup. But the Marlins have reeled in several free agents including closer Heath Bell (2-years, $27 million), Jose Reyes (6-years, $106 million) and starting pitcher Mark Buehrle (4-years, $58 million) who is reunited with Ozzie Guillen after the briefest of separations. The Marlins will be a force in the NL East in 2012.

As for Pujols, his signing intensifies the rivalry between the Angels and the Texas Rangers in the AL West. Between 2002 and 2009, the Angels were the class of the division reaching the post-season six times including a World Series title in '02. But for the past two seasons the Rangers have won not only won the AL West but have won two AL pennants only to fall short in the World Series. Rangers fans have painful memories of Pujols' three homeruns in Game 3.

And if that wasn't enough, the Angels also landed ex-Rangers ace lefty C.J. Wilson for $77.5 million over five years. Wilson joins a starting rotation that already includes Jered Weaver, Dan Haren and Ervin Santana.

So where does this leave the defending World Series champion Cardinals? First, La Russa retires and is succeeded by Mike Matheny. Now Pujols leaves. Who will be given the unenviable task of filling Pujols big shoes in St. Louis? Can the Cardinals expect lightning in a bottle from Lance Berkman again? Can Matt Holliday recoup his falling offensive production? Is David Freese a flash in the pan? On the other hand, Allen Craig has some big pop in his bat and has a bright future ahead of him. Adam Wainwright will rejoin Chris Carpenter at the top of the rotation. Jason Motte could be a dominant closer for years to come. Nevertheless, the Redbirds have entered the post-Pujols, post-La Russa era.

As for Pujols, I think the Angels benefit from him for the short term but I'm not so sure about the long term. But for the moment, the halo shines bright.
___________________________________________

To read another article by Aaron Goldstein, click here.

The Orwellian American Left

2011-12-07T20:50:00.001-08:00

The Orwellian American Left
By David Limbaugh
12/6/2011

As I heard Barack Obama and his propaganda minister, Jay Carney, endorsing tax cuts as a vehicle for economic growth, I was reminded, again, of George Orwell's "1984" and the striking similarities between his Oceania and the American left's vision for America.

Oceania's Big Brother regime had "four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided," the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Peace, the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Plenty. Each department was dedicated to the opposite principle suggested by its title. "Truth" disseminated lies. "Peace" promoted war. "Love" enforced uniformity of thought. And "Plenty" manipulated the economy to impoverish the people while enriching the ruling class. God was expelled and absolute truth abolished, while "doublespeak" was promoted.

Oceania's Thought Police was the Ministry of Love's enforcement arm, while the Ministry of Truth undertook the task of rewriting history in service to the Party slogan, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

Today the left has a Ministry of Truth, because it knows that twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals and so has to disguise its policies to deceive the majority. Its Ministry of Peace would be better-named the Ministry of Bipartisanship, which, in the name of reaching across the aisle with a friendly hand, slices it off with a partisan dagger. Its Ministry of Love is more aptly named the Ministry of Tolerance, which dictates one way of thinking and demonizes dissenters. The Ministry of Plenty is alive and well in the Obama administration's cadre of economic advisers.

The liberal establishment's Ministry of Truth extends throughout our culture, having taken over our educational institutions, the arts and the sciences. How slavishly our academics hew to the Party slogan. They have planted themselves in positions of cultural influence to "control the present," in order to rewrite the past (to conform to their dogma), for purposes of "controlling the future."

Our professors of history, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, philosophy, journalism, law, the hard sciences and other fields deride Western civilization and characterize our founders as Christian-mocking deists devoted to enlightenment principles of the philosophers. They speciously tie our unique freedoms to our "secular" founding to argue that we must banish God from the public square, lest we lose our liberties. In the name of academic inquiry, these academic and cultural "Thought Police" indoctrinate and intimidate students who dare deviate from their thought mandates.

Their textbooks tell us that Franklin D. Roosevelt not only was not a domestic liberal but also saved capitalism through socialism. (Talk about "doublespeak.") They say his New Deal spent us out of the Great Depression, while current historians not housed in the Ministry of Truth tell us it exacerbated our economic woes. Based on the ministry's revisionism, Keynesian economists were empowered to reflect those myths in their textbooks for a half-century. Armed with their revised lessons from history, Obama's Ministry of Plenty advocated passage of the "stimulus" bill, which was doublespeak for "rampant redistribution to its allies, sucking the oxygen out of the private sector and suppressing the economy."

The left's Ministry of Truth, with the full-throated support of the "unbiased" mainstream media, has given us such Orwellian originals as "pro-choice" while suing an 80-year-old prayer-warrior for standing outside Planned Parenthood's abortion factory to share important information with pregnant mothers to help them make a fully informed choice. The ministry seeks to shut down conservative talk radio, with the "Fairness Doctrine." It forbids private ballots for employees to vote anonymously on union membership for the purpose of intimidating them to join -- in the name of the "Employee Free Choice Act." It boasts of "budget cuts" when it slightly reduces the rate of increases in spending. It calls the budget-busting Obamacare legislation the "Affordable Care Act." It calls a bill that would further expand unemployment a "jobs bill." It fabricates and manipulates a consensus on "climate change" and ostracizes dissenters as science-averse. (In Oceania, science had "almost ceased to exist.") It conspires with its Ministry of Tolerance to describe political dissent from its effort to legalize homosexual marriage as "hate" and to brand political conservatism as "racism." While the rapacious Obama administration recklessly squanders our national wealth in its lust for power, its ministries of Plenty and Bipartisanship vilify the wealthy -- who are paying a disproportionate share of taxes -- for not paying their fair share. The Ministry of Plenty, while presiding over the destruction of the private sector, castigates job creators for hoarding all the wealth.

2012 won't be so much about two competing visions as it will be a contest of truth. Without the left's Orwellian ministers and their deputies in the press and academia, it would be a historic blowout and rejection of their vision. I'm betting it will be anyway.
______________________________________

To read another article by David Limbaugh, click here.

Has the Dependency Endgame Arrived?

2011-11-29T14:36:00.000-08:00

Has the Dependency Endgame Arrived?
The Democrat campaign for 2012 orbits a grim singularity.
by John Hayward
11/29/2011

In the great struggle between liberty and collectivism, the latter has always enjoyed a strategic advantage. Liberty fights a never-ending struggle, but collectivism has an endgame, a point of no return. Stated in its simplest form: once 51% of the population is dependent upon the government, its growth can never be halted, because those who place a high value upon economic freedom will always be outvoted by the dependency class.

The point of no return is actually more difficult to calculate with precision, because national elections are fought across widely varied local terrain, at both the presidential and congressional levels. An article in Monday’s New York Times by Thomas Edsall suggests that some Democrat strategists think the singularity has finally arrived:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

Teixeira, a joint fellow at the Center for American Progress, co-authored a book ten years ago called The Emerging Democratic Majority. It looks as if that majority won’t be emerging after all, but the unhealthy elitist-dependent alliance described by Edsall will have to do.

Edsall’s piece has caused jaws to drop with its unabashedly racialist overtones:

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

One could rewrite that paragraph as a warning to white working-class voters that they’re committing suicide by voting for Democrats, and their only hope for escaping the Big Government vampire is to hand Republicans a 30-point or higher victory margin. I wonder if the New York Times would have published Edsall’s analysis, if it had been written that way.

The racial stuff is just a sledgehammer Democrats use to break apart the middle class, which they properly hate and fear. The middle class combines the voting power to dismantle collectivism with a dangerous appetite for economic liberty. They can’t be bought off as easily as key members of the upper class, and the government can’t afford to cocoon all of them in public-sector jobs. The middle class, in short, is likely to agree with Ronald Reagan’s analysis that “government is not the solution to our problems – government is the problem,” and they have the numbers to make something of that insight at the ballot box.

This is why Democrats are so keen to make the growing middle-class segment of minority populations forget about their middle classness, and focus on whatever comes before the hyphen in their qualified American designation. It’s also why they’re so desperate to shrink the middle class by telling its lower echelons how hopeless their situation is. The “income inequality” canard is useful for this purpose, as it convinces Americans to forget about the astonishing level of income mobility they enjoy. Hopelessness is vital nourishment for socialists, who love to posture as the sole purveyors of “hope.”

Edsall mourns the demise of the New Deal coalition… without pausing to note that it dissolved because the New Deal has been exposed as a ridiculous, and increasingly vicious, lie. A time traveler with a stack of newspapers from 2011, 2001, 1991, or even 1981 could get Franklin Roosevelt laughed out of office. Not even the most dedicated opponents of his agenda, in their most heated speeches, would have dared predict Obama-scale failure… or Bush-scale failure… or Clinton-scale failure. Our “new normal” of fiscal insolvency would have struck the members of the original New Deal coalition as the darkest and most improbable fantasy.

Aware that the population of middle-class suckers is not strong enough to sustain them, the Democrats have set about creating a massive buffet of expensive programs for the underclass, and manufacturing a huge permanent underclass to consume them:

A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.

The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.

Rarely has a pampered elite so openly boasted of its shallow vacuity. Take all our other rights, as long as you encourage our libertine arrogance, and promise to keep us safe from the warped caricature of “the conservative movement” routinely peddled to readers of the New York Times! You can have the rest of the house, commissars, as long as you promise to stay out of the bedroom… aside from the occasional foray to ensure we’re using the proper type of government-approved light bulbs in the bedroom lamps, of course.

Have we reached the point of no return, where Democrats can cobble together a political perpetual-motion machine from those who work for the State, those who depend upon the largesse of the State, and those who worship the State? I have the sense we’re a few elections away from the optimal launch date. Obama’s excesses have jump-started this new political strategy out of desperation. The middle class is still too large, and too keenly aware that the Democrat future is a death trap. The methods necessary to cloud their senses in 2012 will be… what’s the word? Divisive.

Edsall concludes by noting perceptively that “neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.” That won’t be true for much longer. The collectivist endgame is approaching. On that day, we’ll learn exactly how many non-negotiable demands it takes to make a permanent majority.
_______________________________________

To read another article by John Hayward, click here.

Obama Rips Up the Constitution

2011-11-24T20:36:00.000-08:00

Obama Rips Up the Constitution
By Robert Knight
9/20/2011

The Constitution of the United States, whose adoption we celebrate every Sept. 17, clearly lists the powers of each branch of the national government.

Let’s take a look at what Barack Obama, like any president, is empowered to do and see if it squares with his actions. In Article II, Section 1, he is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Section 2 names the president as commander in chief of the armed forces, grants him the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate and to appoint ambassadors, federal judges, cabinet officials and other federal officers. In Section 3, the president “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

In his two years and nine months in office, Barack Obama has compiled a spectacular record of non-compliance with the Constitution. Here are just some of the ways his administration has failed to execute the laws while using raw, unauthorized power.

The Defense of Marriage Act – On Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that, under Obama’s direction, the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA, which is under attack in several federal courts. DOMA, which was passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage for all federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman, and allows states under the Full Faith and Credit clause not to be forced to recognize unions from other states that do not comport with their state marriage laws. Forty-five states have moved to strengthen their marriage laws, with 30 enacting constitutional amendments. Obama, who has played coy with the marriage issue while aggressively promoting the homosexual agenda, is violating his oath of office to appease the gay lobby.

The 15th Amendment – Under Obama, the Justice Department has effectively become a race-based enforcement unit. After New Black Panther Party members were caught on tape intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, the Justice Department declined to defend the convictions, and thus sent the message that baton-wielding thuggishness on Election Day is no big deal. Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, who laid out the case before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, described the administration’s dismissal of charges as “lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.”

Illegal Immigration – The Obama administration has ignored the illegal actions of “sanctuary cities” and instead sued the state of Arizona in July for enforcing federal law. Then, in August, the administration announced a new policy that, in effect, ends enforcement of illegal immigration providing the illegal alien meets the requirements of the DREAM Act, a bill that Congress failed to pass. So, Obama is ignoring current federal law while creating rules based on a law that never passed.

Cap and Trade – In 2010, the Senate rejected a sweeping environmental bill that would have created a massive federal carbon regulation system. Despite this, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would treat carbon dioxide (the air we breathe out) as a pollutant, and begin cracking down on America’s businesses and power plants. The EPA has become a law unto itself. The Obama Administration also has ignored a federal judge’s ruling that it acted illegally in prohibiting new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Obscenity laws – The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, has ignored federal laws against selling obscene materials, prosecuting only a handful of cases. Even though the law is clear and courts routinely hand down convictions, U.S. attorneys don’t bother to enforce the law anymore given the direction from the top. The result is that the Internet is awash in illegal obscenity and even mainstream hotels peddle obscene materials via pay TV.

The Fifth Amendment – The Constitution guarantees that no one is deprived of their property without “due process of law” or without “just compensation.” The National Labor Relations Board’s absurd order to Boeing not to open a newly built $750-million Dreamliner facility in right-to-work South Carolina because unions in Boeing’s home state of Washington object violates that guarantee. Even liberal New York Times columnist Joseph Nocera commented, "Seriously, when has a government agency ever tried to dictate where a company makes its products? I can’t ever remember it happening."

The First Amendment – The NLRB struck again this year, declaring two Catholic universities – St. Xavier University in Chicago and Manhattan College in New York not sufficiently “religious.” If the holdings stand, the schools may see the NLRB assert jurisdiction and rope the faculty and employees into a union election.

While ignoring laws that he is obligated to enforce, Obama has added other duties that would leave America’s Founders scratching their heads. As columnist Don Feder notes,

“Right out of the gate, there was his salaam to the Saudi king and his declaration in the course of a 2009 speech at Cairo University that; ‘I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ That’s in the Presidential-Responsibility-To-Fight-Negative-Stereotypes-Of-Islam section of the Constitution.”

More frightening is Obama’s heavy-handed seizure of the nation’s health care system and ObamaCare’s unconstitutional mandate for everyone to purchase health insurance. Nowhere, not even in the much-abused Commerce Clause, does the Constitution give the government the right to force citizens to engage in commerce. If ObamaCare is upheld, government bureaucrats can pretty much order us to do anything they want.

This list, which could be longer, should include Obama’s failure as commander in chief to lead our armed forces with honor. Can you imagine George Washington's or Gen. George S. Patton’s response to the Obama administration’s doctoring the results of a troop survey. leaking misleading “findings” to the press, ignoring strong opposition by combat troops, and ramming through a policy of homosexualizing the armed forces? This violates 235 years of tradition in the world’s finest military.

Paraphrasing Ted Koppel’s comment about the Ten Commandments, the Constitution is not a set of suggestions. The Constitution’s enumerated powers and limitations ensure maximum liberty in a free republic.

When the chief enforcer shows such profound contempt for the Constitution, he needs to be reminded that no one is above the law. Not even The One.

Does the Government Work for Us, or Do We Work for the Government

2011-11-11T00:32:00.001-08:00

Does the Government Work for Us, or Do We Work for the Government
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
11/10/2011

In America, the federal government seems to control everything. Light bulbs, shoe leather, refrigerators, even the water strength in your shower. Your banker, your doctor, your lawyer, your computer all are regulated beyond belief. What is it in America that the feds can't control? The answer is simple: human nature. We need to eat, and we need to move about; and that means we will use the free market in order to do so, with or without the government.

Every capable human engages in market exchanges, even in those countries where it's illegal. Through all of history, humans have advanced civilization by building up the avenues of trade so as to increase their standards of living. When you buy a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas, you are freely choosing to engage in what remains of the free market. I emphasize "what remains" because when you buy bread, you are paying the local or state government a tax for a product that was baked under conditions set forth by the feds and one of the 50 states, and when you buy fuel for your car, up to one quarter of the cost of the fuel consists of state and federal sales taxes.

Sales taxes constitute a grand theft concocted by politicians and bureaucrats so as to provide them with a never-ending supply of cash they can use to bribe people for their votes. Sales taxes also make items we need more expensive. And they intrude upon our privacy. Think about it. If I want a loaf of bread and you are a grocer willing to sell me one, what business is that of the government? None. What involvement has the government had? None. What has the government done to add value to that transaction? Nothing.

