Something Rotten in Denmark

Jacques Chirac, former president of France, once called global warming “humanity dancing on a volcano.” Well, that volcano has now erupted into one gigantic fraud thanks to the leaked e-mails coming from the Climate Research Unit, (CRU), in Great Britain- a facility which has been the primary source for all global warming data.

This development is just in time for the Copenhagen convention meeting this week that will attempt to impose a radical global treaty limiting the use of carbon-based energy. The 15,000 delegates using 1,200 limos and 140 private jets will produce a carbon footprint equal to the size of several small countries. They will be working to implement what they call “global governance” that basically amounts to an assault on capitalism under the guise of saving the planet.

But what if the only “heat” in global warming is the cooking of the books to manipulate the so-called evidence?

The University of East Anglia maintains the CRU and in recent days their computers suffered a breach in security revealing the hoax of the century: gobal warming is indeed a fabricated crisis. This should finish off the debate since there had already been a growing trend against the global warming hysteria. A recent Rasmussen poll, taken before these devastating revelations, showed 59% of Americans already skeptical of global warming science.

In 2000, Jacques Chirac indirectly related the true motive behind the deception when he said, “Cap and trade is the first component of an authentic global governance.” Al Gore agrees: “It is the awareness itself [of Climate Change] that will drive the change. And one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”

Therefore, once you remove any authentic evidence for global warming, the only thing left is global governance and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. So, the net result is a new political entity to govern the world irrespective of environmental problems, real or imagined. Does this sound oddly like the old Communist game plan? It should. But don’t take my word for it, listen to Czech President Vaclav Klaus:

“They [the Global Warmists] do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back. The idea of global warming is an excellent political idea. You must compare communism with the ideology of global warming alarmism…they are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom, they are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our faiths, they are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do, what we cannot do, and so on.”

Why would so-called, legitimate scientists participate in this propaganda? The answer: follow the money.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the University of East Anglia's CRU could barely make ends meet for most of the years since it was founded in 1972. This all changed in 1994 when the U.N.’s climate change convention came into being. This was the beginning of large government grants to finance global warming research.
Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, received $19 million worth of research grants between 2000 and 2006. This was a sixfold increase over the previous decade. Michael Mann, another prominent figure named in the e-mails, helped Penn State University obtain an additional $35 million per year for their environmental research.
It turns out, the only consensus for global warming is the one that’s paid for. There are currently 31,000 American scientists who have signed the Petition Project that refutes the bogus claims of global warmists.


Carol Browner was President Obama’s choice for “Global Warming Czar.” The Washington Times reported that she was “listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for ‘global governance’ and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.”

Establishing a new, global government that would usurp our Constitution for a crisis that doesn’t exist is something that concerns even Dem. Sen. Jim Webb. He wrote a letter to Obama warning that “only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment [as proposed by Copenhagen] on behalf of our country.”

We should all pray that the truth prevails. If not, get ready for global redistribution of wealth under a ruling class of unaccountable Elitists who have no respect for honesty, freedom or individual rights. More Hope and Change. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).

Liberalism in Decline

A Gallup poll released this week shows Americans are firmly on the Right side of the ideological spectrum. By a margin of two to one, Americans identify themselves now as conservative over liberal. 36 percent are self-described moderates, 40 percent are conservative, and only 20 percent claim to be liberal. This is a 10 percent shift to the Right over last year’s poll. It’s the best rating for conservatism since 2004. So what’s the reason for the change? Obviously, having an extreme liberal agenda emanating from the White House and Congress has not set well with most Americans. The Tea Party and Town Hall protests have demonstrated the serious depth of this realignment.

The liberal label continues to lose its appeal even among traditional liberals like Hillary Clinton who chooses now to describe herself as a progressive. Anytime a brand gets a makeover like this, it usually means there’s something desperately wrong with the current one. So what’s so bad about liberalism and being liberal?

The liberalism of the 19th century, known as “classical liberalism,” is a reflection of the original meaning of the term. It described a person favoring a more laissez faire system of free markets and private enterprise. This older form of liberalism was more authentically libertarian espousing the individual’s liberty above the interests and designs of the Leviathan state. Most Americans recognize this as Reagan’s conservatism. In a 1975 Reason magazine interview, Ronald Reagan explained it this way:

“If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer of liberals- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is…again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.”

It’s interesting that Reagan chose the example of the Tories, or Royalists, to represent today’s liberals. The ideology of the Left is one drawn from Thomas Hobbes and his 17th century treatise: “The Leviathan.” Hobbes sought to establish the absolute power of an imperialistic government invested with a civic and spiritual authority over the people. This is the starting point or premise of today’s liberal elites. They consider themselves infallible and a hundred percent benevolent. Their ill consequences have absolutely zero effect upon their nanny-state, good intentions. Being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry for a government program gone bad.

It was the progressive politics of Woodrow Wilson that began transforming the term “liberal” into this current perversion. The power of liberation was shifted from the perspective of the individual to the perspective of the state. This convenient political maneuver meant that an ever-enlarging government would operate for the benefit of the individual. This was turning the politics of our Founding Fathers upside down. Now, for the first time in human history, the expansion of government power was incredibly being sold to the public as a simultaneous expansion of individual empowerment. This is nonsense. These powers are inherently in conflict and can’t possibly coexist on a scale that proposes to increase both! Of course, there is an ideology that came to prominence during this same time that sought to maximize this exact philosophy of government. It’s called Socialism where the state determines the means of production in a planned, or command, economy with a re-distributive tax system: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Karl Marx 1875. This top-down imposition of absolute authority is justified, as liberalism is, on the basis of “doing good” for the individual.

Norman Thomas was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He acknowledged this co-opting terminology as a method of purposeful deception:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Earlier this year, Newsweek magazine published a cover story entitled, “We Are All Socialists Now.” The current shift in the polls proves that Americans don’t like this kind of big government, no matter what you call it! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).

Like a Thief in the Night

Our Republic is being stolen. It is being done systematically in the cover of darkness – bills that give more power to Washington and special interests and less to “we the people.”

It is being done with radicals in Congress and the White House setting up a shadow government using czars to usurp the authority of Cabinet members and Congress. Even Hillary has complained.

It is being done with the state-run media, which ignores over a million tea party protestors in Washington, ignores the corruption of radical groups like ACORN, ignores the czars with extremist ties and ignores the corruption and out-of-control spending in Congress.

It is being done by taking our tax dollars and giving them to others through bailouts, special favors and entitlements. Thomas Jefferson said, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Would you mind if someone robbed you, spent your money and took the credit for everything they did with it? Politicians call it “investments.” The Bible calls it stealing.As the New Hampshire flag states, “Live Free or Die.” We have to stand up and say, “too much is too much.”

Our federal deficit grows at rate of $20 billion per week! Politicians love to talk about “doing it for the children.” Leaving them riddled with our debt is “doing it to the children.”

Jefferson also said, “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.” We’re passing ours on to future generations.

We can’t sustain this type of spending. One has to wonder if that is the plan. “You never want a good crisis to go to waste” is part of the Cloward-Piven strategy as is “making a weak economy even worse.”

The Cloward-Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. Their goal was to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis would provide the impetus to bring about radical political change. Ring a bell?

Is this the change that 53% of the people voted for? Do we actually want Socialism? Is this the change that Obama was talking about when he said he was going to “fundamentally transform America?”

By definition, Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Think “collective.”

In Marxist theory, Socialism is a transitional social state between the overthrow of Capitalism and the realization of Communism. Remember the Cloward-Piven strategy?

Liberals and big government proponents want the same government that has bankrupted Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to spend over a trillion dollars on a government healthcare takeover that may bankrupt our country.

Conservatives know that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.

We have to be Constitutionalists and stand up for the principles and beliefs upon which this country was founded. Our founders were willing to put their lives on the line for our country – are we?

In 1943, four chaplains aboard the USAT Dorchester representing four religions were seen holding hands, praying and singing as their ship sank in the Northern Atlantic. They had just assisted in evacuating the ship, calming down the soldiers and loading them on the lifeboats after giving away their life jackets. These were men of the “greatest generation.” Now, it’s our turn.

