On the Right Track

Acorn of Appalachia

2010-06-04T09:24:00.000-07:00

There are two rules regarding political truth: (1) Follow the money; and (2) See who benefits. Such an examination of Save Our Cumberland Mountains, SOCM, proves conclusively that it is a Leftist organization unfriendly to America’s core values and institutions. It is, in effect, the ACORN of Appalachia.

ACORN has been thoroughly exposed and discredited as a corrupt organization that has used taxpayer dollars to perpetrate frauds involving mortgages, voter registration and embezzlement. ACORN was co-founded by Wade Rathke, an influential force with other Leftist groups such as the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, and the Tides Foundation.

SOCM also receives a considerable amount of funding from the Tides Foundation through the Appalachian Community Fund. Is this a coincidence, or are there specific reasons why SOCM is favored by the Sugardaddy of Left-wing politics?

The Tides Foundation began in 1976 as an anti-war group. They have since become involved in a whole host of Left-wing activities including: domestic Islamic groups; pro-terrorist groups; abortion; open borders; homosexual advocacy; anti-trade; and, environmentalism. The Global financier George Soros has given millions to Tides to promote his One World vision. The Soros-created “Democratic Justice Fund” advocates easing restrictions on Muslim immigration, particularly from countries that have been designated as terrorist nations by the State Dept.

Most of the Tides Foundation contributors prefer to remain anonymous. It’s easy to see why once you discover their vast network of anti-American affiliations.

Tides has donated money to the Ruckus Society, an anarchist group responsible for the 1999 WTO riots in Seattle. They have contributed to the Earth Island Institute which called the U.S. response to the 9/11 attack, “self-righteous arrogance.” Tides has given money to the pro-Hamas Council for American Islamic Relations, CAIR.

Tides is involved in funding the National Lawyers Guild which has a long tradition of defending America’s enemies. They also help fund the Center for Constitutional Rights, CCR, which defended attorney Lynn Stewart who was found guilty of “providing material support” to 1993’s World Trade Center bomber, the blind Sheikh.

Tides was able to influence ABC into censoring a John Stossel report about radical environmentalism. Tides has given money to MoveOn.org— the Soros-directed 527 that produced the Gen. Petraeus, “Gen.Betray Us” ad. They’ve also been involved in an array of anti-war groups such as ANSWER and the International Action Center which has defended Serbian Communist Slobodan Milosevic and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

The Tides-sponsored Appalachian Community Fund, passes out grants to groups like SOCM in order to finance their anti-coal campaigns.

Why anti-coal?

Remember, the Left has long desired a policy to destroy America’s industrial might by attacking our carbon-based energy supplies. The scheme, called “Cap and Trade,” is nothing more than a method of wealth redistribution where certain, privileged insiders make a fortune at the expense of heavy taxation and regulation. Poor, undeveloped countries will have a surplus of carbon credits because they use so little carbon-based energy. The industrialized countries, however, like the U.S., will shoulder the largest carbon liability, or tax. As President Obama himself declared, energy prices will necessarily “skyrocket.” Obama, it’s interesting to note, held the position of Director for the Joyce Foundation for 8 years. The Jocye Foundation, which also part of the Tides funding aparatus, helped create the Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX.

The CCX is designed to operate a redistribution brokerage house for the U.S. “Cap and Trade” system. The scam involves such crony capitalists as: Goldman Sachs (Peter Harris), Al Gore (Generation Investment Management), General Electric, BP, and Franklin Raines (former Fannie Mae CEO). Richard Sandor, CCX-founder, has estimated that the “Cap and Trade” legislation will generate $10 trillion per year for his company!

To further connect the dots, take a look at the Appalachian Community Fund web site. It says they are dedicated to “the movement of people toward the establishment of environmental, economic and social justice, and the redistribution of wealth, power and resources.” For comparsion’s sake, I was going to quote the mission statement from the Communist Party USA, but that would be redundant.

Don’t be fooled by the superficial claims of a political movement: follow the money and see who benefits. As Winston Churchill observed, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)

“None Dare Call it Socialism”

2010-05-06T10:47:00.000-07:00

The word “socialism” has come up a lot in our political debate over the last year. Perhaps you’ve noticed whenever a commentator has used this term – usually in context of some new Obama initiative -- there’s nervous laughter and awkward gestures of embarrassment. Ever wonder why? Let’s take a look at the definition:

Socialism: 1. An economic and political theory that advocates collective or governmental ownership of property with centralized control over the means of production and distribution. 2. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism.

After Obamacare passed in the House last week, Al Sharpton appeared on Fox News and was asked if this was socialism. He replied, “The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama.” He added, “I think that this began the transforming of the country the way the President had promised. This is what he ran on.”

Indeed, President Obama promised to transform America. Leading up to election day he said this from the stump, “In five days we are going to fundamentally transform America.” That’s quite a bold statement, but in context of what this administration has been doing it should be clear now what that transformation is — socialism.

Karl Marx was an atheist who held an evolutionary view of mankind and society. He believed that socialism was merely a pit stop on the way from capitalism to communism. History proves him correct in the notion that the growth of government does indeed increase over time if not checked by an opposing and constraining force. Thomas Jefferson addressed this tendency in explaining the purpose of the U.S. Constitution: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Marx would consider the growth of government as “progress,” but Jefferson viewed it as tyranny.

Socialists create “rights” and bestow them arbitrarily. This is incompatible with the philosophy of America’s Constitution which acknowledges self-evident rights are unalienable and cannot be transferred or abridged. The important distinction is this: rights given by the state can be taken away, rights given by God (i.e. Natural Rights) are everlasting endowments that exist beyond the reach of usurping rulers, no matter how well-intentioned their motives.

Many on the Left claim that our democratic government would never oppress us, because we have the ability to make it respond to our will. Yeah, right! All of the polls showed that the American people did not want this health care bill and what did Congress do? If they’re not responsive to us now, at the time of initiating this gigantic government takeover, what do you think their responsiveness will be once the system becomes entrenched and self-serving?

Apparently, we never seem to remember all of the prior deceptions perpetrated by Big Government. The modern income tax originally applied to just 4% of the population with a top rate of 6%. Social Security was intended to be only supplemental insurance and started with a ratio of about 35 contributors for each recipient. Now it is running at 3:1. This year, for the first time, more money is going out of Social Security than coming in. Common sense says this is an unsustainable condition. As an example of why we’re in such debt, consider that in the 30 years from 1962 to 1992 the budget flip-flopped from 30% non-discretionary spending on entitlements to 63%. Thus, over time we’re engineering an intractable system of “spread the wealth” transfer payments that is bankrupting us.

The government continues to default on Medicare and Medicaid re-imbursements paying only a percentage of what’s due to health-care providers. That’s why Walgreens announced recently they were no longer taking Medicaid patients. In 2006, Medicare went underwater- paying out more than it received. Medicare originally cost taxpayers $3 billion in 1966. The proponents projected it would expand to $12 billion by 1990. Want to guess how close they were? The taxpayer burden for Medicare in 1990 exploded to $107 billion- a mistake of about 700%. So, when someone in government promises you that a new program is going to be cheap, don’t you believe it!

So, why do people snicker and squirm when the word “socialism” is mentioned? I believe it’s because subconsciously we all know that it’s a scam but we just can’t help ourselves from indulging in the make-believe wish for a “free lunch.” Too bad that free lunch often comes with a Gulag dessert. (email comments to: WFC83197@aol.com )

Golden Anniversary for Goldwater

2010-04-01T10:45:00.000-07:00

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the release of Barry Goldwater’s highly influential book, “The Conscience of a Conservative.” Known as “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater put down in a little over 100 pages the key principles to an entire political movement. Phyllis Schlaffly has stated, “It is hard to overestimate the importance of Barry Goldwater to the Conservative Movement. If there hadn’t been a Barry Goldwater, there wouldn’t have been a Ronald Reagan.”

Goldwater was a five term U.S. Senator from Arizona and the 1964 Republican nominee for President. Though losing in a landslide to Johnson, Goldwater’s candidacy launched the careers of countless conservative activists including the Gipper himself. Reagan, a democrat until 1962—who often said, “I didn’t leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me”-- gave a televised speech on behalf of Goldwater on the evening of Oct. 27, 1964 entitled, “A Time For Choosing.” Known also as the “Rendezvous With Destiny” speech, it lit-up the switch boards of the network and brought in millions of dollars for Goldwater. The oratory skills of “The Great Communicator” were revealed that night and the governorship of California became the immediate pathway for Reagan’s entry upon the national, political stage. The speech is readily available for viewing on YouTube.

Looking back through the pages of Goldwater’s book, one can find many timeless principles that speak to the issues of today, and especially, the Tea Party Movement. It seems rather prophetic in its warnings about the growth of government, the loss of freedom, the threat of high taxes, the dangers of appeasing our enemies and the corrupting influences of: big labor unions, welfare entitlement programs, corporate subsidies and a Supreme Court that ignores the clear meaning of the Constitution.

Goldwater declared, “The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply wisdom, experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today-- principles [that] are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation.” These are the self-evident truths of the Founders.

Russell Kirk believed that, “If one million people would read this book, it would change the world.” Well, with nearly 4 million copies in print and the enduring legacy of the Reagan Revolution and the victory in the Cold War, we now know that Kirk too was prophetic.

The undeniable truth is that these principles today haven’t changed at all, we have! This is why the Bible instructs us to “renew our minds daily.” The tendency is for our human minds to wander and deviate from moral absolutes. Thus, being a Conservative means constantly going back to recalibrate ourselves according to the core principles of this Judeo-Christian worldview that deems government- the imposition of force- a necessary evil.

Goldwater outlines the primary directive of American politics: Constitutionalism. In this discipline, he advocates for the “conservation” of individual liberty in opposition to its natural enemy- government. “Throughout history,” Goldwater explains, “government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man’s liberty. Government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men…the Constitution [therefore] is an instrument, above all, for limiting the functions of government.” This attitude is in complete agreement with today’s Tea Party activists. In a way, the Tea Parties are just the latest manifestation of reasserting this American creed.

The opposing political view from the Left tends to see “freedom” differently, as a chaotic sphere of exploitation and cruelty towards mankind. So, it’s natural for them to consider the role of government in a completely different light- as the constructive instrument for social engineering and the progressive liberation FROM freedom and towards collectivist paternalism. Unfortunately, history demonstrates conclusively that such controls are neither desirable nor constructive once put into actual practice. Simply put, investing more power into a centralized authoritarian state does not produce happiness and good tidings for all. As Goldwater expressed it, “The framers of the Constitution…were not only students of history, but victims of it: they knew from vivid, personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority. And that is what the Constitution is: a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.”

As the saying goes, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” In this era of dramatic change and misplaced hope, it’s comforting to find some eternal truths that can lead us, once again, back to the Right Track! In your heart, you know Conservatism is right. (email comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)

Goldman Sachs ‘Too Big’ To Care

2010-03-02T09:38:00.000-08:00

Have you heard about the recent economic threat to the European Union coming from Greece? Greece has a debt problem that could cause a domino effect in the Euro nations. The Greek currency has been debauched through deficit spending and now countries such as France and Germany are being compromised because their currencies are linked and vulnerable. The intricacies of EU currency agreements for the Euro have made this a ticking time bomb. Creeping away from the crime scene, once again, is that manipulator of markets- Goldman Sachs. Sound familiar?

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke commented last week, “We are looking into a number of questions related to Goldman Sachs and other companies in their derivatives arrangements with Greece. Obviously, using these instruments in a way that potentially destabilizes a company or a country is counterproductive.” You think? Well, we’ve all seen this movie before, haven’t we?

Specifically, Goldman Sachs has operated a “currency swap” exchange in Greece that has served to disguise their debt, not unlike the method used in America where credit default swaps helped strategically to disguise and inflate the housing bubble. The financial marketing of these derivatives conveniently began in 2001 when Greece was trying to meet the debt-criteria stipulations of EU admission. Goldman Sachs reminds me of that AC/DC song, “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap,” except the deeds don’t come cheap to innocent taxpayers who must foot the bill.

Goldman Sachs have long been protected and served by Washington insiders who are connected to both political parties. TARP-champion Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin are the most noted. Paulson was Bush’s Sect. of Treasury and Rubin was Clinton’s. Both men were executives of Goldman Sachs. Is that a conflict of interest? You bet!

Goldman Sachs has paid out billions in bonuses this year and it’s all come dishonestly through the bailout scam, on the backs of the taxpayers.

AIG was the number one counterparty for Goldman Sachs’ credit default swaps. This all sounds rather complicated and “inside baseball,” but the gist of it was simple: these financial instruments were analogous to you buying an insurance policy on your neighbor’s car and then going out to his driveway and pounding it with a sledgehammer in order to collect the claim. Goldman Sachs took out what amounted to billions of dollars worth of “insurance policies” on these toxic assets, which were the bad home mortgages all bundled-up in securities, and then collected the “claim” when the U.S. taxpayer was put on the hook for repairing the damage.

To make things worse, Goldman Sachs took advantage of the Glass Steagall regulatory removal in 1999. The move allowed Wall Street investment firms to take on the nature of banks with all of the attending Fed privileges. These privileges resulted in Goldman Sachs obtaining Fed loans at near zero rates that were subsequently loaned back to the government at a spread of about 3%. This huge, no risk profit amounts to a license to steal!

But, it takes two to tango. The “drunken sailor” spending in Washington is driving up demand for more taxpayer debt. The Bailout mania along with the Stimulus spending is creating record deficits that are fundamentally unsound and unsustainable. Goldman Sachs and their cronies in Washington don’t seem to care, and that’s why there’s something called a Tea Party Movement. Now that these citizens have proven their impact in races such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, even Nancy Pelosi is starting to “warm up” to the Tea Party activists. “Some of it,” Pelosi explains, “is hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our concerns that we have about the role of special interests.” So what she once derided as “astroturf,” “un-American,” and full of “Nazi symbolism,” she now recognizes as part of her own shared concerns! Amazing.

“It’s government by Goldman Sachs and for Goldman Sachs,” says Steve Milloy, portfolio manager for the Free Enterprise Action Fund. No doubt about it, America is being railroaded. It’s nothing new, but it requires a level of understanding among the citizens so that we can take our country back, before it’s too late! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).

Something Rotten in Denmark

2009-12-08T11:28:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-27T11:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-06T17:50:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-29T09:03:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-01T12:39:00.000-07:00

“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

2009-08-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

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”

2009-07-21T10:18:00.000-07:00

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”

2009-06-30T07:53:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-18T07:51:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-28T18:55:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-21T08:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-31T11:24:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-20T09:04:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-20T08:47:00.000-07:00

(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

2009-03-10T06:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-01T15:30:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-17T08:47:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-28T06:05:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-23T06:31:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-13T06:31:00.000-08:00

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).

Power Shift for Israel

2008-12-29T09:17:00.000-08:00

There’s an old saying in politics- Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. This is really instructive given what’s going on now in Israel.

At the time of this writing, Israel is engaged in a full assault on Gaza. They are bombing enemy targets and planning a ground invasion of 10,000 troops in the coming days. Thousands of soldiers are being called-up for the campaign. It’s the worst fighting since 1948, when Israel first became a nation.

International leaders are calling for a return to the cease fire that had been in place over the last six months. Of course, Hamas has not been honoring that agreement. They have launched thousands of rockets into Israel throughout 2008, and have been increasing their attacks since mid-December. Now they have declared a third Intifada. It seems, only when Israel responds in self-defense do we see the world call for a truce! Should this new counter-offensive come as a surprise? Not if you’ve been paying attention.

Republicans rallied around their candidate this year begrudgingly. McCain was not the idealistic candidate for Conservative principles, but then again, Conservatives are not overly idealistic. They go into elections with both eyes open and vote pragmatically for the lesser of two evils.

Democrats, on the other hand, “fall in love.” Unfortunately, love is often blind. There’s nothing wrong with imagining a better future, but “hope” and “change” without specifics doesn’t make for good, practical policy in an evil world.

Jesse Jackson said the most important “change” we would see from Obama is in the Middle East. Obama’s church embraced the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, made “diplomatic trips” to Qaddafi’s Libya and printed Hamas propaganda in their church bulletins! Leaders in Iran praised and endorsed Obama while Israel clearly preferred McCain in all of their polls. But, if you’re in love with your candidate and you have a fawning media,
it’s easy to get confused.

Samantha Power has been an advisor to Obama since 2005. She left the campaign last March after calling Hillary a “monster.” Despite that credential in her favor, she represents a “change” in the wrong direction for America’s foreign policy. A couple of weeks ago she was brought back to join Obama’s transition team. She will be advising Obama on appointments and strategic policy. Power’s views, if implemented, would mark the first time America has turned its back on Israel. This is something very serious for those who believe in the biblical admonition regarding the treatment of God’s “chosen” nation. There have been numerous times over the years where America’s vote in the UN was the only thing preventing the world from ganging-up on Israel.

Power, unbelievably, has expressed doubts about Iran’s nuclear threat. In addition, she conveniently ignores Iran’s stated policy of genocide towards
Israel. “Wiping Israel off the map” and declaring Israel a “rotting corpse” are not serious threats in Power’s view. She believes the U.S. should send forces to the Middle East, not to protect Israel, but to impose a settlement favorable to the Palestinians currently governed by Hamas terrorists. She also supports giving billions in aid to bolster the Palestinian military. Her advocacy, known as the Walt-Mearsheimer view, discounts Israel’s own security assessments.

Power has referred to the “long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy” as being too unilateral and too dependent upon the Israel lobby. Similar to the opinions of George Soros and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Power believes Israel is guilty of war crimes. Sound familiar? It should. The same language has been used by the Left to condemn the war in Iraq. Power believes that it was the Israel lobby that provoked us into that war. Thus, all geopolitical sins reduce to a simplistic, anti-Semitic foundation for Power and company.

The Bush administration issued a statement declaring Hamas the villain in this latest round of violence. The policy wonks soon to take office with Obama, however, take a contradictory view!

Could this have been predicted? Yes. Israel is naturally acting in her best interest of self-preservation. It is clear, the geopolitical landscape will be shifting with Obama and Israel is taking precautions now to prepare for the worst. Those who view the world with a rational expectation of human frailties understand it. Those who naively believe in fairy tales of utopian fantasies, never will. Too bad we have to live now with the consequences of the latter. (Send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Twas The Night Before Christmas in Iraq

2008-12-24T11:51:00.000-08:00

Back in 1882, Clement Clarke Moore, wrote the famous poem, The Night Before Christmas. Throughout the years, it has become a tradition in many families to read the poem every Christmas season along with watching Christmas Vacation and It’s a Wonderful Life.

Last year, I received another poem from a dear friend, referred to as a Different Christmas Poem whose author is unknown. This poem described a dream that a gentleman had regarding a soldier standing guard outside his home on a snowy night on Christmas Eve.

The poems had me contemplating about our brave men and women in uniform in Iraq and wondering what they will be doing on Christmas Eve. What will their spouses and children be doing that night while their loved ones are so far away?

How does it feel to be 5,000 miles from home sacrificing everything for a country whose Congressional leaders do not support your mission and call you invaders and murderers?