The protesters on Wall Street seem not to understand that free trade is a natural right -- like speech, travel, religion, self-defense, privacy -- and is mutually beneficial to the buyer and the seller. That's why at the end of a transaction, each party says "thank you." We have both benefited. It's a win-win. I have food and fuel, and the seller has revenue. So how is it today that this natural and daily activity has become much maligned and exploited and hated by government elites?

As the global economies have collapsed in the past decade, nothing has been certain except for uncertainty. The world's central banks, drunk on power, loaded their people up with debt and then slowly guided their economies to destruction. That's the consequence of government control of the monetary system and means of exchange. Prices in an economy are like traffic signals, signaling where goods and resources should go and how fast. Central banks distort those traffic signals and even give the wrong signals. That's why we get crashes -- because of government traffic signals, because the government has taken "free" out of the marketplace.

But free trade does occur in the United States in some ways. The black markets are where people trade what they want for the price agreed on, free of taxes and free of government regulations, and at prices that are acceptable to the parties. Simply banning the transaction will not deter some portion of the population from attempting to acquire something -- whether it's bread, tobacco, drugs or guns -- that the government doesn't want us to have, at prices we are willing to pay. People will always trade what they have for what they want or need. That's human nature. That's a natural human right. The government cannot stop that. But, of course, governments have tried to stop the exercise of this right.

During World War II, for example, FDR and his cronies rationed sugar, leather, tea, tobacco, guns, coffee, fuel and many other items our parents and grandparents needed for everyday use. The stated purpose was that the troops needed these items and there was not enough to go around, so the feds would decide who got what and how much all these things would cost. But there was a black market for all these items, and there, the items were plentiful and the price was freely agreed upon. If the government had stayed out of the picture, the market could have existed in the light of day. We now know that FDR was as much interested in control of the population as in supplying the troops.

The government fears trade because it can't control it. The feds would do well to remember the historical truth that where goods and services don't move freely, armies will; and where goods and services do move freely, armies don't. And when the black market becomes more prosperous than the one the government regulates, it will be time to change the government.
___________________________________________

To read a related article, click here.

Government Against Blacks

2011-11-04T16:28:00.000-07:00

Government Against Blacks
By John Stossel
6/1/2011

The other day, I went to Times Square to ask people what government should do to help poor people. Most everyone agreed on the answer: "more social programs and a higher minimum wage."

It's intuitive to think that way. I used to think that, too. When President Johnson declared a "war on poverty," he said "compassionate government" was the road to prosperity for poor people. That made sense to me. At Princeton, I was taught that government's central planners had the solution to poverty.

But then I watched them work. Government spent trillions of dollars on poverty programs, and the poverty level stayed stuck at about 12 percent of the population. It's stayed there for about 40 years.

Now I understand that that government poverty programs encourage people to stay dependent. There's money in it. They policymakers would have known this 25 years ago had they read "The State Against Blacks." The author, an economist, said poverty programs destroy the natural mechanisms that have always enabled poor people to lift themselves out of poverty.

That author is Walter Williams of George Mason University. Williams, who is black, says "there's a huge segment of the black population for whom upward mobility is elusive, and it's because of the welfare state -- because of government."

Williams elaborates in a new book, "Race and Economics." A chief culprit, he insists, is the minimum wage.

"Let's not look at the intentions behind minimum wage," he said. "We have to ask, what are the effects? Put yourself in the place of an employer who must pay $7.25 no matter whom you hire. Will that employer hire a person who can only add $3 or $4 of value per hour?"

He will not. And so fewer young people get hired and "get their feet on the bottom rung of the economic ladder." This hurts all young people, but black teens most, he says, because "many of them get a fraudulent education in the public school system. So a law that discriminates against low-skill people has a doubly negative effect on black teenagers. The unemployment rate among black teens today is unprecedented in U.S. history. In the '40s, black teenage unemployment was less than white teenage unemployment."

And yet a Pew survey says 83 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage.

"People have the misguided notion that the minimum wage is an antipoverty tool."

Economists understand the truth. A survey of the American Economic Association found that 90 percent of economists say the minimum wage increases unemployment.

Williams says the minimum wage law has also been a tool of racism. In his book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism," he studied that country's labor markets during apartheid:

"White racist unions in South Africa that would never have a black as a member were the major supporters of minimum wage laws. Their stated purpose was to protect white workers from having to compete with low-skill, low-wage black workers. In the United States we found some of the same reasoning for support of a super minimum-wage law," the Davis-Bacon Act, which forces taxpayers to pay union-like wages for government-funded construction projects.

Williams says other programs designed to help the poor -- like welfare payments -- have wrecked the lives of millions of black people. He likens the welfare state to a "drug pusher" that keeps people dependent and in poverty.

"The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery (and Jim Crow and racism) could not have done ... break up the black family. Today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two-parent families. Historically, from the 1870s on ... 75-90 percent of black kids lived in two-parent families."

Why does the welfare state create illegitimacy?

"(Without welfare,) people would decide, 'I'm going to go out and get a job, I'm going to live more responsibly.'" And that would include getting married before having children, something the welfare system discourages.

I believe the creators of the welfare state had good intentions, but good intentions aren't good enough. Even if deficit spending were not bankrupting America -- which it is -- America should end these programs.
____________________________________________

To read another article by John Stossel, click here.

Democrats: The Missing Years

2011-11-03T00:09:00.001-07:00

Democrats: The Missing Years
By Jeffrey Lord on 8.12.08 @ 12:08AM

This article is from over three years ago...

The party that championed slavery and segregation erases its race record from history.

Missing: 52 years of history.

Ignored: The other 113 years that take the Democrats from their birth in 1800 to 1965.

As Democrats prepare to nominate Senator Barack Obama to be the first black president, the Democratic National Committee and its chairman Howard Dean have whitewashed the party's horrific and lengthy record of racism. The omission is in the section of the DNC website that describes the party's history. The missing history raises the obvious question of whether the Democrats, unable or simply unwilling to put their party on record as taking direct responsibility for one of the worst racial crimes of the ages, will be able to run a campaign free of the racial animosities it has regularly brought both to American presidential campaigns and American political and social life in general.

What else to make of the official party history as presented by the DNC on its website? It is a history so sanitized of historical reality it makes Stalin look like historian David McCullough.

The DNC website section labeled "Party History," linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats' political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then...poof!...the next sentence says: "As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly." It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.

In a stroke, 52 years of Democrat history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.

So what's missing?

* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were 6 from 1840-1860.

* There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were 7 from 1800-1861

* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868-1948.

* There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Civil Rights heroine Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the front of a "whites only" bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.

* There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."

* There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth banned slavery. The Fourteenth effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision (made by Democrat pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The Fifteenth gave black Americans the right to vote.

* There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of Democratic President Andrew Johnson. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.

* There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

* There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."

* There is no reference to four Democrat platforms, 1908-1920, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching, and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynchings (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

* There is no reference to the DNC-sponsored Democrat Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the Convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering Convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African Americans and Catholics.

* There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government of the United States, specifically at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.

* There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal. There is no reference these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democrat presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

* There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80 percent of the nay vote on the bill in the Senate came from the Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore, Sr., father of future Vice President Al Gore.

* Last, but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact -- yes indeed -- both a member of the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

Reading the DNC's official "Party History" of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading In Through the Looking Glass: "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

Here's this line from the DNC: "With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race..." Truman, of course, was elected in 1948, and to his great credit he did in fact, along with then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey, begin to push the Democrats towards a pro-civil rights stance. This culminated in the passage of the 1960s' Civil Rights laws -- legislation that re-did what was done by Republicans a hundred years earlier but had been undone by the Democrats' support for segregation. But the notion that "Democrats began to bring down the final barriers of race" begs the obvious questions. What were these barriers doing there in the first place? And who exactly was responsible for creating them?

Reading the DNC version of race history in America in which they have erased their own leading role is not unlike checking in on an official German government website and seeing a description of Germany that ends around 1900, then picks up with a sentence that reads "As the mid-20th century came to a close, the German people changed more and more rapidly" followed by another sentence that begins, "With the election of Konrad Adenauer in 1949, Germans began the fight for world peace and to bring down the final barriers of anti-Semitism..." You know, why bother with those inconsequential things like World War I, World War II, Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust? We Germans had nothing really to do with any of it anyway.

AS IF TO CONFIRM the "who, me?" racial psychology behind the DNC website, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats passed a House Resolution on July 29th sponsored by Tennessee Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen. The resolution, passed by voice vote, concludes this way:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) acknowledges that slavery is incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal;

(2) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow;

(3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow; and

(4) expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.

What word is missing here?

You got it. The word "Democrat." Never mentioned anywhere. As with the DNC website, all these terrible things -- somehow, apparently, it seems, so they keep hearing -- happened. Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Cohen and their fellow House Democrats just can't understand how. But, you know, whatever. They are sorry. Really.

Are they? Let's take them up on this.

After all those Democrat platforms and conventions that championed slavery and segregation, what do you think the chances are they will use the occasion of Obama's nomination to have the Democrat platform formally apologize for the active, frequently violent and decidedly official support of the Democratic Party for slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and all the rest?

Better yet, do you think they'll pass a resolution promising to use the funds raised from all those Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraisers to pay reparations for slavery? (Did I mention that while the DNC discusses party co-founders Jefferson and Jackson it neglects to mention that between them the two owned an estimated 360 slaves?)

Will the NAACP and other groups seeking reparations from non-government entities for their role in supporting slavery (companies like Aetna, Wachovia and Chase along with educational institutions like Brown University, etc.) finally zero in on the prime historical mover behind some of the worst chapters in American history? Will they sue the Democrats?

The Democrats are poised to nominate a black man for president of the United States. But will they apologize for slavery? Will they start paying reparations not from tax dollars but their own dollars for what they have done?

Do they have the guts to publicly admit what serious history records of their deeds? Are they capable of running a campaign without playing the race card as they have played it for the better part of two centuries? Can they even escape the race psychology that has indelibly branded them as America's Party of Race?

Or, when it comes to their own responsibility for race relations in America, will they order up more of what, under the circumstances, is a very appropriate word for the DNC website?

Whitewash.
_______________________________________________

To read another article by Jeffrey Lord, click here.
_______________________________________________

To read about more democrats' and racism, click here.

So Long, Tony

2011-11-01T17:00:00.001-07:00

So Long, Tony
By Aaron Goldstein on 11.1.11 @ 6:05AM

Tony La Russa may be retired, but now he can go back to practicing law.

Only hours after the St. Louis Cardinals' improbable comeback in Game 6 of the World Series in which they stood on the precipice of elimination not once, but twice, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that "barring an eleventh hour change of heart" Tony La Russa would return to manage the Cardinals in 2012 for a 17th season. Later that day, the Cardinals defeated the Texas Rangers 6-2 to win a National League record 11th World Series title. Seventy-two hours later, that eleventh hour had arrived. After 33 years of managing in the big leagues, La Russa has announced his retirement.

Well, this sure threw a monkey wrench into my plans.

When I read about his decision, I was in the midst of polishing off an article about how La Russa should come here to Boston and return the Red Sox to their winning ways after their stunning September collapse. The piece had all kind of clever references to La Russa being persuaded to come to New England over Thanksgiving dinner complete with Dave Loggins serenading him. Please come to Boston for the springtime.

Oh well, so much for that.

I suppose there is nothing to prevent Red Sox GM Ben Cherington from arranging a turkey summit with La Russa in Alamo, California. But all things considered, La Russa would be crazy to come here up I-93 North. Sure he might have brought the Red Sox another championship or two, maybe even three. But if Terry Francona could be run out of town on a rail by Red Sox Nation after winning two World Series titles here, what would prevent La Russa from being spared the same fate if the Red Sox were to stumble under his watch?

No, the time has come for Tony La Russa to exit gracefully on the highest of all notes, enjoy the sunset and perhaps rescue a few more animals along the way. A speech in Cooperstown is also surely on the order paper. Perhaps the Baseball Hall of Fame will simultaneously induct La Russa, Bobby Cox and Joe Torre. Whether he is inducted on his own or with his equally formidable contemporaries, there will be a place for La Russa in the shrine of baseball immortality.

The game of baseball will, of course, move on without him but it won't be quite the same. Since I began watching baseball more than three decades ago, La Russa has been a stoic fixture in the dugout with his arms folded first with the Chicago White Sox, then the Oakland Athletics, and for the past sixteen seasons with the St. Louis Cardinals. He has spent nearly half his lifetime filling out lineup cards and manipulating them to the advantage of his teams.

In thirty-three years, La Russa has led his teams to the post-season fourteen times. He guided the Athletics to three straight AL pennants and earned three NL pennants with the Cardinals. In six World Series, La Russa won three rings. The first came with Oakland in 1989 in a World Series best remembered for an earthquake. The second came in 2006 with a Cardinals team that had won only 83 games during the regular season. Despite their modest won-loss record, La Russa joined Sparky Anderson in becoming only the second manager to win a World Series title in both leagues.

As improbable as their 2006 championship seemed, the thought of the Cardinals winning a World Series two months ago seemed impossible, as the Redbirds were 10½ games back of the Atlanta Braves in the NL Wild Card standings in late August. Even more remarkable than that was La Russa managing while afflicted with shingles.

But La Russa would recover and so too would the Cardinals with mid-season acquisitions like starting pitcher Edwin Jackson from the White Sox (via Toronto), shortstop Rafael Furcal from the Dodgers, and bullpen help from ex-Blue Jays Octavio Dotel and Mark Rzepczynski as well as former Ranger Arthur Rhodes. The Cardinals were also wise to resist the temptation to send Lance Berkman to Texas. It also didn't hurt that Chris Carpenter regained his form as a number one starter and Albert Pujols returned quickly from a broken wrist to do what King Albert does best. Then there was David Freese, a so-so third baseman whose bat earned him both NLCS and World Series MVP honors. And let us not forget the Rally Squirrel. Could anyone blame La Russa for enjoying this season more than the rest?

In the grand scheme of things, I suppose passing John McGraw for second place on the all-time managerial win list wasn't so important to La Russa after all. Is he any less worthy of a plaque in the Hall of Fame without those additional 36 games in the win column?

Yet for all of La Russa's success as a big league manager, it is worth remembering that he very nearly took another path altogether. After his less than memorable playing career ended in 1973 with the Chicago Cubs, La Russa would enroll in law school at Florida State University, graduating with a J.D. in 1978 and passing the Florida state bar exam in 1980. But La Russa ultimately chose to spend his life on a baseball field rather than in a courtroom. He remarked, "I decided I'd rather ride the buses in the minor leagues than practice law for a living." For that, a whole generation of baseball fans is grateful. So long, Tony.
__________________________________________

To read another article by Aaron Goldstein, click here

Holt has always been about the children.

2011-11-01T16:40:00.000-07:00

Holt has always been about the children.
A historical perspective

In the mid-1950s Harry and Bertha Holt saw a film about Amerasian children in Korean orphanages who were desperately in need of help. Harry and Bertha sent money and clothes, but that didn’t feel like enough. Then they came to an inspired realization – those children needed families.

Harry and Bertha decided to adopt eight Korean children, but soon learned it would be impossible…unless they could get both Houses of Congress to pass a special law. “Then that’s what we’ll do,” Bertha said, and she moved ahead on faith.

The Holts’ adoption was revolutionary. Their example showed that a family’s love can transcend the barriers of race and nationality. At a time when adoption was regarded as something to be kept secret, they adopted children who were obviously not their birth children. Through their deep Christian faith and fierce determination, they showed the world that adoption is a banner of love, not a badge of shame.

Word spread and inspired people across the nation. Many inquired as to how they, too, could adopt. Only five months after he brought their eight children home, Harry headed back to Korea to help other children have families. Holt was officially incorporated in 1956, financed almost entirely by Harry and Bertha’s personal funds.

When Harry passed away in 1964, many thought the Holt agency would simply fold up. But Bertha said, "This work was always God’s work. If He wants it to continue, it will." Her strength and faith persevered, and Holt continued to grow and meet the needs of an increasing number of homeless children.

Bertha worked tirelessly on behalf or children in need until her death at age 96. She was affectionately known as "Grandma Holt" to adoptive families and to the thousands of children around the world whose lives she changed.

Today, Holt International is proud to continue finding families for children. Holt is the largest adoption agency, having united nearly 40,000 children with adoptive families in the United States. We offer our families unrivaled stability, an extensive knowledge bank, a highly successful track record, and proven skills in international relations.