Are we willing to get off the couch and call or write our Congressmen? Are we willing to get on our knees and pray for our country? Are we willing as the Revolutionary Flag stated, “Appeal to Heaven?”

If not, we are going to lose our Liberty. We are going to lose our country. This is a time in history that we will look back on one day and wish that we had done more. We will wish that we had made that call to our Congressman, went to that town hall meeting or contacted the White House.

The Tea Party March on Washington was a wake-up call. Stop the out-of-control spending of our money. Stop the corruption. Stop the madness.

Our democratic republic may be in its final hour. I our voices are not heard now, they may be silenced forever.

Send Comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net.

Conservatives Believe in Small But Effective Government

There are some liberals who mistakenly think that conservatives are against all government. A recent La Follette Press op-ed put forward this misrepresentation of conservatism in a typical example of the straw man argument. This is where you set-up a false position of your opponent so that you can easily knock it down. It may fool the unobservant, but it’s not an honest approach for those seeking truth in practical politics.

Conservatives, very simply, believe as Jefferson believed: “That government governs best that governs least.” Conservatives, like our Founders, adhere to the principle that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Government should be limited, therefore, because it is a necessary evil utilizing corporate force. In other words, government makes a pretty good sledge hammer but you can’t really play the piano with it. Government has its appropriate functions but it also has a tendency to oppress the innocent.

Another liberal perspective I ran across lately attempted to champion the merits of government-run healthcare by saying that it would be accountable to the people through our democratically elected representatives. Yeah right, like they’re doing now with nearly two trillion dollars in annual deficits and a multitude of programs facing insolvency. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Post Office are all in the red!

Then, there are the terrific examples of: the delta smelt, Cash For Clunkers, the housing market, ACORN, Afghanistan, etc.

The delta smelt is a tiny minnow in California being protected by the EPA at the cost of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars worth of produce. It’s estimated that 25% of America’s table food comes from this area. Many farmers are going out of business and facing starvation, but the Feds are not listening. The fish is an endangered species and must be protected by withholding water from this once fertile San Joaquin valley. The irrigation has come to a stop creating a horrific dust bowl. Is that responsible government evoking immeasurable trust?

Cash For Clunkers is another example of misguided government. It has bankrupted many dealers by promising money for their trade-ins while delaying reimbursements. It has also decimated the used car market just like all government intervention does- remember the subprime mess? The housing bust was a government-induced market malfunction emanating from forced loans to unsecured risks. Feel-good programs from Washington, despite their warm and fuzzy intentions, generally pervert market forces of supply and demand. It’s simple logic: set prices too high and they’ll be surpluses, set prices too low and they’ll be shortages. You can’t trick the market.

ACORN should serve as another warning to everyone. If you’ve been paying any attention at all, you know this taxpayer-funded organization is corrupt beyond repair.

Afghanistan presents a foreign policy example of irresponsibility. Gen. McChrystal, appointed by President Obama himself, asked for more troops in August but has thus far been denied. McChrystal, and other military leaders on the ground, are warning that the war could be lost if they don’t authorize a troop surge quickly. Meanwhile, President Obama deliberates and delays action. However, he did act regarding the Rules of Engagement. This change of policy in Afghanistan has proved to be a mortal mistake. While waiting for air support in Ganjgal last week, four U.S. marines were left to die in an ambush because of President Obama’s new NATO protocols.

The U.S. Constitution declares the main responsibility of the president is to be commander-in-chief of the military. Where is that constitutional accountability in an administration that is: losing the war in Afghanistan; mirandizing captured terrorists; prosecuting our own CIA interrogators; surrendering our missile shield in Europe; defunding the F-22 Raptor; and befriending dictators like Manuel Zelaya of Honduras while alienating democratic allies like Poland and Israel? Hmm?

No, Conservatives are not anti-government, they are just wise enough to know that government must do a few, limited things in a framework of accountability. So far, Team Obama is not showing the kind of performance that would make a reasonable person confident about placing 1/6th of our economy under his control. So, instead of pounding your chest over empty-headed, straw men arguments, liberals should face the facts that this is a failing administration showing no signs of improvement. Maybe the problem stems from another straw man who famously sang, “if I only had a brain?” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).

In the Eye of the BeHolder

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.” Isaiah 5:20

This week the duplicitous Obama administration reneged on its commitment to “look forward” and not prosecute the prior administration for alleged misconduct in the War on Terror. Nevertheless, Attorney General Eric Holder has just authorized an investigation into the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques used in the first months following the 9/11 attack.

This is stupid, if not treasonous. The investigation will completely destroy our ability to work with other nations in the sharing of covert intelligence. Who would want to reveal any worthwhile secrets knowing that some future political trial in America might expose everything?

There are about a dozen cases that John Durham, the appointed special prosecutor, will be investigating. There’s nothing new here. These cases have all been looked into before and would remain closed if not for this extraordinary political move.

This is a reckless decision that will prove disastrous for those heroes in the field who have put themselves at risk for our safety. Eventually, many CIA operatives and contractors will be exposed to the enemy, jeopardizing their lives and families. Is this what we want? Who does this really help?

President Obama seemingly gave assurances to the CIA last April that this would not happen: “There is nothing more important than protecting the identities of CIA officials. So, I need everybody to be clear. We will protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your mission.”

Huh? Who is he kidding? I guess this is the equivalent of Obama’s assurance that the unemployment rate would not go above 8% if we enacted the $800 billion porkulus bill.

Fact: the CIA interrogators now under siege by their own government are forces for good, not evil. The Left is clueless, but more than that, they’re putting us all in mortal danger. This is a definite pattern for them. They have demonstrated over the years a pathological tendency to misinterpret the nature of good and evil. Remember how they cringed when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire?” Case in point.

For Attorney General Holder, trying to decide, “who’s the good guy” has always been a challenge. As Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno he participated in Clinton’s infamous Pardongate where Marc Rich and 16 members of the terrorist group Boricua Popular Army, (formerly FALN), were given clemency on Clinton’s last day in office.

The Rich pardon was so bad that it was even denounced by many on the Left. The New York Times called it “an inexcusable abuse [of power].” Democrat leaders such as Jimmy Carter, Terry McAuliffe, Chuck Schumer and Robert Byrd all condemned the act as a disgrace. I suppose it is conceivable that Holder didn’t realize the full extent of Rich’s guilt, but then again, Rich wasn’t exactly hiding- he was on the FBI’s top ten most wanted list! Rich was associated with BCCI, aka “the Bank of Crooks and Criminals,” and made illegal oil deals with Iran at the time of the Iranian hostage crisis. Rich appears to have purchased his pardon with a $450,000 gift to the Clinton Library and a $70,000 contribution to Hillary’s senate campaign. Sweet.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. His interrogation by the CIA, including waterboarding, led to the extraction of critically valuable information that helped thwart several attacks. One of the plots involved flying a jetliner into the “Library Tower” in Los Angeles. Names and addresses of several al Qaeda terrorists working in the U.S. and Europe were successfully collected.

It’s hard to imagine the moral confusion of someone like Holder who thinks it’s more important to prosecute the saviors of America’s security than those who mean us harm. But then again, there are those on the Left who think America itself is the focus of all evil in the world.

In 2003, Eric Holder worked for the Covington and Burling law firm that gave free representation to 16 detainees at Guantanamo. The documents from that case will necessarily reveal “witnesses” who are clandestine CIA agents working for our protection. It’s time to ask President Obama which side he is on! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)

Town Hall Protesters or Patriots

In 2003, Hillary Clinton proclaimed, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this [Bush] administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

Well, that was then this is now. Apparently, in this strange Orwellian world we now find ourselves in some protests are more equal than others.

In a recent op-ed piece, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called people who oppose the government takeover of healthcare “un-American.” Pelosi further characterized these town hall citizens as phony, “astroturf,” disrupters of democracy who carry swastikas! Let the record show that it was the Socialist Nazis who nationalized their healthcare with centralized, government control.

Other Democrats, like Representative David Scott of Georgia, have said these town hall “mobs” are preventing civil debate on the issue. Are they serious? Please take note: the Democrats never intended to have a debate at all, much less a civil one. They wanted to pass this overhaul of nearly 20% of our economy before the August recess without even reading the bill. How could there be any kind of relevant debate after a vote? Hmm?