With boots on the ground in Iraq, liberal leaders, like Sen. Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, have provided propaganda to Al-Qaeda by saying, “The war is lost.” Rep. John Murtha, Democrat-Pennsylvania, emboldened our enemies by saying, “U.S. Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat-California, demoralized our troops by calling the war, “A grotesque mistake.” Senator and President-elect Obama said our troops are “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”

Thanks for the support and, by the way, have you heard? The surge worked. London’s Sunday Times called it ‘the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.’

Our country has never invaded another country to rule it, only to free it. On Normandy Beach in 2002, President Bush noted that since the U.S. Civil War in the 1860's, "our nation's battles have all been far from home. In all those victories, American soldiers came to liberate, not to conquer. The only land we claim as our own are the resting places of our men and women."

So, this year, while I was putting my ACLU and global warming ornaments on my “holiday” tree, I came up with another poem regarding our soldiers who are truly the best of the best. It consolidates parts of both poems to make them pertinent to the present-day crisis our armed forces, which are in harm’s way, face everyday and I named it, Twas The Night Before Christmas in Iraq:

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through my home, not a sound could I hear, not even the phone.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

I flipped on the TV and saw a soldier standing there.

It was a young man, perhaps a Marine, with a desert in the background, it was a lonely scene.

And I thought, ‘He’s so far from home and should be on leave, He should be here with his family on Christmas Eve.’

Then the soldier said, “It’s really all right,

I’m over here by choice; I’m here every night.

It’s my duty to stand, at the front of the line,

That separates all of you, from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask, or beg or implore me,

I’m proud to stand here, like my fathers before me.

Grandpa died at Pearl Harbor one December, then he said, “That’s a Christmas, Grandma always remembers.”

“My dad stood his watch, in the jungles of Nam,

And now it’s my turn, and so here I am.

I’ve not seen my own son, in more than a while,

My wife sends me pictures; he’s sure got her smile.”

Then he bent and carefully, pulled from his bag,

The red, white and blue, an American flag,

He said, “I can live through the heat, and being alone,

Away from my family, my house and my home.

I can stand firm at the front, against any and all,

To ensure for all time, that this flag will not fall.”

I wondered how I could repay him, for all he’s done, for being away from his wife, his home and his son?

Then I saw in his eye, a tear that held no regret,

“Just pray for us every day, and never forget.”

For when we come home, it will be payment enough,

To know we mattered to you, as you mattered to us.”

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,

Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

Dennis Powers

Send your comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net or mail them to POB 179, Jacksboro, TN 37757.

All I Want for Christmas is a Senate Seat

2008-12-24T11:37:00.000-08:00

There is one for sale in Illinois - if the price is right. From Gov. Rod Blagojevich to Tony Resko to Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Father Michael Pflegor to William Ayers, the Chicago cesspool of politics is very deep.

One peculiar thing is that Chicagoan President-Elect Obama knows little about them, what they have been saying or what they have been doing. He, who is said to be one of the most intelligent politicians ever, is completely oblivious to what has been happening in Chicago, or his church for that matter, for the past 20 years. Or, is he?

Chicago is the place where the dead are still allowed to vote and where Al Capone coined the phrase, “vote early and vote often.” Chicago is also the place where politics are so corrupt that Blagojevich said he wasn’t going to quit and doesn’t think he has done anything wrong!

I remember one belligerent Democrat Congressman, Dan Rostenkowski, who ran Chicago’s political machine and was brought down in 1994 for paying “ghost” employees, who at this time of the season, could have been named the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future.

The scandal involving the ghost employees, along with trading postage stamps at the Capitol Hill post office for cash (which is like someone working at the bank stealing ink pens), put him in jail for 15 months before he was pardoned by Clinton.

And it’s not just the Democrats in Illinois. The previous Republican governor, George Ryan, who had just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for issuing a moratorium on executions, was convicted on corruption charges in 2006.

Apparently, Gov. Ryan had failed to issue a moratorium on selling drivers licenses to unqualified truck drivers and tried to make a few bucks on the side.

I don’t even think an author on Oprah’s Book Club, with a new fiction novel, could chronicle the events that have transpired in the political landscape of Illinois this year. It would be too far-fetched, even for the fiction section.

Incidents like these tend to give politicians a bad reputation when, actually, there are many we can trust. What often happens is that someone runs for office with good intentions and ideas, but gets caught up in the corruption of the political machines.

Others go into office with the intention of using the office for their own personal gain. Gov. Blagojevich is one of these. His $1M price tag on a Senate seat which pays $164,000 per year, is his way of saying to the taxpayers, ‘The only reason politicians run for office is to pillage and plunder the government coffers and assist their friends and family.”

I think all politicians have constituents requesting jobs for themselves and their family members or they want some government handout program, but most politicians can distinguish between right and wrong.

Obama recently said, “We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Apparently, the guys from Chicago just don’t get it. It looks like we are moving from Chicago-style politics to a one-world government with no stop in-between. I’ve got news for the new president - I’m going to drive an SUV if I want, eat as much as my doctor will allow, keep my thermostat on 72 and I could care less what other countries think.

All Conservatives want from those who govern is for them to vote and legislate according to the Constitution and the best interests of the people for whom they represent. We don’t want a job, a pardon or a bailout and we sure don’t want a bunch of politicians in office who think it is acceptable to use our tax dollars for their benefit.

In many campaigns, the character of the candidate often comes into question, and after seeing the corruption in politics, it should be apparent that we need to elect men and women of faith and integrity.

As Ben Franklin said, “I have lived sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Character matters.

Send your comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net or mail them to POB 179, Jacksboro, TN 37757.

Red State Rural Regulators

2008-12-16T08:05:00.000-08:00

Early in the 18th century a group of farmers in North Carolina established a political identity for themselves that has become the ideology of today’s Red State voters. They were the Regulators of Orange County. They would be known today as values voters espousing the political orthodoxy of the rural and suburban middle class. They fought the corrupt elite as well as the ruffians who were not being properly restrained by the government. In other words, they were conservative populists who favored “law and order” and opposed political graft and over taxation. Later, they would found the first, Independent, self-government on the Continent at Watuaga. Colin Powell would probably consider them a threat to the electoral process! Why? In a CNN interview to air this weekend, Powell takes on modern day Regulator Sarah Palin as too traditional and too conservative for the future of the Republican Party.

Who is he kidding? What makes this Obama-supporter an authority on Republican politics? When it was rumored that he might run for president a few years ago, he willingly described himself as a “Rockefeller Republican.” Nelson Rockefeller represented everything that was elitist, corrupt, and WRONG with the Northeast, Liberal Republican establishment. As Gov. Palin might say, they were not on the side of the People. It took Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to transform the party away from this country club mindset. Why on earth would anyone want to go back to those days? It’s interesting to note, Powell testified as a character witness for the corrupt and disgraced Senator of Alaska, Ted Stevens. Stevens was part of that corrupt establishment that Palin courageously confronted and defeated.

America has always exemplified the idealism of rural life. It breeds a tough self-reliance and love for freedom that tyrants find difficult to tame. There’s a populist ring to this middle class perspective. It extols a pastoral life that captures all of the best attributes of America’s rugged Individualism. From the original Pilgrims, who were Religious separatists, to the pilgrims in the John Wayne movies, American culture has been uniquely defined by the iconic, fierce Independence honed in the legendary Backcountry. From Daniel Boone to Sarah Palin, this common-folk, social structure has preserved our liberty. This is the reason Americans always root for the underdog…not the Rockefellers!

Colin Powell is a prophet from a different perspective. He warns the Republicans that they should take a “hard look” at themselves. He doesn’t like Gov. Palin’s rhetoric about “small towns.” Powell was offended by the implication that his New York upbringing was somehow not good enough. He points out that America is trending towards a more metropolitan, multicultural majority and has no future opportunities for those who wish to continue “shouting” about small town values! I would remind Mr. Powell that not all African Americans, Hispanics and Asians live in big cities! You don’t have to be white to appreciate rural life.

Colin Powell is free to choose his style of Liberal politics dominated by Big City machines like Gov. Blogojevich, but true Conservatives prefer something different.

Since the beginning of time, the wilderness and the countryside have proven to be powerful symbols for innocence, virtue and strength. By contrast, cities have been the places most associated with corruption, deception and the vanity of groupthink that leads to tyrannical power.

Gov. Palin has nothing to apologize for! Her statements regarding small towns echo the proud sentiments of an ideal, pastoral aesthetic. It seems rather rude and presumptuous of Powell to challenge her on this issue, but then again, there are a lot of people out there who have trouble with Gov. Palin’s convictions. Just last week someone tried to burn down her church in Wasilla. Over a million dollars in damage resulted from this hate crime. Pastor Larry Kroon answered the attack with a simple, rural, small town admonition: “choose faith, live with hope and keep caring about people.” To that I say Amen, and which way do I go to get out of town? (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)

Look For the Union Label!

2008-12-02T06:18:00.000-08:00

Is it not lawful for an employer to do what he wishes with what is his own?

This question comes from a parable found in Matthew 20 concerning the Kingdom of God as Jesus compares it to a vineyard. The lesson involves a landowner who hires workers at different times during the day and winds up paying them all the same. Those who had worked longer complained, saying it wasn’t fair that they should be paid the same amount of someone who worked less. Jesus explained that these workers had, after all, “agreed” to work for the price they were paid, and that it wasn’t any of their business what the landowner was doing with his money regarding the other workers!

Jesus used this example, underscoring the importance of property rights and individual sovereignty, to teach about God’s prerogative regarding the inclusion of the Gentiles in His plan for humanity. Freedom to act relates directly to ownership. Ultimately, “to act freely” is an inherent function of “ownership.” They are two sides of the same coin and can’t be separated without devaluing the currency of both.

The United Auto Workers union, (UAW), has failed to understand this principle, and as a result, the Big Three auto companies now stand on the precipice of bankruptcy. A sacrifice of over three million jobs and $400 billion in annual output is at risk. Executives from Ford, Chrysler and GM are now lobbying Congress for a $50 billion bailout. They may get it from the union-friendly Democrats who have long been deep in the pockets of the UAW. The question to ask is: will it be worth it?

Unions are organized, ostensibly, to empower labor to make better agreements with management. There was a time when the “checks and balances” of Big Labor were useful in helping to offset the corrupt, monopolistic practices of managers who regularly breached the terms and responsibilities of their agreements. Today, however, we see the balance has shifted too far the other way. A third party in this equation, the Free Consumer, is now exercising his power to nullify these outdated agreements by choosing to buy elsewhere. Neither management nor labor wins when the produce spoils from consumer neglect.

Management, in a free, capitalist market, exists to satisfy customers. In the car industry, the Big Three are failing to meet this standard because competitors are producing better products at cheaper prices. Ford, Chrysler and GM must add $2,300 to the cost of each car just to pay for the Union concessions of health care, pensions and other benefits. There is more expense for health care in each car than there is for steel. When added together, the average wage for the Big Three assembly line worker is $73.21 per hour compared to just $44.20 per hour for Toyota, Honda and Nissan. The Big Three are losing, on average, $1,000 per car sold, whereas Honda, Nissan and Toyota average a pre-tax profit of $1,300. The bottom line difference is the UAW. They have overstepped their bounds of ownership and have frustrated the right of management to operate freely and successfully in the competitive marketplace. Perhaps the worst example of the abuses of the UAW is the Jobs Bank. This is a program where Management is compelled to pay workers not to work. As incredible as it sounds, this policy is meant to compensate those who have lost their jobs due to technological progress or plant restructuring. In some cases, these non-workers enjoy gold-plated health plans with no deductibles!

The UAW doesn’t stop there. They consistently lobby against Free Trade agreements that would open foreign markets to the cars, one would assume, they want to sell. UAW President Ron Gettlefinger seems committed to this suicide by working to preserve the bloated benefits of nearly one million retired UAW workers.

The Democrats will likely find a way to bailout this mismanaged affair while excusing all of the abuses of Labor. They will reward this failure at taxpayer and consumer expense. They will extend more favors to the unions with the Employee Free Choice Act, or the “Card-check” bill as it is known. This legislation will prohibit secret balloting for union initiatives, thus allowing voter intimidation to manipulate employees into supporting unions.

Going against the lawful dictates of free choice is never worth the final expense. No amount of bailout or government intervention can abolish the truth that spans human history. Throwing good money after bad is never a wise choice, whether your business is a vineyard or a Volkswagen. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Get Ready America for Obama’s New Deal

2008-11-11T07:22:00.000-08:00

During the campaign Sen. Obama made it clear what he wants to do. America, in his estimation, is at a crossroads and must be radically changed and transformed for the purpose of creating a new “Post American World.” That’s the title, by the way, of a book Obama was seen reading on the campaign trail.

On the 221st anniversary of our Constitution’s birthday, Sept. 17, Obama took note of another anniversary for the opportunity to address a crowd in New York. Paying tribute to the New Deal campaign of 1933, Obama repeated the rhetoric from Roosevelt’s speech seventy-five years ago given at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

The “hope” and “change” of Obama was therefore equated to the designs of FDR’s societal transformation. There would be a “re-appraisal of values” where “our right to live must include the right to live comfortably.” There’s no mention of who will be compelled to deliver said comfort and whether those individuals have any rights of their own to refuse such obligation, but why quibble over the details?

Obama continued to quote FDR saying “[we] must work together to achieve the common end.” The vision, explained Obama, “would require change…a renewed spirit of obligation and cooperation between business and workers.” “Faith in America, faith in our tradition of personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, and faith in ourselves demands that we all recognize the new terms of the old social contract.”

One must remember that FDR’s statements came BEFORE the establishment of such federal entitlement programs as: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These obligations amount to a $50 trillion debt for future taxpayers already over-burdened with the costs of government!

Apparently, president-elect Obama is reliving the past and is ready to re-launch the type of activist government we experienced in the 1930s.This was the golden age of what was called “creeping socialism” that created the failures addressed by the Reagan Revolution in the ‘80s. Looking at it from that historical perspective one can then understand why the Obama movement has such antipathy towards Reagan and the smaller government reforms he initiated. The political movement behind Reagan should not be so easily dismissed. It even reached President Clinton if you recall. In his 1996 State of the Union address, Clinton remarked, “the era of big government is over!”

Obama’s “re-appraisal of our values as a nation” is the real change he’s offering. The “higher principles” of centralized, government “guidance” is the reason why, in Obama’s view, our markets have worked at all. This is dangerous thinking. It puts individuals, freedom and the market as secondary considerations to the primary motives and “sublime” directives of an “all-knowing,” “all-seeing” and “all-powerful” government.

The evil that Obama sees is not so much al Qaeda, but the “great income inequalities” that prompted his now famous comment to Joe the Plumber regarding “spreading the wealth.” It’s that type of “government knows best” thinking that led him to make the following remark about the Coal Industry: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

“We are going to have to adapt our institutions to a new world,” Obama contends, “to realign the interests of all Americans in a solemn obligation to modernize America’s safety net in a project of American renewal.” The “great hope” of Obama’s presidency, quite simply, is the attempt to install another New Deal where “we must shoulder our common load.”

Returning to that other anniversary for just a minute- the Constitution of the United States remains so vital today because it serves to protect our freedom from the greatest threat known to freedom— government. Thomas Jefferson said it best, “In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” He also said, “that government governs best, that governs least.” The American system of government is one of limited government, not because the Founders were heartless and cruel towards the poor, but because they understood that governments tend to oppress their people as they amass power unto themselves…regardless of the motives!

In our Republic, the Constitution rules in authority over public opinion, but it only truly matters if we’re still a Nation of Laws and not a corrupted Nation of usurping Rulers who govern by capricious and arbitrary judgments. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Joe the Plumber Throws Monkey Wrench into the Election

2008-10-21T06:28:00.000-07:00

About a week ago Barack Obama was campaigning door to door in a suburb of Toledo, Ohio. Little did he know that he would soon meet a common plumber who would possibly turn the entire presidential race around.

Meet “Joe the Plumber.” Joe is Joe Wurzelbacher, a 34 year old, plumbing contractor. He was outside playing football with his son in his Holland neighborhood of Toledo when Obama made an unexpected appearance. Joe took the opportunity to ask Obama a few questions. He asked Obama how his tax policy would affect him if he bought the $250-270,000 plumbing business he was planning to acquire. Obama responded by saying his taxes would go up, but that it was fair since he would be helping to “spread the wealth” around to others! This disturbing comment began to circulate in the media, and a few days later, it became a fixture in the presidential debate when Obama and McCain mentioned him 23 times!

Joe has definitely struck a nerve. It’s funny how these things seem to pop up from nowhere every voting cycle. There was “Willy Horton,” “Read My Lips,” “Swift Boaters” and now this! Millions of dollars are spent every presidential election on intricate political platforms and slick marketing profiles, but invariably, it comes down to some unplanned, symbolic thing like this, that always sways the election.

Joe wasn’t too happy with Obama’s answer. In a host of interviews following this event, Joe explained why. It seems Joe is tired of people running down our country and proposing what he sees as Socialist policies. McCain echoed Joe’s concern during the debate, and now on the stump, by repeating Joe’s view of the American Dream. In Joe and McCain’s world, Americans are allowed to succeed to the extent that their God-given talent and hard work allows. They shouldn’t have to be punished for higher achievement by getting hit with higher taxes. In true Marxist fashion, Obama sees economic success as an opportunity to confiscate and redistribute more wealth: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Joe the Plumber doesn’t want “another set of parents” in the government that has the power to force him to surrender some of his hard-earned profits. In that sentiment, he harkens back to the old, pioneer spirit of Rugged Individualism that built this country. It’s hard not to root for Joe. Progressive Taxation smacks of an un-American principle of punishing achievement. One’s Property Rights shouldn’t automatically decrease just because more property is earned! Who does the wealth belong to anyway: the person who earned it, or the government? And, who can spend that wealth more wisely: Obama and his “spread” machine, or Joe the Plumber. My money’s on Joe!

In an interview posted on the internet, Joe explained how he’s tired of folks “apologizing for America.” He said, “I’m not sorry for being an American. I’m not sorry for the things I have. I have worked hard for them.” He added, “We are the greatest country in the world. People downing America upsets me.” It’s clear his opinions lean to the Right, and it took no time for the Mainstream Media to figure this out. Within hours, several news agencies began critical investigations into Joe’s past examining his- plumbing license, tax returns, outstanding traffic tickets and voter registration, among other things! It’s really shameful that the Media can find so many resources to investigate this innocent by-stander, yet offer no scrutiny at all regarding Barack Obama.

When asked if he had a main issue, Joe related his frustration with the reporting on the Iraq War. He said, “I’m not sorry that we’re in Iraq. We’ve done an incredible thing there, liberating a country and giving them freedom. My friends who’ve served there tell me how much the Iraqi people appreciate us and thank us, but it doesn’t get enough play here. I’m proud of what we’ve done there, and it’s kept us safe!”

Joe the Plumber may end-up being like the character Kevin Costner played in the recent movie “Swing Vote.” Bud Johnson had a failed vote cast by his conniving daughter as result of the power going off before completing the process. The presidential election was a tie, and Johnson had the power in a special run-off election to pick the President. Of course, it was an absurd notion—about as absurd as this year’s Joe the Plumber!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757. see this and other columns at: ontherighttrack.blogspot.com)

Political Rhetoric & Economic Fallacies

2008-10-07T06:31:00.000-07:00

It’s election time, and once again we’re in the season of political rhetoric. One of the oldest campaign themes in American history is the idea that “Democrats are for the working man,” or “Democrats are for the poor, and Republicans are for the rich.” This is nothing more than mindless propaganda that’s built upon a fairy tale supported by three underlying fallacies.