Most of all, Holt always has and always will be driven by what is best for the children. By upholding Harry and Bertha’s ethics, up-front and honest practices, and ongoing support to adoptive families and children, we look forward to finding many more homes for children who need them.

In Bertha’s words, “All children are beautiful when they’re loved.”

Four Legacies of Feminism

2011-11-01T16:28:00.001-07:00

Four Legacies of Feminism
By Dennis Prager
11/1/2011

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the publication of Betty Friedan's feminist magnum opus, "The Feminine Mystique," we can have a perspective on feminism that was largely unavailable heretofore.

And that perspective doesn't make feminism look good. Yes, women have more opportunities to achieve career success; they are now members of most Jewish and Christian clergy; women's college sports teams are given huge amounts of money; and there are far more women in political positions of power. But the prices paid for these changes -- four in particular -- have been great, and they outweigh the gains for women, let alone for men and for society.

The first was the feminist message to young women to have sex just like men do. There's no reason for young women to lead a different sexual life than men, they were told. Just as men can have sex with any woman solely for the sake of physical pleasure, women ought to be able to enjoy sex with any man just for the fun of it. The notion that the nature of a woman is to hope for at least the possibility of a long-term commitment from a man she sleeps with has been dismissed as sexist nonsense.

As a result, vast numbers of young American women had and continue to have what are called hook-ups, and for some of them it's quite possible that no psychological or emotional price has been paid. But the majority of women who are promiscuous do pay prices. One is depression. New York Times columnist Roos Douthat recently summarized an academic study on the subject: "A young woman's likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished."

Long before this study, I had learned from women callers to my radio show (an hour each week -- "The Male-Female Hour" -- is devoted to very honest discussion of sexual and other man-woman issues) that not only did female promiscuity coincide with depression, it also often had lasting effects on women's ability to enjoy sex. Many married women told me that in order to have a normal sexual relationship with their husbands, they had to work through the negative aftereffects of early promiscuity -- not trusting men, feeling used, seeing sex as unrelated to love and disdaining their husband's sexual overtures. And many said they still couldn't have a normal sex life with their husbands.

The second awful legacy of feminism has been the belief among women that they can and should postpone marriage until they develop their careers -- and that only then should they seriously consider looking for a husband. Thus, the decade or more during which women have the best chance to attract men is spent being preoccupied with developing a career. Again, I cite women callers to my radio show over the past 20 years who have sadly looked back at what they now, at age 40, regard as 20 wasted years. Sure, these frequently bright and talented women have a fine career. But most women are not programed to prefer a great career to a great man and a family. They feel they were sold a bill of goods at college and by the media.

And they were. It turns out that most women without a man do worse in life than fish without bicycles.

The third sad feminist legacy: So many women -- and men -- have bought into the notion that women should work outside the home that for the first time in American history, and perhaps world history, vast numbers of children are not primarily raised by their mothers or even by an extended family member. Instead they are raised for a significant part of their childhood by nannies and by workers at day care centers. Whatever feminists may say about their only advocating choices, everyone knows the truth: Feminism regards work outside the home as more elevating, honorable, and personally productive than full-time mothering and homemaking.

And the fourth awful legacy of feminism has been the de-masculinization of men. For all of higher civilization's recorded history, becoming a man was defined overwhelmngly as taking responsibility for a family. That notion -- indeed the notion of masculinity itself -- is regarded by feminism as the worst of sins: patriarchy.

Men need a role, or they become, as the title of George Gilder's classic book on single men describes them, "Naked Nomads." In little more than a generation, feminism has obliterated roles. If you wonder why so many men choose not to get married, the answer lies in large part in the contemporary devaluation of the husband and of the father -- of men as men, in other words. Most men want to be honored in some way -- as a husband, a father, a provider, as an accomplished something; they don't want merely to be "equal partners" with a wife.

In sum, thanks to feminism, very many women slept with too many men for their own happiness; posponed marriage too long to find the right man to marry; are having hired hands do much of the raising of their children; and now find they are dating boy-men because manly men are so rare.

Feminism exemplifies the truth of the saying, "Be careful what you wish for -- you may get it."
____________________________________________

To read another article by Dennis Prager, click here.

Lincoln's "Living Dog"

2011-11-01T16:27:00.001-07:00

Lincoln's "Living Dog"
By Jeffrey Lord on 11.1.11 @ 6:09AM

Herman Cain's a threat to both the left and the GOP Establishment.

"A living dog is better than a dead lion." -- Abraham Lincoln on the choice between himself and Stephen A. Douglas
Well, well, well.

Or as Private Gomer Pyle used to exclaim: "Surrrrrrr-prize, surrrrrr-prize, surrrrrr-prize!"

You know why all this flapdoodle over Herman Cain and charges of sexual harassment, charges that Mr. Cain has flatly denied? (Here in this Fox News exclusive Herman Cain is what Abraham Lincoln called a "living dog.")

A living dog? Yes, and we'll come back to this in a moment because it bears directly on what's happening here. As Herman Cain the "living dog" comes under the inevitable attack from the left, if conservatives understand where they are, where they appear to be heading, where they've been, it becomes easier (although perhaps not easy) to understand what to do next -- and how and with whom to do it.

There are two parts to this disgraceful attack. Both must be examined to understand exactly what is going on with this story.

Part One? History. And this history has two parts within.

So let's begin -- and let's be blunt.

Let's recall in some detail how this racial game -- and it is a racial game -- is played.

Liberals and the Democratic Party have a two centuries long vivid and extremely graphic history of racism. (Detailed previously here ). From the almost thirty -- thirty! -- party platforms that either supported slavery or segregation or chose to be silent on the subject, to an alliance with the Ku Klux Klan, electing Klan members to all manner of political offices federal, state and local, not to mention supporting everything from lynching to the racial quotas of today, racism has been the life blood of the left.

Part and parcel of all this has been the fine art of portraying black men as sexual predators. And dealing with these black men so accused in a terrifyingly horrific fashion: they would be lynched.

One could fill cyberspace with these stories, but perhaps one of the more famous is the story of Emmett Till. PBS once did a documentary on the Emmett Till case and as the crescendo rises from the liberal media lynch mob about Mr. Cain it is worth a look at what PBS notes on its website about this particular issue.

Said PBS, no outpost of conservatism:

Some whites espoused the idea that black men were sexual predators and wanted integration in order to be with white women…. Lynchings were frequently committed with the most flagrant public display. Like executions by guillotine in medieval times, lynchings were often advertised in newspapers and drew large crowds of white families. They were a kind of vigilantism where Southern white men saw themselves as protectors of their way of life and their white women. By the early twentieth century, the writer Mark Twain had a name for it: the United States of Lyncherdom…. Lynchings were covered in local newspapers with headlines spelling out the horrific details. Photos of victims, with exultant white observers posed next to them, were taken for distribution in newspapers or on postcards. Body parts, including genitalia, were sometimes distributed to spectators or put on public display. Most infractions were for petty crimes, like theft, but the biggest one of all was looking at or associating with white women. Many victims were black businessmen or black men who refused to back down from a fight. Headlines such as the following were not uncommon:

"Five White Men Take Negro Into Woods; Kill Him: Had Been Charged with Associating with White Women" went over The Associated Press wires about a lynching in Shreveport, Louisiana."

Did you catch those two particular sentences above? These two:

Most infractions were for petty crimes, like theft, but the biggest one of all was looking at or associating with white women. Many victims were black businessmen or black men who refused to back down from a fight.

To restate. Black businessmen who refused to back down from a fight were lynched because they had been "looking at or associating with white women."

And who is Herman Cain? That's right. A prominent black businessman. A black man who is refusing to back down from a fight. A black man who, quite obviously from his business career in a largely white country, necessarily is "looking at or associating with white women."

Now, bearing this history in mind, let's recall the second part of this history -- the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky episode.

Several years after the term "high-tech" lynching exploded on the scene at the confirmation hearings of now-Justice Clarence Thomas -- Thomas, recall, is a conservative black man married to a white woman -- the American left had a mysterious change of heart. After furiously insisting that "women tell the truth" in matters of sexual harassment, and that the real story was that men didn't "get it" -- Bill Clinton came along and liberals did… shocking, I know… a 180.

As the damn broke on Clinton's sexual behavior -- including allegations of rape (from Juanita Broaddrick, a one-time supporter), groping in the Oval Office (Kathleen Willey, another supporter and White House volunteer), dropping his pants as governor and asking state employee Paula Jones to "kiss it" -- liberals suddenly had a whole different world view.

Did I mention that Bill Clinton is a white man and a liberal?

Sorry. Bill Clinton is a white man and a liberal.

So what exactly were the responses back then in the day? When the man in question was not a black conservative but a white liberal?

Clinton's critics, fumed liberals, were uptight, religious fanatics. A massive liberal campaign was launched -- directly from the Clinton White House -- to discredit every single woman or conservative who took issue with Clinton's womanizing. Clinton's critics, scorned James Carville, were determined "to wash all the sodomites and fornicators out of town."

Also from Carville the memorable gem "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." A reference, of course, to Paula Jones, who was quickly deemed to be an unsophisticated redneck rube.

Of a sudden, not all women told the truth.

Kathleen Willey was trashed. Juanita Broaddrick filed a lawsuit -- and was promptly audited by the Clinton-controlled IRS. Paula Jones was humiliated, mocked and smeared from one end of the country to the other for everything from her accent to her economic and educational status. Liberals were ruthless. Absolutely totally ruthless. And among other things, ironically established a consensus that sexual harassment is no big deal.

Let's move on from history to politics.

To begin, what was Lincoln talking about? Why does Herman Cain fit precisely Lincoln's "living dog" description? What do we need to understand here?

Lincoln borrowed his point from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 9:4: "For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.") in his fabled House Divided speech, using it to contrast himself with Stephen A. Douglas. Said candidate Lincoln: "A living dog is better than a dead lion."

By which Lincoln meant that a man who cares nothing for the task at hand is what he termed a "caged and toothless" lion when it comes to doing the job that needs to be done. Lincoln was referring to Douglas's unwillingness to end slavery. In today's world Cain is effectively using the same sentiment to illustrate his differences with rival Mitt Romney and others -- President Obama included -- on everything from how to approach changing the tax code (Cain's 9/9/9 plan) to putting the brakes on the growth of government and, most tellingly, refusing to buy into the dime store New Deal mentality that has become a hallmark of Establishment moderate Republicans.

As the polls show, Mr. Cain is gaining fans because of his performance in the GOP debates. He is being perceived as a potential "living dog" in the White House -- all teeth and energy in tearing relentlessly into the problem. How, the question arises, can a President Romney possibly oppose the growth of government when he went out of his way as governor to increase it? Demonstrating he not only didn't oppose the idea of big government but that he now seems bent on convincing the public they shouldn't care that he doesn't care.

And how can the GOP Establishment in Washington be committed to the task when so many feed off of that very same government? Are not Romney and the larger GOP Establishment the very embodiment of Lincoln's "caged and toothless lion"? Is not Herman Cain -- his color quite aside -- a more serious political threat to both the GOP Establishment and the Liberal Establishment as opposed to just another political competitor?

We are in the midst of a tremendous popularity surge for Mr. Cain. Poll after poll is emerging both nationally and now in Iowa showing him at the front of the GOP pack. Like clockwork, and precision clockwork at that, now comes forth the allegation, an "exclusive" in the liberal media outlet Politico, of "inappropriate behavior" that was "sexually suggestive." Years ago.

Let's again be blunt. Mr. Cain is black. Were his female accusers white? Politico doesn't say. Certainly the Politico lists two white male reporters in the byline of the Cain story. One, Kenneth Vogel, is an ex-staffer for the far left George Soros funded Center for Public Integrity, as noted here.

And the tie between the left and lynching, as PBS notes, "black businessmen" who were "looking or associating with white women" and "who refused to back down from a fight" is historically airtight.

But whatever the color of Mr. Cain's accusers both the pattern of this attack as well as the reason for it is crystal clear.

You might call it The Meaning of the President 2012.

The presidential election of 2012 will mark the 48th year since the defeat at the 1964 Republican Convention of the then-dominant Republican moderates by conservatives. The avowed complaint then from infuriated moderates was that conservatism could not win elections, much less govern the country.

In practice, the loss of elections has since occurred when moderates (Ford, Bush 41, Dole, McCain) headed the ticket. Close election victories rather than landslides have resulted when the nominee campaigned as a moderate (the "compassionate conservatism" of George W. Bush). And under the command of both Bushes, from the raising of taxes (in violation of 41's "read my lips" pledge) to Bush 43's embrace of such as a Medicare prescription drug program and education's No Child Left Behind -- the size and cost of government has increased.

It seems altogether obvious that the size and cost of government -- now with the country dangling precipitously over the canyon of a $15 trillion debt -- will not decrease with a Republican president until a flash point, a crisis, is reached within the Republican Party itself. Reached, resolved and passed.

To borrow from Abraham Lincoln: A party divided against itself cannot stand. A conservative party that is led by a moderate will eventually split asunder.

The GOP won't dissolve or disappear. But just as Lincoln predicted of America in the middle of the slavery controversy, the GOP will become all one thing or all the other. Either conservatives will continue the party's evolution back into the party of American conservatism it was at its founding, or moderates will make moderation -- the idea of the dime store New Deal -- palatable everywhere into the farthest reaches of the GOP.

Lest there be anyone who thinks the chances of the latter are unthinkable, it would be important to think of party history exactly in terms of these last 48 years since 1964. If one thinks of the federal government as, say, a governmental version of the popular movie franchise Transformers (described by Wikipedia as the story of: "alien robots who can disguise themselves by transforming into everyday machinery") a clearer picture of what has been happening to the GOP for those 48 years can be seen.

Some of the more visible "everyday machinery" that has been transforming the robotic federal government into even larger size with a costlier price tag has been welded on courtesy of the moderation impulse of various Republican presidents.

Contemplate that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now run amok in the Obama era was a creation of Richard Nixon. Or that Bush 43 dismissed the Reagan idea of getting rid of the growing bureaucracy that is the Department of Education as not "realistic' of leadership and instead decided in favor of launching an expansion of the federal government's role in education by launching No Child Left Behind -- with no less than the late "Liberal Lion" Senator Ted Kennedy as his partner. Not to mention the Bush signing of McCain-Feingold and Sarbanes-Oxley.

And so on… and on.

The first GOP platform after 1964 -- 1968 -- found the Republican Party that nominated Richard Nixon that year including a plank titled "The Individual and Government" which stated:

In recent years an increasingly impersonal national government has tended to submerge the individual. An entrenched, burgeoning bureaucracy has increasingly usurped powers, unauthorized by Congress. Decentralization of power, as well as strict Congressional oversight of administrative and regulatory agency compliance with the letter and spirit of the law, are urgently needed to preserve personal liberty, improve efficiency, and provide a swifter response to human problems.

But by July of 1970, a bare two years and four months later, the Nixon Administration created the EPA -- by executive order. There was not a single enabling piece of legislation from Congress involved. The Nixon executive order opened the door to a massive national intrusion of what the platform specifically said the GOP opposed -- "an increasingly impersonal national government (that) has tended to submerge the individual." Beginning operations in December of 1970, EPA is now a federal behemoth employing almost 18,000 full-time employees, daily injecting into everyday American life proposed rules and regulations on everything from global warming to commercial boilers to private property.

In one recent case cited by the Heritage Foundation, the problems with moderate Republican presidencies is vividly illustrated.

Alaska small businessman Krister Evertson, who had never had a run-in with the law in his life, was run off the road and jailed by a SWAT team armed with automatic weapons. Why? Because he had not used a properly approved EPA label he had never heard of for a small shipment of sodium. Evertson wound up doing two years in prison.

When did this happen?

That's right. In 2004 -- when the EPA was under the administration of one George W. Bush.

Thus the "dime store New Deal" of moderate Republicans -- in this case from Nixon to Bush -- at work in practice. (Here is Mr. Evertson's congressional testimony from 2009.)