This should serve as another example of how this current administration is attempting to deceive the American people. Remember what Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said about this particular legislation, “what good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” Apparently, all those folks in the “mob” out there are just too sensitive about their liberties and should blindly hand over all power to Obama. We simply must trust in Obama’s divine benevolence and forget all logical objections.

The mainstream media, predictably, has joined the chorus of demonizing these town hall activists who have the naïve concept of wanting to express their First Amendment Rights. How is it that Hillary Clinton and others on the Left can so easily abandon their once unified celebration of dissent? I suppose when there is a Republican president and the concerns involve “progressive” issues like: war protests, homosexual demonstrations, tree huggers, and ACLU anti-Christian lawsuits, the proverbial shoe is on the other foot.

Now, with the other party in charge, reasonable Americans should not protest, but rather heed Obama’s warning: “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.” So, the President expects us to believe that the town hall protestors, including many Democrats, are somehow responsible for creating the mess. I guess these town hall “hijackers” should be happy about the prospects of paying higher taxes for rationed healthcare that proposes to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $313 billion? I wonder if Obama and Pelosi’s condemnation includes Democrat Governor Phil Bredesen who called ObamaCare, “the mother of all unfunded mandates.” Is he an un-American Nazi too?

The hypocrisy of the Left is on full display. They love protest and agitation, but only when it benefits their pet, political causes. We can’t forget that it was President Obama himself- a former community organizer and Chief National Trainer for ACORN- who told supporters during the campaign, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Staying true to form, Obama has sent out purple-shirted SEIU thugs, who are affiliated with ACORN, to pre-pack town hall audiences and rough-up dissenters like Kenneth Gladney in St. Louis who had to go to the hospital ater the assault.

The White House has also launched a website asking citizens to report on the “fishy” conduct of their fellow citizens. This snitch-on-your-neighbor website (flag@whitehouse.gov) is an insult to our American heritage of popular government and likely violates the law.

Americans who love and value their liberty need to take a stand now to stop this abuse of power before it’s too late. Find a town hall meeting in your area and speak-out while you still can. Power to the People! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

“The Doctor Won’t See You Now”

At the time of this writing there seems to be a reprieve on ObamaCare. Thank God! At first, President Obama said that Healthcare Reform would be pushed through before the August recess. Now, all of that has changed thanks to some Blue Dogs and some very angry constituents.

Washington phone lines have been melting down with calls opposing this latest attempt to socialize our Health Industry that represents 1/6 of our overall economy. Obama remains adamant about achieving his reforms before the year is out. The good news is that more time means more truth will come out to undermine this horrendous 1,018 page health care bill that few in Congress have actually read.

If you are uncertain about this issue, take a few moments to consider the following:

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the price tag for this Nationalized Health monster and has determined a cost of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That’s on top of our current debt and deficit already skyrocketing out of control.

In 1966 Medicare cost $64 million, now it’s $500 billion. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimated that the administrative expenses of Medicare and Medicaid last decade were 66% higher than those in the private sector. That’s hardly a trustworthy track record that warrants more federal involvement. In fact, maybe the politicians should fix these programs first, before demanding more from the taxpayers?

The brave new world of ObamaCare will create 31 new federal programs with a Healthcare Czar and a Bureau of Health Information. This red tape will increasingly make all health decisions a political matter where even euthanasia will be mandated in order to help save resources for those who are more fit.

The bill will add costs in other ways. There’s a pay-or-play provision that would require businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine equal to 8% of payroll. By the White House’s own estimates, this would be a $300 billion cost to employers, eliminating 5 million jobs. Income taxes, also, would be increased by $583 billion with more than half of those affected being small businesses- the provider of most jobs in America. The CBO notes that for those businesses able to survive, these costs will be passed on to the workers in the form of lower wages. Douglas Elmendorf, chief of CBO, predicts “the health care bills that congressional Democrats have proposed would likely make the nation’s already gloomy budget prospects even worse.”

If you think you have a choice in this matter, forget it. Opting out of this government behemoth will bring down the wrath of Obama with various tax penalties. We must all assimilate under Big Brother’s plan even though polls show that as many as 90% of Americans are happy with their current health care.

Another big lie, is the number of uninsured. Proponents of Socialized Medicine say that there are 47 million uninsured Americans. The truth is: 20 million can afford health insurance but don’t voluntarily choose it. Most of the other 27 million, according to a CBO study conducted by former director June O’Neill, are single, under 35, or illegal aliens. Why should we destroy a system that a majority of Americans prefer just to cover those who either don’t want it, or shouldn’t be here?

Critics say our health care is bad compared to the rest of the world. This is yet another lie. Countries who have nationalized care have far worse catastrophic outcomes due to rationing and long lines. Breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than the U.S. In the U.K. it is 88% higher. Prostate cancer mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. If you take out the anomalies in the U.S. statistics, like the homicide rate and driving deaths, studies find that Americans actually live longer than people in other countries.

Proponents of Socialized Medicine say the poor need more coverage. Well, this also belies the facts. America has 37 million people living in poverty, but Medicaid covers 55 million at a taxpayer cost of $350 billion per year.

So, how do we make health care better? Nearly half of our Health Industry is already socialized with government, third-party intrusions. This system needs to be cleaned-up and privatized with medical savings accounts. With more consumer choice, insurance plans that can go across state lines, medical tort reform and other free market principles the industry can improve without a total government take-over.

ObamaCare is dangerous on many fronts. It’s aiming to tax health insurance plans for the first time in history. Physician-owned hospitals would likely go out of business. And, perhaps worst of all, ObamaCare would force all health insurance plans to cover abortions. To compel someone to fund this immoral practice is the height of tyranny for an arrogant Administration that has gone way out of control. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

“Happy Declaration Day”

America is 233 years old this week. Will there be many more? One thing’s for certain, America’s form of government-- and the God-given privileges of liberty it uniquely protects-- depends upon popular renewal and eternal vigilance. If we, the people, ever forget the principles of our great country we are sure to lose it.

Freedom is not a naturally occuring condition for human organization. It is a rare phenomenon in the course of human history. If it is not rigorously defended it will be abolished under the weight of self-serving politicians who force their will upon the people by exploiting weakness, ignorance and gullibility. As a writer in Pravda reminded us recently, “pride blinds the foolish.” The article was in reference to America’s rapid descent into Marxism. If you think you are incapable of being fooled, you better think again. Not everyone presenting themeselves as political “friends” are honest and forthright. Remember, they only want your vote to enlarge their own power!

The majority of Americans are inherently conservative. All of the polling data consistently reflects this ideological bent, (CNN 5/19/09; Gallup 6/15/09). They believe in America’s Founding principles and the high ideals of freedom and liberty. This means they have a healthy skepticism of government, a distrust of those who would usurp their individual rights with promises of collective, state-sponsored security. The trouble comes from the fact that a group of disengenuous politicians are governing now in Washington from a completely different perspective.

I think it would help us to go back to the Declaration of Independence this holiday weekend and consider, once again, the heritage that defines our nation. It’s the one thing that stands in the way of a Liberal, Left-wing majority in Washington that’s determined to take over every aspect of our lives with irresponsible bailouts, oppressive energy taxes and government-run health care.

On July 4, 1776 thirteen British colonies, after suffering from similar abuses of tyrannical government, declared their independence. The author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, wrote one of the best known sentences in the English language. It has been regarded by historians as the most potent and consequential words in American history:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident [there’s no logical debate]: that all men are created equal [not evolved, and not subject to Sotomayor’s affirmative action]; that they are endowed [a legal endowment] by their Creator [God] with certain unalienable [cannot be alienated from] rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit [not the capture] of happiness.” Abraham Lincoln said, “I never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”

These sentiments charge us with the duty to seek and follow the will of the Creator as the precursor to all governments. The authority of the Creator, being prior to all civil society and human authority, must be respected for liberty to endure. The Bible instructs us, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The only other option is to follow the authority of untrustworthy and fallible men who arbitrarily rule according to their own, selfish purposes. That’s why we say we are “one Nation under God.” It is a differentiation from both the “Divine Right of Kings” we rejected in 1776 and the totalitarian Liberalism we battle today.