Fallacy number one. Politicians in our government are granted the Constitutional authority to be “for” or “against” certain groups in our national economy.

If you search our Constitution, you will find no reference whatsoever to the unequal principle of government power used to favor one economic class over another. None. The phrase reads, “promote [not provide] the general [not specific] welfare” of Americans. In fact, in Canada right now there’s a legal effort underway to overturn their Universal Healthcare system based on the grounds that their government services are fundamentally unequal in their application. This is what happens when governments claim they’re going to promote “fairness” by sticking their nose in the marketplace. Those with political favor always end-up with the most “fairness!” Sound familiar?

Fallacy number two. The government needs to be “for” certain people in our country’s economy (i.e. “victims” who fail) because the free market is fundamentally unfair and unjust.

This is an ignorant and foolish indictment of freedom. One should always remember that without the freedom to fail, there is no freedom to succeed! Although it may seem comforting to grant government the power to intervene in the marketplace to avert failure, the results never turn out favorable in the long run. Government activism in the economy always creates perverse incentives that ultimately disrupt normal supply and demand functions that, otherwise, work to enhance the maximization of wealth creation!

A perfect example of this misguided vision is the current subprime housing crisis. It was engineered, albeit unintentionally, by government interference. It wasn’t the free market that created this housing bubble. It wasn’t rational, private sector, risk-management that brought us to this catastrophe that has adversely affected every market in the world. It was the socialist dream of “affordable housing” for all, via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac & the Community Reinvestment Act! Alas, the market rewards rational decisions, the government rewards political cronyism.

Fallacy number three. The “poor” or “rich” represent absolute classifications of people who remain “poor” or “rich” their entire lives.

For anyone who cares to find out- Federal statistics clearly show that there has always been a fluid movement of people, both directions, throughout all five categories, (Quintiles), of our economy. People generally begin their adult lives in the lower Quintiles then move up to higher Quintiles as they age. Economic advancement is a natural progression for most people, and is based upon the individual merits of God-given talent and effort. Therefore, the manipulative appeal of tempting politicians who preach special favors to the “middle class” is a complete canard. Think about it. Any policy that would exclusively benefit the middle Quintile would necessarily have to account for a means to keep middle Quintile people trapped in their circumstances indefinitely. This is the frustrating reality of a divisive ideology that demonizes one group in favor of another.

“Group” politics can’t permit individual, self-determined achievement like that of Justice Clarence Thomas or Gov. Sarah Palin. If it did, then there would be no political opportunity to exploit voters in exchange for “group” favors that serve to consolidate more and more power for the governing elite.

Instead of adhering to fraudulent political rhetoric that belies economic realities, wouldn’t it be better to decide our political future using other, more thoughtful, assessments?

America is the envy of the world, not because of our government guarantees, but because of our freedom. Freedom inherently exists in the absence of guarantees, and so, we should be wary of any politician who attempts to promise them. Our economic environment simply can’t provide both freedom and guarantees.

Politics will always have stump speeches full of empty-headed rhetoric designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the masses. The responsibility of each citizen, however, is to look past all of the smoke and mirrors and vote on principle over populism. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)

America’s Financial Chickens Coming Home to Roost

2008-09-26T07:31:00.000-07:00

Liberal Democrats are quick to blame Capitalism and the Free Market for the recent collapse on Wall Street. This is foolish, class warfare rhetoric that is irresponsibly exploiting voter’s fear and ignorance.

The heart of the problem is Fannie Mae, or the Federal National Mortgage Association, created by FDR.

By the way, the current situation, despite what you hear, isn’t anything like the Great Depression. The Great Depression had triple the unemployment, a prolonged negative GDP, five times the stock devaluation and 400 times the number of bank failures!

Fannie Mae, unlike private business, was granted an exclusive state monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in 1938. It is now in conservatorship along with Freddie Mac and holds an interest in about half of all mortgages. It’s important to note, however, that 98% of our banks are in good shape with over 90% of our mortgages in good standing.

For 2007, seller-rated “AAA” subprime ARMs, that constituted most of the Fannie market, were just 6.8% of all mortgages, and yet, represented nearly half of all foreclosures. The overall delinquency rate stands now at about 6.4%. So, although Fannie is deeply corrupted and having grave implications for our Financial System, nevertheless, over 90% of the mortgage industry seems to be on strong, fundamental ground.

A couple of weeks ago, Treasury Sect. Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announced a bailout of Fannie Mae and it’s partner Freddie Mac with a price tag of about $200 billion. Of course, now we know this is not the total bill as AIG has been added to the list, ($85 billion), along with Bear Stearns, ($30 billion), and now, the pending $700 billion in additional funding for a comprehensive bailout package before Congress. Speaker Pelosi has been quick to say that Democrats have nothing whatsoever to do with this failure. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.

Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo along with former Obama-advisor Jim Johnson, and Dem. Sen., Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Bank Committee, were recently implicated in a sweetheart loan scandal. Reduced rate loans, and perhaps other considerations, were made in exchange for large campaign contributions. Fannie Mae is connected because it was the single largest customer for Countrywide’s mortgages.

In 2006, the year Democrats took control of Congress promising “the most ethical Congress in history,” 26% of Fannie’s purchases were Countrywide loans. In 2007, the figure rose to 28%. Sen. Dodd received the most money from Fannie, $165,000, while Obama came in second with $126,000. There’s also another Fannie CEO, Franklin Raines, who has served as an advisor to the Obama campaign.

In 2003, Rep. Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, responded to the Bush Administration’s repeated pressures to reform these institutions:

“These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in affordable housing.”

“Affordable housing” apparently means taxpayers get to buy houses for unfit credit risks while politicians like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama get to pad their campaign war chests!

And then there’s the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain. It failed in committee strictly along party lines with Democrats defeating the reform measure. McCain’s statement at the time was prophetic:

“For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. The report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. It solidifies my view that these Government-sponsored entities, or GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a co-sponsor of S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Credit comes from the root word “credere” which means “to trust, entrust, believe!” Perhaps, the most important thing we face now is who to believe. (send comments toWFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757

Israel Celebrates 60 Years of Existence

2008-09-09T07:27:00.000-07:00

As the last days of summer wind down, let’s pause for a moment to take a look back at a noteworthy anniversary- Israel’s sixtieth birthday.

On May 14, 1948, the modern State of Israel was born. The mandate making the goal of a Jewish state possible came via British sponsorship following WWII, but grew out of earlier efforts.

Culminating in 1948 was a two thousand year old dream for those of the Jewish Diaspora longing to return to their traditional homeland. The idea was first proclaimed officially at the Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland on August 31, 1897- a date that is coincidently shared with the birth of La Follette. Led by Theodor Herzl, the Congress hosted over two hundred participants from 17 countries.

The new nation of Israel, approximately the size of New Jersey, was viciously attacked shortly after becoming a state. It met this challenge, as it has all others, with a miraculous ability to survive and defeat its enemies. Israel truly has a unique history of attracting hatred. From the very beginning, going back to Abraham, there’s been enmity between Israel and Ishmael. The surrounding Arab nations have consistently launched attacks against Israel denying their right to exist! No matter what you think about Israel, honoring that requirement is rather difficult.

Friendship with Israel does not come cheaply. It has brought regular retaliations against America. Recent fliers found around Detroit proclaim threats to “"Kill Jews and Christians if they don't believe in Allah and Mohammad." This simple declaration from the Koran reveals all you need to know about the challenges we face.

I believe there’s an underlying spiritual animus that explains this visceral opposition. Israel and America represent the Old and New Testaments of God. Enemies of God have always existed and will always be infuriated by those who represent the authentic, unchanging truths of a Creator God who judges the world.

The Bible contains God’s promise that He will “bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel,” Gen. 12:3. Implicit in that covenant is a fair warning to those who would take unyielding positions against Israel.

Can the Democrats be trusted on this issue?

Jimmy Carter proved his anti-Israel views recently in his book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Fourteen Carter Center advisors resigned in protest.

Unbelievably, former PLO-leader Yasser Arafat was invited to the Clinton Whitehouse more than any other foreign figure! On one occasion Hillary even kissed Yasser’s wife after she made a speech denouncing Israel. Hillary has collected $50,000 from the American Muslim Alliance, a group that promotes terrorism against Israel. Bill has said, “Hillary’s really tight with the people in the PLO in New York [and] doesn’t like what Israel is up to.”

Former Democrat-candidate Wesley Clark has characterized support for Israel against Hezbollah as “a mistake.” Jesse Jackson, of course, has his “Hymietown” remark and Sen. Joe Biden has told Israeli officials that they would have to accept the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons! That’s the country, by the way, vowing to wipe Israel off the map. Barack Obama calls Iran a “tiny threat.” Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who could be elected again next year, has a different view. He calls Iran the equivalent of Germany circa 1938.

Also, we must not forget Obama’s church of twenty years that is on friendly terms with the anti-Semitic, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who calls Judaism a “gutter religion!” Obama’s church even printed a Hamas terror manifesto in one of their bulletins.

Conservatives have long kept faith with Israel over the years appreciating their common spiritual heritage. This Judeo-Christian foundation has sustained Western Civilization from the beginning.

At the time of this writing, Russia is sending ships and planes to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela for military maneuvers. Russia is also assisting Iran in the construction of their nuclear facility. North Korea is unified with these nations suggesting an alliance that would be incomprehensible if not for the spiritual antipathy they share. Dictators, whether from Communist, Islamic or Liberal-Socialist governments, all find agreement in their common hatred of conservatives who seek to maintain a traditional view of God.

Recent polls in Israel are showing a preference for McCain over Obama by twenty points. McCain has a long history of support for Israel’s security. McCain’s running mate Gov. Palin reinforces this loyalty. She proudly proclaims her support by displaying an Israeli flag in her office! It’s comforting to know that in this landmark year for Israel there are at least some American politicians who are striving to maintain a healthy respect for Israel. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Vice President Picks Reveal Candidates’ Judgment

2008-09-02T07:24:00.000-07:00

The first decision a presidential candidate makes that reveals his or her capacity for good executive judgment is the choice for vice president. Since both candidates have now made their picks, how does this analysis stack up?

Sen. Obama chose Joe “the plagiarist” Biden and received no bounce in the polls. Despite the electoral logic of picking a running mate like Hillary who garnered 18 million primary votes, he chose an old-style, pre-Clintonian, Liberal Democrat from inside-the-beltway. Only five other Senators have been in the Senate longer than Biden and only two are more liberal! That’s hardly an endorsement for change.

It’s assumed that Obama made this pick for two reasons: (1) He and Michelle don’t like the Clintons; and, (2) Russia’s invasion of Georgia put Obama’s weakness of “foreign policy” back in the forefront.

Biden currently serves as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and has a long history of global involvement. Though his experience is quite extensive, one’s quantity of judgment shouldn’t matter as much as one’s quality of judgment.

Most recently, Biden championed a plan for Iraq that would have been disastrous. His idea, which was thoroughly rejected by the Iraqis, involved dividing Iraq into three new countries of Kurdish, Sunni and Shia control. It’s telling- that in today’s Democrat party, this kind of screwball thinking counts for superior foreign policy judgment!

Biden has been rejected by his party in both of his campaigns for president. This year, he couldn’t even get past Iowa where he finished fifth! Why would we suddenly believe now that he’d make a good president?

Perhaps the most revealing aspect about Obama’s choice is how it gives the lie to his mantra for “change” and “no more politics as usual.” Apparently, this rhetoric is as superficial as a Paris Hilton or Britney Spears photo op!

By contrast, Sen. McCain, “the Maverick,” made one of the most exciting and intriguing choices in the history of running mates! Choosing Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin was a brilliant move. This choice emphatically demonstrates why John McCain’s judgment will bring authentic change and reform to Washington D.C.

Gov. Palin is a self-described “hockey mom.” She’s a 44 year-old mother of five, who earned her political success by taking on the corrupt “machine” of her own party! She challenged the previous governor in a Republican primary and won. Showing a McCain- like aversion to wasteful spending, she rejected the infamous, pork barrel project known as “the bridge to nowhere” and sold off the previous governor’s jet on Ebay.

Palin, a former Miss Alaska runner-up, is a committed Christian with prior-leadership in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. She’s also a lifelong NRA member who loves to hunt and eat moose! She supports capital punishment, opposes homosexual marriage and believes strongly in creationism.

While in high school, Palin was the captain of her basketball team where she earned the nickname “Barracuda” for her toughness. She led her team to the state championship making the winning free throw on a broken ankle!

Palin is staunchly pro-life, having her last child following a diagnosis of Down syndrome. She’s a military mom with a son soon to be serving in Iraq. Most of all, she’s down to earth with a clear and trustworthy position on energy policies.

Palin began her career on the Wasilla town council in 1992 and was elected governor in 2006 where she immediately began a project to open a natural gas pipeline from the Northern Slope. She doesn’t believe in manmade Global Warming and is very much in favor of drilling in ANWR. Confident in her assessment of Alaska’s true resources, she has sued the Federal Government to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list before it jeopardizes any further energy projects.

Her public support in Alaska is impressive with an approval rating of over 80 percent.

Palin is similar to another underestimated, popular, conservative governor: Ronald Reagan. She once was a sports broadcaster and comes from a western state known for its rugged individualism and love of freedom. She has cut property taxes by 40% and is a reformer who refuses to accept the failings of the status quo establishment.

McCain has done more than show superior judgment with this pick, he has galvanized his base- something many thought impossible! On the day of his announcement, campaign contributions quadrupled. After the second day, a total of ten million dollars had been added to McCain’s coffers, proving that the Palin-choice had indeed energized the base!

The future of America this campaign year may yet belong to those wanting to “break the glass ceiling” with the first woman vice president in U.S. history- America’s own “Iron Lady from the Last Frontier!” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)

This Foolish Business of Oil

2008-08-05T06:12:00.000-07:00

There is plenty of oil. If certain people wanted to, they could release enough supplies to bring the price of gas down to a dollar per gallon. Hard to believe? Well, google Lindsey Williams and see for yourself. Much of his testimony was recently verified on the Glenn Beck show by former Nixon aide Kevin Phillips. So, why don’t the Powers That Be allow the oil to be brought to market? That is the $64,000 question-- or in today’s inflated dollars-- the $384,000 question.

In Alaska one doesn’t have to go drilling in the environmentally protected region of ANWR to retrieve all the oil we need. There are huge reserves, as large as those in Saudi Arabia, along the North Slope, Prudhoe Bay and around Gull Island. If this is the reality, then one would naturally wonder why we aren’t drilling there now. There is a reason, and it involves the old nemesis of the Money Changers.

Put simply, we find ourselves in this predicament because securing an external support for our debt-based monetary system is more important than providing Americans with cheap oil. At least that’s the issue proving to be more important to certain interests currently involved in manipulating the dollar.

In 1971, for various reasons, Nixon took us off the gold standard. Since that time our currency has floated more or less freely as determined by market forces. Expanding the money supply was part of the plan, thus making the dollar the de facto currency of the world. But, each time our Central Bank (the Federal Reserve) has desired to inflate the dollar- as it must inherently do- they find themselves in need of more and more folks to buy the necessary U.S. debt that underwrites its creation.

What most people don’t realize is that: for every new dollar that comes into existence there’s an additional dollar plus interest in debt that comes attached. With this understanding you now know why it is impossible for us to ever eliminate our national debt. To do so, would be to effectively extinguish the very existence of our money. In fact, there doesn’t even exist enough currency in the world to pay off our debt if we wanted to. Think about that astonishing truth for a second.

So, to enlarge the game and entice foreign investors to buy our taxpayer-backed, “government securities,” former Sect. of State Henry Kissinger made a fateful trip to the Mideast in the early 70s to work out an arrangement.

As the story goes, Henry offered the OPEC Nations a deal they couldn’t refuse. They would become rich beyond their wildest dreams if they did two things: (1) denominate the selling of their oil on the world market in dollars; and, (2) buy our national debt. In exchange, we promised to buy oil from them in huge quantities. Naturally, if we ever stopped buying their oil in sufficient amounts because we decided to use our own oil, they’d be free to use another currency and stop buying the debt we need to keep our economy afloat.

The euro stands now as the best candidate to one day overthrow the dollar as the currency of choice for the global economy. Of course, if that happens the ever-expanding debt-based dollar will begin its inevitable and catastrophic decline. What the bank interests have done is create a bubble of unsustainable inflation, coupled with debt obligations that must ultimately do one of two things. Either it will grow and spread its virus around the globe until it infects every economy with its doomsday malignancy, or it will lose value precipitously as the nations of the world wise-up and opt for a better, more stable currency for their wealth holdings. It’s interesting to note that Iran has been hinting of late that they may soon begin selling their anticipated, new oil production in euros.

The game now all turns on one principle factor. Many modern economies outside the U.S. have geared their industries almost completely towards satisfying American consumers. Therefore, they are dependent upon a large export business, which necessarily relies upon a relatively weak euro. The minute investors start fleeing the dollar for a stronger, non-inflationary euro the exchange rate becomes unfavorable to their export business. As a result, proponents of a strong euro back down thereby prolonging the dollar’s final Judgment Day. The good news, if there is any, is that we get to import their tangible assets of real value with cheaper and cheaper dollars. One day, however, this speculative swindle of “shaving the shekel” will ultimately, and justly, come to a merciful end.

To further understand the corrupting “debt virus” problem of our dollar visit MoneyMasters.com and click on the Milton Friedman-endorsed Monetary Reform Act. It’s the only solution that can reasonably save our economic future. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Holiday Drill

2008-07-22T07:18:00.000-07:00

Congress is getting ready to go on vacation. I hope they’re not planning on going very far. Whether it’s filling their tank or getting a flight, either way traveling is a real problem nowadays with the rising cost of fuel. In their desperation, some airlines have petitioned congress recently to do something or watch them go out of business.

Since taking over after the ’06 election this Democrat congress has done nothing. It’s enough to make Harry Truman roll over in his grave. Oh, they have named a whole bunch of post offices and given tributes to ball teams for successful seasons, but that’s about it. Now, with this oil crisis wreaking havoc the best they can offer is an arrogant and misleading critique of the oil companies.

Democrat representative Heath Schuler gave an impassioned speech the other day complaining that it’s the oil companies fault for not supplying enough oil. The nerve of the guy! Why is it that these politicians think they know so much about everything! Well, at least their admitting there’s a “supply” issue involved.

Schuler was towing the party line that oil companies don’t need relief in seeking new drilling opportunities off the gulf coast or in Alaska because they have all these leases, you see, on land they’re not developing. Liberals want oil companies to drill where there’s no oil. That sounds like a plan. Are we suppose to be impressed?

These leases are on lands that have a number of issues for why they are not being drilled. Some are strategic, some have already been drilled, some are being further explored, etc. The geologists who know more than the likes of Schuler have determined that there are more dependable and accessible oil reserves in places like the outer continental shelf. That’s why, last week President Bush authorized the lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling. The unfortunate reality is that congress has a ban too, and Pelosi and company aren’t budging one bit. They’re too busy making vacation plans!

Many folks have complained about the speculators driving up the price of oil. What they have missed is how speculators can also drive down the price of oil. Democrats, besides impersonating geologists and presuming to instruct oil companies on where they should drill, have been saying in unison how it will take twenty years before we see one drop of that oil, and consequently, a drop in price. That is another extraordinary fabrication created for no other reason than political expediency to aid and abet Democrat election strategies.