This is now a considerably polished approach by GOP moderates. So run-of-the-mill routine that in his memoirs President George W. Bush apparently never thought his signing of the Sarbanes-Oxley "Corporate Responsibility" legislation was worth mentioning. The compliance costs for American business from this gem of Republican regulatory moderation were predicted to be $1.2 billion. In fact, they now hover in the stratosphere of $35 billion. And this from a president who ran on a platform with a plank promising -- no kidding -- "Common Sense in Regulation."

These few examples (and many more not mentioned here) show precisely where conservatives and the Republican Party are now -- and where they will continue to head unless serious change is at hand.

In effect the philosophical strategy or lack thereof that has guided the Nixon, Ford, and two Bush presidencies over the last 48 years since that return to basics that was the 1964 Convention has exactly built almost to specification a Republican Party which has a conservative political foundation supporting moderate if not liberal governments. Governments which in turn wind up creating regulatory nightmares like the EPA or Sarbanes-Oxley and the rest.

Which means conservatives watching the 2012 jockeying for the Republican presidential nomination face a considerable task to prevent the continuation of this trend. Plainly, Romney promises in so many words that a Romney presidency would re-channel the thinking of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and the father and son Bushes. He honestly pretends to nothing else.

Leaving conservatives across the country knowing what must be done. Yet struggling to understand how -- and importantly with whom -- to do it.

What they are actually doing is examining the field for Lincoln's "live dogs." Those who care strongly enough about the changes they are promising and plan to look back in their farewell address to the nation as they leave office with the satisfaction they sank serious teeth into the task -- with results to show for it.

Or, as Reagan himself put it in his farewell address to the nation in January of 1989: "My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference."

Added into this mix, working hand in glove with the dime-store New Dealers, is the drive by this or that Republican consultant and lobbyist to convince conservatives they can't win independent votes and simply shouldn't care that the next Republican president would turn out like four of the last five.

That means something must be done to stop the popularity of Herman Cain.

Which in turn leaves a wide field of "suspects" for those who would seek to torpedo the Cain campaign. No one yet knows the source here, but in this day and age of the Internet it is difficult to believe they will escape unrevealed.

Was the source a GOP consultant/lobbyist with ties to a Cain rival?

Or was it a left-winger acting on the centuries' old and well proven animus of the left for the uppity black man -- a hatred that once summoned the noose of the lynchers? And now, if you are a conservative black man like Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas before him as opposed to a white liberal man like Bill Clinton -- makes you the target for exactly that same animus. Except this time it's a high tech lynching, fed to a couple of lefty white male reporters at Politico.

Either way, one thing is clear.

Abraham Lincoln would recognize Herman Cain instantly.

Why?

Because Herman Cain is exactly Abraham Lincoln's "living dog" incarnate. Which makes him one very big, double-barreled threat. To both the GOP Establishment, because of his outsider views. And the left wing, because he's a black man with conservative views.

What is this sexual harassment story really all about?

Somebody wants that damnable living dog Herman Cain rounded up.

And Politico is supplying the political rope.
___________________________________________

To read another article by Jeffrey Lord, click here.

What’s The Big Idea?

2011-10-30T21:33:00.000-07:00

What’s The Big Idea?
A decade of family building…

What’s the big idea? It's actually a long series of smaller ideas of which I can only take credit for a few of them. My wife Cheryl gets the credit for most of these ideas, and I’d be remiss if I failed to mention God – who gave us encouragement and pushed us along the way while knocking down occasional barriers for us.

This story begins in 1999 after Cheryl and I failed to conceive a child on our own, despite a surgery for Cheryl and various different fertility treatments for us both as a couple. Basically we came to a point where we decided together that we were not meant to have biological children. It was at this point that Cheryl told me she had been doing some research into international adoptions. She also did research into domestic adoptions and decided that the best chance for us to become parents was if we adopted a child from overseas. Something like adoption had never even occurred to me. I had no knowledge about the subject and I wasn’t very enthused when Cheryl first mentioned it to me. She wanted me to look at some information and I just wasn’t very gung-ho about it at all. As it sometimes happens I misjudged how important this was to Cheryl, so she was upset by my lack of enthusiasm. So I figured I better at least look at the information she found doing internet research. The more I read about, the more it intrigued me so I kept looking into international adoption.

Cheryl had sort of locked onto an adoption agency that is local known as Holt International, and its Korean program. The main reason she was looking at this program was at the time it was one of the cheaper programs, and it had the escort option. This means we wouldn’t have to travel to South Korea to receive our new child, the child would arrive with an escort at a local airport where we would then receive them. Cheryl also told me about an article she read when she was twelve or so about The Holts - Harry and Bertha, and their story which made a big impression on her. One thing I discovered was a couple didn’t necessarily have to be rich to adopt a child, which I had always assumed was something so expensive that you’d have to be very well-off financially. It was actually cheaper than in-vitro fertilization (IVF) would be, of which there’s only around 33% success rate. With international adoptions if we qualified as a couple there was pretty much a 100% success rate. Also looking back in my past I had been stationed in Seoul, South Korea when I served in the U.S. Army. I had really enjoyed my time there and developed an affinity for the Korean people whom I met and worked with and did several other activities with them. This contributed to me deciding with Cheryl to go ahead with this first step of the plan. So we filled out our first initial application to adopt a child through Holt International’s Korea Program in late 1999 – right before Y2K. Y2K of course is the year 2000 when all of our computers were supposed to crash because their clocks weren’t set up for the next century, but it didn’t happen.

Kim, Jang Mee (kind shine) - Leah

Holt assigned us a social worker named Lisa Muntz. She is the one who wrote up our home study which is one of the main steps in an adoption process to determine if we were qualified to adopt a child, and what type of child would be a match for us. She visited our home 3 different times learning more and more information about us, our home, and our surrounding community. We also attended PIP (Parenting in Process) classes. We had to do legal background checks and each pass medical physicals. We also had to get permission from our government through immigration so our child could obtain the proper visa to leave their country and to enter the U.S.A. We had to be very specific about what type of child we would accept – boy, girl, or either – what special needs we would be open to them having (or not) – age range, etc. There were always fees to be paid along the way and they had to be paid for before we could continue to the next step. The whole process took months and sometimes over 1 year.

Sometime in late 2000 we received our first referral. It was for a baby girl who was just a few months old. She was born premature (32 weeks) and her information said she had possible liver problems and estropia, or crossed-eyes. Holt gave us about a few days to decide if we wanted to accept this baby as our daughter. We had her health, development, and size information, and one picture of her when she was 2 months old (she was sleeping) to use to decide. It didn’t take us long to decide we would accept this child as our first daughter (and child). After this our adoption fee was due, which was the largest fee, and we also had to provide the escort fee to pay for our daughter (whom we would name Leah) and her escort’s plane travel. We also had to pay for the post-adoption fees, which involved 3 social worker visits and her recommendation for approval for our agency to allow us to finalize our adoption. We had arranged beforehand that my parents would lend us the money for these fees. We could’ve borrowed from our credit union but my parents graciously provided us with an interest-free loan, which we repaid in a couple of years. We had to wait for over 6 more months, during which time an eye surgery was performed on Leah without our approval – which extended her time in Seoul. Finally in late May, 2001 we received a call from Holt-Oregon that our first child would arrive at the Des Moines Airport at 11something p.m. on May 31st. So we started this idea – this process in late 1999, and it was now close to the middle of 2001 so it took us 17 months to become parents from when we committed to adopt internationally. It was a long, hard road to get to this point, but it was definitely worthwhile.

We rented a car to drive to Des Moines because all of the decent traveling vehicles we owned at this time were trucks (which changed fairly quickly afterwards). We stopped in Ankeny, Iowa to pick up my sister Lori, so she could come and help us by taking pictures and video of this huge event in our lives. At around midnight Leah arrived and was placed in Cheryl’s arms by a middle-aged Korean lady who served as her escort. Leah was sleepy, but apparently according to her escort she spent a lot of the long flight crying, and the escort was wearing a fairly damp blouse to prove she was right. It was now June 1st, 2001 and the next day was my 39th birthday. I’ve always told Leah she was the best birthday gift I had ever received. So now Cheryl and I were parents to a baby girl who was just a little less than 10-months-old. Our OJT (on-the-job-training) as parents began. If you would like to read more about these times, click here.

Leah’s adjustment to us and her new home was pretty rough. Her internal clock was thrown off and she grieved on and off for the first couple weeks or so. Her sleeping patterns were sporadic so Cheryl and I actually slept in shifts. Leah bonded to Cheryl before she bonded to me. I would say it took Leah almost 2 months to bond to me. She would let me play silly games like peek-a-boo with her, and she sometimes let me feed her. She wouldn’t let me hold her for quite a while, so Cheryl had to do the comforting, bathing, diapering, and most of the feeding for quite some time. I did most of the other stuff like housework, dishes, errands, etc. Cheryl had 9 weeks off from work and I had 3 weeks off. When Cheryl returned to work that’s when we started working opposite shifts – Cheryl moved to 1st shift and I stayed on 2nd shift so daycare was never necessary. Previously we both worked 2nd shift, which we both prefer, but we had a deal that if our first child was a boy that I would have to go to 1st shift. Leah’s a girl so Cheryl had to go there. Cheryl had to carry Leah around quite a bit which usually stopped Leah from being upset. We were new, inexperienced parents trying to figure this out on our own. I remember Leah had the weirdest way of getting around. She could crawl on all-fours, but would also use her legs and the back of her head to slide around on her back. This caused her to develop a bald spot on the back of her head. It was just a little over a month before she was standing up by using furniture and walking, and before she turned one she was walking on her own. Before this she used walkers and allowed us to hold her hands and help her to walk.

We don’t really know what Leah’s vision was like; we could tell it wasn’t good. Possibly everything was a blur for her. We had been taking Leah for doctor’s visits and soon got her set up with a local ophthalmologist/surgeon. His name was Dr. Sinjay Shah. It was pretty clear to everyone that Leah’s eye surgery for her estropia that she received back in Seoul was unsuccessful. Dr. Shah decided Leah needed another surgery, but he wanted for us to discover whatever we could about what the previous surgeon in Korea had done during Leah's first eye surgery, and maybe provide any notes. The reason Dr. Shah needed these notes is he likes to have a plan before he does any surgery, and to know what was done previously to Leah’s eyes would supply him with necessary information. So we contacted Holt-Oregon to see if they could get Holt-Korea to contact the surgeon who performed Leah’s first eye operation and get this information. We waited a couple of months before they told us the surgeon refused to provide the information. In the meantime Leah endured some eye patching for a few hours each day to force her to use her weaker eye. In November 2001, Dr Shah performed the surgery on Leah’s eyes by shortening eye muscles on the outsides of her eyes. The surgery was successful and Leah could see well for the first time. It changed her disposition as well from being kind of a grumpy baby to being happy with a sunnier disposition. It was pretty remarkable to us. When Leah finally bonded to me after a couple of months she became a “daddy’s girl,” but she made me work for it for sure. So for a couple of years Leah was our only child and I don’t remember having any plans to adopt again, but Cheryl was definitely thinking about it and soon was gradually trying to convince me again to adopt another child. She didn’t have to work at it too hard because I had always wanted a son.

In 2003 Cheryl came up with a plan that we should have an addition built onto our house, and when we borrow the money to do this addition to borrow enough extra to pay for the larger adoption fees. We needed a bigger house so our daughter and a new son wouldn’t have to share bedrooms in future. Also the prices of homes were climbing so it made financial sense to build now. So we hired a local contractor to add 2 bedrooms with a basement below addition to our house. We also had our furnace replaced and added central air conditioning and a new water heater. Since we were going from a 3-bedroom (one in the basement) to a 5-bedroom house, we had to have our whole septic system replaced. We also had our whole house resided. All of this work was happening while we were in the process of adopting a son through the Holt-Korea Program. Our first adoption was through the regular (NSN non-special-needs) program, but this time we decided to adopt though Holt-Korea’s Waiting Child Program. These are children who were not referred to anyone due to having special needs, and are usually older (toddlers). Cheryl found our son on Holt’s photolistings, a boy who was born premature (32 weeks) and had some slight delays, as well as an ASD (atrial septal defect) or a small hole in his heart, which had since healed on its own. For the waiting child program, Holt-Oregon held committees to decide which family would get to adopt a child when more than one family was interested in the child, or even if only one family wanted to adopt them – to determine if they are a good match for the child. We were chosen to be this boy’s new parents. His name was Choi, Jung Wook, but we would name him Alexander.

Choi, Jung Wook (Right Shine) – Alexander.

So in 2003 we decided to adopt a son from South Korea, a brother for Leah. We jumped into this process in the summer and by the fall we are getting all this work done on our house. Cheryl and I are doing all of the staining of the new doors and woodwork, as well as painting many walls. We are doing the usual adoption process steps, raising our daughter, and working our jobs accepting whatever overtime we could get. It was a very busy time. While our addition was being built occasionally I would walk around with our video camera recording the progress and little Leah would follow me around saying over and over again “me see Leah” “me see Leah.” When I would flip the video camera’s LCD display around so she could see herself she would get so excited and start jumping up-and-down and clapping – it was so cute! We discovered when you adopt a child through Holt-Korea’s Waiting Child Program that the process can go much quicker. This time the whole process from initial application to receiving our new son took only 7 ½ months, compared to the 17 months that Leah’s adoption process took. We also discovered that some couples were starting to travel to Seoul, South Korea to receive their children instead of using an escort, and apparently it was quite an experience. I talked to Bob Tobin, who with his wife Mary had adopted 2 sons from Korea and he recently traveled to receive their second son. His description of his experience made me interested for us to travel to receive Alexander when it was time. In February 2004 we received our travel call to receive Alex, and Cheryl and I had decided earlier that I would travel to Seoul to receive Alex while she stayed home to care for Leah. Other than little puddle-jumper flights, this would be my first long flight in almost 20 years, which was when I flew home from Seoul, South Korea in 1985 after having been stationed there for 1 ½ years. I was anxious to meet our new son Alexander, and also to get another opportunity to see Korea again – 20 years later!

It’s winter, February, 2004, and the temperatures are below zero degrees here in Iowa. The puddle jumper plane I was flying to Chicago was actually frozen to the runway. It couldn’t even move away from the gate to taxi down the runway, so they had to bring out the de-icer truck and thaw the ice off the plane. As a result we took off from Cedar Rapids in time to catch my United flight to Japan, and then Seoul, South Korea. When we were over South Korea it was around 8 p.m. and it was dark outside. The skies were clear so I could see an outline of Korea by the lights below. I could see where all of the big cities were, especially Seoul which has over 20 million people in its metropolitan area. I could also see that North Korea was very dark, hardly any lights were visable. I wrote a whole story of this journey on a blog, if you would like to read about it just click here. Just to summarize a bit – it was an incredible journey and experience. Alexander was 22-months-old and the day I received him for good and he was separated from his foster family was a rough day. I brought home our first son, and a lot of our family showed up to greet us at our local airport when we returned home. Now we were a family of four!

On the first night Alex was with our family we decided to go to a local restaurant to eat supper, just the 4 of us. Our church Pastor Dale Holloway just happened to be there as well, so we introduced our new son to him. Alex greeted him by punching him in the face. Next Sunday in church Pastor Dale had us bring Alex up in front of the congregation to introduce him, and warned them to watch out for his right hook. This little incident (among others) was just a warning of things to come. Alex also had a rough adjustment period to our family, but overall it wasn’t as difficult as Leah’s adjustment period. Alex would be well-behaved, playful, and happy for the most part, but he could also throw major fits at the drop of a hat. For a long while he thought it was OK to just hit people, including Cheryl and myself. Fortunately while I took my customary 3 weeks off from work, Cheryl took an opportunity to take voluntary lay-off from work. This turned out to be 6 months long. Alex really needed this extra time with at least one of us being there with him most of the time, and better Cheryl than myself because Alex mostly responds well to Cheryl. After a couple of doctors visits and examinations it was discovered that Alex’s hole in his heart did heal well, but he (like Leah) had a small detectable heart murmur that the doctors didn’t seem too concerned about. Alex is a character like Leah, and he often carried around a stuffed pikachu pokemon that his foster family had given him back in Korea. He liked to chew on this stuffed toy and over time it became pretty ragged. We always tell Alex that he has smiling eyes – his eyes look like little smiles. So for the rest of 2004 our family consisted of Cheryl, myself, Leah, and Alex, but toward the end of 2004 we had already decided to adopt another son from the waiting child program.