Our first squadron of cruisers commissioned by Gen. Washington in the War of Independence flew the Pine Tree Flag with the motto: “An Appeal To Heaven.” I’m sure if the ACLU had been around back then they would have filed a lawsuit! The phrase is another reminder of our Founders’ reliance upon God for determining the success of the Revolution. The idea comes from John Locke and his philosophy regarding the “Right to Rebel.” Here is a quote from Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government,”

“If God has taken away all means of seeking remedy…[with] no Arbitrator on Earth to appeal to. Then they may appeal, as Jephtha did, to Heaven, and repeat their Appeal, till they have recovered the native Right of their Ancestors, which was to have such a Legislative over them, as the Majority should approve, and freely acquiesce in.”

If people are continually abused by a system that abdicates its responsibility to ensure justice, then Jefferson says, “it is [the peoples’] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.” Jefferson concluded, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

The challenges we are facing now represents another call to duty, to test our commitment to those sacred principles handed down to us. Time will tell whether this generation will keep the faith, or consign America to the dust bin of history. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).

Twinkle Twinkle, Little Czar

There are about 20 czars now working for “Head Czar” President Obama. These are appointees of the Executive Branch granted much power and accountable to no one except the President.

Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat and the longest serving senator in history, has called this development “dangerous.” He warned, “The presence of the czars gives the president too much power.” He also said the czar system “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances.”

“These White House staffers” Byrd continued, “are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances,” Byrd asserts, “[they] have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

Czar is a Slavic term designating certain monarchs, or kings. Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, an autocratic ruler who claims the same rank as a powerful Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official. It refers especially to one of the emperors who ruled Russia until the revolution of 1917.


Sen. John McCain has joked, “Obama has more czars than the Romanovs,” who ruled Russia for three centuries. These czars report directly to Obama and have the power to unilaterally dictate national policy on their subject area.

For example: Brian Deese is the new Car Czar. The New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right-wing thought, opined, “it’s not every 31-year-old who, in his first government job, finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rule of American capitalism.” Brain Deese has an interesting background. As a young college student he hosted a radio program called “Bedknobs and Beatniks.” Later, he worked for John Podesta’s left-wing think tank, the Center for American Progress, which is financed by globalist, hedge fund mogul George Soros. Podesta, by the way, was head of Obama’s transition team and most recently a central figure in ABC’s irresponsible fear-mongering program “Earth 2100.” See: http://newsbusters.org/people/john-podesta.

Brian Deese suspended his Yale Law education to work for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. When she dropped out he was hired by Obama. Deese has never had any formal business education or business experience in the private sector, yet this “wonder kid” has been put in charge of managing nearly a half a million dollars of taxpayer’s money per month in this massive auto bailout!

What does politicizing our auto industry mean? It means someone like Rep. Barney Frank gets to call GM CEO Fritz Henderson and intervene to stop the closing of a distribution plant in his district of Norton, MA. It means centuries old case law regarding bankruptcy gets turned upside down. Even the most liberal Justice on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has weighed-in to stop the insanity of Obama’s Chrysler deal that has unfairly cheated the secured debt holders while also misappropriating the TARP funds. Does this make any sense whatsoever?

It makes about as much since as the rest of this czar mania. There is now a Great Lakes Czar who’s in charge of restoring the lakes’ environment. Doesn’t the EPA offer enough regulation already? Right now in California’s San Joaquin Valley, they are part of a Federal action that is shutting down a vital, irrigation canal in an effort to protect a minnow! Forty thousand jobs have been lost already due to these drought-stricken farmers, but apparently this is not enough power for some, who wish to dictate their dreams of an Ecological paradise where everything thrives except humans.

The list of czars also includes: Bank Bailout Czar, U.S. Border Czar, Urban Czar, Regulatory Czar, Iran Czar, Middle East Czar, Afghanistan/Pakistan Czar and Cyber Czar. There’ll probably be a LGBT Czar soon since Obama announced last week that June is “Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender Pride Month!” Oh, and can’t forget, there’s a Stimulus Accountability Czar. That is especially needed since the Administration assured us that without the $800 billion stimulus bill the unemployment rate would reach 9%. At last check, it was 9.4% and climbing.

Neal Boortz, a popular, talk radio personality, put all of this government expansionism in perfect context the other day. He said, “government is not made powerful when you spend the money you earn, government is made powerful when they spend the money you earn.”

Don’t believe the seductive, sales pitch of socialism. Look at the results! Pride blinds the minds of the foolish, it also makes for a compliant populace to be ruled over by an endless array of Czars! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).

No Longer a Christian Nation

These were the words of our new president recently in Turkey. Obama made a similar statement in an email response to CBN's David Brody in 2007: “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.” Whatever we once were?

Patrick Henry, the “give me liberty or give me death guy” said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Or how about John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and one of the three men responsible for our Constitution? “Providence has given to our people the choice for their rulers and it the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Oops! Another right-winger.

Also, I think James Madison had something to do with that old pesky Constitution that keeps getting in the way of the liberal agenda. He stated, “We have staked the future of all of our political institutions…upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Of course, Madison did not want them hung in the courthouses or schools because someone might stop, read, obey them and not steal or kill because of them. That would be unconstitutional.

Then there was John Quincy Adams on July 4^th, 1837, addressing an Independence Day crowd, “Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day?”

“Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” Weren’t all these men atheists and Deists?

In a 10-year university of Houston study of the Founders and 15,000 quotes, they identified 3,154 quotes made by the Founders and had identified the sources of those quotes. They discovered that 34% of Founders’ quotes come directly out of the Bible and 94% were either directly or indirectly from the Bible.

From 1690 to 1900, the New England Primer was the first and most-used textbook in America. It used Bible verses to assist students is memorizing the alphabet. There were even questions about the Ten Commandments in the back of the book. Shocking indeed!

What about that “separation of church and state” to which the ACLU and the liberals allude? It would be much more effective if it were actually in some founding document.

It was in a letter from Jefferson’s to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802, because they were worried that the Congregational Church was going to be established as a national denomination. When in context, it shows that the founder wanted to use Christian principles without establishing a national denomination.

However, if you repeat something enough, like hope and change, many will eventually believe it.

In the Church of the Holy Trinity Vs. United States in 1892, the Supreme Court ruled, “ Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and must embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. In this sense, to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”

In that ruling, they quoted 87 precedents including quotes from the founding fathers. 70 years later in the 1962 ruling to ban prayer in schools, the Supreme Court cited 0 precedents.

Although the ruling lacked historical or legal precedents, liberal and progressive judges only need precedents when it promotes their activist agendas.

The following year, they banned school Bible reading. They stated that “If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and….had been psychologically harmful to the child.”

I’m glad we took that New Testament out of public schools. Look how much it has traumatized those children in Christian schools!

In a March 27, 1854, House Judiciary Committee Report, it stated, “In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.” According to a 2007 Pew Poll, 78% say it still is.

On the campaign trail, Obama stated, “Folks haven’t been reading their Bible.” Apparently, some folks haven’t been reading their history book either.

Tea'd Off

Tea’d Off
Or
Party Like It’s 1773

Last week, over a million people turned out for an estimated 850 tea party events held across the nation. Adopting the imagery of the Boston Tea Party, these independent activists from across the political spectrum brought out their pitchforks and protest signs to voice their outrage over unparalleled government spending.

Taxpayers are mad at both political parties over the fact that they will have to pay an additional $95 million every day just for the interest on the $800 billion “Stimulus Package.” They are incensed over the insanity of trying to fix a debt problem by going into more debt. These views were clearly expressed by such signs as: “give me liberty, not debt,” “don’t spread my wealth, spread my work ethic,” and “TEA = Taxed Enough Already.”

In Tennessee, the majority of the “stimulus” money includes a $608 million increase in Food Stamps. It’s hard to see how that will create new jobs or spur economic growth, but it certainly will satisfy a significant voting bloc to secure their votes in the future. But, as Eisenhower once wisely instructed, “a people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.”