Most estimates concur that it would be more like 3 years before new drilling operations yield production. However, we saw just this last week how fast the price of oil can be affected. After President Bush’s call to lift the ban on offshore drilling, the speculation started moving in the opposite direction without one drop of oil actually existing. You see, markets respond based on predictions for future supply and demand, not just on what’s currently available. As a result of oil prices moving back a little, the stock market enjoyed a nice rally. All of this on a modest executive proposal that shows a little leadership. You would think Pelosi, Schuler and other Democrats would get the message.

Politics is about accessing and holding on to power. The Democrats know that the voters blame the White House (Bush and the Republicans) for the current high gas prices. If they were to take responsible action now to lead our country to a better economic position regarding oil, they would be undermining their own chances at achieving better electoral results this November. Pelosi and company are counting on the American people being too stupid to figure this out. So, when you think of drilling- you should think of how this Democrat congress is drilling you! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

The Red, White and Confused

2008-07-10T06:07:00.000-07:00

Last week Barack Obama delivered a speech on patriotism in Independence, Mo. It was a fairly innocuous speech filled with various feel-good expressions, but it was the context surrounding the speech that proved to be the real story for this 4th of July campaign season.

The day before Obama’s tightly scripted appearance in Independence, Mo. a surrogate for the Obama Campaign, Gen. Wesley Clark, appeared on the CBS program “Face the Nation” and launched a shameless attack on John McCain:

“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

Clark, who was a Democrat candidate for president in 2004, tried to clarify what he meant but only dug himself in deeper. He said McCain didn’t “understand [taking] risks” or “matters of being held accountable.” He belittled McCain’s Vietnam experience by saying he “wasn’t in a wartime squadron.” I would think that’s highly debatable since McCain was shot down on a dive bombing combat mission over Hanoi by an enemy who held him captive for 5 1/2 years. Let’s review, shall we?

In 1967, after requesting a combat assignment as a naval aviator, McCain was flying his 23rd mission in an A-4E Skyhawk when a Russian-made missile sheared off one of his wings. He ejected out of a tailspin from 4,500 ft. breaking his leg and both his arms in the process. He landed in a small lake and almost drowned before struggling ashore with crippling injuries and the weight of his gear. After a few moments, he was greeted by a group of North Vietnamese communists who smashed his shoulder with a rifle stock and stabbed his foot with a bayonet. The captors denied him medical treatment compounding the trauma of his injuries McCain spent the next 5 ½ years in a North Vietnamese prison, (nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton” by American POWs). There he endured incredible hardships and withstood torturous interrogations that would make Abu Ghraib look like a picnic. He was routinely bound with ropes and beaten by the communists. In further attempts to break his will, they placed him in solitary confinement for over two years. During his captivity he was given an offer to be repatriated but bravely refused, preferring instead to remain with his fellow soldiers. McCain, to this day, carries debilitating wounds resulting from this brutal treatment.

McCain’s experience, far from being a detriment, seems to me to be an asset for leadership. His perseverance and commitment, on the part of his country, would appear to be worthwhile qualifications by anyone’s standard of leadership.

Clark hasn’t backed down from his attack and continues to question the integrity of John McCain. It’s interesting to note that President Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen removed Clark from his NATO leadership position in Kosovo exactly because of bad judgment. Clark’s reckless actions almost caused WWIII when he ordered a British General to shoot Russian troops upon an unauthorized landing at the Kosovo airport. According to Gen. Hugh Shelton, “the reason [Clark] came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues,” the very things Clark now claims to be an authority on.

To complete the charade, another Obama surrogate, Sen. Jim Webb, appeared on MSNBC’s “Countdown” the same day, right on cue, warning Republicans to avoid using military service in politics and instructing John McCain to “calm down.”

What did McCain say? Did he fly off the handle in responding to Clark? No, McCain had made a very simple statement declaring the comments “unnecessary” and unhelpful because they don’t “reduce the price of a gallon of gas by one penny.”

So, Webb’s choice of words begs the question: was this a set-up? It would appear so. A few days later Bill Clinton awkwardly got himself into the debate saying, “anybody who’s ever been a POW for any length of time, you will see…go along for months or maybe even years, and then something will happen and it will trigger all those bad dreams and they will come back.”

Most folks are aware that McCain has a temper and I believe this was a planned strategy on the part of the Obama campaign attempting to neutralize McCain on military and patriotism issues because this is where they feel the most vulnerable.

Whatever you may think of McCain’s other qualifications for president, his wartime sacrifice should be respected and honored. While others may strive to satisfy their own patriotic qualifications, let us not impugn someone like John McCain who’s very actions define what it means to be a patriot. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

GITMO Decision

2008-06-26T09:14:00.000-07:00

Who should get the benefit of the doubt: our own American Military or suspected terrorists plotting our destruction? According to a 5 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court on June 12, it’s the terrorists! This decision in the Boumediene v. Bush case is the first-ever application of a constitutional right of habeas corpus in American history for alien combatants held abroad in the course of an ongoing war. The “wisdom” of the Court now decrees that these foreign, enemy combatants, (POWs), are to be treated like U.S. citizens and have the protection of habeas corpus along with all of the other attending benefits of our civil court system. Can you imagine?

It’s insane to contemplate just where the liberals will take this ruling: yellow crime tape in the battlefield, arrest warrants for Osama bin Laden, reading Miranda rights to suicide bombers, granting the right of discovery, calling soldiers as witnesses, filing endless briefs and offering endless appeals! It will practically nullify our ability to prosecute the War on Terror, leaving our nation and our soldiers open to more deadly attacks.

Al Qaeda, decimated on the field of battle by our troops and demoralized by the growing success of the Surge, has just received a big shot in the arm. Hooray for justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer coming to the rescue just in time! The liberal wing of the Court has just demonstrated to you why the next presidential election is so desperately important. The swing of just one vote can make a huge difference. It’s expected that at least two justices will likely be replaced in the next presidential term. Obama is on record fully supporting this decision, whereas McCain has called it one of the worst decisions in history. Remember, McCain has promised to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts: two of the dissenters in this case.

Why is this so crucial? The first responsibility of government is the protection of the people. There’s an important and vital difference between the military and domestic law enforcement. History is replete with example after example of how governments, in times of great peril, resort to the appropriate measures of self-preservation and survival. Suspending habeas corpus represents a requirement of the higher law that grants to the state certain privileges of self-defense in face of rebellion, insurrection or national emergency. Desperate times, do indeed, call for desperate measures. It’s apparent, that the common sense of this necessity is well beyond the comprehension of most liberal, activist judges who care more about “process” than “getting the bad guy.” They seem to always frustrate justice by hiding it somewhere, cleverly, in the fine print of the law.

To examine this properly, it’s important to realize how this whole Guantanamo Bay mess got started. Once the military engagement began in Afghanistan, following 9/11, we started collecting enemy combatants on the field of battle and needed some place to hold them. That’s when the Naval Base (GITMO) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was established.

This is where the 9/11 terrorists were detained, including the confessed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The attack of 9/11 wasn’t a bank robbery that should be treated like some law enforcement issue. That’s the way Bill Clinton, the ACLU and other liberals would like to conduct our response to the worst attack ever on American soil. This Supreme Court ruling, which puts foreign militants in the category of shoplifters, will undoubtedly cost American lives. Dissenting Justice Scalia warned “it will make the war harder on us, and almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Major Kyndra Rotunda, a former Member of the GITMO prosecution team, said the decision “will lead to more dead Americans.” She went on to say, “we already know 5 to 10% of these released end up back on the battlefield interfering with the mission in Iraq. With this ruling we could end up with that ten fold.”

At least 30 of the estimated 395 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay returned to Afghanistan to engage in further hostilities against Coalition forces. One promptly resumed his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered a UN engineer and three Afghan soldiers. Another murdered an Afghan judge. And, last March, Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, after being released from GITMO, launched a suicide attack in Mosul.

Since the beginning of the Afghanistan war in 2002, 775 enemy combatants have been brought to GITMO. None of them are American citizens or legal residents. Approximately 240, or just 30%, now remain. More than one fifth have been cleared, but the U.S. officials can’t find a country that’s willing to take them. So, it’s wrong to think that this situation has not been getting resolved, over time, with due process.

The ACLU, the UN and Human Rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch believe we are engaging in torture simply by having an indefinite period of detention for these enemy combatants. The ACLU has been suing the military to obtain the GITMO manual. The fact is, the detainees receive the most systematic and extensive procedural protections afforded to foreign enemy combatants in the history of armed conflict, including unprecedented access to legal representation and U.S. courts. Even the Geneva Conventions require that combatants be released from custody only “after the cessation of active hostilities.” How would Obama suggest that we keep these individuals, once released, from returning to the battlefield?

Detainees at Guantanamo Bay actually have it pretty good. They have received more procedural protections ensuring the fairness of their detention than any foreign enemy combatant in any armed conflict in the history of warfare. Chief Justice Roberts termed it “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” Detainees have the right to appointed counsel, the right to a summary of the evidence, the right to attend all open portions of the tribunal proceedings, the opportunity to call witnesses, the right to cross-examine and the right to testify. They are judged by a neutral panel of three commissioned officers who make a determination by majority vote on the preponderance of the evidence. These procedures go far beyond what most nations provide and what the Geneva Conventions require.

The GITMO detainees are afforded several considerations. They are provided with Muslim diets, prayer caps, prayer beads, prayer rugs, arrows in their cells pointing to Mecca, calls to prayer five times a day with guards “standing down” out of respect, and up to 22 hours of daily recreation.

What the Supreme Court has done is inexcusable. It will make our war effort much more difficult and jeopardize the lives of our military personnel. This decision will force attorneys to release evidence against enemy combatants to the terrorists’ own lawyers. Detainees will have a legal right of access to classified information. It has emboldened our enemy at a time when we have them on the run. It has put every American at risk from some new terrorist attack within our borders. Keeping the people safe is the first, and most important, job of government. This November, it would serve us well to vote for candidates who will help, not hinder, the proper defense of our great nation! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

To Tax or Not To Tax

2008-06-19T09:21:00.000-07:00

This is the question: Can the answers to all of the world’s problems be solved with a wealth-destroying tax? Liberals seem to think so.

Back in 1993, Bill Clinton proposed a multi-billion dollar value-added tax, (VAT), but we thankfully dodged that bullet when it died a merciful death in Congress. It was designed to help pay for Hillary-Care and the anticipated high cost of Free, Universal Healthcare, or Socialized Medicine. The VAT is a broad-based consumption tax which has been used for decades by the Socialists in Europe. It’s something that Liberals in this country have always admired despite evidence which shows its devastation upon entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Well, don’t look now, but here it comes again.

The UN has lobbied for a Global Tax for years out of interest in paying for all of their Global Utopian schemes. Never mind the fact that these programs don’t work and that the UN is a corrupt organization which routinely votes against America’s interests. That’s beside the point. The Liberals are quick to protest that such “nuances” are nothing compared to the do-gooder “warm and fuzzies” we’re all sure to feel by disengaging our minds and disemboweling our wallets!

UN representative Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute, is part of this New Age, “enlightened” crowd that is working to alleviate global poverty through another round of government-controlled wealth redistribution. Sound familiar? It should, it’s a rehash of LBJ’s “Great Society” programs, and we all know how well that turned out! Well, this time, the scam is much larger, much more Marxist, and fully supported by a much more popular politician- Barack Obama, the presumptive Democrat-nominee for president.

Sachs has said, “the only way to raise the kind of money needed, [$845 Billion], to fight Global Poverty is through a Global Tax, preferably one aimed at carbon-emitting fossil fuels.”

Obama recently sponsored a bill, “the Global Poverty Act,” (S. 2433) which serves as the perfect blueprint for this colossal, new government activism. His bill, to “fight world poverty,” commits .7 % of our nation’s GDP every year to the whims of UN managers. But, it doesn’t stop there with the imposition of another failed wealth redistribution scheme, it also includes a wiz bang provision to ban all small arms and light weapons! Presumably, these would be exactly the type of weapons individuals might choose for their own God-given Right to self-protection. For UN promoters, a policy of gun confiscation is almost as cherished as more taxes. These are the type of weapons, ironically enough, that Congolese women could be using right now to defend themselves from those pesky, unwanted advances made by UN soldiers. Mustn’t worry about that though, we have a Global Mercy Mission to launch! Pass the blindfold and “soak the rich.” Liberalism’s chief benefit remains- No Time To Think.

The U.S. Senate, sensing the apparent rise of this new wave of pro-Government enthusiasm, just voted for cloture on the Lieberman-Warren Climate Security Act, aka “Cap and Trade.” I guess, it’s open season now on the American Taxpayer. Who knew? Politics is the only endeavor I know of in nature where “the hunted” give routine aid and comfort to “the hunters!” This proposed annual cap on greenhouse gases- with the added feature of transferable restrictions- amounts to the “mother of all carbon taxes,” ala Jeffrey Sachs. Fortunately, it has stalled for the time being, but the danger is far from over.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of compliance for this tax would be $90 Billion per year by 2012. Our losses in GDP for years 2010 through 2030 would range from $1.7 to $4.8 Trillion! It would also cost one million jobs by 2022, and would create a spike in energy costs adding another $1.10 to gas prices. As a bonus for all the do-gooders out there, it would create five, brand new, government bureaucracies to cheer for as they manage all of this capital destruction. Yea!

None of this makes sense. Europe has already tried these initiatives and they have proven disastrous for their economies. The insanity of it all is that it won’t make any difference. We’re looking at trillions of dollars wasted for nothing. Countries like China and India are developing quickly, using more and more fossil fuels and they would not be subject to any of these carbon restrictions- that is, assuming there’s any real benefit from curtailing these emissions in the first place, per the Global Warming hysteria.

The baby-blue helmeted UN Zoo-Keepers are also looking to tax our emails, our currency exchanges, our air travel, among many, many other things just as soon as they can think of them. They are basically, power-hungry Peaceniks desperate to find all the money they can to finance their Liberal fantasies for a Global Commune. They want an International Criminal Court and various Conventions which would rule over us in the name of: “the Rights of the Child,” “the Law of the Sea,” “the Rights of Women,” and “the Protection of Biological Diversity,” etc. Basically, they are taxes to you and me which would go toward financing the end of American Sovereignty. The perplexity of it all is seeing Americans welcome the subservience. Barack Obama is clearly an advocate for this type of “change,” and he’s currently leading in the polls.

“To Tax, or Not To Tax” may simply come down to-- “To Elect Obama, or Not Elect Obama.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Respecting the Memory of Freedom’s Defenders

2008-05-29T06:47:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day was celebrated this past weekend and it occurred to me that we should not only respect the sacrifices of yesterday, but those that are happening today. Time seems to neatly put things in perspective, and though only a minority of Americans actually supported our own Revolution, today we all take pride in those sacrifices that won our Independence from Great Britain. Two generations after the Patriots’ sacrifice came the great struggle for Union and an end to the horrors of slavery. This too was a divided affair, but no one today makes a serious claim that the Confederacy and Slavery was truly a better way.

We look back upon these sacrifices with respect, but it’s instructive to realize that these life and death struggles for Independence and freedom were not always universally supported. Today we hear those who say they support the troops in Iraq but oppose the war. I wonder how many of our American Continental Soldiers, Union Infantrymen, WWI Doughboys, or other veterans would feel about that kind of self-serving equivocation? What does it mean? It would be like saying you support the individual members of a ball team but not their mission of actually winning any games. Thanks, but no thanks. Presumably, their “support” would stop just short of actually cheering for the other team!

This last week the House Democrats, in an effort to stifle the good news coming out of Iraq, passed a Defense bill that included a prohibition against “concerted efforts to propagandize” the war. This begs the question: just what have THEY been doing these past few years? Democrat “leaders” have been saying the war is lost, that it is a civil war quagmire akin to Vietnam, that US troops are terrorizing innocent Iraqis in the dead of night and murdering people in cold blood, etc. If this isn’t propaganda, then what is? How can they be so irresponsible in their comments, while simultaneously criminalizing other opinions? Whose side are they really on? Apparently, only negative propaganda is allowed.

The fact is, the Democrats so own defeat now that they can’t let it be known that victory is imminent. They simply can’t afford the inconvenient prospect of voters finding out the truth and discovering how wrong they’ve been. They’ve been politicizing this war all along to win back the White House, so nothing is going to stop them now with the election so close. They’re maintaining the Jack Murtha claim that “the war is over” and America lost despite all indications that victory is at hand. To put it mildly, their lust for power has seriously clouded their judgement. “Al Qaeda’s network in the country has NEVER been closer to defeat,” says ambassador Ryan Crocker. The Iraqi forces trained by our military have done an incredible job cracking down on al Qaeda militants in Mosul and decimating Shiite militants in Basra and Sadr City. Cries of a hopeless civil war don’t compute either with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forming a consensus agreement between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions. The Sunnis have returned to the coalition parliament and are now ready to participate in the coming elections. Al Sadr has moved out of Iraq and his army is weakening. So, regardless of what the Left would have you believe- reconciliation is definitely taking place in Iraq under the Rule of Law.

Gen. David Petraeus (“Betray Us” to the Liberals) is expecting to draw down troops this autumn and predicts a continued redeployment out of Iraq over the next five years. But, because of all the defeatist “propaganda” on the Left dominating the Democrat Party, folks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (hopefuls in the race to “lead” our military) can’t afford to admit the truth and give any respect to Gen. Petraeus and our military! This is what happens when you politicize a war. Is it any wonder that Hamas has endorsed Obama? The chief political advisor to the Prime Minister of Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, recently said, “we like Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America.” Maybe they see the chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat with the hopeful changes brought about by an Obama administration? The fact remains, progress is happening. According to a Canadian Human Security Report, terror attacks worldwide are down 40% since 2001. Al Qaeda support in the Arab world has “collapsed.” Remember the claims of how our engagement was increasing recruitment for terrorists? Not so. It would help the Democrats to realize that their brand of appeasement only encourages our enemies, while strong, effective engagement serves the cause of winning. This was the whole lesson of the Surge.

Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Harkin, (D) IA, insists that McCain’s military viewpoint is “pretty dangerous” to America. Call me crazy, but I’m thinking McCain’s point of view would be pretty dangerous to America’s enemies. If McCain’s plea for more troops would have been listened to earlier, we could have enjoyed success in Iraq much sooner. The Reagan Doctrine says it best, “Peace Through Strength.” Whether it’s a war for Independence, freedom, or simply victory over the forces of evil- the best way to memorialize our American legacy is through an authentic respect for the difficult work of patriotic duty.

In time, the Iraq War will take its place alongside our other wars in future Memorial Day observances. The question remains: who are the real supporters and who are the mere pretenders? (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

A Lie Cannot Live Forever

2008-05-13T10:55:00.000-07:00

Ever since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, those who have held a belief in a Supernatural Creator have been relegated to the “back of the bus” in our society by so-called modern scientists. These Darwinian Evolutionists, as it turns out, are not interested in science at all. They are interested, rather, in propagating and sustaining their own agenda of a values-free religion. It’s called Secular Humanism and was acknowledged as a religion by our own Supreme Court in 1961, (Torcasco v. Watkins).