Huh, Min Jae (Strong Timber) – Benjamin.

In the later part of 2004 Cheryl continued watching Holt’s photolistings. She was monitoring the progress of another waiting child boy named Huh, Min Jae. His diagnosis at birth was perinatal asphyxia, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, multi-organ failure, Richets, and anemia. Basically his organs shut down at birth and he was revived. It was thought that he might have cerebral palsy and delays due to the loss of oxygen to his body (brain). Cheryl monitored his progress for months while he remained on the photolisting. We decided if Min Jae got to the point where it seemed like he would be OK developmentally then we’d go to Holt’s WC committee to see if we could be his parents. His progress reports were promising so we went for it and were approved to be his parents. He is our only Korean child whom we decided to keep some of his Korean name – we named him Benjamin Jae, so we kept the Min Jae. We started Ben’s adoption in December 2004 and both Cheryl and I traveled to Seoul, South Korea to receive Benjamin as our 3rd child and our 2nd son toward the end of May 2005. So this adoption process was even shorter than Alex’s, just under 6 months from initial application to receiving Benjamin.

When we traveled to Seoul, Leah and Alex stayed with their Grandparent’s for roughly seven days. Cheryl and I flew to Dallas, TX., and from there we took a Korean Air flight straight to Seoul. I also wrote a blog with pictures about this journey which goes into way more detail and can be viewed here. Like Alex, Benjamin was 22-months-old when we received him and in good health. He was (and is) a happy, funny, and strong boy. During this trip we did a lot of sightseeing and we actually were invited to spend an evening with Min Jae’s foster family to eat supper and visit a cool light exhibit in Seoul. When we received Benjamin for good he only grieved for about 10 minutes or so, and then he was done. Ben liked to take baths and he liked to sleep a lot back in those days. Benjamin’s adjustment to our family and to his new siblings went pretty smooth. He would sometimes bite Leah or Alex if they were mean to him or tried to take a toy from him (which may or may not have been their toy). His doctor’s visits went well and we had ourselves a bright and healthy new son who didn’t end up having cerebral palsy or any other problems. So now we were a family of five!

During Benjamin’s adoption process in 2004-2005 Holt International was really pushing their China program hard. There was a great need for parents to adopt the many girls in China who were abandoned due to China’s one-child per family laws. As a result Chinese adoptions really started to pick up again. At this point obviously we were staying with adopting from South Korea through the Holt International adoption agency. Now it was 2005 and I turned 43 just after we received Benjamin. By the time Cheryl and I both decided we wanted to adopt another daughter and the sister for Leah that she kept praying for and asking us to get for her, it was 2006. back in June 2005, since I turned 43-years-old I officially aged out of Holt’s Korea Program. So they were no longer an option as an adoption agency to help us grow our family.

An Adoption Crossroad.

So as far as I was concerned, we were through with the Holt-Korea program. Cheryl was still looking at various waiting children adoption photolistings, mostly Rainbow Kids. She found a cute little toddler girl from Guatemala so we decided to look at her file to find out more about her. She was almost 3-years-old and she had some developmental delays to which because of her young age they didn’t know the extent of these delays. We were sent a video of her walking in a four-wheel walker. She didn’t show much emotion or awareness, and we ultimately decided there were too many unknowns about her and we (mostly I) didn’t feel comfortable enough to continue. This led us to the possibility of adopting another waiting child through another local adoption agency who had a higher ceiling on their parental age requirements than did Holt International. The new agency was CHSFS (Children’s Home Society Family Services) based in Minnesota, but they had a small office in Cedar Rapids that had just started up. We filled out their initial application and paid their application fee to get started. Dealing with CHSFS was difficult – we just didn’t work well together and nothing ever seemed to happen. Their social worker who was over the waiting child program was very gruff and very particular – too particular for our own comfort level, so we ended up dumping them. In early 2006 Cheryl was checking into the Holt-China waiting child program. We looked at a couple girl toddlers’ files and ultimately decided not to go to committee for them. One was a cute little 2-year-old girl named Yu Jao Jao, who had spinal bifida and was incontinent. One night Jessica from Holt-China’s waiting child program called us about another 2-year-old girl from Hunan province in China. She was born with a cleft palate that had been surgically repaired in China, and she also had a large birthmark on her right-side of her neck going up to her scalp. She also had a slight ear lobe deformity on her right ear, and had speech and hearing problems. This little girls name was Xiao, Wen Xin and she grew up in an orphanage in Zhu Zhou City.

Xiao, Wen Xin – Jenna.

So we looked at Wen Xin’s file. Her picture was cute, but like most girls who live in orphanages in China her hair was cut short so she looked more like a boy. We read over her file and sent it to an international adoption specialist to look it over. We did a lot of research on cleft palates and possible future outcomes and surgeries. We decided to accept her as our new daughter and we didn’t even have to go to committee this time to be approved to be her parents, we just started her adoption process from this point. We knew that since Jenna grew up in an institution rather than in a foster home that she could have attachment issues, and would certainly at least start out behind developmentally for her age. Jenna’s adoption process took place through most of 2006 and well into 2007. One difference between Korean and Chinese adoptions was for this adoption we had to do a dossier, which meant a significant increase in paperwork and time. We accomplished the dossier step-by-step with the help of a dossier guide named Masha Ma. She told us what to do, when to do it, and how much money to send along. The whole adoption process from initial application to travel took almost as long as Leah’s adoption process took – almost 17 months, but by July 2007 we were ready to travel to China to receive our second daughter and fourth child whom we decided to name Jenna WenXin. First we would travel to the capitol city of China, Beijing. This is where our orientation happens and we also get to see some sites like The Great Wall, Tiananmen Square, the Forbidden City, etc. Then we travel southward to Changsha, which is where we receive Jenna and complete her adoption in her province. Then we travel further southward to Guangzhou, which is where the U.S. Consulate is located and where Jenna receives her visa physical and her visa to legally enter and reside (and later become a citizen) in the United States.

We would be gone for 17 days (about 2 ½ weeks) and during this time Leah, Alex, and Benjamin stayed with my parents (Dick and Donna). Our dogs all stayed at Cheryl’s sister Heather’s house with her husband Bill. We arranged for our neighbor Kayla to feed our horses each day (with help from her father David). Like our other adoption journeys I wrote a detailed story about this journey in a blog with pictures. It can be seen if you click here. Just to give a short summary (if that’s even possible), it was a great trip for Cheryl and I to take together – we had a great time. When we received Jenna she grieved a little, but only for 15-20 minutes. She was very quiet, but she warmed up to us pretty quickly. Jenna let me hold her for a bit when we first met her, but after that she was a little afraid of me for several days so I couldn’t hold her or carry her, so Cheryl had to do all of that again. She would play silly games with me and let me bribe her with M&M’s, but when they were gone so was she. Jenna was comfortable with us in our hotel rooms in Changsha and Guangzhou, but when we were out and about she would become very quiet and withdrawn. In both Beijing and Guangzhou we were mostly with seven other families who were also there to adopt a child, and we usually had a guide who spoke English and of course Chinese. In Changsha though we were by ourselves and we had a guide named Shirley, who spoke good English. So Shirley could help us with communicating with Jenna, though as I mentioned Jenna was very quiet and only had a basic Chinese vocabulary. Jenna was 3 years and 2 months old at this time.

When we received Jenna we met the director of her orphanage. I asked her if it would be possible for us to come visit Jenna’s orphanage, receive her finding note (note that was left with Jenna by whoever abandoned her as a baby – presumably her birth mother), and maybe visit her finding place (the place where she was abandoned and found). The director said “yes” if Shirley could arrange for it to happen. So Shirley actually had to get permission from the local government for us to visit Jenna’s orphanage, which was about 60 miles away from where we were. Remember that China is a communist country and not exactly free. Shirley did manage to get permission for us, and in a couple of days – the day after we officially adopted Jenna – we traveled to and visited Jenna’s orphanage and her finding place. We also received her finding note. To read a blog post about this day, click here.

When we left China for good on a flight to Japan-Minneapolis-Cedar Rapids, as the plane was taking off from Guangzhou Jenna began to cry loudly. She cried for about 10 minutes or so. We tried to give her a prepared bottle beforehand but she didn’t want it at that time. I took a video out the window as we were taking off and up while we were in the air, looking down on China from the clouds. The background music in this video was of Jenna crying. I don’t know if she was crying because her ears were popping, or if she was aware she was leaving her homeland. After that cry was over she was good-to-go and well-behaved for the whole rest of the journey.

Jenna has always been a joy – she is such a happy child and she fit into our family of six from the beginning. You could just see that Jenna was thrilled to be a part of a family and that she was thriving as a result. Like most children who grow up in orphanages – Jenna was just going to waste there, and we reached in there and snatched her out to join us. We are not supposed to look at ourselves as heroes, because really we are not, or we are just one of many. In Jenna’s case we saw where she came from and we knew where she was going and I would have to say with God’s help and direction Jenna was saved. I don’t really care if people think I’m wrong – I say I’m right and it was (and is) a pleasure.

Since Jenna has been home (4 plus years now) she’s had multiple evaluations, surgeries, speech therapies, eye correction (glasses), hearing correction (hearing aids), and it’s an ongoing and continuous process. Jenna faces it all with courage and confidence, and she lives her life with a smile on her face. Her brother’s and sister love her and have always gotten along well with her. She is now in 1st grade and does the best she can, though she has always been behind and still has a lot to overcome. I wrote a story about Jenna that was published in an online magazine China Moon around a couple of years ago, if you would like to read it, click here.

Certificates of Citizenship – COC’s.

Jenna received her COC in the mail about a month after she was home in August of 2007. We traveled to Des Moines, Ia. to get her birth certificate (certificate of foreign birth). For Leah, Alex, and Ben we received their birth certificates soon after each of their adoptions were finalized, but it took us until June 2008 for us to finally receive each of their COC’s. We had to travel to the USCIS building in Des Moines to receive them and it was during the floods of 2008, which are infamous in these parts. This made our children legally full-fledged citizens of the U.S.A.

Christopher Ryan Lediros – Ryan Christopher.

In 2008 Cheryl found another potential son for our family on Holt-China’s waiting children photolistings and she talked me into allowing her to check into seeing his file. Holt-China told us “no” because this boy was within months of Jenna’s age – which is something they call “artificial twinning.” Sometimes Holt allows families to adopt an artificial twin on a case-by-case basis, and I guess for us it was a NO GO. We already (in my opinion) had experience with artificial twinning. Ben and Jenna are about 10 months apart in age, and this has never been a problem, but it was out of our hands. Cheryl had been watching a cute toddler boy on the Holt-Philippines waiting child photolisting who was around 2-years-old and was suspected of having some symptoms of dwarfism (little people). Neither Cheryl nor I knew much about dwarfism but we did our usual internet research enough to where we became comfortable to go to committee for him. We asked to see Chris’ file and read through it all. We thought we were the only family going to committee for him but we found out during a telephone interview with Beth Smith (waiting child coordinator) that there was one other family who wanted to go to committee. The next day we found out we were chosen to be Chris’ family, we would become a family of seven! We met all of the requirements to adopt Chris (Ryan) and even each passed psychological examinations (required for Holt-Philippines). We completed the home study, dossier, background checks, etc. It was more stringent this time because the Philippines are a Hague country adoption-wise, which means they dug even deeper into our backgrounds and our pasts. Mostly the immigration requirements were stricter and more involved. We made it through though and in January 2009 we were ready to travel to Cebu Island in the Philippines, where Chris was living with his foster family. Also for our journey to the Philippines, we decided to bring Leah along with us so she could help with Ryan, plus we thought it would be a good experience for her and that she would be old (mature) enough to appreciate such an experience. So we had to get a passport for Leah.

For this trip we decided that it would be best if all of the rest of our children (besides Leah) didn’t miss any school, so Cheryl’s mom Lois graciously agreed to stay with the kids at our home so they could continue with their routines. We would be gone for 8 days. We flew from Cedar Rapids to Detroit-Narita, Japan-Manila, Philippines, and then to Cebu Island in the Philippines. I also wrote a blog about this trip with more details and pictures, just click here if you would like to read about this journey. Just to summarize – another great trip – not much tourism this time because Ryan’s foster mother hung out with us at our hotel for a few days while the adoption process proceeded for small parts of each day, but we still all had fun getting to know Ryan. We decided to switch the names ‘Chris’ and ‘Ryan’ around because his foster family called him ‘Ryan’ so that was the name he is accustomed. When we received Ryan for good we were driven to Ryan’s foster family’s home, so we met them and received lots of helpful information and got to see Ryan in his environment. After several days of staying at a nice hotel and swimming in summer-like weather each day, it was time to say goodbye to Ryan’s foster family and to travel back to Manila to finish Ryan’s adoption at ICAB (inter-country-adoption-board). and for Ryan to receive his visa to allow him to enter the U.S.A. At this time Ryan was 3 ½ years-old, and he was (and is) an active little scamp. We traveled home basically in reverse of the way we came. Ryan’s behavior was good and Leah and Ryan had built a good rapport with each other, and Leah was mostly helpful to us on this journey. Ryan called Leah “ati” or big sister, and so she was one.

During examinations of Ryan his doctor has been reluctant to give him a diagnosis of dwarfism. He's at the bottom of the height charts so he’s small. He has creases in his arms and neck. Ryan has an oblong, almost ‘football’ shaped head. He is a very cute, active, and bright boy. Many girls at his school think he’s adorable – he’s quite the ladies man. He keeps us all entertained with his natural clownishness. He’s very proud of his homeland and loves the birthday gifts he continues to receive each year from his foster family. He often remembers that we promised we would travel back to the Philippines so he can visit Mama Nora and the rest of his foster family.

Later in 2009 we finalized Ryan’s adoption and ordered and received his birth certificates. When it came time for Ryan to receive his COC (certificate of citizenship) we all got to participate in a Halloween-themed citizenship ceremony. To read about this day, click here.

It was at this point in the story that I started our family blog “Together” that I have continued to keep up to the present day. It’s basically a blog about what is happening with our family of seven, it’s a continuation of this story. If you would like to check it out, click here. I have also created a slideshow that’s a picture version of this story with music. If you have some time, click here to check it out. This story is an overview that ties everything else together to complete this ongoing story.
_______________________________________________

To read another article by me, click here.

St. Louis Cardinals defeat Texas Rangers to win 2011 World Series

2011-10-28T21:57:00.001-07:00

St. Louis Cardinals defeat Texas Rangers to win 2011 World Series
PUBLISHED 1 hour and 22 minutes ago

ST. LOUIS—When Jason Motte retired David Murphy on a fly to left Friday night, the St. Louis Cardinals had a 6-2 victory over the Rangers and an unprecedented two-month run to the top of the baseball world.

Now they should have time to reflect on their historic journey to the franchise's 11th World Series championship, the most of any club that resides outside of Yankee Stadium. Making history at nearly every turn, the Cardinals will have plenty to reflect.

The Cardinals won their 11th World Series title on Friday night. Among the highlights:

• World Series MVP David Freese became the first player to drive in 21 runs in a single postseason. Freese wasted no time delivering his clutch hit in Game 7, driving a two-run double to the left-center fence in the first inning after the Texas Rangers had jumped ahead 2-0.

• Chris Carpenter became the franchise's all-time leader in postseason wins, with his nine two more than Bob Gibson (who had only the World Series to get his). Carpenter fittingly was the winner in the clincher when he limited the Rangers to two first-inning runs before leaving in the sixth with the Cardinals up 5-2.

• Albert Pujols had the greatest World Series game in history, slamming three homers and going 5-for-6 in the Cardinals' 16-7 victory in Game 3. Pujols scored twice without getting a hit in Game 7, and, in his final at-bat before becoming a free agent, struck out swinging against Mike Adams in the seventh.

• Allen Craig hit three World Series homers, including a third-inning blast off Matt Harrison that put the Cardinals in the lead for good on Friday night. Showing he can do more than slug, Craig also made a home-run-saving catch against Nelson Cruz in the sixth inning.

• In this World Series, Lance Berkman scored nine runs, including two in Game 7. And Yadier Molina drove in nine runs, including two in Game 7.