These tea parties were not extolling the benefits of party privilege and patronage. They were celebrating their individual Rights-- as another sign proclaimed, “under God, not government”-- to protest the tyranny of politicians passing laws they’ve never even read! How can it be “taxation with representation” if the representatives haven’t even read the bill?

Investor’s Business Daily called the tea parties “one of the most extraordinary grassroots uprisings in the history of the republic,” and a “landmark protest” offering a “golden opportunity for freedom-loving politicians.”

By contrast, the tea parties really got under the skin of the governing elite and their Left-wing allies in the, so-called, mainstream media. These patriotic, peaceful protests were called “despicable,” “not for family viewing,” “unhealthy,” “racist,” and “redneck.” Obama was rudely dismissive saying he was “unaware” they were going on. They were characterized as “tea-bagging,” “Astroturf” rallies for “sore losers,” “weasels” and “old cranks” that represent the “wealthiest people.” Sources for these quotes include: Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill), Sr. White House Adviser David Axelrod, Janeane Garafolo, CNN-reporter Susan Roesgen, CNN-anchor Anderson Cooper, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Paul Begala and James Carville.

Never mind the fact that these crowds included people from every political and cultural demographic. Never mind that many of these people were African Americans and folks who had voted for Obama. For the Kool-aid drinkers on the Left it doesn’t matter. The Left must beat their drums ever louder in order to drown out the truth that is beginning to challenge their brainwashing mantras.

Ronald Reagan- hated by elitists in both parties- once said, “you can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.” The idea that more concentration of power into the hands of the state will somehow benefit the “little guy” is the type of absurd hoodwinking that goes on in banana republics like Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela or the Socialist Paradise of Castro’s Cuba.

“Concentration of power” to quote Reagan again, “has always been the enemy of liberty…man is not free unless government is limited.” What is ignored is the fact that it is the U.S. Constitution, not any particular political party or politician, that limits and constrains our government from trespassing upon our God-given freedoms. Put simply, those attending the tea parties understand America’s Founding principles much better than those who disparage the tea parties “The problem,” to echo Reagan again, “is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”

Over the past 50 years, government spending has averaged around 20% of GDP. Under Obama that rate is going up to an unprecedented 25%, or more. Our deficit-- which has a historic high of 6% of GDP—has more than doubled to 13% of GDP. At the current rate, taxes will have to be increased over the next ten years by $1.4 trillion! And remember, China has announced their intention of not buying any more of our debt. The tax avoiders in Obama’s cabinet seem unconcerned as they place more and more hard-working Americans on the hook.

Sam Adams was a leader at the original Boston Tea Party. His proclamation is as relevant today as it was back then-

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, Facebook- On the Right Track Network, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Liberty and Tyranny

Mark Levin is a nationally-syndicated radio host and conservative commentator. He has just released a landmark new book, “Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto.” The book is flying off store shelves across the country. It sold out on its first day of release and has broken all sales records for Amazon.com. This is an incredible feat for any book given the current economic conditions. The phenomenal interest in this work is not hard to understand when one considers its stated purpose: “to galvanize readers to begin a new era in conservative thinking and action…revitalizing the conservative vision and ensuring the preservation of American society.”

We are entering the most pro-government era of state-controlled monopolies since FDR’s New Deal. Americans are legitimately disturbed at this rapid movement toward Socialism. A recent IBD/Tipp poll showed an increase of 80%, since last summer, in the number of people who believe we are moving dangerously closer to a Socialist economy- from an average of 26% to 45%.

Levin outlines the history and development of Socialism analyzing it in terms of Statism vs. Individualism. The book seeks to clarify the nature of tyranny and how our Founding documents sought to preserve our freedom by restricting government, not empowering it.

The Left-wing, Liberal Socialism propagated by the Democrat party in America, is a seductive type of Statism that has been termed “soft tyranny.” C. S. Lewis warned, “a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Levin uses a number of examples from history to substantiate his arguments with both empirical evidence and irrefutable logic. He deftly reveals, in easy to understand language, the commonality between conservative ideology and the founding principles of our nation.

The Constitution has been described as the most conservative document in human history, because it seeks to confine, restrict and frustrate the lustful desires of monopolistic power emanating from government activism. Gathering more and more control under the auspice of centralized government, regardless of the motive, is not only antithetical to our Constitution, it is the very definition of Socialism.

Levin demonstrates with example after example how the Statist- i.e. that individual using politics to enlarge the state- is ultimately interested in power, not truth.

Levin writes, “the Statist’s Utopia can take many forms, and has throughout human history, including monarchism, feudalism, militarism, fascism, communism, national socialism, and economic socialism. They are all of the same species—tyranny. The primary principle around which the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word—equality.”

“Equality,” as Levin explains, “is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law.” The Statist misuses this concept to increase his power by promising an equality of outcomes, irrespective of individual merit or toil. As President Obama said, “[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” Soft tyranny holds out the hope of a collective salvation through the work of an all-powerful state. As I have said before in this column, there remains no collective means to individual success. This is exactly how FDR laid the foundation for all of the Statist programs that have come along after the New Deal.

Roosevelt proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” based on a new concept: the government guaranteeing “security and prosperity.” Under this revolutionary idea that negated the Founder’s precepts, Roosevelt was proposing- not the Natural Law Rights given by God- but new Rights given by government to re-distribute wealth. For the first time there was a “right” to things that someone else must provide. Of course, if one individual claims a right to the labor of another that also has another name- slavery. These new “rights” included: a right to a useful job; to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation; to a decent living; to a decent home; to adequate medical care and the enjoyment of good health; to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment; and to a good education.”

This is where the seeds of our modern, soft tyranny were sown and how we are going broke under the yoke of ever-increasing taxes! Buy and read Mark Levin’s book. Share it with others. It may prove to be the manifest change we need to stop this tyranny before it’s too late. (Send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN, 37757.)

Political Promises Made, Political Promises Broken By Dennis Powers

A politician running for a state office once made the statement, “Tell the voters anything they want to hear to get elected and after you get elected, then you can do anything you want.”
Isn’t this typical of what it is going on in Washington today?
Take our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, for example, or as Rodney Dangerfield would say, “take her, please.”
I remember her words in January 2007 after the Democrats took the majority and pushed through the pay-as-you-go budget rule.
At that time, Pelosi said, "Democrats will demand and deliver a fiscally responsible budget. We will submit all of our ideas in our innovation agenda to pay the rigors of pay-as-you-go. No more deficit spending."
That was then, this is now.
"Today, we are cutting our national credit card," added Heath Shuler, a North Carolina Democrat, as he cut a credit card in effigy in 2007. Republicans applauded the effort and one, Rep. Jeff Flake, Republican, Arizona, stated, “I give them kudos.”
But, the House Democrats went even farther in 2007 to promote fiscal responsibility by approving a Democratic proposal that requires lawmakers to publicly disclose their pet projects, or "earmarks."
All earmarks were included in the pay-as-you-go rule. Rep. John Spratt Jr., a Democrat, from South Carolina added, “And if you want to enhance an entitlement, you've got to pay for it." Conservatives and Blue-Dog Democrats were ecstatic.
However, when Obama became president, those rules were thrown out the window along with our tax dollars. Now, we know what can happen when you get a Liberal president with a Liberal Congress.
In a November 16, 2006, press release, Pelosi said “We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to fiscal responsibility.”
How’s that working out for us?
Pelosi also said, "The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'”
As Obama said on the campaign trail “Folks haven’t been reading their Bible.” We need to include Nancy in the next study group.
Here’s something that is in the Bible in Psalm 106, (for Ms. Pelosi - that would be in the Old Testament) verse 12: Then they believed His promises and sang His praise.
The same could be said of the media and our new president. But, before we start singing, let’s look at some of his promises:
During the first presidential debate, he said, “Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
He just signed a bill with 9,000 earmarks.
Obama also promised that he “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
His first bill was not published at all and the second bill was signed just hours after it passed in Congress. Most Americans and members of Congress still have no idea what was in the 1,100 page, $787 billion stimulus bill - so much for transparency.
And what about the famous quote by Obama that “Lobbyists will not find a job in my White House?” To date, he has hired at least a dozen to high-profile positions including several to his cabinet. I suppose it is difficult to find qualified candidates in Washington who pays their taxes.
Yes, we hear one thing from candidates on the campaign trail and another after they win an election. We are still looking for politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say.
Obama was sworn into office with the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used for his first inauguration in 1861. Obama identified with Lincoln throughout his campaign and quoted him often.
Lincoln once walked 20 miles to return a book. We need that type of honesty in Washington and let me assure you Mr. President, “You’re no Abraham Lincoln.”
As Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
So, Mr. Obama, we’re not fooled by your promises. And in regard to your spending and infringements on our rights - we’ll keep our money and our guns – you keep the “change.”
Dennis Powers is a conservative columnist and his columns are found in BackyardPolitics.org and OnTheRightTrackOnline.blogspot.com. Send your comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net or mail them to POB 179, Jacksboro, TN 37757.