Science, by definition, is knowledge obtained by collecting data through observation and experimentation that is formulated by the testing of a hypothesis. The “origins of life” is a field of study that is necessarily outside this specific discipline, and therefore, inaccessible to science. Still, this hasn’t stopped certain individuals from constructing an elaborate dogma of religion under the guise of scientific fact. This dogma stands in direct conflict with the Judeo-Christian belief system, but is beginning to suffer greatly now from the growing body of evidence that is debunking its fundamental claims. The Evolution Fundamentalists are not taking it very well, and have launched a modern day Inquisition against all dissidents.

Actor Ben Stein has just released a remarkable new documentary entitled, “Expelled” that demonstrates the hard-line censorship that’s currently crusading through our nation’s educational institutions. The film shows several scientists who have been fired and persecuted for the simple crime of challenging Darwin’s failing theory.

Most of these targeted individuals are proponents of an emerging theory known as Intelligent Design, (ID). There are hundreds of scientists now accepting this theory after having grown frustrated with Darwin’s inadequate, materialistic bias regarding Natural Selection and Common Descent.

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups,” says professor Louis Bounoure, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum. “The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the forward to the 100th Anniversary of Darwin’s book commented, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

So, why does it persist? Primarily, it is fear of the alternative of a moral God that holds Humanity accountable. As one writer put it, “Evolution is nothing more than an elaborate path one takes to run away from God.” Also, it’s a matter of selfish pride and not wanting to admit error. One museum curator noted, “[Evolution] could never be retracted because its already gone too far. Science would never be trusted again.”

The primary flaw in Darwin’s theory is the idea that all things originate from spontaneous generation. The vast complexities of the cell are such that no one really believes it could have organized itself. The odds of just one, single cell nucleus organizing its proteins in the right order are one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Even Dr. Richard Dawkins, a hostile opponent of ID and author of the book “The God Delusion,” readily admits the problems of spontaneous life forming out of random, non-living material. Ironically, Dawkins admits in the film the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, but insists that it can’t be God. Dawkins proposes the unscientific idea of aliens from outer space “seeding” our planet billions of years ago. E.T. phone home!

Perhaps the worst aspect of this jackbooted dogma is the philosophical agreement it shares with Eugenics and Nazism.

The full title of Darwin’s 1859 book was “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” was a major intellectual foundation for the Nazi program of exterminating all those deemed “unfit” for human evolution. In a chilling scene from “Expelled,” Stein is led through one of the death camps by a German woman who couldn’t bring herself to condemn the Nazi “doctors” for their murders. Darwin’s Humanism not only directed the thoughts of these Nazi monsters, but also, apparently, the thoughts of this tour guide who had lost all moral capacity to judge Evil.

Karl Marx was another fan of Darwin. His economic theories on atheistic communism were adapted from Evolutionary theory. He wanted to dedicate his book “Das Kapital” to his friend Darwin because it validated his work. In the communist re-education camps of both China and the USSR, the first thing taught was Darwinism.

Dr. Dawkins admits in the film that Evolution erodes Faith. As one Evolutionist put it: “first, one denies the deity, then the rest falls very easily: life after death, morality and free will.”

Evolution is bad science, but worse than that, it’s a seductive pathway to a rationalized, Humanistic cult of death, destruction and tyranny. Go see the movie, while you still can!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

The Tyranny of the Federal Registry

2008-04-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

With gas prices pushing $4 a gallon, a declining dollar and a mortgage crisis that refuses to go away, our nation’s economy is becoming the number one issue for the 2008 presidential campaign. There should be, however, some healthy skepticism regarding any candidate who implies that such things can be successfully controlled from Washington. Experience has clearly shown- centralized control under the operation of federal busybodies doesn’t make for a successful scenario. More times than not, it does more harm than good.

For example: the current Ethanol food crisis is a obvious demonstration of how government intervention proves to be a cure that’s far worse than the disease. Instead of improving a situation, government activism has the propensity for producing the opposite result. The pundits call this effect- “the Law of Unintended Consequences.” It is a very real phenomenon indeed, and issues forth most readily from that vain impulse of Liberal do-goodism.

One of the worst cases of this abuse is the federal government’s hidden tax that emanates from over-regulation. The cost of complying with all of our nation’s spider web of federal dictates was estimated by the U.S. Small Business Administration to be $1.14 trillion in 2006. That’s almost half of the expressed, total budget for 2006. Amazingly, this inflicted abuse on the part of unelected bureaucrats is an amount equal to about 10% of our GDP. Combined with the normal budget items, that’s a total tax burden of almost a full third of our economy’s productivity. Given our current economic struggles, perhaps the best thing Washington can do now is ease off the oppression!

Naturally, these expenses we struggle to pay now originally came to us by some smiling politician who simply wanted to grace us with benevolent gifts of government largesse. How sweet. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice…

These rules taxing almost every conceivable behavior imaginable are published in the Federal Register. In 2006, the Register grew to a massive 75,000 pages and issued almost 4,000 Nanny State guidelines on how we best behave. God gave Moses 10.

The EPA, the Dept. of Commerce, the Dept. of Agriculture, the Dept. of Interior and the Dept. of Treasury accounted for 44% of all new additions in 2006.

A report from last year says that the 60-plus federal departments, agencies and commissions are not content with what they have. They are busy creating about 4,000 more rules that will cost an additional $100 million to individuals and small business.

The worst aspect of this growing tyranny is the attending political unaccountability. There’s very little influence at the ballot box over these governmental authorities. Our elected leaders come and go, but these bureaucrat turf warriors remain forever entrenched and beyond our reach.

How can we possibly reverse this trend? Well, it’s certainly not by adding more agencies through Big Government programs like Universal Healthcare. We should lobby our representatives for more transparency and disclosure in government. We should also begin holding Congress accountable for the bad things these departments do. Finally, there should be a requirement that Congress and the President give signed authority before a new rule goes into effect.

Our Constitutional form of government was never intended to be administered by unelected bureaucrats with this type of power over the people. This is “regulation without representation” and a condition of servitude that a free people should never permit.

The cost we face now in unmonitored and unlimited regulation is more than the total federal budget of 1987. Something is desperately wrong with this trend. This election year, we should try to reverse it. The first step-- not falling prey to that old, Liberal, siren song that says, “more government is the answer!” (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

The “Leave Us Alone” Conservative Coalition

2008-04-15T06:19:00.000-07:00

Conservative-activist Grover Norquist, (founder of Americans for Tax Reform), has written an enlightening new book entitled, “Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands off our Money, our Guns, our Lives.”

In this in-depth study, Norquist attempts to fundamentally define the components that have driven the conservative, Reagan coalition over the past 25 years.

It’s a very informative examination of the competing motives behind our political system. As I have written before, there are only three motivating factors, outside what Norquist calls “Legacy Voters” who blindly vote out of loyalty to their parents, which determine one’s affiliation: the Ideology of the Left, the Ideology of the Right and Patronage.

Patronage is easy, it’s the method by which you selfishly choose the politician that promises you the most benefits. It’s the static, “fixed pie” scenario of carving up the goodies. But, as Reagan so rightly said, “America is about more than who gets what.”

The Ideology of the Left offers the option of what Norquist terms a “Takings Coalition,” where people put forward a thinly disguised patronage system under the philosophy of “working together for a better world.” This is the home of socialistic, egalitarian reformers, otherwise known as: trial lawyers, labor unions, Utopian micromanagers, big city political machines and the welfare industry (both dependents and deliverers). They are all united by one thing-- their desperate appetite for other people’s money through ever-increasing taxes.

The “Takings Coalition” turn JFK’s famous quote on its head by asking not what they can do for their country, but asking what the country can do for them. The “country,” after all, can’t spend one dime without forcibly taking it from another private citizen. Some call it charity, but this transfer of wealth is really “legalized plunder,” as the philosopher Frederick Bastiat noted in his landmark book “The Law.” Charity invokes the idea of Free Will, but the last time I checked, the IRS doesn’t permit “no” for an answer. In addition, it’s a fundamentally flawed system. The more one taxes and transfers wealth, the more one damages the incentives that create wealth in the first place. That’s why all socialist experiments around the world ultimately fail. Socialism simply cannibalizes the wealth that capitalism creates.

The Ideology of the Right offers the option of “Being Left Alone.” These are people united in their desire to have lower taxes, fewer regulations and greater freedom to live their lives without government intrusion. It’s not an anti-government coalition however, because these people want a responsible government that will provide for a valid criminal justice system and an adequate national defense. These principles of security are the very reason why governments are organized. These safeguards help to make “Being Left Alone” more accessible for all because they allow people to live their lives free from the threats of domestic crime or foreign aggression. By contrast, the “Takings Coalition” erroneously believes that the existence of laws and armies, by themselves, is the sole reason why we have bad behavior. Their political answer is always based upon capitulation and appeasement that favors the aggressor at the expense of the innocent victim.

Some people question whether this Center-Right “Leave Us Alone” coalition truly aims to advance liberty when some regard the Religious Right as a type of Theocratic tyranny. Norquist tackles this question openly and honestly. In his book, he relates how the religious conservatives first became aligned with this Coalition. It wasn’t when prayer was taken out of school or when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. It happened after the Carter administration attempted to raise taxes on Christian schools and regulate religious radio with the Fairness Doctrine- something that Hillary Clinton has vowed to utilize if she becomes President. So again, it was religious people who wanted to be left alone in their schools and radio stations that first created the so-called Religious Right movement. Ironically, this happened only a few years after Jimmy Carter had built a strong, Christian coalition for his campaign in 1976.

Norquist sees a bright future for the “Leave Us Alone” coalition. More and more Americans are becoming investors in the stock market. Their mutual funds, IRAs and 401Ks are making them converts to the Center-Right Republican Party. Every time a “Takings Coalition” politician talks about raising taxes “on the rich,” they begin to lose Democrats who’ve come to realize there’s a target now drawn on their retirement accounts. A recent Rasmussen poll demonstrates how, over time, stock market investors become 20% more likely to vote Republican. The trend toward individual stock ownership will continue to erode elements of the “Takings Coalition” in the future.

The bottom line for the “Leave Us Alone” coalition is Individualism and Independence. Norquist defines the top agenda items as: school choice; personalizing both Social Security and Healthcare; outsourcing government work to the private sector; and, advocating “transparency” in government. These are all initiatives for greater self-empowerment and less overall dependency on government.

Texas is one of several states that has recently placed all of their state business online for everyone to see. In Texas, every check written by the state can now be tracked on the web. This movement portends an ill fate for old-style political machines that are full of corruption, sweetheart deals and slush funds, i.e. the “meat and potatoes” of the “Takings Coalition.”

Norquist insists that his book is an accurate portrayal of the current political players. He states that the Conservative Movement has always been about conserving our Founding Father’s concept of God-given, Individual Rights to life, liberty and property. The Ideology of America’s Constitutional Framers was based upon limited government, because they understood that only by limiting government, can one maximize freedom. (send comments to WFC83197, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Uncle Jeremiah

2008-03-24T06:15:00.000-07:00

By now, most everyone has heard about Barack Obama’s unhinged pastor Jeremiah Wright. Wright practices what’s called a “Black Value System” at his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It’s an ideology that borrows heavily from the Marxist, Christian heresy called “Liberation Theology” developed in Nicaragua.

This really shouldn’t come as a big surprise to anyone, since Obama wants to socialize our health care industry, pull out of Iraq and have unconditional “talks” with our enemies. Of course, like all good politicians, Obama has been trying to throw discerning voters ‘off the scent’ by dressing up his radical agenda in nice, hope-filled rhetoric. It had been working quite well too, until this recent, unfiltered emergence of Pastor Wright.

Obama says Pastor Wright is like an uncle to him. He’s been his “spiritual advisor” for some twenty years, conducting his wedding, baptizing his two daughters and giving him the name for his book, “The Audacity of Hope.” What’s truly audacious though, is Obama’s claim that he wasn’t aware of his pastor’s controversial statements! How can you sit in a pew for twenty years, consult advice on a regular basis and not know how extreme this man is? Either Obama sympathizes with this radicalism, or he’s completely too inattentive to be president.

Wright has given the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a Lifetime Achievement Award, placed him on the cover of his church magazine and organized a special gala for him in Chicago to “celebrate his greatness.” He and Farrakhan traveled together to Libya in the 80s to pay homage to Qaddafi.

Last year, Pastor Wright published in his church bulletin a Hamas Manifesto written by terrorist and FBI fugitive Mousa Abu Marzook.

Pastor Wright is part of the “blame America first” crowd. This far Left malignancy goes back to the radicalism of the 60s. In fact, William Ayers- a terrorist with the counter-culture Weathermen group- is another close friend of Obama’s. Ayers, who has dinner with Obama frequently, was responsible for bombing the Pentagon, a New York police station and a Towne House complex where several innocent children and seniors were killed. He said in a New York Times interview from 9/11/2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is married to Benardine Dohrn, another terrorist from the 60s described by J. Edgar Hoover as “the most dangerous woman in America.”

From 1999 to 2002, Obama served as director for Ayer’s organization the Woods Fund. Woods Fund has given $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network. This anti-Israel group is led by Rashid Khalidi and is active in pro-Palestinian activities and campaigns supporting driver’s licenses for illegals. Khalidi has hosted fundraisers for Obama.

Pastor Wright’s “blame America” attitude has been expressed unabashedly from his pulpit with declarations such as “God damn America” and “the U.S. brought on 9/11 with its own terrorism” such as “Hiroshima, Nagasaki and terrorism against the Palestinians.” Obama has denounced some of these statements, but generally regards his “Uncle” as “not particularly controversial” just “provocative.” More Audacity.

One of the statements Wright made had a familiar ring to it. In an effort of excusing the brutality of 9/11, he proclaimed, “America’s chickens were coming home to roost.” That is the exact, contextual language used by David Barsamian, founder of the syndicated Left-wing “Alternative Radio” program in Boulder, CO. Barsamian, who airs on 125 radio stations, and Wright are singing out of the same Marxist songbook.

Barsamian is best known for his series of sympathetic interviews with cult figure Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has been described as the “L. Ron Hubbard of the new Left.” He is to the intellectual base of the Left what George Soros is to the financial base. It is impossible to be any farther to the Left, politically, than these folks. Barsamian has denounced even the Afghanistan military operation of the U.S. and has gone so far as to support reparations for Iraq. He advocates impeachment of Bush and Nuremberg-type trials for American “war criminals.”

In Barsamian’s most recent book, “Targeting Iran” it’s not surprising that he advocates the exact position as Obama: the U.S. should talk with our enemies with no preconditions. This approach is naïve because it would effectively place our foreign policy at the pre-emptive mercy of every tyrant and thug that hates America.

Chomsky showed his stripes in a recent interview on C-SPAN praising author Mike Davis who is a self-defined International Socialist and Marxist-Environmentalist who audaciously believes that Katrina was an effort of Ethnic Cleansing!

These misguided extremists on the Left see America as an imperialistic, militarized, racist empire that’s fundamentally evil and deserving of every defeat and indignity it can possibly acquire. Why? Because the Left wants to re-create America and turn it into a radically different place. They want an emasculated America that’s subservient to all the idealistic, utopian notions of International Socialism. It’s a bad dream, to be sure, but it’s also the only dream Secular Humanists have for a perfected world. It is “audacious,” but absent the Prince of Peace it’s also a vain exercise in futility. Despite the name you give it, there remains No Collective Means to Individual Success and No Works-based Salvation. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Ranking the Presidents

2008-02-21T09:28:00.000-08:00

In honor of Presidents’ Day this week, I thought I would take a few minutes to examine and list those who rank as “the greatest” in our nation’s history.

After perusing almost twenty different surveys dating from 1948 to today, and including expert and non-expert opinions on both the Left and the Right, I was surprised by the near unanimity in the rankings. With only a few exceptions, the Top Ten is relatively the same presidents in every poll just different arrangements.

In order to come up with a final Top Ten of my own, I created a system of rating each president using three main criteria: peace and prosperity; inspirational ideas; and, leadership for the times.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this analysis was how “leadership” dominated the rankings. We always hear about “peace and prosperity” but that was the least important category by the judgement of history. At the end of the day, it is a president’s ability to lead and inspire through difficult times that seems to attract the most respect and regard. It’s also the one thing no president can truly prepare for, or anticipate.

Leading the list is the “Father of our Country,” George Washington. I rank him ahead of Lincoln because of his indispensable value as THE Founding Father. I also give him credit for the relative “peace and prosperity” that existed throughout his self-imposed, two-term Administration.

Second is Lincoln. War and deprivation reigned during his time, but “Honest Abe” persevered through the anguish of the Civil War with an unrivaled instinct for determined leadership and inspiration that saved the Union and freed the slaves.

Coming in third is FDR. Again, it was war and deprivation, on a scale not seen since the Civil War, that challenged our nation’s survival. Franklin Roosevelt was able to inspire America through the challenges of both the Great Depression and WWII with a fearless and charismatic leadership that gave hope to millions.

Number four is Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, remains one of the most politically inspirational figures of all time. His ideas of individual liberty and democracy are the foundations for limited government and freedom the world over. His overall leadership in other matters, however, was a bit lacking.

Fifth on the list is Teddy Roosevelt. Bully! In some ways TR was like Jefferson- idealistic and unstoppable. He was the inspirational leader for his time, busting up big monopolies and initiating a conservation movement to preserve our natural resources. His policies, however, didn’t always meet with favorable results.

Sixth is Jackson. Andrew Jackson was perhaps the most stubborn of all men to serve as Commander-in-Chief. “Old Hickory” founded the oldest, continuing political party in the world today- the Democrat Party. He’s also the father of the Jacksonian Era that dominated American politics for a generation. Despite economic and political failures he re-created the office of the presidency, making the Executive Branch the undisputed, most powerful instrument in the Federal government.

Number Seven on the list is Ronald Reagan. Reagan did some re-inventing of his own ushering in an era that’s been called the “Reagan Revolution.” Reagan, like Jackson, had the tenacity to exert a strong military pressure on America’s enemies. The Reagan Doctrine brought an end to the Cold War, and “Reaganomics,” (lowering the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%), lifted America out of an economic “malaise” yielding an economic expansion of record proportions.

Eighth on the list is Eisenhower. What Dwight D. Eisenhower lacked in inspiration he made up for in “peace and prosperity” and solid, stoic leadership. Eisenhower represents a trend in the Top Ten: of generals or war-time leaders making the list. Ike has been the biggest mover in all the rankings over the years! At first, his Administration was viewed as average, now he is a consistent Top Ten pick.

Ninth is JFK. Primarily, it is John F. Kennedy’s inspiration and idealistic leadership that keeps him a perennial Top Ten favorite. The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis serve to demonstrate his Administration’s weakness in foreign affairs. Cutting taxes, initiating the space program and moving the country forward on race relations remain important parts of his overall legacy.

Number ten is Truman. Harry S. Truman became president after Roosevelt died and was left with the difficult task of winning WWII. He dropped the bombs on Japan and secured victory for the Allies ending the worst war in human history. He initiated what would become known as the Truman Doctrine- the containment of communism around the world. Though not as inspirational as other Top Ten presidents, Truman’s homespun, no-nonesense style endeared him to many as a refreshing change from normal politics.

Those presidents who were not war-time leaders or generals in the Top Ten are: Jefferson, Reagan and JFK. I think what sets them apart is their ability- minus an overt national emergency- to articulate and inspire a political movement. When one considers the “Declaration,” the “Great Communicator” and “Camelot” it’s easy to see a pattern of uncommon inspiration.