• To get to Game 7, the Cardinals battled back from two-run deficits in the ninth and 10th innings to win a 10-9, 11-inning classic in Game 6.

And that was just October. The Cardinals had to make history just to reach the postseason, overcoming a 10 ½-game deficit by finishing the regular season 23-9 and building the momentum that carried them to their memorable season.

Click here to watch the final out!
____________________________________________

Cardinals Win World Series: Chris Carpenter, David Freese, Allen Craig Defeat Rangers In Game 7

ST. LOUIS — Pushed to the brink, the St. Louis Cardinals saved themselves. A frantic rush to reach the postseason on the final day. A nifty pair of comebacks in the playoffs. Two desperate rallies in Game 6.

Turns out these Cardinals were merely gearing up for a gigantic celebration.
The Cardinals won a remarkable World Series they weren't even supposed to reach, beating the Texas Rangers 6-2 in Game 7 on Friday night with another key hit by hometown star David Freese and six gutty innings from Chris Carpenter.

A day after an epic Game 6 that saw them twice within one strike of elimination before winning 10-9 in the 11th inning, the Cardinals captured their 11th World Series crown.

And following a whole fall on the edge, including a surge from 10 1/2 games down in the wild-card race, Tony La Russa's team didn't dare mess with Texas, or any more drama in baseball's first World Series Game 7 since the Angels beat Giants in 2002.
Freese, the MVP of the NLCS, was the Series MVP as well.

"This whole ride, this team deserves this. This organization is top notch. ... This is definitely a dream come true," Freese said. "This is why you keep battling. ... I'm so glad to be a part of this."

Freese's two-run double tied it in the first and good-luck charm Allen Craig hit a go-ahead homer in the third. Picked by La Russa earlier in the day to start on short rest, Carpenter and the tireless St. Louis bullpen closed it out.

"I wish everybody in the country could get to know these guys," Craig said. "It's unbelievable. I'm just glad to be a part of it."

No Rally Squirrel needed on this night, either. Fireworks and confetti rang out at Busch Stadium when Jason Motte retired David Murphy on a fly ball to end it.
The Cardinals were loose from the very beginning.

"We were all in the clubhouse and we were a loose bunch of guys," Motte said. "We were in there hanging out, dancing around, had music playing. We were all like that's the way we win and that's how we play the best and we came out we were able to do it today. It's just amazing."

This marked the ninth straight time the home team had won Game 7 in the World Series. The wild-card Cardinals held that advantage over the AL West champions because the NL won the All-Star game – Texas could blame that on their own pitcher, C.J. Wilson, who took the loss in July.

The Rangers, meanwhile, will spend the whole winter wondering how it all got away. Texas might dwell on it forever, in fact, at least until Nolan Ryan & Co. can reverse a World Series slide that started with last year's five-game wipeout against San Francisco.

Texas had not lost consecutive games since last August. These two defeats at Busch Stadium cost manager Ron Washington and the Rangers a chance to win their first title in the franchise's 51-year history.

A year full of inspiring rallies and epic collapses was encapsulated in Game 6. Freese was the star, with a tying triple in the ninth and a winning home run in the 11th. His two RBIs in the clincher gave him a postseason record 21.

The Cardinals won their first championship since 2006, and gave La Russa his third World Series title. They got there by beating Philadelphia in the first round of the NL playoffs, capped by Carpenter outdueling Roy Halladay 1-0 in the deciding Game 5, and then topping Milwaukee in the NL championship series.

By the time Yadier Molina drew a bases-loaded walk from starter Matt Harrison and Rafael Furcal was hit by a pitch from Wilson in relief, the crowd began to sense a championship was near.

The Cardinals improved to 8-3 in Game 7s of the Series, more wins than any other club. Yet fans here know their history well, and were aware this game could go either way – Dizzy Dean and the Gas House Gang won 11-0 in 1934, but Whitey Herzog and his Cardinals lost 11-0 in 1985.

On this evening, though, all the stars aligned.

Starting in place of injured Matt Holliday, Craig hit his third homer of the Series and made a leaping catch at the top of the left field wall. Molina made another strong throw to nail a stray runner. And Carpenter steeled himself to pitch into the seventh, every bit an ace.

Albert Pujols went 0 for 2, walked and was hit by a pitch in what could have been his last game with the Cardinals. Many think the soon-to-be free agent will remain in St. Louis.

Either way, he provided an image that will certainly last a long time in this town. As he scored on Freese's double, Pujols thrust both arms high in the air as he reached the plate.

Besides, Pujols already had done enough damage. His three-homer job in Game 3 was the signature performance of his career and perhaps the greatest hitting show in postseason history.

Dismissed by some as a dull Series even before it began because it lacked the big-market glamour teams, it got better inning by inning.

Craig hit a solo home run in the third, an opposite field fly to right that carried into the Cardinals bullpen and got their relievers dancing. The super-sub put St. Louis ahead 3-2 with his third homer of the Series. He was in the lineup only because Holliday sprained his right wrist on a pickoff play a night earlier and was replaced on the roster.

By then, the largest crowd at 6-year-old Busch Stadium was buzzing. The fans seemed a bit drained much earlier, maybe worn out from the previous night.

They grew hush in the first when Hamilton and Michael Young hit consecutive RBI doubles. Texas might have gotten more, but Ian Kinsler strayed too far off first base and was trapped by Molina's rocket throw.

Freese changed the mood in a hurry as St. Louis tied it in the bottom half. Pujols and Lance Berkman drew two-out walks and pitching coach Mike Maddux trotted to the mound while Freese stepped in to a standing ovation.

Freese rewarded his family and a ballpark full of new friends by lining a full-count floater to the wall in left center for a two-run double. Pujols raised both arms as he crossed the plate – another frozen moment, courtesy of Freese. Harrison was in trouble, and Wilson began warming up after only 23 pitches.

Carpenter wasn't sharp at the outset, either. All over the strike zone, he started seven of the first 10 batters with balls. Pitching coach Dave Duncan made a visit in the second to check on the tall righty, lingering for a few extra words.

NOTES: Texas set a Series record by walking 41 batters, one more than Florida in 1997. Of the 34 runs the Cardinals scored, 11 reached on walks and two more on hit batters. ... The crowd was 47,399. ... The Cardinals will play the first game of the 2012 season, opening the Miami Marlins' new ballpark on April 4.

Pujols has no reason to leave

2011-10-28T21:55:00.000-07:00

Because grass is greener at Busch Stadium: Pujols has no reason to leave
PUBLISHED 49 minutes and 51 seconds ago
Stan McNeal Sporting News

ST. LOUIS—Ask Albert Pujols about his 445 home runs or his .328 career batting average and he looks bored. More times than I can remember, I have heard him say, "You know I'm not about the numbers. I'm about helping my team win any way I can."

Pujols is about to have the chance to walk that walk. Baseball's best player over the past decade is days away from becoming a free agent, and he easily could double the $111 million he has made on his eight-year deal that is set to expire.

Albert Pujols has won two World Series titles with St. Louis.

Some club seeking to make a splash is sure to throw a monster offer at him. Perhaps Theo Epstein will want to start his era at Wrigley Field with a new first baseman, and taking Pujols from the rival St. Louis Cardinals would be an added bonus.

The Washington Nationals are expected to hand out another nine-figure contract as they shoot to contend in 2013.

The resource-rich Los Angeles Angels are changing general managers and, who knows, could decide to change their ways of never landing the big fish.

Even the just-defeated Texas Rangers could enter the bidding. They have a TV deal on the horizon that will pump $80 million a year or more into their revenue streams. Taking the player from the team that just beat them in the World Series would ease their pain at least a little.

Expect one of these or another team to make Pujols a more lucrative offer than the Cardinals. But if winning is more important than money in his decision, Pujols will not go anywhere. He would have no other reason to leave St. Louis. He repeatedly has said he loves the place, the fans and being a Cardinal.

If he is all about winning, the Cardinals make the most sense. They play in one of baseball's weakest divisions, affording Pujols an easier route to October than he would have in the NL East or AL East. The Cardinals have made the playoffs seven times in his 11 seasons. They have won two World Series and been to three. Pujols has played in 74 postseason games since his rookie season, 18 more than any other player in the National League during that time.

The Cardinals can afford Pujols other benefits he would not find elsewhere. He never will find another manager and club that would protect and coddle him more than Tony La Russa and the Cardinals.

When an opposing team throws up and in on Pujols, retaliation from the Cardinals is as certain as it is swift. When Pujols grumbled that he could play a better third base than whoever the team was putting there in David Freese's absence earlier this season, St. Louis let him play third. When Pujols ordered a hit and run that failed badly in the World Series, La Russa went out of his way to defend the call.

"It has everything to do with what Albert has earned as far as his understanding of the game," La Russa said. "I've said over and over again that for the 11 years that we've been together, Albert has proven every year, virtually every day of the season and postseason, he is a great player, not just a great producer. He's a very smart baseball player."

In St. Louis, Pujols does not have to deal with the media demands or fan pressure that come with playing in the Northeast corridor. When Pujols didn't talk after a World Series game, the Cardinals said no problem.

With so many factors in their favor, the only way the Cardinals should lose Pujols seemingly would be to offer him so much less than the competition that he feels insulted and walks away in a huff.

The Cardinals know better than that. According to USA Today, St. Louis offered Pujols a nine-year, $195 million deal early this year. The paper reported that Pujols wanted 10 years, $230 million to give him an average take equal to Minnesota Twins catcher Joe Mauer (eight years, $184 million).

If these numbers are true, the Cardinals and Pujols already are in the same ballpark. Raising their offer when they were the only ones who could make an offer did not make business sense for the Cardinals. Once Pujols hits the market, St. Louis should have a chance to see what it is bidding against.

Then these will become the most interesting contract talks in baseball since Alex Rodriguez signed his 10-year, $252 million deal with the Rangers. Let's say, for example, the Chicago Cubs offer Pujols $250 million and the Cardinals refuse to go over $230 million.

Would Pujols really leave for a $20 million difference spread over eight to 10 years?

No way, unless he doesn't care as much about winning and wanting to be a Cardinal as he keeps saying.
________________________________________________

To read about the 2011 World Series Champs - The St. Louis Cardinals, click here.

Obama: 30+ Choices He Should Reconsider

2011-10-19T16:58:00.001-07:00

Obama: 30+ Choices He Should Reconsider
By Guy Benson
10/19/2011

President Obama opened himself up for ridicule in late 2009 by unwisely obliging an interviewer who asked him to assess his job performance using a grade-school metric. Obama infamously awarded himself "a solid B+" for his efforts. When the president was confronted with a similar question from ABC News' Jake Tapper yesterday, he rectified his previous misstep -- at least temporarily:

Tapper: What grade would you give yourself?

Obama: Well, you know I'm not going to give myself a grade.

Tapper: Not even a midterm?

Obama: Other than "incomplete" because the work that we started is not yet done...

An "incomplete" or a "that's for the American people to decide" are the only correct answers in that situation. The trouble with Obama, though, is that his prodigious ego prevents him from sustaining even a front of feigned humility for too long. Indeed, we're talking about a man who wrote two autobiographies before the age of 50. Later in the exchange with Tapper, Obama rolled out this startling boast about his administration:

"I guarantee it's going to be a close election because the economy is not where it wants to be and even though I believe all the choices we've made have been the right ones, we're still going through difficult circumstances."

All the choices, Mr. President? All of them? What about...

The choice to appoint multiple tax cheats to your cabinet, including your current Treasury Secretary?

The choice to keep insisting on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, even though the public opposes this prospect -- which was repeatedly blocked by a Democratic Congress?

The choice to throw a lavish birthday party for yourself, replete with a barefoot Conga line through the White House, as the threat of a national credit downgrade cast a shadow over the country.

The choice to file a lawsuit against Arizona's law that authorizes state and local officials to help the federal government fulfill its woefully unfulfilled responsibilities -- and that your Attorney General admitted he'd never read, even as he publicly denounced it.

The choice to include two provisions -- 1099 reform and the CLASS Act -- in your unpopular healthcare bill that are so unaffordable and unworkable that your own administration has since abandoned them.

The choice of your Justice Department to file a lawsuit to overturn a small North Carolina town's democratically-enacted decision to eliminate party identifications from municipal election ballots, arguing that African-Americans need "D" and "R" labels to determine whom to support.

The choice to sell your failed $800 Billion "stimulus" package as a means to spur "shovel ready" projects -- projects you later joked weren't quite so shovel ready after all.

The choice to appoint a self-described "Communist" who signed a 9/11 Truther petition as your "Green Jobs Czar."

The choice to bow to union demands and cancel a successful inner-city school choice program, despite its soaring graduation rates, improved reading scores, cost effectiveness, and overwhelming parental satisfaction.

The choice to alienate our greatest ally -- Great Britain -- by rudely disposing of a Winston Churchill bust, bestowing the Queen with an iPod filled with your own speeches, giving the former Prime Minister a gift that literally did not work on his own soil, and signaling neutrality over the Falkland Islands.

The choice to authorize, or at least ignore, a federal program that permitted 2,000 guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, by design, resulting in countless murders -- including a US border patrol agent.

The choice to violate multiple self-aggrandizing "transparency" pledges.

The choice to attempt to freeze out a legitimate news organization you viewed as inconveniently adversarial, a ploy that enraged the entire press corps.

The choice of your Justice Department to not pursue civil rights cases involving alleged minority offenders, and to drop an already-won, open-and-shut voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther party.

The choice to insist on granting mega-terrorists like Khalid Sheik Muhammad with civilian trials in New York City, over loud objections from Congress, city officials, and the public.

The choice to offend our greatest Middle Eastern ally -- Israel -- by extending shoddy treatment to its Prime Minister, and making provocative statements about preconditions for basic Israeli security.

The choice to revisit redundant and political investigations into the US intelligence community, over public objections from a bipartisan group of former CIA director, and despite low morale at the agencies that keep Americans safe.

The choice to introduce Stimulus 2.0 in a politically-timed Joint Session speech, knowing full well it would never pass either chamber of Congress.

The choice to travel the countryside, supposedly selling a plan to create US jobs, in foreign-made buses.

The choice to foist an expensive, failed mortgage bailout program upon the public -- which exacerbated moral hazard issues and actually "added to housing woes," according to the New York Times.

The choice to fast-track a half-billion dollar federal loan to a now-bankrupt solar energy company, a move even your own advisors repeatedly warned against.

The choice to demagogue and reject two separate pieces of legislation that would have placed the country on a path to solvency, and that would have averted the first US credit downgrade in history.

The choice to offer US support to the illegitimate, far-Left leader of Honduras, even as his small country struggled to retain its democracy.

The choice to produce a 2012 budget that increased the national debt by nearly $10 Trillion over a decade, ignored virtually all your own commission's recommendations for entitlement reform, raised taxes by $2 trillion, and was generally viewed as so surreally irresponsible that it was defeated unanimously in the Democrat-held Senate.

The choice to sit idly by while anti-American dictators ranted against our country, later expressing gratitude that they didn't blame you, specifically, for events that occurred when you were very young.

The choice to compare AIG executives to suicide bombers for receiving bonuses that your own administration wrote into the 2009 stimulus bill.

The choice to golf, golf, golf as federal efforts languished throughout the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The choice to lie about what scientific experts said, in order to pursue your anti-offshore drilling agenda.

The choice to introduce a litany of sanitized descriptors into our national security lexicon, from "man-caused disasters" to "overseas contingency operations."

The choice of your Vice President to kowtow to Communist China, flatly stating that he understood, and "wouldn't question," that country's hideous one-child policy.

The choice to schedule troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan along a transparently political timeline, in the face of strenuous opposition from top military commanders.

The choice to ignore the legal analysis of Pentagon attorneys and your own Office of Legal Counsel in order to maintain the US intervention in Libya, which was not approved by Congress.

The choice to offer an apology to Japan for the use of overwhelming, devastating US force to finally end World War II in the Pacific theater, a plan so groveling and unnecessary that Japanese aborted the idea.

The choice of your State Department to extend "condolences" to the family of a terrorist killed in a US strike.

President Obama evidently looks at this list of choices and thinks, perfection. As it happens, the American people have a big choice of their own on the horizon. We'll see whether their performance review is quite as generous as the president's. Feel free to augment my list of cosmically "right" Obama choices in the comments section.
_____________________________________________

To read the article that this post answers, click here.