UN Proposal Threatens American Families

(guest columnist)

by Whitney Dotson

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is, after a seemingly silent period, emerging into public notice once again. Established two decades ago as a charter ambitious with the stated purpose of ensuring children’s rights around the globe, nearly every government throughout the world has embraced its terms---that is, with the exceptions of Somalia and the United States. Certain Americans, however, feel compelled to voice their acceptance of the charter. Prominent figures such as Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton comprise perhaps two of its most unabashed and motivated supporters. The document attracts most in its claim to preserve the domestic and public safety of children; what is often overlooked by casual readers, however, is the convention’s imbalanced perspective regarding governmental authority and familial rights.

Should the United States find itself submitting to the convention’s terms, children ages eighteen and younger would possess, upon the authority of States Parties, “a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development (Article 2,1), ” the right to mandatory education involving primary levels (Article 28, 1(a)), the right to moral and religious liberation as indicated by law (Article 14, 3), and protection against imposition in consideration of privacy (Article 16, Section 1). Within this frame of order, the child’s welfare would ultimately originate and progress from the consciences of politicians. According to these assertions, parents are not to interfere with their children’s moral convictions or privacy---a factor which could encourage minors’ access to abortions independent from parental knowledge, access to pornography, and state-regulated education. Parental direction in morality would be limited by governmental insistence of privacy rights. Social workers and others deemed worthy by the convention would inherit the business of supplementing parental authority according to their discernment, becoming familial spectators and wedging imposition when parents are considered insufficient providers.

The major defect with this convention is not a question as to whether or not the child is entitled to certain rights. As a Christian, I firmly believe that all children are inborn image-bearers of the only true God, and are entitled to every God-given privilege to humankind. No, the matter within dispute rests in a proper analysis of whether or not the government should be given access to our families, familial rights, and parental authority. In short, why should States Parties perceive themselves more capable of parenting than the parents themselves?

The two purposes of government were intended primarily to reflect justice in punishment, and to preserve what our forefathers regarded as certain unalienable rights. These rights were viewed not as legalities discharged by any earthly rulers, but characterized liberties imparted by the Creator. These liberties equate what are simply known as natural rights---rights which are instilled from conception, and cannot be denied. Our forefathers derived their understanding of natural rights from the principle underlying Genesis 1:26---that men are created reflections of God. Within this principle, God simultaneously instituted marriage and parenthood, demanding the sexes to procreate. Parenthood is a natural right---a right not to be impinged upon by man, but a covenantal responsibility to God. Any transcendence of such a right signifies a deified and misrepresented comprehension of government. It may surprise some people to know that Scripture always connects training and educational duties with the children’s parents. The writings of King David and Solomon repeatedly endorsed parental guidance in order that future generations might know God (Proverbs 1:8). How is this freedom of child rearing to continue when parents are no longer sole executors in guiding their children?

When examined, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child suggests a socialistic undertone. A socialist government asserts the desire that everyone be treated in corporate measure, and that government assumes the position as sole Benefactor and Sovereign over men. Note Sir Thomas More’s infamous work, Utopia; its pages envision a society in which everyone is endowed equally. Every person is directed in both personal and religious life by their governing factors. This ideology may strike the reader as an advantageous concept---especially when the less fortunate are considered. Think again, however, about the ultimate result of such living: the government would own all, distribute all, and decide all. This is nothing short of communism in which all free and individual thought is suppressed and discouraged.

The prohibition of this charter depends upon the action and voice of the people. In order for parents to maintain familial rights, the senate must be notified. If you also respect the foundation of the family unit, contact your state senators, requesting that they oppose the statements posed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and sending your request to the address below:

1. Senator Bob Corker
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON D.C. 20510

2. Senator Lamar Alexander
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON D.C. 20510

Glenn Beck Starts a Revolution

Glenn Beck is a popular talk show host for Fox News. He has the third highest ratings behind Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. He recently launched a movement to engage patriotic citizens in the cause of changing the direction of the country. This Friday, March 13, he is encouraging viewers to gather their friends and family to watch his 5pm show. In front of a live studio audience, Beck plans to explain how “we the people” can take our country back.

The driving force behind this effort comes from the unprecedented failure of our elected leaders. The fall of the stock market combined with our huge national debt is threatening to destroy our future. The Obama administration’s proposals for tax hikes, spending programs and government intervention is not hopeful change, but rather, an irresponsible move that will prove disastrous to our free market economy.

Beck has found inspiration to address this crisis from our Founding Fathers. He calls his agenda “We Surround Them” and bases it on 9 principles and 12 values taken from patriotic sources. He displays the principles using Benjamin Franklin’s famous 1754 “Join or Die” campaign drawing.

In the Revolutionary era, Franklin used the image of a dismembered rattlesnake to relate the need for the colonies to unite together to fight tyranny. Beck is renewing the symbol to express these Founding principles and to remind viewers that they are “not alone” in their beliefs.

So, what are these principles? They are distilled from the work of W. Cleon Skousen and his book “The 5,000 Year Leap.” Skousen was a staunch anti-Communist. Ronald Reagan was so impressed with Skousen’s work that he wanted to make his book mandatory reading for all students. Unfortunately, the effort was blocked by liberals in Congress.

The Beck set of principles is a short-hand version of the Skousen research. It can be boiled down to: a belief in God; the sovereignty of the people; moral values; and, respect for family, the law and private property.

Principle number one identified by Skousen is adherence to Natural Law. The Founders believed that Natural Law is the only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations. This was the first, and most important, priority to ensure peace, prosperity and freedom in the American form of government.

Principle number two states that a free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong. Franklin remarked, “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams said, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Founders believed all things are created by God. Therefore, upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible.

This is followed by another principle: the proper role of government is to protect these equal, unalienable rights, not provide equal things. The Founders also believed in the principle that a constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers. Madison said, "if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.... [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" “In questions of power, then,” explained Jefferson, “let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Principle 14 reveals that life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure. John Locke reasoned that all things in the world were given as a gift from God, but that once a person adds ingenuity, labor and value to change it, then that property becomes invested with exclusive individual rights of ownership.

The next principle says that prosperity is maximized whenever there is a free market economy and a minimum of government regulations. Prosperity, the Founders believed, depends upon an unencumbered environment of four basic freedoms: the freedom to try; the freedom to buy; the freedom to sell; and, the freedom to fail.

Finally, principle 27 equates the destructive power of debt to that of an invading army that destroys human freedom.

You can find out more about these principles at GlennBeck.com. Will this movement succeed? It’s hard to predict, but it may come down to Franklin’s assessment spoken over 200 years ago: “We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).

The Unfairness of the Fairness Doctrine by Dennis Powers

With the election of Barack Obama, the misnomer of the “Fairness Doctrine” has raised its ugly head again. There should be a law against naming bills that go through Congress because the name rarely reflects the contents of the bill. All bills are assigned a number and, just like in Federal Prison, they don’t need a name.

Soon, Liberals in Congress will once again try to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, which should be named the Suppression of Free Speech Doctrine. No bill has less equality or impartiality in it than the so-called Fairness Doctrine because there is nothing fair about it.

Liberals already control most of the mass media including major newspapers and television networks. Now, they want to silence the principal voice of Conservatives - talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh.