So, what can we take from this little exercise? I think it can shine some light on our current choices for president. Is there someone in the running for 2008 that has the exceptional traits of: securing “peace and prosperity,” providing “inspirational ideas” or demonstrating “leadership for our times?” Reflecting upon this impressive list of America’s greatest presidents, can we see Hillary, Obama or McCain someday fitting the bill? (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Swing to the Left

2008-01-24T09:22:00.000-08:00

Is America ready for a political swing to the Left? Probably so. Even with the failure of the Liberal Democrat Congress, (approval ratings in single digits), the people seem undeterred in their desire for “something different” from the status quo. “Change,” whether for good or for ill, is most definitely in the air.

Unfortunately, that’s the historical trend following periods of war that challenge the public’s resolve. It happens for whatever party’s in power. Even the conservative icon Winston Churchill, after leading the British people through their “finest hour” in WWII, met defeat at the ballot box in a landslide election that swept the Labor party into the Majority for the first time ever. The new Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, initiated a bold program of change consisting of: Full Employment, Tax-funded Universal National Health Service and a “cradle to grave” Welfare State!

Sound familiar?

As a general rule: a wartime era is followed by a domestic era with new inward focus for internal improvements. This swing of the political pendulum favors the Liberal Democrats in this year’s upcoming elections.

In this drift Leftward, there are a couple of things concerning the campaign rhetoric one should keep in mind:

First: The Economy.

We are not in a recession yet! Technically, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Yes, the fourth quarter of last year was abysmal, (.6% growth), but it was positive, not negative.

One should remember that we’ve been on a war footing since 9/11/2001. It’s amazing that we’ve had an expansion at all, much less, a record 52 consecutive months of job creation! Since 2001, our average GDP growth has been a healthy 2.8% per year with low inflation and relatively low unemployment. The Bush tax cuts have been an economic stimulus, reducing taxes for everyone who pays them, while simultaneously yielding the highest amount of tax revenues in history- proving, once again, that “Supplyside” works.

Our deficits point to another misconception. The current rate is 1.2% of GDP, or 50% below the 40-year average. Our deficits have grown the national debt during the Bush years at a rate of 8.4% per year since 2002. This is similar to the 10.5% annual rate from 1990 to ‘94. What’s interesting, is that in the intervening years, 1994 to 2001, we had an overall 3% reduction in the overall deficit. This was the period of the much-maligned, “spend-thrift” Republican Congress. The substantial difference between these two most recent periods of deficit increases can be reduced to two factors: War and a unified, Liberal-Democrat government. For further perspective, consider the fact that growth in this decade’s spending is at 1/4th the rate of the 1970s. It has gone up, when compared to the 90s, but only by 23%. The increase in the deficits this decade is actually 2/3rd below the average rate per decade since the 1970s. That’s not much considering the huge expense of this war.

By that way, it’s a war not of our choosing. It’s impossible to believe the claims of the Democrat candidates who say they will single-handedly “end the war” when they should realize the conflict necessarily involves the active will and participation of our enemies! Do they have some secret power to nullify the motivation embodied by Islamic jihad?

Second: John McCain.
Does John McCain have any worthwhile conservative credentials, if he does happen to be the Republican nominee?

There’s a rebellion brewing now on the Right that is rejecting the notion of supporting John McCain. McCain has stabbed conservatives in the back repeatedly over a multitude of issues, from Amnesty to Campaign Finance Reform to Bush’s Tax Cuts. It’s a long, annoying record and one conservatives find very hard to support.

Some conservatives have gone so far as to claim that Hillary Clinton would be MORE conservative than John McCain. As they say down in Arkansas, “that’s Hogwash!”

Given this cultural swing to the Left, conservatives may just have to swallow hard and accept the consequences of a more moderate alternative.

How moderate is McCain? Is he really that close to Hillary or Obama? McCain has a lifetime conservative voting record of 82.3, (as compiled by the American Conservative Union). That is just two points below the GOP average. By contrast, the Democrat average is 13.8. Hillary and Obama share the exact same lifetime average of 8.0. That is a dramatic difference in the parties and significant evidence for establishing a real choice this November. But, what exactly are these differences?

Looking on a vote by vote basis used by the ACU, the discrepancy involves five main categories that all voters should be aware of: Tax and Spend policies, Iraq and the War on Terror, Market vs. Government solutions, the appointment of Judges and Abortion. It may not be enough for some conservatives to get excited about, but it is a very real difference that will manifest itself in the governing actions of these prospective administrations. Finally, one can’t forget that McCain did support the Surge at its critical, introductory stage when others were wavering.

As the political winds blow Left, conservatives may want to start thinking more clearly about the “lesser of two evils.” It doesn’t have to be forever. Remember, Churchill did make a come back! Maybe for conservatives, it’s time to “punt and play field position” for a while, at least until more favorable winds come along. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Playing Politics with Race

2008-01-10T09:12:00.000-08:00

It’s been said, “the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.” The truth behind that statement lies in the power to deceptively trap your opponent by framing the debate around pre-cooked assumptions.

Liberals have been operating this Orwellian Magic for years, suggesting, for instance, that the only political choices we have across the spectrum are Socialist-communism on the Left, or Socialist-fascism on the Right. Either way, the choice is Socialism. Pretty nifty, huh?

Hillary Clinton’s latest controversy involves comments she made about Lyndon Johnson and civil rights. It’s another case in point for this political trickery. The deception here involves the Democrat party’s exclusive claim to be the only ones who care about African Americans.

Hillary said, “it took a president to get it done,” suggesting- in that annoying self-serving manner of hers- that presidential leadership, (ostensibly the kind she would provide), is a better qualification than the “I Have a Dream,” hopeful work of such folks as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Barack Obama!

Of course, it was wrong for Hillary to discount the more important work of Dr. King- as Obama correctly pointed out it was “ill-advised and unfortunate.” But, even more interesting, is the convenient omission of Sen. Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in Congress who voted, in greater numbers, (80 to 60 percent), to get the bill passed over Southern Democrat objections.

Johnson gets credit for signing the bill, but that shouldn’t excuse his well-known hostility towards African Americans. As a senator, his record was perfect. He voted against EVERY civil rights bill that came before him, even anti-lynching legislation!

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was JFK’s weaker version of an earlier GOP bill. As senator in 1957, he voted against civil rights. This bill of 1964 was modeled after the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1875. The old Act contained almost identical language, but was made ineffective due to the lack of enforcement in the Democrat South.

The 1964 bill was necessary to reverse the government prejudice first practiced by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson, whose favorite film was the racist “Birth of a Nation,” removed African Americans from Federal positions and appointed KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court over Republican objections.

The 1964 bill was filibustered by Dem. Sen. Robert Byrd for 14 hours. “Grand Kleagle” Byrd had been an official recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. He also lobbied against military integration, calling African Americans “race mongrels.”

By contrast, Sen. Dirksen, a Republican who helped draft the 1964 legislation, fought consistently for civil rights beginning in the 1950s. It’s fair to say, that without his help, the bill would have never passed. Johnson reportedly told Hubert Humphrey, “you know this bill can’t pass unless you get Ev Dirksen.”

It’s fascinating how successful the Left has been over the years in painting Republicans as racists, while simultaneously ignoring their own blatant record of slavery, Klan terrorism, bigotry and segregation.

Bill Clinton’s political mentor was segregationist Sen. J. William Fulbright. Sen. Al Gore, Sr. not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but tried to sabotage it behind the scenes!

This week we are celebrating the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr.- a Republican who fought for Equal Rights based upon the concept of judging, not by the “color of one’s skin but by the content of one’s character,” (i.e. a difference between individual behavior that is chosen versus circumstances of birth which are not). The King Holiday was signed into law by President Reagan in 1983.

It’s interesting to note that JFK was opposed to Dr. King’s 1963 “March on Washington” that was initiated to promote civil rights legislation. The event, organized by black Republican Phillip Randolph, was thought to be harmful to Kennedy’s 1964 re-election prospects.

One shouldn’t forget that it was Kennedy who authorized wire-tapping on Dr. King. King once referred to JFK as “schizophrenic on civil rights.”

Other prominent African American Republicans, in addition to MLK, include:
Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Hiram Revels (first black senator), Joseph Rainey (first black congressman), Ida Wells, Carter Woodson, Jackie Robinson, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Clarence Thomas, Alphonso Jackson, Lynn Swann, Thomas Sowell, Denzel Washington, Condoleezza Rice and Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. King and founder of King for America, Inc.

Liberal Democrats continue to enjoy nearly 90% African American support by propagating the myth that their party is the sole friend of civil rights. They have been running our inner-cities for decades, and yet there has been no significant improvement. The so-called “War on Poverty,” begun by LBJ’s Great Society, has managed to spend $7 trillion over the years without diminishing the poverty rate. What they have created since the Sixties, is a cycle of government-dependency that has decimated the once strong African American family. This is the very opposite of Individual Empowerment.

Liberal welfare policies, in effect, actually have more in common with the paternalistic plantations of old. In the words of Don Henley, “you can check out, but you can never leave!”

Someday, all the lies of the Devil will be exposed for what they are, and with That Truth, all will be set free. Until that day, I guess we can still Dream! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O.B. 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

The Ron Paul Factor

2007-12-27T06:27:00.000-08:00

In the famous Robert Bolt play “A Man for all Seasons” there’s an interesting quote by Sir Thomas More. It is a reply to what may be described as William Roper’s “Dirty Harry” inclinations of “cutting down every law to get at the Devil.” More rebukes the idea with the rejoinder, “and when the last law is down and the Devil turns round on you where would you hide?”

The implication is clear: the Law exists to benefit us all, even as it may sometimes benefit those forces of evil among us. (think: waterboarding) It’s a tempting argument, but one that fails the practical test of a higher calling. The ordained authority of law and government exists to punish evil and to protect the innocent. Sometimes this power must be wielded outside the normal channels of our constitutions and laws in order to serve the higher ideals of our sense of justice. Serving the law at the expense of justice may seem honorable in the twisted logic of Liberals in their pursuit of legalistic perfectionism, but it’s not serviceable for the Rights of the helpless victims who become victimized twice by an unfeeling and uncaring judicial system that allows “the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”

U.S. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is a Republican candidate for president. Although his support remains a flat line of single digits in the polls, his followers are very committed and persistent in their devotion. His campaign, though unlikely to win the nomination, is making ideological waves in the national debate.

Paul has received incredible contributions amassing as much as $6 million in one day, and collecting $18 million in three months. He is a past candidate for president on the Libertarian ticket and generally holds to a firm non-interventionist policy for both domestic and foreign concerns.

Paul likes to talk about the Constitution and rightly describes our drift away from the principles of our Founding Fathers. He’s for abolishing the IRS, the Dept. of Education, the War on Drugs, foreign aid to Israel, the Federal Reserve and a host of other programs on the federal level. He’s opposed to the war in Iraq and would bring troops home immediately despite the conditions and consequences for that region. He’s also interested in disengaging ourselves from almost every trade deal, NAFTA, GATT, etc. and would bring troops home from bases all over the globe including Korea and Europe too.

I find a lot of philosophical agreement with Paul on a variety of these and other issues. He’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Sound Currency and pro-active on reforming Social Security and other Entitlement programs. But, there’s an important difference in academic purity and real-world pragmatism.

In the world of purists like Paul, we can have a federal government as small and limited as the pre-Civil War days. By the way, Paul is no Lincoln fan. He would rather have the Idealistic Purity of States Rights over Unionism in all of the chaos that would result, rather than the type of united government Lincoln left us with. Remember, Lincoln had to suspend parts of the Constitution (habeas corpus) in order to save it. Alas, Sir Thomas More would not be a fan of Lincoln either.

Paul is proud to have voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, but he fails to acknowledge the consequences of doing nothing in the face of Islamic Fascism and rogue states like that of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. If we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq we would have surrendered to defeat in terms of the first Gulf War and in terms of allowing Saddam to shoot down our planes in the No Fly Zone. History teaches us that appeasement doesn’t work, it only encourages evil from the likes of tyrants such as Saddam. And, as we now know, it was weakness- i.e. Clinton’s retreat from Mogadishu- that inspired Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9/11/2001. Has anyone noticed? There hasn’t been a similar attack on our shores in the six years since then. I think President Bush and his policies deserve at least some of the credit. Don’t you?

Paul reminds me of another presidential candidate- Michael Dukakis. In one of the 1988 debates Dukakis was asked if he would support Capital Punishment in the instance where someone raped and murdered his wife. Without flinching, and reflecting the dogmatic rigidity of Sir Thomas More, Dukakis coldly stated his unwavering opposition to the Death Penalty in all cases. Such idealistic convictions may win high praise in the court of liberal, academic Puritanism, but it’s brutally disastrous in the court of presidential politics!

Ron Paul is a great debater and a wonderful Constitutional scholar worthy of much serious consideration, but his devotion to the “letter of the law” in the face of real world threats like Islamo-fascism makes him unfit to be Commander-in-chief. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

The Totalitarian Impulse

2007-12-11T08:56:00.000-08:00

Modern Liberalism is nothing more than Totalitarianism by another name.

Totalitarianism comes from the word “total” meaning a complete political control over a nation’s institutions and culture. Political Correctness is the method by which modern Liberals have been attempting to radically change America- transforming our country into a Godless, Socialist State.

Islamofascism is also a type of Totalitarianism. The goal for these jihadist radicals is to force the world into compliance regarding their particular brand of ‘controlling’ faith and religion.

So, should we be surprised then to find that Left-wing, Kool-Aid Drinking Liberals are constantly on the side of the Islamofacists in this War on Terror? No. They are in perfect agreement based upon their shared hatred of America. It remains their unifying “shared religion” espoused by all those who hate America: al Qaeda, Iran, Hugo Chavez, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, etc. As has been noted before: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Liberals like to point out that it is the “Religious Right” that is wishing to impose some sort of Theocracy on America. This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Have you ever stopped to consider what their twisted idea of “separation of church and state” really means when you combine it with their goal of an ever-increasing state? Taken together, if the church, (i.e. those expressing a belief in God), is sequestered from any inclusion in the state, then, necessarily, as the state grows larger, then the church MUST grow smaller!

Don’t let Liberals fool you. They have a religion. Their belief system disavows any consideration for evil or original sin in the world. They prefer to propagate the fantasy that “evil” only comes in the form of “oppressive” Institutions like: Capitalism, Christianity and the Military. Their catechism is one of abolishing: Profits, Morality and the U.S. Defense Dept. By so doing, they sincerely believe they can usher in their version of a holy Millennium.

Likewise, the Jihadists believe that an “ultimate paradise” is something that’s within their grasp as well- if they could just obtain more control over society. That’s why they show such little concern over the carnage resulting from their methods. It’s a simple trade-off in the Marxist tradition of “the ends, justifying the means.” Karl Marx, by the way, believed he could create “Heaven on Earth” too!

Both Islamofascists and American Liberals hold to an essential doctrine that says the world will be a better place once America- in its traditional form- is no more! When Christianity, Capitalism and the Military is made impotent, then they will have achieved their Utopia dream for the human race!

Skeptical? Just listen to the Liberals ranting and raving about America’s religious traditions, military strength and private profits. They hate them all! It represents to them the impediments to the idealistic things they seek: secularism, world government and collectivist programs!

For the Totalitarians in our midst, nothing ever changes. They always say they need a little bit more power and just a little bit more control. Witness the debate over our health care industry. The absolute worst parts of our health care today come from Liberal malfeasance that is: Medicare fraud and frivolous malpractice suits. In the religion of the Totalitarians, evidence for “sin,” or failure, serves only to substantiate their claims for “more control.” They never admit to any previous “control” or “power” errors. To admit a mistake would be to encourage more scrutiny from the masses who- after all- shouldn’t be allowed the opportunity to peer too intently behind the Temple curtain!

Human Nature is the enemy of all Totalitarians. Human beings yearn to be free as much as they yearn to fulfill their lusts. What Totalitarians fail to understand is that you can’t attempt to eradicate one aspect, without equally, eradicating the other.

Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian Ethic as it exists in Western culture, offers the only reasonable solution. Freedom of the individual must be tempered by the encouragement of self-discipline. The State or the Mullah can’t absolve you of this personal responsibility. Each sovereign individual must accept this challenge for himself. The Holy Bible, more than any other thing the world has ever known, offers the best instruction for facing that challenge successfully. Unlike the Totalitarians, those who consider the full panoply of Scripture accept the revealed reality that we will never overcome our Fallen Nature within ourselves. It will remain a spiritual battle until Christ Himself returns to restore His Kingdom.

So, why do Totalitarians war against the Bible? The Bible gives the glory for self-improvement to God, not to the State, or not to the Mullah! It also denies the notion of mankind being able to evolve toward some sort of “perfected” social state on his own. The selfish tyrants who desire control and power through the auspices of false religion: whether it’s Islamofascism, Socialism, or some other manifestation, resent and resist the competition. They- like Hillary- want the glory for themselves!

In this, the Season of our Savior’s birth, we’d be remiss if we didn’t consider that there are- most definitely- some competing “saviors” out there- desirous of our souls. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

MEXAMERICANADA

2007-11-30T07:52:00.000-08:00

We just celebrated Thanksgiving- a uniquely American holiday. It’s a special time when we Americans acknowledge our thankfulness to God. We give thanks for our personal blessings, but we also give thanks for our national blessings too.

Lincoln made this day a national holiday for the purpose of establishing a more firm sense of unity among all Americans going through the chaos of civil war. In his proclamation of 1863 it was called a “national and fixed Union festival…an American custom and institution” to rally the citizens.

This is just one example of America’s cultural distinction, but it points to an important foundation from which so many other American institutions spring. It all adds up to our common heritage as a people and a nation. The sovereign unity of our people is always a delicate balance to maintain, but now- more than ever- there seems to be threats to that social equilibrium.

Besides the Liberals, who detest America in its current form and want to change it radically, there are also “Big Government Conservatives” who are equally radical in their desire to embrace change. Their cause is: the North American Union.

Beginning with NAFTA in 1993 and continuing in 2005, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have worked to bring about a disastrous assault upon our national sovereignty. What they want is a type of “European Union” for North America.

The proposal, if successful, will unite Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into one integrated, governmental system! Quoting from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 2005 report: “Creating a North American Community”-

“We propose the creation by 2010 of a community to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity for all North Americans. The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. Within this area, the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly and safe.”

On March 23, 2005, a joint statement was issued:

“We the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. (Martin, Fox and Bush) announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges.”

Another CFR report from May of 2005, “The Building of a North American Community,” states:

“The three governments (Canada, Mexico and the U.S.) should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travels and trade within North America.”

This helps explain why there has been so much frustration and inaction when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. Many of our political leaders- on both sides of the aisle- have simply bought-in to this North American Union nonsense and want “open borders” between our nations.

What they fail to realize is how the pursuit of this initiative means the erosion of our cherished, national sovereignty. A country without borders is no longer a country!

America- for those who know its history- is more than just some nondescript, trading bloc comparable to China, Europe or Latin America! Our existence as a nation thrives on the continuance of our own cultural distinctions, and to add to that mix, indiscriminately, without discerning the consequences, is the same thing as cooking a stew using a pantry full of poison! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

How NOT to Save a Falling Dollar

2007-11-13T07:19:00.000-08:00

The dollar has fallen, and can’t get up. Currencies around the world are making all-time gains on the dollar and people are beginning to get worried about the future of the U.S. economy.