Judging Mrs. White

2011-10-16T23:42:00.001-07:00

Judging Mrs. White
By Mike Adams
10/17/2011

It is a truism to say that Marxist thought has done much to undermine the quality of today’s college experience. But few people realize just how deeply Marxist thought has penetrated education in America. Its influence is not restricted to the realm of higher education. Nor is it restricted to the realm of economics. Marxism also affects our moral reasoning and it begins to do so in grammar school. The case of Mrs. White is illustrative.

Mrs. White was a first grade teacher in the 1960s. She taught in a small school in Alabama just a few years after the schools integrated along the lines of race. She was rather blunt in her teaching methods. But she was effective. In fact, no one ever questioned her efficacy in the classroom.

One day, Mrs. White was teaching a young black boy to read. He was pronouncing the word “this” as “dis” and the word “that” as “dat.” Mrs. White told him he needed to learn to speak English properly. She said that integration was a right accompanied by responsibilities. She went so far as to tell him that he wasn’t a “nigger” and shouldn’t speak like one. She told him he was an intelligent young man and needed to act like it.

Her methods were unorthodox but hardly controversial in that day. Years later, after the young black boy became a young black man with a college degree, he stayed in touch with Mrs. White. She was the best teacher he ever had. She taught him how to read – something neither of his parents learned to do.

In 1968, just five years into her teaching career, Mrs. White went through a very public divorce. She had an affair with another man and subsequently decided to leave her husband and three children. When she left her family, she was forthcoming about the reasons. In an unusual move, she decided to give her husband full custody without any legal challenge.

The response to Mrs. White’s divorce was uniform. Parents called for her dismissal, which was effected at the end of the school year. She never taught again – although it was a moot point given the substantial wealth of her second husband.

Mrs. White had only one daughter, named Gina. When Gina graduated from college in 1983, she became a schoolteacher. Her choice of career surprised many given that her mother had walked out on her when she was a child. No one expected her to want to grow up to be like her mother - but she did so in many ways.

In 1990, Gina did something that surprised many, given the pain that divorce had brought upon her own life when she was just a little girl. Gina, like her mother, left her husband. And, like her mother, she did so after a long extramarital affair. A final similarity was that there was no effort to win custody of her two children. She wanted to break away and begin life anew with her second husband.

Unlike her mother, she suffered no adverse effects in the workplace. Her divorce never really came up at work except among good friends who offered their support. She continued to teach for a number of years until an unfortunate incident changed her life in the course of a day.

Ebonics was a topic of discussion in the realm of education in the 1990s. In fact, one day in front of class, she was asked her opinion of Ebonics by one of her black students. Her reply was blunt. She told him Ebonics was harmful. She said it taught young black people that they were “nothing more than niggers” when, in fact, they are just like everyone else. She concluded by saying “Therefore, they should talk like everyone else.”

Gina’s use of the word “nigger” in the classroom set off a firestorm that resulted in her termination. The termination occurred over the protests of the young black man who asked the question and who insisted he was not offended by her answer. In fact, he agreed with it.

Most people would say that America has become a more tolerant place since the 1960s – a land relatively free of condemnation. That view is more than simplistic. It is wrong. The nature of judgment, not the level of judgment, has changed drastically in the last half-century. The cases of Mrs. White and her daughter demonstrate that clearly.

Mrs. White was given a pass on her use of a racial epithet in class in the 1960s because it was not seen as injurious to any individual. It wasn’t being used as an insult. It was being used to tell a student what he was not. But she was dismissed after her divorce because her behavior was seen as injurious to several individuals. It hurt her husband and children and set a bad example for her students.

Unlike her mother, Gina taught in the era of postmodern education where judgments are made on the basis of group considerations. People who see the truth as defined by power struggles are inclined to see our institutions as oppressive. And that is why Gina was supported rather than fired after her divorce. She was making a statement, not just about herself, but about women everywhere. They are free to be happy rather than subjugate themselves in deference to patriarchal oppression.

But postmodernism would not tolerate her later transgression along the lines of race. She did not offend the black student in her class. She offended a race. And groups have consumed the rights once held by individuals.

In education today, there would be no speech codes without postmodernism. And there would be no postmodernism without the influence of Marx. It’s no mystery that speech codes are used to defend the Marxist ideas that gave them life. They play the role their parents assigned them. Author’s Note: Thanks to Dennis McCallum, editor of The Death of Truth, for inspiring this column.
________________________________________________

To read another article by Mike Adams, click here.

“Visual” Brain Study

2011-10-15T21:37:00.000-07:00

Test example from a “Visual” Brain Study

If you can visually interpret this you have a stimulated visual interpretive confluence area in da-gray matter.

7H15 M3554G3 53RV35 7O PR0V3 H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5! 1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5! 1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG 17 WA5 H4RD BU7 N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3 Y0UR M1ND 1S R34D1NG 17 4U70M471C4LLY W17H 0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17, B3 PROUD! 0NLY C3R741N P30PL3 C4N R3AD 7H15.
PL3453 F0RW4RD 1F U C4N R34D 7H15 .

Why Pastors Must Be Free To Preach On Politics

2011-10-07T00:23:00.000-07:00

Why Pastors Must Be Free To Preach On Politics
By Alan Sears
10/5/2011

On Sunday, October 2, hundreds of pastors all over the country did something an astonishingly large number of their fellow Americans had forgotten they had the God-given right to do: namely, address political issues and candidates during a worship service.

Across the nearly 60 years since then U.S. Senator Lyndon Johnson pushed through an amendment to the IRS code threatening any church or pastor who gets involved in politics with IRS reprisals – specifically, the loss of the church’s tax-exempt status – conventional wisdom has congealed around the idea that pastors must stay out of politics. As extraordinary as that assertion is to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of our nation’s history, it’s a theme that’s been hammered home unrelentingly for decades by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

As a result, pastors have been tacitly forbidden from saying in their pulpit what they’d be perfectly within their rights to say 50 feet away, in a church aisle or out on the sidewalk. What’s worse, they’ve been banned from expressing their opinion specifically because they are pastors.

Consider what happens when an issue such as, say, abortion, comes up for community debate, as the voting public considers a bill or assesses a candidate whose feelings on the subject are well known. Doctors will address their local medical gatherings, lawyers will argue at their bar associations, social workers will write op-eds, politicians will give speeches, and the news media will interview representatives of each of those professions, since some aspect of the abortion question impacts each of those professional areas.

In each case, the qualified professional is legally allowed, and even publicly encouraged, to address specifics of the issue, urge his peers to share his point of view, and advocate for or against a given candidate and his views.

And yet, while no sane person could suggest that abortion is an issue without a profound spiritual dimension, any effort by a local pastor to shine a biblical or theological spotlight on the issue in his professional setting, before an audience interested in that specific dimension, is met with outrage, tax threats, and the assertion that the Constitution forbids preachers from talking “politics.”

The same Constitution, mind you, whose First Amendment states that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”

You’ll note the Founders did not bar Congress from “prohibiting the free exercise thereof (except in churches),” or “abridging the freedom of speech (except in the case of pastors),” or “of the press (unless it’s a printing or mailout distributed to church members to help them analyze candidates and issues).”

No one would be more astonished to hear the Constitution used as a legal muzzle to silence pastors on political issues than the men who wrote the Constitution. Most of them understood implicitly that the primary raison d’etre for settling this continent was to secure religious freedom, and that no group was more responsible for inspiring the colonists to join a revolution in defense of that liberty than pastors who addressed from their pulpits our “political issues” with England.

Nor would the Founding Fathers have stood for the notion that a church could be threatened with taxes. Tax exemption is not a privilege our government extends to cooperative congregations and ministries; it is the fundamental right of those churches, before God and the Constitution. What would be a more effective prohibition on the free exercise of religion than taxation? If the party in power holds the financial life of a church in its hands, how can that church ever stand against the party on a moral issue?

And make no mistake: every political question is, at root, a moral issue.

That, of course, is the underlying reason for every legal effort to silence and sabotage the participation of churches and pastors in the political process – the recognition that, on moral issues, those who take their faith seriously, and commit themselves as groups and individuals to the truth of Scripture, inevitably carry a different and often more substantial moral authority than the government and its elected leaders. And thank heaven they do. The moral admonitions of outspoken pastors have played a critical role at every critical juncture in our history – spearheading among other things the abolition of slavery and the Civil Rights movement.

If, to assert that moral authority, pastors must make a united stand through events like last Sunday’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” they’re doing nothing more than what their own forefathers did 200-plus years ago. They’re throwing off not only the illegitimate legal shackles that would chain them to an unreasonable and ungodly silence, but the popular misconceptions that have for too long intimidated Christian leaders from sharing the enduring wisdom of a thoughtful, biblical perspective on the issues that most impact us as a nation.

Whatever your religious beliefs and convictions – or even your views about pastors talking politics – I hope you stood with the pastors of your community who dared to make bold and constructive use of our richest, and most endangered freedom: the right to hear and speak the truth.
________________________________________________

To read another article by Alan Sears, click here.

Occupy Wall Street Protestors - List Of Demands

2011-10-06T23:30:00.000-07:00

From the Occupy Wall Street website, via Picket and Loesch:
Believe me - I couldn't make this stuff up...

These imbeciles are just as dumb as we thought. Occupy Wall Street protesters posted a proposed list of demands on their website today. Thankfully, most American fifth graders aren’t this stupid.

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

Unreal. So who put this together for them anyway?… Van Jones?… Media Matters?
____________________________________

below are a few choice comments to these demands...

I am a failure.
I’m not really interested in being anything else but a failure.
I don’t want to pay back any money I’ve borrowed.
I don’t want governmental restrictions that I elect not to read. I don’t like to read, anyway.
However, I should be able to be a professional student and not worry about paying for it.
I don’t want to work all that much to get all the things I want for myself.
I can’t afford my car because it runs on gasoline.
Gasoline is bad – find some other source I don’t have to pay for.
Because of the all of the above, I demand free heath care – How else will I get it?
Because of the above, allow Unions to represent me and my demands.
Let everybody into this Country – It’s a free world, isn’t it?
“Gimme, Gimme, Gimme – I need, I need, I need.”

Welcome to the kennel of the misbegotten.
___________________________________________________

Let’s give everybody who lives in New York City a total of 48 hours to leave. Build a huge wall around New York City and place inside the wall all of these people. Let them canabilize each other to survive. Perhaps Hollyweird with make a move about something like this!
___________________________________________________

To read another article about the OWS protests, click here.

Thirteen Obstacles to Becoming a Better Person

2011-10-04T16:14:00.000-07:00

Thirteen Obstacles to Becoming a Better Person
By Dennis Prager
10/4/2011

This week, for the fourth consecutive year, I am conducting Jewish High Holiday services. Though not a rabbi, I spent 12 years studying in yeshivas and 35 years teaching and writing on Judaism. The following is a summary of the Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) sermon that I gave this past Wednesday night.

The purpose of the High Holidays (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) is moral introspection: What kind of person am I, and what kind of person can I become? So, every year, Jews meditate on the issue of becoming a better person.

But how many of us do become better people the next year?

This question has bothered me for many years, and I have decided to finally address it. Why is it so hard to become a better person?

I have -- unfortunately -- come up with 13 reasons.

1. Most people don't particularly want to be good.

The biggest obstacle to people becoming better is that you have to really want to be a good person in order to be a better person, and most people would rather be other things. People devote far more effort to being happy (not knowing that goodness leads to increased happiness), successful, smart, attractive and healthy, to cite the most prominent examples.

2. Confusion exists about what goodness is.

Goodness is about character -- integrity, honesty, kindness, generosity, moral courage and the like. More than anything else, it is about how we treat other people.

Not everyone agrees.

For thousands of years, more than a few religious individuals have regarded goodness as being more about sexual behavior and religious piety than about character and the decent treatment of others. And while sexual behavior and religious piety are important, they are not as important as simply acting decently toward other human beings. That is what God wants most (see Micah 6:8, for example) and what we should want most.

At the other end of the spectrum, to modern progressives, goodness is all too often about having the correct political positions, not about character development.

3. Goodness is not about intentions.

Very few people have bad intentions. Even many people who commit real evil -- such as true-believing Nazis, Communists, and Islamists -- have good intentions. But as an ancient Jewish dictum put it, "It is not the thought that counts but the action." Good intentions alone produce good people about as often as good intentions alone produce good surgeons.

4. We don't learn how to be good.

Even if you want to be a good person, where is the instruction manual? Where are the teachers, the coaches and the schools? People spend years studying how to be good at everything -- from sports to medicine to plumbing -- except how to be good people.

5. We think too highly of ourselves.

Self-esteem frequently runs counter to goodness. Raising children with self-esteem sounds great, but when unearned -- which it usually is -- it leads to bad results. In fact, it is people who do not have particularly high self-esteem, people who feel that they constantly have to prove their worth, who are more likely to act good. And it is violent criminals who have the highest self-esteem -- 'I am better than others and can therefore do whatever I want.'

6. We think we will be taken advantage of.

Many parents have told me that they fear raising their children to be "too" good, lest they be taken advantage of.

People confuse goodness with weakness. It is weak people, not good people (goodness demands strength), who are taken advantage of.

Yes, bad people take advantage of others. This is why it is so important that good people surround themselves with good people. They allow us to be good and they make us better.

7. There are few personal models.

It is very difficult to grow into a good person without good models -- whether a parent, a sibling, a friend, a clergyman, or even good characters in literature and film. That is why it is so important for all adults to try to be good models -- not necessarily friends -- to all young people.

8. We don't believe that there are rewards for being good.

In general, people do things well if they believe they will eventually be rewarded. That's the major reason people work hard. But many people don't believe that goodness is rewarded.

In fact, however, there are rewards:

-- Good people have far more inner peace.

-- You will trust other people. The cheater never trusts anyone because he thinks that everyone is like him -- out to cheat everyone. Not being able to trust is not a pleasant way to go through life.

-- People will like -- and even more importantly, respect -- you more, just as you like and respect good people more.

-- You will make more friends. And life is incomparably better with good friends.

-- And finally, God will reward you in the afterlife. It isn't fashionable in our hyper-sophisticated and secular age to speak of the afterlife, let alone about ultimate reward and punishment. But if there is a just God, there is ultimate justice.

9. We have to battle our nature.

To be a good person, most of us have to battle our nature. Among many other things, we are naturally preoccupied with ourselves. Yet, to be good, we have to constantly think about others and how we are treating them.

For many people, there is an additional battle they have to wage -- with their natural tendency to be angry. One prevalent example is the angry mother or father who poisons his/her children against the other parent after a divorce, thereby often irreparably damaging both the children and the other parent.

10. "I'm a victim."

I suspect that more people than ever before, in our society and in many others, walk around thinking of themselves as victims. Victimhood status is actually cultivated.

Now, the truth is that most people are victims. Very few of us have been entirely fairly treated by life. The problem, however, is that people who see themselves primarily as victims will rarely do any good, and many will do evil: "I've been mistreated by others," the thinking goes, "so I don't owe anybody anything."

11. Few people were raised to be good people.

Parents raise children to be good students, good athletes, to have high self-esteem and with myriad other goals. But few parents put character first. For decades, I have asked parents whether they would be angrier at their teenager for smoking cigarettes or for cheating on tests. You can guess the overwhelming response.

12. In our formative years, the least impressive are rewarded.

In our high-school years, which kids seem to be the most rewarded? The ones with the best character? The kindest? Of course not.

During some of our most formative years, we see the best-looking, the most athletic and the coolest kids get the rewards. We see unimpressive guys getting the prettiest girls, and the prettiest girls getting the most attention -- irrespective of their character. And the kids in cliques seem to have the most fun.

Little do we know that these traits won't be rewarded forever. But it leaves a lasting impression.

13. We have psychological blocks.

As if the first dozen obstacles were not enough, there is an additional one that seems insurmountable for many individuals -- psychological issues.

But the operative word here is "seems." Even those with psychological problems (and who doesn't have at least one or two?) can and must try to be better people. And the way to begin doing so is purely behavioral: Act better toward others even before you solve your psychological problems. Otherwise, you will never be a better person, since those problems may never disappear. And here's the good news: The better you act, the better your chances of also improving yourself psychologically.