The FCC promulgated the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 to ensure that “contrasting viewpoints” would be presented on radio and television. In 1985, the FCC repealed the doctrine after determining it failed to serve the public interest because it actually resulted in broadcasters limiting coverage of controversial issues of public importance.

Liberals tried their own talk radio and failed with Air America, which was originally funded by money out of a federal grant for the elderly in New York City and later filed bankruptcy. Someone should tell AARP.

Since they could not counter the only voice of Conservatives, the liberal’s goal now is to stifle the free speech of the First Amendment by requiring conservative and religious broadcasts to allow equal time for the opposing point of view!

If Congress is so concerned about equal time, why aren’t conservative views being presented on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, etc.? Will the Fairness Doctrine apply to the taxpayer-funded NPR and PBS? That sounds “fair.”

One of the first things that Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro did when they got into power was eliminate media opposition. If the so-called Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, someone in Europe will have to pipe in a Radio Free America signal so we can find out what is really going on in Washington.

In the past, President Bush vetoed hate crimes legislation that could be abused to include penalties for Christian and conservative radio hosts and pastors in the pulpit if they ever mention their opposition to liberal and promiscuous lifestyles. Will they be able to push their agenda through with Obama as president?

It could mean jail time, loss of licenses and loss of tax exemptions for churches if their message is perceived to convey bigotry or hatred. The hate crimes legislation, the liberals have proposed, will lay the foundation for religious persecution in our country. There is no equal protection under hate crimes legislation and free speech will only be granted to those who support the liberal agenda.

Senate Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, once called Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic and said he “stepped over the line” regarding Rush’s comments about phony soldiers and denounced him on the Senate floor.

One such soldier, Jesse Macbeth was a rallying point for the anti-war Left. Macbeth described how he and his fellow soldiers killed innocent civilians, sometimes going into mosques in Iraq, slaughtering and hanging them during prayer time.

One small glitch in his story – Macbeth was discharged from the military after six weeks and was never in the Middle East – he never finished basic training. But, why let the truth stand in the way of a good story?

The attacks are not just on Rush Limbaugh – the smearing of Conservative talk radio hosts is all part of a larger plan – to silence conservative and religious broadcasts. The Left hates talk radio and the Fairness Doctrine will bring about censorship and control of the airways that will favor the liberal view.

According to Benjamin Franklin, "Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech."

Conservatives listen to talk radio because we get tired of the leftist slant on every news report we hear. However, liberals will not be content until conservative talk radio is taken off the air.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat-California once said, “In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.”

Sorry, Diane – it’s the only place we can find the truth and, obviously - you can’t handle the truth.

Send comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net.

America in Bankruptcy

According to a recent report from Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily, when one adds together all of our current debt obligations including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid we now have a total National Debt of $65.5 trillion. This is larger than the GDP of the entire world! That means that it would take the yearly output of every country in the world to equal the amount of our current debt.

Thomas Jefferson considered this kind of debt immoral:

“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt…the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

How does it make sense then to spend over $800 billion in the Obama stimulus package? Why do Liberal politicians take it as an article of faith that going further into debt to spend more public money will somehow improve our economic condition? The answer can be found in Keynesian economic theory and the debt-based monetary system.

Everyone’s heard about the $50 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernie Madoff. This was a scam where Madoff lured investors with the payment of huge returns that were financed, not by profits, buy by money received from new investors. The idea is that each investor can make a significant return as long as more suckers are found to feed the system before it dies from its own inevitable decline. On the front end, investors reap exponential rewards but only as long as they can enlist a perpetual, exponential number of new players!

Our Social Security system is configured in this same unsustainable manner as well. In the beginning, there were 16 workers contributing for every one recipient. Today, there are only three.

FDR’s New Deal was supported by the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. The basic thrust of this school of thought contends that government-based deficit spending is a stimulus for the economy. Jobs and wealth are supposedly created when governments go into debt to spend taxpayers money on politically-favorable projects, aka pork. However, it was FDR’s own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, who testified to its failure. In May 1939, before the House Ways and Means Committee Morgenthau stated, “after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started, [17%], and an enormous debt to boot."

The second component to our problem is our debt-based monetary system. Every dollar that is issued, or that is in circulation, represents one dollar of indebtedness plus interest owed. In other words, at any given time, there is always more debt than actual money in existence. For example: if I loan you a dollar today at interest and there’s no other source of money- you could, conceivably, pay back the dollar of principle but where do you obtain the additional interest?

The secret is to stretch out the repayment schedule so you can acquire the additional amount from others in the economy who are also operating on borrowed dollars. So you see, at any point in time it would be impossible to retire all debts. There’s always more debt than currency. The trickery is further disguised by what is known as the fractional reserve banking.

All banks are insolvent. At any given time all depositors could go to their bank, demand their deposits, and the bank would have to close. Why? Because our Federal Reserve Banking System allows banks to count deposits as both assets and liabilities. The same money can be used as an asset to leverage loans while also being a liability owed to the depositor. Keeping one-tenth of the money in reserve is the fractional system. It is inflationary and usurious by design and the real reason why we need such massive taxes. The tax collections serve to siphon-off excess currency.

Until we get free of our debt-based monetary system, fractional reserve banking and the Keynesian model of perpetual debt through New Deal ventures like the current stimulus, we’ll never break free. We have approached the time of reckoning where the Ponzi scheme begins to fail. If we don’t reclaim our sovereignty and property rights soon, all of America will be in receivership!

Thomas Jefferson also warned, “if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

George Soros and President Obama

Money is the mother’s milk of politics. In the case of President Obama, that dairy trail leads directly to one man- George Soros.

Soros is the 28th richest man in America. He is a hedge fund manager who is the single, largest investor in Obama. Soros gave $3.65 million to Democrats in 2008, but his track record involves much, much more.

“The man who broke the Bank of England” and who got convicted of insider trading in France, helped create the extremist organization MoveOn.org. This organization of 4.5 million far-Left activists gave over $88 million to Obama’s campaign.

Soros spent over $20 million in 2004 trying to defeat Bush, calling it “the central focus of my life, a matter of life and death.” “America under Bush,” Soros declared, “is a danger to the world, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.” Would that kind of political fanaticism motivate this hedge fund crook to go as far as wrecking the American economy in order to get his way?

One must remember that McCain was leading in the polls before the announcement of the economic Bailout. President Bush, following the advice of Treasury Sect. Henry Paulson, advocated the $700 billion plan. The purpose was to mitigate the toxic “subprime” loans clogging-up the credit markets and jeopardizing Wall Street.

Paulson proved not to be a dependable choice for Treasury Sect. Bush likely appointed him only because he could easily pass Democrat confirmation. Truth is: much of Bush’s second term could be characterized as expending political capital in order to maintain support for the Iraq War.

It may come as a shock to many, but Paulson is a Democrat and had previously worked for Goldman Sachs, a very Democrat-leaning investment firm. Seventy-three percent of Goldman’s 2008 campaign contributions, (nearly $4 million), went to Democrats. Obama’s number one financial “bundler” was Goldman Sachs! So, it’s safe to say that Paulson is not exactly a friend to Republican policies.

In the crisis of September, Paulson acquired virtual dictatorial powers with the TARP money that, curiously, also included authorization to bail out banks in China! This is particularly interesting given the fact that Goldman Sachs has been the leading underwriter of Chinese equity services as well as a chief adviser for Chinese mergers and acquisitions. Additionally, Chinese financial institutions own more than $30 billion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paper!

Even more suspicious is Sect. Paulson’s effort in 2006 to create a new U.S./China economic arrangement while owning a $25 million Goldman Sachs’ investment in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

Back in September, President Bush announced the SEC would be stepping up enforcement action “against illegal market manipulation.” The SEC (Security and Exchange Commission) issued a statement indicating their intention to require disclosure regarding short selling, fraud and market manipulation. Hearings were proposed where: “hedge fund managers, brokerage dealers and institutional investors with significant trading activity in financial issues or positions in Credit Default Swaps, (CDS) [would] be required, under oath, to disclose those positions to the Commission.”

These Credit Default Swaps played a huge role in the financial collapse. Lehman Brothers was the seventh largest ‘counterparty’ in the CDS market, underwriting billions of dollars of debt-financed contracts. When they defaulted, the resulting exposure sent shock waves throughout the $62 trillion global, CDS market. Consequently, this large-scale leveraging of derivatives had disintegrated into a large-scale de-leveraging.