Whether welcomed or not, we are increasingly operating in an interdependent, global marketplace where the activities of one nation directly impact the performance of another.

Capital is the name of the game, and those nations offering capital investors the greatest returns will prove to be the ultimate winners in this quest for a strong currency. The fact is, we are in a global competition for capital, and the high tax proposals by all of the leading Democrat candidates for president is, most definitely, not the way to go!

Many people point to the $600 billion trade deficit, (monetary surplus), as the main cause for our dollar’s decline, but this only tells part of the story. Legendary Economist Ludwig von Mises proved that trade imbalances themselves are not to be feared. Absent the socialist inclination for government intervention, the disparities of a nation’s trade balance will equalize over time with the natural, disciplinary forces of the free market.

When a nation’s imports exceed its exports, there is simply a momentary increase in goods with a simultaneous decrease in currency. Under normal circumstances- when governments don’t interfere- the currency sent abroad formulates a pool of available “capital” that ultimately flows back to the original country in the form of profit-seeking investments.

The key word there is PROFIT, aka “the profit motive” of incentivized capitalism.

With all of the countries now competing so desperately for global investment, it shouldn’t be assumed that those dollars will always find their way back here. It’s especially difficult to attract those dollars when we are currently pursuing two federal policies that are in direct conflict with investors’ demands: (1) low interest rates; and (2), high corporate taxation.

The detriment of the first condition is obvious. Investors are looking for the highest rates of return for their financial investments. This, however, is a catch 22 now for our policy makers in Washington, because there’s an overriding concern to keep rates low in order to help offset the weakness in the housing market. If we raise rates to where they “should be,” in relation to the realities of the market place, we will undoubtedly attract more foreign investment, but we’ll also severely jeopardize an already reeling mortgage industry decimated by the subprime foreclosures. That leaves only one option- the consideration of cutting our corporate tax rates.

Capital will flow to the highest rate of return. Interest rates are always a primary concern, but coming close behind is a favorable tax policy. Since 1993, European Union tax rates have fallen from an average of 38% to 25%. Finland has gone from a 43% corporate tax rate to 25%, Sweden has gone from 60% to 28%, and Ireland has dropped from 24% to 12.5%. In Estonia, the corporate income tax rate on earnings has been lowered off the charts. It’s zero! Most of these, traditionally, socialist governments have discovered, (the hard way), what John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher knew instinctively- that lower tax rates stimulate economic growth by attracting more entrepreneurship and greater capital investment.

There was a time when the U.S. led the world in pro-growth tax policies, but while we’ve been standing still, others have aggressively moved ahead.

Today, the United States is second among industrialized nations for the highest corporate tax rate: 39.4%, (combined Federal and State average). Only Japan is higher at 39.5%.

Of the 30 industrialized economies recognized by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD), the U.S. tax rate is 35% higher than the average rate of 28.7%. Since 2000, the average OECD country has reduced their rates by 13%. With the UK’s recently announced plan to cut rates further to 28%, following Sarkozy’s initiatives in France, all of this points to one undeniable fact: we are in the midst of a worldwide, Supplyside Revolution! Available, venture capital is not stupid- it will flow logically to the place of greatest return, and increasingly, that place is not the U.S.

So, what do the Liberals want to do?

Raise Taxes! Hillary Clinton calls Bush’s 2001 tax cuts “irresponsible,” and like her fellow Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards, she would prefer to allow the tax cuts expire from their current 35% rate and return to the 39.6% rate of Bill’s administration. Sunsetting the Bush tax cuts would also bring back the “marriage penalty,” the “death tax” and higher capital gains/dividend rates. Add to that, the Rangel plan of a 4.6% surtax, plus the new Medicare tax, and the total “effective” Democrat tax rate becomes 48-50% for the top income producers. With other competing nations slashing their rates like a Ronco Veg-O-Matic, this is no time to be “turning back the clock” and embracing Keynes!

Hillary and Obama were among the U.S. Senators who recently voted for the largest tax increase in history, (CQ Vote #172). This initiative, if signed into law, would amount to a tax bill of $900 billion over the next five years, or $3.3 trillion over the next ten. It would mean $2,641 in new taxes for each household in America. This budget proposal also called for a 9% increase, ($18 billion), in new discretionary spending. It is $205 billion more, (not less), than the Bush budget. There’s an old, political phrase for this type of Liberal impulse: “Tax ‘n’ Spend.”

The dollar is not all we have to worry about. There’s another financial crisis looming over the horizon: the Entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, et al. These wealth transfers are fiscally unsustainable given our current demographic deficiencies. Simply stated, there aren’t enough workers in our economy to support all of the growing number of retirees. The first wave of baby boomers will be retiring this year and they will be putting enormous pressure on these financial commitments.

The Liberals have no answer for these developing issues, in fact, they want to add to the Entitlement problem by creating more ‘guaranteed’ programs like universal, socialized medicine! The only responsible thing to do, (for those who understand basic math), is to try to honor these past commitments while reforming the system for the future. We must find a way to eliminate these burdensome pyramid schemes from our economy forever. They produce only temporal benefit for vote-buying politicians, while being inherently unfair and immoral to everyone else.

In order to have the money necessary to meet these commitments already made, it’s absolutely essential that we maintain a growing and expanding economy! With the Bush tax cuts, we now have the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record, (50 months). Since May 2003, 4.6 million new jobs have been created, the unemployment rate is negligible at 4.9%, the growth rate is a healthy 4%, and tax receipts to the government, (despite lower tax rates), are at an all-time high.

Revenues to the government have increased 10%, on average, for each of the last two years, and our budget deficit is half of the 40-year average: 1.2% of GDP, or $163 billion out of a $14 trillion economy. This far surpasses Bush’s pledge to halve the deficit in his second term.

All of this economic success, amazingly, has happened during a time of war. The old adage about not having “guns” and “butter” at the same time doesn’t hold true in this case. You’d think people would know about this success, but as a recent Harvard Study has confirmed once again: the news media is overwhelmingly liberal, (90% of reporters vote Democrat). So, everything is slanted “bad,” even when it’s good, during Republican administrations.

The WRONG thing to do now is listen to the media and elect someone like Hillary who’s just dying to raise your taxes. She recently stated “I have a million ideas, but the Country can’t afford them all.” No kidding! As Justice John Marshall once said, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” If you won’t take action to stop Hillary for yourself, then do it for the dollar! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

If the Hsu Fits

2007-10-30T07:31:00.000-07:00

There’s an old adage in the world of politics: “Follow the Money.” In the recent case of Norman Hsu and his fraudulent fundraising for Hillary Clinton: “following the money” reveals quite an interesting story.

Currently, the Rasmussen Poll has Hillary Clinton with an amazing 23 point lead over her nearest Democrat rival Barack Obama. In the head to head poll against her likely GOP opponent, (either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson), the race is a statistical dead heat. So, with Hillary being this close to the oval office- we should consider what “influence”she might be selling, and who is buying.

Hsu first made news back in August when it was revealed in the Wall Street Journal that he was funneling $250,000 to Hillary’s campaign through suspicious donors like William Paw. Paw lives in a home previously purchased by Hsu in Daly City, CA. The Paw’s only source of income comes from a postal job which pays $49,000 a year. Yet, despite this meager income, in three years, the Paws have given nearly a quarter of a million dollars to Hillary! Something smells fishy.

As a result of this story, a warrant was issued for Hsu’s arrest stemming from a previous charge of grand theft. Hsu pled “no contest” in 1992 to a massive ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of more than $60 million. He jumped bail and had been on the lam for 15 years until caught in Colorado. Just prior to this incident, Hsu had suffered divorce, bankruptcy and ‘kidnapping’ by the San Francisco Triad society run by gang leader Raymond Chow. More on the Triads later.

Beginning in 2006, Hsu re-emerged instructing new investors to contribute to certain “designated” political campaigns. One hundred and fifty people were subsequently reported as Hillary donors, however, one-third of them couldn’t be found at their listed addresses. Each person, despite their modest incomes and questionable political interest, “gave” between $500 and $2,300 generating a grand total of $850,000 traced directly back to Hsu!

Hillary characterized the discovery of this fraud as a “rude awakening to us all” insisting- with a straight face- that “none of us caught this and we all ran searches!” That’s strange, because the Los Angeles Times reported that her campaign was indeed warned last June and that a Clinton aide had even dismissed the concerns. Samantha Wolf, Clinton’s former west coast, campaign finance director wrote, “I can tell you with a hundred percent certainty that Norman Hsu is not involved in a ponzi scheme. He is completely legit.”

Hillary didn’t share Wolf’s rock-solid endorsement. Upon the disclosure of Hsu’s activities, the Clinton campaign quickly went into CYA-mode divesting itself of all inappropriate funds by turning over $850,000 to charity. Unbelievably, the Tennessee Democrat Party and Harold Ford, who were among the “other Democrats” suggested for targeted donation, decided they’d rather keep the dirty Hsu money than forfeit the largesse.

As a further reminder and point of concern for the upcoming election- we shouldn’t forget all the terrible abuses from her spouse’s time in the White House. Remember the “selling of the Lincoln Bedroom” and all those Chinese connections from the 90s-Charlie Trie, John Huang and over a hundred indicted co-conspirators fleeing the country and pleading “the fifth” to avoid prosecution? This “fish” has a pedigree!

The Hsu investigation has led to the discovery of some troubling ties to the Fujian province in China and organized crime. Over $380,000 has been “raised” for Hillary in the poorest areas of New York City. This incredible amount rolling in from poverty-stricken immigrants holding dishwasher and waiter jobs in Chinatown’s restaurants is already 16 times greater than the total amount raised by Kerry in 2004. In most cases, these “donors” are not even registered to vote- if they can be found at all.

In 1993, the FBI indicted over twenty cases of illegal human trafficking involving the Fujian province of China. Due to an overpopulation of young males in China with limited job opportunities, (avg. income is $200/yr.), there’s a growing market for selling ‘slaves’ to Triad associates in America. The Triads operate like the mafia, engaging in extortion, robbery, prostitution, gambling, drugs, and murder. A source from the United Nations calls them “the greatest potential criminal threat the world has ever known!” They have control over the smuggling of illegal Chinese immigrants which is a $3+ billion-a-year business. Each illegal yields an average profit of $40,000.

Between 40,000 and 100,000 Chinese illegals enter the United States every year and these migrants come attached with permanent invisible strings that are controlled by the Triads and their higher authorities in the ChiComm government. Once in America, most of these illegals find themselves deeply in debt to the Triad organizations, and thus, easy targets for extortion and criminal manipulation.

Many of these individuals, now wildly supporting Hillary, come from the Fujian province where they’ve been thrown off their lands so that the government can build industrial complexes. Oun Wu, a $500 per week Chinatown laborer, gave $1,000 to Hillary because- according to him- he was “told to” and he wanted to “save face.”

The Communist clearances have created over 200 million landless Chinese peasants, mostly male. Due to China’s one child policy, many families over the years have aborted their daughters in favor of having a male child. Experts estimate that within the next fifteen years 30 million Chinese males will be unable to find wives! The resulting pressure upon human trafficking will only increase.

But the threat is more serious than an immigration issue. Going back to Bill Clinton’s Chinagate problems- there’s a logical end to this trail of dirty money that should have us all concerned.

Bill Clinton, in a recent Washington Post interview said, “China will likely replace the USA as world leader.” During his administration, he instructed counterintelligence officers to “stand down” on technological transfers to China. Hazel O’Leary, Sect. of D.O.E., was told to declassify eleven million pages of U.S. Nuclear intelligence documents for this purpose. In his globalist philosophy of “share the power,” (ie. Multipolarity), he created an open door to our nuclear and defense technologies that resulted in millions of dollars for his campaign while transferring untold advantages to the ChiComm military. Before Clinton, we had nothing to fear from the woeful Chinese missile technology or “suitcase nukes,” now we do! Remember, Clinton allowed the Panama Canal to go to China in 1997 and would have sold the Long Beach Naval yard to
China too, if angry protests hadn’t derailed the deal.

In the mid-90s, ChiComm General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chang “we like your president. We want to see him re-elected.” Clinton’s top donors in 1992 were Chinese Agents, involving the Lippo Group and others. In 1996, those topping the donor list were defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space and others. Commerce Sect. Ron Brown served as a liaison in many of these deals and was suddenly killed in a suspicious plane crash in 1996 just as the Chinagate stories were beginning to break. Follow the Money!

China’s Defense Minister, Gen. Chi Haotian, said in 2000, “war [with the U.S.] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war.”

If the polls are right and the trend continues, Hillary could be our next president. The American People should pause long and hard before deciding: is this our best choice for Commander-in-Chief, or just the best opportunity - for the other Hsu to drop?
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

To Catch a Christian Predator

2007-10-26T05:55:00.000-07:00

To Catch a Christian Predator

President George Washington, in his Farewell Address of 1796, said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.

John Adams, echoed Washington with this comment, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Radical Homosexual Agenda is working now to subvert these ‘patriotic pillars of religion and morality’ by seeking to muzzle the Bible and shut down all criticism of sexual perversion. “Sodomy” gets its very name from the place God judged for these sins- “Sodom and Gomorrah!” Yet, if the current Hate Crimes bill passes into law, such references will be criminalized throughout the nation as illegal thoughts and expressions subject to fines and imprisonment! This Big Brother grab for power by the Gay Gestapo is nothing more than an outright attack on the Christian Religion. The “Gay Pride Parades,” “Heather Has Two Mommies” school curriculum and public campaigns against such leaders as Gen. Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said “homosexual acts…are immoral,” is part of the overall Liberal strategy to radically change America by undermining ‘the foundation’ Washington wanted us to preserve.

Last Sunday, San Francisco hosted their annual Folsom Street Fair which they describe as the“Largest Leather Event in the World.” It’s nothing more than a taxpayer-supported celebration of sadomasochism and anti-Christian licentiousness. There are sex acts performed openly in the streets, debauchery of all kinds and the overt mocking of God and Christians. Obscenity laws are ignored as even the Police Chief and Mayor often take part in the revelry. Amazingly, children are permitted to attend and see all of this sick behavior.

A local resident called it “a combination freak show and simple excuse for people to come together and enjoy their fetishes.” Matt Barber, a California conservative activist, remarked that the “base of the homosexual community is vehemently anti-Christian.” Peter LaBarbera, another observer, says “San Francisco is shaking its fist at God. Their intent is to mock God, to mock Christianity. It is blasphemy at its worst.”

Perhaps topping the list of anti-Christian exhibitionism is a group of transvestite “nuns,” who call themselves the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.” They insult and mock Christ as part of their annual routine, dressing in religious garb and making jokes out of Christian hymns. One participant was seen strolling down the street tearing pages out of a Bible. For all of this bad conduct in the past, many are saying that this year- with their 2007 promotional poster- they’ve gone too far!

The official poster of this year’s Folsom Street Fair was a blasphemous depiction of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper. The Apostles were replaced with half-naked men in leather, and the communion table was filled with sex toys! It was so repulsive that Miller Brewing Company, a sponsor of the event, asked to have its name removed from the poster. The promoters denied the request, saying it was too late to change it.

It’s interesting to note that while all of this perversion is allowed to go on: the Marines are prohibited from filming a recruiting commercial in the streets of San Francisco; the ROTC are thrown off school grounds; and, the WWII battleship (USS Iowa) is rejected from their ports!

This San Francisco attitude fits in nicely with the frequent Homosexual chant of: “racist, sexist, anti-gay, born again bigots go away!” As 75 year old grandmother Arlene Elshinnawy might say, “truth is hate to those who hate the truth!”

Arlene Elshinnawy, along with ten other Christians, were arrested Oct. 10, 2004 in Philadelphia at the “Outfest” Gay Parade for the ‘crime’ of attempting to share their faith in public. The three felonies and five misdemeanors they were charged with carry a potential sentence of 47 years in jail. It was the first time in America that preaching the Bible became evidentiary basis for a hate crime. They were handcuffed and taken away even though it was the “Pink Angels,” a homosexual group with whistles and cardboard angels, who were threatening the peace and intimidating the Christians.

There are several more instances of this type of “upside down” justice. A child in a south California school is being told to “leave his faith” at home, an Idaho man has been fined for displaying Bible verses at work, a mother in Colorado has been ordered by a judge to not teach her daughter anything “homophobic.” In Pennsylvania, a pastor is facing a prison sentence for reading from the Bible, and in a West Virginia school students are trained to roam the halls in search of verbal offenses to report to Law Enforcement. Is this the America we want to live in? It sounds like Big Brother to me.

Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World” wrote:

As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase, and the dictator…will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.

The UN has been working for years on a global scale to legitimize homosexuality as a human right while eliminating all other religious viewpoints. There are examples from Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, New Zealand and other nations where the preaching of ‘Homosexuality as a Sin’ is criminalized in the name of fighting Hate Crimes. In Canada, William Whatcott was fined $17,500 for simply explaining the dangers of this lifestyle. Sodomites, according to Whatcott, are “430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and three times more likely to sexually abuse children.”

Last Thursday the US Senate passed S. 1105 with 81% of Republicans voting NO and 100% of the Democrats voting YES. Joe Solmonese, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign said “today we are the closest we have ever been to seeing protections ensured for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community. Congress has taken a historic step forward…the US Senate has sent a clear message to every corner of our country.”

President Bush has promised to Veto it.

There remains one more hurdle before final passage. The Democrats have irresponsibly attached this dangerous piece of legislation to a military spending bill. Dem. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who sponsored the bill, explained it this way: “a hate crimes amendment SHOULD BE attached to the Defense Authorization bill because members of the US military commit a significant number of hate crimes.”

But what about the constitutional validity of this law? Former Reagan Attorney General said:

Congress only has express constitutional jurisdiction over three crimes: treason, counterfeiting and piracy on the high seas. Because the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, Congress must find authorization in other constitutional clauses to federalize particular crimes or such acts would violate federalist principles, the Tenth Amendment, or other structural limits in the constitution.”

A concerned watchdog group characterized it this way:

Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional. This action undermines the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal.'

In a recent New Hampshire case, because a thief uttered an anti-Homosexual remark during the commission of a crime he now faces ten times the punishment under that state’s current, Hate Crimes law.

San Francisco has given us a lot over the years: the Haight Ashbury Hippie movement, Berkeley’s Counterculture, Anton Lavey’s Church of Satan, Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer and the organization of the UN. The Homosexual Mafia may be the worst of them all. In 1993, the so-called “Year of the Queer,” Nancy Pelosi, House Representative from San Francisco, gave Bill Clinton’s Presidential Address to the 300,000 attendees of the Homosexual Rights March in D.C. Not far away was the Washington Monument signifying the Father of Our Country and his legacy. It makes one wonder: will Hate Crimes Legislation mark the final blow to our political prosperity as a nation? No doubt Washington and Adams would allow for that possibility. One thing is for sure: God will not be mocked forever!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

2007-10-15T08:19:00.000-07:00

On Aug. 9, 2007, Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt was exonerated from all charges in the Haditha incident of 2005 where Iraqi citizens were killed in a firefight with insurgents.. It’s been over two months now, and no apology seems to be forthcoming from Democrat Congressman Jack Murtha who relished the occasion back in 2006 to criticize our troops. I guess he only calls press conferences when there’s bad news to report about the military!