The sad irony is that while goodness is the thing that everyone wants most from everyone else, few people want it most for themselves.
__________________________________________

To read another article by Dennis Prager, click here.

What if the NFL Played by Teachers' Rules?

2011-10-03T18:34:00.001-07:00

What if the NFL Played by Teachers' Rules?
Imagine a league where players who make it through three seasons could never be cut from the roster.
By FRAN TARKENTON

Imagine the National Football League in an alternate reality. Each player's salary is based on how long he's been in the league. It's about tenure, not talent. The same scale is used for every player, no matter whether he's an All-Pro quarterback or the last man on the roster. For every year a player's been in this NFL, he gets a bump in pay. The only difference between Tom Brady and the worst player in the league is a few years of step increases. And if a player makes it through his third season, he can never be cut from the roster until he chooses to retire, except in the most extreme cases of misconduct.

Let's face the truth about this alternate reality: The on-field product would steadily decline. Why bother playing harder or better and risk getting hurt?

No matter how much money was poured into the league, it wouldn't get better. In fact, in many ways the disincentive to play harder or to try to stand out would be even stronger with more money.

Of course, a few wild-eyed reformers might suggest the whole system was broken and needed revamping to reward better results, but the players union would refuse to budge and then demonize the reform advocates: "They hate football. They hate the players. They hate the fans." The only thing that might get done would be building bigger, more expensive stadiums and installing more state-of-the-art technology. But that just wouldn't help.

If you haven't figured it out yet, the NFL in this alternate reality is the real -life American public education system. Teachers' salaries have no relation to whether teachers are actually good at their job—excellence isn't rewarded, and neither is extra effort. Pay is almost solely determined by how many years they've been teaching. That's it. After a teacher earns tenure, which is often essentially automatic, firing him or her becomes almost impossible, no matter how bad the performance might be. And if you criticize the system, you're demonized for hating teachers and not believing in our nation's children.

Inflation-adjusted spending per student in the United States has nearly tripled since 1970. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we spend more per student than any nation except Switzerland, with only middling results to show for it.

Over the past 20 years, we've been told that a big part of the problem is crumbling schools—that with new buildings and computers in every classroom, everything would improve. But even though spending on facilities and equipment has more than doubled since 1989 (again adjusted for inflation), we're still not seeing results, and officials assume the answer is that we haven't spent enough.

These same misguided beliefs are front and center in President Obama's jobs plan, which includes billions for "public school modernization." The popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. We've been spending billions of dollars on school modernization for decades, and I suspect we could keep on doing it until the end of the world, without much in the way of academic results. The only beneficiaries are the teachers unions.

Some reformers, including Bill Gates, are finally catching on that our federally centralized, union-created system provides no incentive for better performance. If anything, it penalizes those who work hard because they spend time, energy and their own money to help students, only to get the same check each month as the worst teacher in the district (or an even smaller one, if that teacher has been there longer). Is it any surprise, then, that so many good teachers burn out or become disenchanted?

Perhaps no other sector of American society so demonstrates the failure of government spending and interference. We've destroyed individual initiative, individual innovation and personal achievement, and marginalized anyone willing to point it out. As one of my coaches used to say, "You don't get vast results with half-vast efforts!"

The results we're looking for are students learning, so we need to reward great teachers who show they can make that happen—and get rid of bad teachers who don't get the job done. It's what we do in every other profession: If you're good, you get rewarded, and if you're not, then you look for other work. It's fine to look for ways to improve the measuring tools, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Our rigid, top-down, union-dictated system isn't working. If results are the objective, then we need to loosen the reins, giving teachers the ability to fulfill their responsibilities to students to the best of their abilities, not to the letter of the union contract and federal standards.

Mr. Tarkenton, an NFL Hall of Fame quarterback with the Minnesota Vikings and the New York Giants from 1961 to 1978, is an entrepreneur who runs two websites devoted to small business education.

Marching Orders

2011-09-29T21:37:00.000-07:00

Marching Orders
By Cal Thomas
9/29/2011

You know President Obama thinks he is in trouble with his liberal base when he lapses into what used to be called "jive talk" before an audience of Congressional Black Caucus members. Dropping his "g's", the president admonished the group to "stop complainin'."

"Who's he talking about?" Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, asked puzzled, keeping the "g."

Some African-Americans have reason to complain. For decades they have given Democrats their votes, while receiving little in return, except government checks and a welfare system that has become as addictive as cocaine. In fact, the programs themselves are a kind of drug, which has doomed generations of poor blacks to a shoddy education, single motherhood, absent fathers, crime and incarceration.

This summer, the unemployment rate among blacks increased to 16.7 percent, the highest level in 27 years, almost twice the national rate. In 1984, black leaders blamed joblessness on Ronald Reagan. They are reluctant to blame America's first black president (if you don't count Bill Clinton), and instead have launched a jobs tour to focus on the problem.

Obama's approval rating among blacks has declined 25 percent in the last five months, from 83 percent to 58 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

This isn't the first time Obama has lectured his base. Exactly one year ago, the president said, "Buck up. Stop whining. And get to work." He didn't tell them where or how to find work if they were unemployed.

Liberal Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy, an African-American, wrote, "It's hard to see how the plight of black people could get any worse, even under a President (Herman) Cain." The tone of Milloy's column suggests Obama only pays attention to black people when he wants their votes.

Before the Congressional Black Caucus, President Obama said, "I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes."

Instead of blindly marching to the polls to again vote for Obama and other Democrats, African-Americans should march out of the schools that are failing their children. They should demand from politicians who can afford to send their children to expensive private schools -- like the Obamas -- the same choice those "evil" rich people enjoy.

A bright future begins with a good education. Too many African-Americans are being deprived of an education by their Democratic bosses who doom them to a future of welfare dependency and despair because they will not let them flee failing schools.

I would be willing to wager several mortgage payments on an experiment. Take one dozen poor minority children and allow them to attend private schools where they are loved, encouraged and motivated to do well. Take another dozen and let them remain in failing schools where drugs and guns proliferate and they live in despair without being able to spell the word.

Oh wait. That is already being done in an increasing number of charter schools around the country and through groups like the Children's Scholarship Fund in New York City, which underwrites the cost of a low-income child's private, often parochial, education. The academic and social results in these schools are astounding.

If children learn to value themselves, they are more likely to be motivated to do well in school and as adults and less likely to have babies while still in their own childhood.

The keys to a successful life are known: stay in school and receive a good education; get married before you have children and then stay married; develop character qualities such as virtue and honesty; have a purpose for living beyond yourself; refrain from taking drugs; avoid the company of criminals and other bad influences.

Disillusionment with this president has set in with many of the young people who viewed him as a messianic figure four years ago. According to an AP-GfK poll, 27 percent of young Democrats under age 45 say the president is not a strong leader.

They are already marching, but it's away from the president.
_________________________________________

To read another article by Cal Thomas, click here.

Holding Obama's Party Accountable

2011-09-28T15:09:00.000-07:00

Holding Obama's Party Accountable
By Peter Ferrara on 9.28.11 @ 6:08AM

Obama has profoundly reshaped the makeup of his party. Now all Democrats will have to answer.

First watch this video interview with some of Obama's supporters, click here.

Barack Obama is on a far worse political trajectory than Jimmy Carter was. First, the Democrats lost Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican in ultraliberal Massachusetts who campaigned against Kennedy's signature issue of national health insurance. Nothing that dramatic happened while Carter was President.

Then Democrats suffered historic, grievous losses in the 2010 midterm elections, with a New Deal size loss in the House of 63 seats, and a loss of 6 seats in the Senate. In Jimmy Carter's 1978 midterms, Democrats lost only 15 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate.

Now in the recent special election in New York City, Democrats have begun to lose seats they haven't lost since before the New Deal.

That is so fitting, because President Obama is not an anomaly in today's Democrat party. Quite to the contrary, he represents the party's heart and soul today, which is well to the Left now even of George McGovern in 1972. Witness the reelection of Far Left San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi as House Democrat leader even after the historic voter repudiation of the Pelosi Democrat House majority in 2010. Witness the choice of Far Left screamer Debbie Wasserman Schultz as leader of the Democratic National Committee. Witness Obama EPA Chief Lisa Jackson, Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and the numerous similar, utterly clueless, ideologically rigid, far left appointees throughout the Obama Administration.

That is also so well deserved, because of what the Democrats are doing to our nation, even as their power starts to wane. Historically, for the American economy, the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. Based on that historical record, we should be nearing the end of the second year of a booming recovery by now.

But almost four years after the last recession started, there still has been no real recovery. Unemployment is stuck over 9%, with unemployment among African-Americans, Hispanics, and teenagers at depression level double-digit rates for at least 2 years now. Real wages and incomes are falling, back to levels last seen over 30 years ago. Poverty is soaring to new records as well, with more Americans suffering in poverty than any time since the Census Bureau started keeping records over 50 years ago.

As a result, we are on track now for an historic conservative victory in 2012, far bigger even than in 1980.

The Do-Nothing Senate

In the Democrat majority-controlled Senate, 23 Democrat seats are subject to elections in 2012, with 6 of those open seats involving a retiring incumbent. Only 10 Republican seats are subject to election, with only two retirements from safe seats in Texas and Arizona. Let's compare the record of this Democrat-controlled Senate with the record of what the Republican-controlled House has already accomplished this year.

The first act of the Republican House was to pass repeal of Obamacare, reducing future taxes and spending by trillions. The Senate has failed to act on this at all.

The Republican House passed the budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which would cut federal spending by $6.2 trillion over the first 10 years alone, and permanently balances the budget soon after that, as scored by CBO. Government spending as a percent of GDP would ultimately be reduced by 40% from current levels.

The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass any budget at all, as required by law, for the second consecutive year now. At least they had the good sense to vote down Obama's proposed runaway budget, 97-0. But the failure to pass any budget leaves the government subject to possible shutdown this fall.

The Democrat Senate has also fought tooth and nail against every spending cut. They even threatened to shut down the entire government last week because the House Republicans funded emergency FEMA disaster relief spending with $1.5 billion in offsetting spending cuts, half of one thousandth of the entire federal budget. The cuts were to a Department of Energy corporate welfare loan program, like the program that just lost half a billion in taxpayer funds in the Solyndra bankruptcy scandal. Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid said this microscopic spending cut to a program with no valid justification was "not an honest effort at compromise," as quoted in USA Today on Monday. The shutdown was averted only because FEMA decided it didn't need the emergency funding after all, meaning the Senate Democrats were successful in nullifying the negligible spending cut.

The House also passed a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would eliminate the government's power to run a deficit and increase the national debt. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass it.

To restore the creation of new jobs, the House passed the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, which would stop the imposition of federal regulatory burdens on farmers and small businesses that would impede job creation. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to do anything to stop the runaway regulatory burdens of the Obama Administration, killing jobs and the economy.

The House has also passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act, prohibiting any federal agency from imposing a national energy tax, which would only further destroy jobs and shortcircuit economic recovery. But the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act on it.

To restore the production of American energy, creating new high paying jobs and producing increased federal revenues from the resulting increased economic growth, the House has passed the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, the Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, and the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. The House has also passed the North American-Made Energy Security Act, which would require the federal government to determine by a date certain whether to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline bringing Canadian oil to America's Gulf refineries. That would produce tens of thousands of new jobs and billions in increased federal revenues, but approval has been pending for the entire nearly 3 years of the Obama Administration.

But the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act on any of these bills either.

The House has also passed The Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act, which would restrict the new unelected Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted in Obama's Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill from imposing any regulations that hurt job growth. Once again, no action from the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Obama, now campaigning for reelection non-stop around the country, is already trying to blame a Do-Nothing Congress for his failures. But the Republican-controlled House has already been quite active in passing legislation to address the nation's problems. It is the Do-Nothing Democrat-controlled Senate that has failed to act on any of the House's accomplishments or even pass a budget as required by law, effectively failing to show up for work.

It is the 23 Democrats whose seats are up for election this year, almost half of all Senate Democrats, that make this Senate record possible, fighting to the bitter end even the smallest budget cut. Make sure your friends, neighbors and relatives know that by the time the election rolls around next year. Make sure they don't get fooled again by Democrat candidates claiming they are different, and not Obamanistas. Every one of those Democrat Senate seats make the Obama record of trashing America possible.

Keeping Faith with the Voters, to Their Political Risk

House Republicans, indeed, fought bravely and successfully in insisting this past summer on spending cuts equal to the debt limit increase, forcing some major spending cuts on President Obama and Senate Democrats. But the Republicans have suffered in the polls for doing so. How dare they demand such spending cuts instead of just routinely approving the debt increase as in the past?

But the House Republican majority was elected precisely to end business as usual in Washington in regard to spending, deficits and debt. What they did during the debt limit fight only kept faith with the voters that overwhelmingly elected them in 2010.

The Washington Post, however, reported on September 24, "Polls showed that voters were appalled by what they viewed as a naked display of political brinkmanship that risked destabilizing the U.S. economy." GOP pollster Bill McInturff was cited as concluding that "Voters lost faith [during the debt limit fight] in the ability of both President Obama and Congressional Republicans to 'make the right decisions about the economy.'" But McInturff said, "congressional Republicans had taken the bigger hit…with 81 percent of those surveyed saying they had little or no confidence in the judgment of the GOP."

The Post also cited veteran political analyst Charlie Cook as saying over the debt limit fight that "if lawmakers continue down this path, the 2012 election could bring the biggest, broadest anti-incumbent year of postwar history, with voters indiscriminately tossing out lawmakers in both parties." Cook is quoted as saying, "I don't know what these guys think they're doing, but it looks like they're committing political suicide."

Even some libertarians I know who have condemned Republicans in the past for failing to cut spending think they went too far in demanding spending cuts in the debt limit fight. Yet some Tea Party grassroots activists condemn House Republicans for too easily giving in without getting enough in spending cuts.

A Paul Revere Moment: America at Risk

This raises an important, fundamental question. Is the Right becoming too fractured to hold together to give Obama and the Democrats the beating in 2012 they have so richly earned? The decentralized Tea Party has so far been mostly brilliant in maintaining political effectiveness while not breaking apart the opposition to Obama. Libertarians have to recognize as well we are dealing with a new, mortal danger to the nation in the Obamanistas. Every patriot has to think through how to be most effective politically in reversing the Left's so far soft authoritarian coup in Obama’s Democrat party.

House Speaker John Boehner and his House majority need to stop being so passive in taking the verbal broadsides of Obama and the Democrat-controlled media. They have one unexploited advantage. They each have home districts all across the country where they are all well known and have thorough access to the media. They need to pursue a more aggressive campaign mode media strategy in getting the word out now on their record and the issues to their local districts. They need to recognize Obama has started campaign 2012 now and start competing on the issues.

The voters have a responsibility too not to be so easily misled by the Democrat-controlled media, and to help spread the word locally to those who are not paying enough attention. This is a Paul Revere moment. America is fundamentally at risk. Patriots need to act now with effective, organizing political action to save the country from an ongoing Marxist takeover.

A crucial battle is going on right now in the Republican presidential race, which the conservatives are presently losing. Too many conservatives in the race are dividing up the conservative vote and leaving the lead to the more moderate. Republicans need to nominate an articulate leader who can take on Obama in debate, and who will make the most of the sweeping conservative victory in store, like Reagan did. We need to have more focus both on who is credible in taking on Obama, and who has the principled spirit and experienced effectiveness in making the most of the coming historic victory with New Deal-sized Republican Congressional majorities.

Grassroots patriots also need to take the battle to the enablers. Publicly challenge and hold accountable the Obama corporate cronies funding the Obama campaign in return for taxpayer funded payoffs. Locally challenge and hold accountable the brain dead Obamanista supporters who so fundamentally misunderstand the roots of American prosperity that they would vote for a Marxist takeover that would mean the decline and fall of America.

Most fundamentally, blame the entire Democrat party for Obama and what he is doing to America. Don't let your friends, neighbors and relatives fall for shysters claiming that they are different from Obama and the other Democrats. If they are different, let them run as independents or Republicans, and be part of the solution rather than part of the gravely threatening problem.
_____________________________________________

To read another article by Peter Ferrara, click here.