Hedge funds like these, especially with the “mark to market” rule, give investors like George Soros an unfair opportunity to manipulate values for private gain. In 2005, Soros fought the SEC’s proposal to impose more regulations on hedge fund managers!

Democrats have a lot of interesting ties to hedge funds. Chelsea Clinton works for Avenue Capital Group. Joe Biden’s son Hunter is president of Paradigm Companies and is currently involved in a fraud scandal. Former presidential candidate John Edwards works for a hedge fund that was a major player in subprime mortgages.

So, what does George Soros want? His Open Society Institute advocates a variety of New Age-type programs with operations in 60 countries. Soros strongly supports the legalization of drugs, but his chief aim is to end American supremacy. He wants to strengthen global institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC), so as to usher in a World Government.

Vice President Biden has expressed agreement with these goals in a Wall Street Journal article entitled, “How I Learned to Love the New World Order.” George Soros, not so coincidently, wrote a book in 1993 called, “Toward a New World Order.” In time, I believe we’ll all discover: this political milk is sour. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O.B. 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Roll Over Abe Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave. A government of the people, by the people and for the people with an emphasis on freedom is not what President Obama represents. To say the inauguration was ‘over the top’ in all of its hype, symbolism and Lincoln references is as understated as saying Garth Brooks loves the spotlight. This was nauseating!

Lincoln said, “you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” This is why Obama will fail.

A majority of Americans are Conservative. It just so happens a good portion of them got bamboozled into voting for Obama while another sizable group stayed home out of disgust for moderate McCain. That’s how Obama won.

Lincoln understood the Constitution as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, not a suicide pact for exploitation. When the South seceded, Lincoln saw it as an unconstitutional infringement upon the people. The people had formed the Union, not the states, so they were being oppressed by the Confederate rebellion. Lincoln sought to save the Union, under the Constitution, thereby preserving the rights of the people. His Gettysburg Address defends this great theme. Europeans, and others, were still very distrustful of representative democracies where authority was vested in the people. They believed authority must come from some central figure like a King, Pope or Master in order to be legitimate.

Like the Europeans, President Obama is compelled, by his Liberal ideology, to distrust the people and to doubt the benevolence of freedom. His governing philosophy is no secret. He compiled the number one most Liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. What does this mean?

Obama distrusts people and freedom. To do as you please with your own private property in the marketplace is a threat to elitists like Obama. As a Liberal, Obama is blind to freedom because his philosophy respects groups not individuals. Furthermore, he sees America as the enemy causing all of the world’s problems. He recognizes Christians and orthodox Jews as impediments to global peace. He vows to “share the wealth” through global schemes of wealth redistribution that undermine our Constitutional sovereignty. And, he sees America’s use of energy as an offense to the world that must be stopped no matter the cost.

Lincoln was for the common man. He said the Lord must love common folk because he made so many of them! Unlike Obama, Lincoln wasn’t praised by the media of his day. They called him the Original Gorilla, a Monster, and a Tyrant unfit for office. Obama, on the other hand, is treated like an American Idol capable of producing thrills up the legs of news anchors. Symbolism is all that matters, there’s nothing of substance. Well, nothing he can be honest about! Obama’s task is impossible. He must somehow maintain his superficial popularity while pursuing unpopular goals. A majority of Americans disagree profoundly with Obama on a whole range of substantive issues, so this great divide is sure to be exposed.

Americans don’t want defeatism, appeasement and multilateralism in foreign policy. They don’t want higher taxes and the chains of socialized medicine. Americans won’t go along with Global Warming dictates that demand a decrease in their standard of living. They don’t want homosexual marriage, unrestricted abortions, gun control, the Fairness Doctrine, ACLU ascendancy and liberal judges. Americans want “Right to Work” states not a return to union superiority via “Card Check.” They want better schools not higher taxes to fund failing ones. Americans oppose open borders and will not put up with more benefits going to increasing numbers of illegal aliens. They want to get the bad guys in the War on Terror, ala Jack Bauer, and not be put at a disadvantage by the constraints of domestic law enforcement.

Obama is facing a Lincoln-size complexity of issues, but his heart is not Lincoln’s heart. Lincoln fought tenaciously for an independent America, free from the old colonial ties exploited by the British in the South. Conversely, Obama wants to put America onto a global plantation where we get a small cabin at the UN in the slave quarters next to Zimbabwe. Socialism, after all, is very similar to plantation slavery: free healthcare, food, clothing, housing in exchange for your labor and total subservience. You have cradle to grave benefits, but you can never be free to do what you want as God intended. Your soul is captured and caged all in the “sacred” name of the collective good. That ain’t America and that ain’t Lincoln. Excuse me while I barf. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).

America’s Grassroots Republic

Last week a true American hero passed away. Juanita Hill Baird, of Jacksboro, TN, was the quintessential American. Her decades long activism in Republican politics exemplified the best of what Benjamin Franklin could have ever hoped for.

When Franklin left Independence Hall on Sept. 17, 1787, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him, “what kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” He replied, “a republic if you can keep it.”

Implicit in that statement is the core foundation for our American system of government. Franklin knew that the Convention had placed all of its trust in the conscience of American citizens who would have the responsibility for proper administration and maintenance.

Juanita Baird accepted that responsibility with the gusto of a Paul Revere or Betsy Ross. She volunteered wholeheartedly and worked tirelessly in a variety of civic roles. She served 28 years on the Tennessee Republican Executive Committee and was District Treasurer for the Tennessee Republican Women’s group. In all things, she was found to be eminently trustworthy.

Locally, Mrs. Baird was the backbone of the Republican Party serving as president of the Campbell County Republican Women’s Club for several terms. In 1985, she was named the Tennessee Republican Woman of the Year. Mrs. Baird was profoundly respected for her integrity, her passion and her optimism that never failed. She kept the flames burning for 93 years, and left a legacy that will endure in the charmed memory of her many friends.

America is perhaps the only country in the world with a governing foundation that requires and anticipates such heroes as Juanita Baird. The “Spirit of 76” was truly a revolutionary idea unlike any other. Modern Americans seem to have forgotten that.

According to Constitutional scholar Earl Taylor, Jr., “the question of independence hung precariously on the single, slender thread of whether or not the people were sufficiently ‘virtuous and moral’ to govern themselves. Self-government was generally referred to as ‘republicanism,’ and it was universally acknowledged that a corrupt and selfish people could never make the principles of republicanism operate successfully.”

Franklin agreed, saying, “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

James Madison defined our Republic as “a government that derives all of its powers from the great body of the people [and] not from an inconsiderable proportion or favored class of…tyrannical nobles.”

America represented a totally new type of republic. The Founders rejected the two most familiar brands, (parliamentary and confederate), because of their inherent flaws. The legislative supremacy of parliaments had proved to be just as tyrannical as monarchy, and the state supremacy of the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak during the Revolutionary War. The Founders, therefore, avoided both kinds in favor of a new republic built upon two ideas: power would be invested in the people, and the people would exercise their power through elected representatives chosen by each state.

The concern at the Convention was whether the people were capable of exercising the serious and sacred responsibility of self-rule. Thomas Jefferson’s answer to this quandary was to bind public officials under the restraints of a written constitution. “In questions of power,” Jefferson said, “let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

According to Taylor, “only under a Constitutional Republic do the people enjoy the full right of self-rule. The privilege of self-rule has not been had by many people throughout the entire history of the world. Americans must consider themselves especially blessed people.”

It’s important to note that we have a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. James Madison, “the Father of the Constitution” warned, “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Grassroot-patriots like Juanita Baird, all across our country, represent the true constitution of our government. By their faithful vigilance, they serve as the guarantors of America’s promise of liberty and justice for all.

“It is in the political area,” Taylor contends, “where we vote for God’s plan of freedom or Satan’s plan of slavery where we indicate whether we belong with the just or the unjust, and whether we are able to overcome the disposition to abuse authority.”

May God grant us more heroes like Juanita Baird to fortify the ongoing work of keeping America on the right track! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).