Lt. Col. Paul Ware, court martial officer, declared Sharratt’s actions were “in accordance with the rules of engagement and use of force.” He further stated that such unwarranted accusations set a “dangerous precedent that may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and its mission in Iraq.”

It was in May 2006, that Murtha publicly and emphatically called Sharratt and others “murderers” who “killed innocent Iraqi citizens in cold blood.” Apparently, Murtha, (once a Marine himself, now downgraded to “EX-Marine”), in his over-eagerness to take political advantage of some bad war news, failed to see the wisdom in affording these brave soldiers the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence before condemning them!

Should we be surprised?

Liberals are quick to go the extra mile in the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to sexual predators, terrorists, drug dealers and rapists, but when our soldiers are the ones under suspicion, (however unwarranted), they’re the first ones in line shouting “throw the switch!” Their duplicitous behavior reminds me of an anti-war protest banner I saw recently that read, “We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers.”

In the slippery, slimy world of Liberalism- one finds many interesting things hiding under the rocks of “convenient” propaganda opportunities. This Haditha story is a case in point.

It all started when Time Magazine-reporter Tim McGirk obtained a video from a “human rights organization” known to be sympathetic to the Sunni-insurgents. That alone should have been a tip-off to the credibility of the source, but not for liberal reporters anxious to fan the flames of anti-war dissent back home!

The video was shot in a planned raid where the insurgents positioned innocent Iraqis as human shields, anticipating the return fire from American soldiers under assault. The plan was to then use the carnage captured on tape for the on-going propaganda war waged through their willing accomplises in the media and other “useful idiots.” Time Magazine and Murtha stepped-in like real “champs” for the enemies of our soldiers!

In March of 2006 the PHONY story came out regarding the Haditha firefight and in a matter of weeks Murtha was pounding the podium in Washington demanding a withdrawal from Iraq, and defeat for America. The Liberals seized upon the news in a feeding frenzy sensing the “My Lai” they’d long been waiting for!

What a difference a few months make! As a consequence of Gen. Petraeus’ successful Surge Strategy, now the U.S. military is claiming we have made “devastating” and “irreversible” blows to al-Qaeda Iraq. Many officials are actually advocating for some kind of “Declaration of Victory!” There’s even talk of soon turning over operations to the Army and moving all Marines out of Iraq and into Afghanistan! How is this possible when Democrat “experts” like Murtha and Reid have long proclaimed that it’s “over” and we “lost?”

Now, Ex-Marine Murtha may have more to worry about than NOT losing the war in Iraq.
A Federal Judge is calling on him to testify in court. Marine Sgt. Frank Wuterich- one of the “Haditha Eight”- has filed a libel suit against the Congressman for defamation and invasion of privacy. Judge Rosemary Collyer characterized the situation this way:

“You [Congressman Murtha] are writing a very wide road for members of congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without liability. Are you sure you want to do that? How far can a congressman go and still be protected?”

We shall see.

Both, the concerns of Lt. Col Ware and Judge Collyer, are valid. There’s another recent
example where Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beachamp falsely accused soldiers of gross and barbaric behavior in Iraq, with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. And, of course, there’s the now infamous case of Jesse MacBeth- subject of a recent Rush Limbaugh show- where he claimed to be an Army Ranger who “routinely” committed war crimes in Iraq. As it turned out, he got kicked out of basic training and then joined a group who welcomed him with open arms- the anti-War Left, where lying is a virtue!

It’s hard to say whether these “fifth column” propaganda stunts will ultimately succeed in thwarting our military objectives in Iraq? One thing’s for sure- they certainly don’t help,
and they’re not very encouraging to our troops!

Perhaps the worst thing going on now with the Democrat Congress is their plan- led by Tom Lantos- to issue a resolution, (HR 106), formally denouncing Turkey for the “genocide” of one and a half million Armenians 90 years ago. Why is this so crucial?

Turkey is an indispensable ally for us in the Iraq war and they are threatening to withdraw their support if this “insulting” resolution passes. Turkey has NATO’s second largest army and they’re also NATO’s only Muslim member. More importantly, within their borders we have perhaps our most strategic military base in the region: Incirlik. Seventy percent of our flights, one third of our fuel and much of our water supplies for the Iraqi theater goes through Incirlik! Maintaining Turkish support is vital for winning the war in Iraq. However, because of this Resolution, Turkish General Yasar Buyukanit is saying “military ties with the U.S. will never be the same again!”

When asked about the possibility of canceling or postponing this vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi objected saying, “the measure’s timing is important because many of the [Armenian] survivors are very old.” As Republican Representative Jim Boehner rightly said, “what happened 90 years ago is a subject for historians, not politicians in Washington!” How crazy and inept can these Democrats be? It seems we’re back to “Jimmy Carter-style” diplomacy! Everyone check your brain at the door!

Actually, when you consider how invested the Democrats are in defeat, it makes perfect sense! In the case of Murtha, Lantos, Pelosi et al, “bearing false witness” may just be saving them from having to admit to a greater sin- ie. conspiring against our military in a time of war for the purpose of obtaining greater political advantage for themselves and their Party! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

The Twisted Path to 9/11

2007-09-11T08:13:00.000-07:00

This week marks the sixth anniversary of the most deadly attack in American history.

What should be known is how this event came to be, and how this attack should continue to inform and motivate our national foreign policy and political alignment.

Last Aug. 16 a federal jury in Miami found former enemy combatant Jose Padilla guilty of
giving material support to terrorists. A 2002 FBI report noted that Padilla had met with
al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and was scouting sites in the US as targets for a “dirty bomb.”

Padilla is a convert to Islam and has spent time in Eqypt studying to become an imam. The
CIA found his al Qaeda application papers in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. It is
believed that Padilla was a protégé of a top lieutenant of Osama bin Laden. He had ties to an Islamic Jihad cell in Florida known to be part of Osama bin Laden’s network.

Besides proving to Liberals that these “detainees” can actually be found guilty of terrorist crimes and that wire-taps can assist in their convictions, the case of Jose Padilla shines light on the previous “most deadly attack” in American history- Oklahoma City!

Remember John Doe number two? We heard all about him in the first few hours after the
bombing which killed 168 innocent people, but then, all references to this suspect mysteriously
vanished. There was a sketch made of John Doe number two at the time, and it looks almost
identical to Padilla.

According to terrorist expert Neil Livingstone, “there is a remarkable similarity between the methods used by Islamic terrorists and the Oklahoma City bombing. The truckload of explosives is almost a calling card and is their weapon of choice.” Linvingstone further contends that “very typically, these terrorists have found homegrown radicals to use as dupes in the actual bombings.”

Oliver Revell, former FBI assistant director of Investigation and Counterterrorism, said of Oklahoma, “I think its most likely a Middle East terrorist…the M.O. is similar and it could be in
retaliation for the prosecution of the first World Trade Center bombers,” Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef. An FBI agent on the day of the bombing reportedly said, “we are currently inclined to suspect the Islamic Jihad as the likely group.”

Ramzi Yousef was convicted in 1998 of masterminding the first WTC bombing and is currently
serving a life sentence. He was previously found guilty for co-planning the Bojinka Plot in 1994 in the Philippines that was designed to blow up several American jumbo jets in one day, kill Pope
John Paul II and crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Langley. A document from Yousef’s computer specifically cited the charter service of a commuter type aircraft loaded with powerful bombs to be dive-crashed into the target. Sound familiar?

A co-conspirator in the Bojinka Plot was Abdul Hakim Murad and he told the FBI on April 19, 1995 that a Muslim group, the Liberation Army of the Philippines, was responsible for the
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

A 1997 poll determined that 70% of Oklahomans no longer believe the U.S Justice Department’s
claim that no other people were involved in the bombing besides Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh. A later report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General lists the Oklahoma bombing case as “one of the worst examples of de facto evidence tampering by the crime labs.”

Hussain Al-Hussaini was yet another John Doe terrorist suspect connected to Oklahoma City. He was a former member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. Dennis Mahon, leader of the neo-nazi group that McVeigh belonged to at Elohim City- the so-called “nerve-center” of the bombing conspiracy- met periodically with Iraqi contacts and received regular cash payments.
This arrangement was initiated after the neo-nazi group began protesting the first Gulf War. The Iraqi Ambassador is reported to have met with three members from this Oklahoma group.

Timothy McVeigh is on record ‘sympathizing’ with Saddam Hussein by downplaying the Kurdish Holocaust- claiming that it was no worse than what the Americans did in WWII when they bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima!

Both McVeigh and Nichols made trips to the Philippines where they reportedly learned the techniques of bomb making. McVeigh married a mail order bride from the Philippines which
suggested further terrorist connections. Court documents reveal that there’s a relationship
between neo-nazi groups in the US and terrorist groups in both the Philippines and Iraq that use “mail order bride businesses” as a front.

Evidence shows that Nichols conspired with Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines and that McVeigh
had received direct aid in the construction and delivery of the Oklahoma bomb materials from
Iraqi agent Hussain Al-Hussaini.

A very reliable and credible Saudi Arabian Intelligence source reported on April 19, 1995, that
Saddam Hussein had hired seven Pakistani mercenaries to bomb targets in the US, one of
which was the Alfred P. Murrah Building. The mission was sponsored by the Iraqi Special Services who directed the former Afghani freedom fighters from Pakistan to do the job.

So, why has this history been so hidden from the American People? Who knows for sure, but it’s interesting to note that it was Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Jamie Gorelick- the director of the Oklahoma City Task Force- who gave the orders to “kill it” referring to the investigation into the Islamic terrorist connection. This effectively called off all further search for other co-conspirators. The official report dismissed all other accounts of more participants as simply “a mistake.”

FBI Assistant Director Robert Bryant, who was involved with the botched Vince Foster case, was the lead criminal investigator for the Bureau in Oklahoma, and as such, is also culpable in this dereliction of duty.

The Clinton-Reno Justice Department was very insistent that this Oklahoma event be viewed purely as a domestic terrorist attack. If you recall, Bill Clinton blamed Conservative Talk Radio
as the “purveyors of hate and division” that spawned this violent slaughter! Clinton’s poll
numbers had been in the low 40s after the Republican take over in ’94, but after the spin of demonizing opponents like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich his poll numbers shot-up past 50. Following the ’96 election, Clinton confided to the media that his road back to the White House began in Oklahoma City!

“The Path to 9/11” became a movie and was due to air last year to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Bill Clinton warned ABC through his lawyers to pull the drama! Other Democrat Leaders quickly followed suit. Harry “we’ve lost in Iraq” Reid, Dick “our troops are
Nazis” Durbin and Chuck “the Surge isn’t working” Schumer wrote a letter to Robert Iger,
President and CEO of Disney, threatening retaliation. After some editing and much debate,
the film was permitted to go on the air. Remember, this is the same bunch who want to enact
PC Hate Crime legislation and bring back the censorship of the Fairness Doctrine!

Why all the fuss over a movie? The film documents several instances where Bill Clinton had
opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and failed. Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Peterson, who carried the “nuclear football” for Clinton, recounted one of the missed opportunities where Clinton didn’t want to be disturbed while he was watching a golf game. After repeated efforts to elicit some decision from him failed, the military “window” closed and bin Laden got away. It makes one wonder if a “President Bob Dole” would have been as careless given the same opportunity?

Recently the production company for the 9/11 movie tried to market the release of a DVD version. An ABC studio executive told Cyrus Nowrasteh, the screenwriter of the film, that the reason “The Path to 9/11” has not been released is because of the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. They fear her reprisals. Should we just accept that as normal? I guess after Sandy Burglar anything’s excusable.

The Twisted Path to 9/11 involves a type of terrorism that’s united in its common hatred of Jews and America. It’s interesting to recall that the foreign guest that made the most visits to the Clinton White House was PLO-leader Yasser Arafat. Also, it’s fairly well-noted that Hillary has a long history of flirting with anti-Semitic attitudes.

Yasser Arafat and Gen. Tufah Khariallah, Saddam Husseins’ Uncle, were both mentored by
Haj Amin al-Husseini—the Mufti of Jerusalem in the early 20th century who was called “the Fuhrer of the Arab World” by Adolf Hitler himself. His anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist movement modeled after Nazism. Thus, both the Swastika and the Crescent Moon have a part to play in the Path to 9/11. What’s unclear is whether the Democrat Donkey is on Our Side or Theirs! If you think that’s extreme—then why does Osama bin Laden sound like he’s giving Democrat talking points while Dem. Leader James Clyburn sounds troubled over our recent military success in Iraq? (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114,
Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Political Test: Do You Vote the Way You Believe?

2007-08-20T07:45:00.000-07:00

Take the following test to determine your political philosophy. Mark down your “yes” and “no” responses on a separate sheet of paper.

-Do you believe there should be restrictions on Abortion?
-Do you believe cutting taxes can result in higher revenues to the government?
-Do you believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, (the Second Amendment)?
-Do you believe Illegal Immigrants should be treated as law-breakers?
-Do you believe people have more Rights than animals?

-Do you believe it’s wrong to grant children the Right to sue their parents?
-Do you believe Sex Education is the parent’s job, not the schools’?
-Do you believe Hate Crime legislation is a form of Big Brother, Thought Police?
-Do you believe Global Warming is unproven science used to sell a political agenda?
-Do you believe the Death Penalty is a legitimate form of punishment?

-Do you believe Western Civilization is the best social system in history?
-Do you believe we should be drilling for more oil within our borders, (ANWR, etc.)?
-Do you believe most homeless people are homeless by choice?
-Do you believe the Soviet Union was an “Evil Empire” like Reagan said?
-Do you believe Capitalism is an economic force for good?

-Do you believe reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school is a good thing?
-Do you believe issuing vouchers for parental “school choice” is the right policy?
-Do you believe Government-run, Universal Health Care is a bad idea?
-Do you believe Creation Science, like all ‘theories,’ should be taught in schools?
-Do you believe winning the War on Terror is crucial for preserving our Way of Life?

-Do you believe Individualism is a better philosophy than Group or Class identification?
-Do you believe it’s better to have inequities under freedom than equities under tyranny?
-Do you believe the Rich are already paying more than their fair share of taxes?
-Do you believe America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles?
-Do you believe our government taxes and spends too much?

-Do you believe the U.S. should never submit to any form of Global Government?
-Do you believe Family Values are important for maintaining our societal foundation?
-Do you believe America is basically good and shouldn’t be radically changed?
-Do you believe Marriage is only between a Man and a Woman?
-Do you believe we should always provide for a strong National Defense?

For scoring, count the number of times you answered “yes.” 26-30 = ultra conservative;
21-25 = conservative; 16-20 = moderate-conservative; 11-15 = moderate-liberal; 6-10 = liberal; and, 1-5 = ultra liberal.

Politics consists of two main components: (1) Patronage or Cronyism; and (2) Ideology. The first category has equal application on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of its abuses. Therefore, it’s inadequate in serving as a definable criterion to tip the scale for one party over another. The second category, however, offers a much more clear distinction for those not obtaining any special “favors” which may bias their vote. Generally speaking, the Republican party, at its base, is controlled by the ideology of Conservatism while the Democrat party, at its base, is controlled by the ideology of Liberalism. If you don’t have a political pay-off in the offing- the reasonable choice would seem to be that candidate who not only exemplifies your Ideas…or Ideology, but also, that candidate who will have the best opportunity to advance those ideas through his or her respective Party Leadership.

How did you score? I believe, if your vote is not “for sale,” and that, you can’t be swayed by the various promises of political spoils, then you should always vote your conscience and cast your ballot for the candidate who shares your beliefs…whatever they may be! After all, America is about more than Who gets What! Isn’t it?
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)

Congress Should Support The Surge

2007-07-23T07:02:00.000-07:00

A recent poll reveals the lowest approval rating ever for Congress- 14%. That means that 86% of the people are unhappy with the “leadership” of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So, where exactly is this great success story we were all promised by the Media and Democrats following the 2006 elections? Could it be that the new, reigning Liberal Establishment in Washington D.C. is NOT what the American people had in mind?

You betcha!

This last election, basically, was not so much an endorsement of some new Liberal direction for the country as much as a rejection of the failed policies of compromising Republicans who had forgotten their conservative principles. The Illegal Immigration issue alone should prove this point.

The current majority is now collapsing around the horns of a dilemma: how to simultaneously please the extreme Left-wing base of their party- for which they are indebted- while not antagonizing the moderate masses they need to win elections and hold their mandate. That’s why you have folks like Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and for the current Surge Strategy, now trying to distance herself from Iraq. The Code Pink/Move On.org constituency on the Looney Left is withholding their vital campaign contributions until they get some satisfaction and performance on their primary issue of “Surrender in Iraq.” Or, maybe you didn’t notice Cindy Sheehan’s recent announcement regarding her intentions of running against Pelosi in California- on the War Issue? The Left simply can’t afford a split in their ranks if they hope to win the White House and hold onto Congress in ’08.

That’s why they had that little pajama party last week in Washington. The Liberals knew they didn’t have the votes to get an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but they also knew they needed to earn some ‘brownie points’ from the Michael Moores and Rosie O’Donnells in their party. God help them. So, they staged this phony, all-night, cloture debate in an effort to prove their devotion to the anti-War Cause.

And what about the Cause? Is this the time to pull out of Iraq? Not if you believe the man in charge: Gen. David Petraeus. While the Liberal Democrats were toying with political games, Gen. Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, was giving an assessment on how the initial stage of the Surge is going- only one month into full-strength deployment.

Shouldn’t we give just a little credence to the commander on the ground? Here’s what Petraeus had to say in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on July 18, the same day as the pajama party:

“We have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground. Gains [have been made] against the principal near-term threat, al-Qaeda Iraq, and also against another near-time threat and also potentially long-term threat: Shia militia extremists. There has been considerable progress against al Qaeda.”

“The insurgents are losing many, many hundreds of their different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the Surge.”

“Our best operators in the world are here in the largest numbers of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. [It’s] very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes and very effective…[consisting of] nightly operations, far more significant than we [have] conducted for decades. [One] took down the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda Iraq.” It is also progressing with the weight of our conventional forces who cleaned Western Baquba- which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. The conventional forces killed 80 or 90 confirmed, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well.”

Adding to the list of recent successes Petraeus continued, “we have detained some four different emirs- the different area leaders of al Qaeda, six different foreign fighter facilitators, and a couple dozen other leaders, in addition to killing or capturing hundreds of other al Qaeda-Iraq operatives. Anbar Province, all of a sudden, has become just a remarkable development…it could possibly evolve into a situation sustainable by Iraqis. I can assure you that the Iraqi forces are out there very much fighting and dying for their country. In fact, their losses typically are some three or more times the losses we suffer.”

Regarding the threat of civil war, Petraeus noted, “sectarian violence in June was about the lowest in a year.”

When asked why this is important Petraeus explained, “we have an enormous responsibility, because we did liberate this country. Iraq has the second or third most proven oil resources in the world [and] sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines. A precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq [and] in the region.”

Even traditional bastions of Liberal Thought like the International Crisis Group, ICG, and the UN agree with Petraeus, (but then again, they’re not politically invested in defeat like the Democrats are). “I hated the Iraq War,” says ICG director Joost Hillerman, “[but] a hasty withdrawal would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for U.S. interests.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt withdrawal may lead to further deterioration.”

And while brave leaders like Petraeus, Odierno and Lynch do the tough but necessary work of responsibly pursuing victory on the battlefield in Iraq, Liberal Democrats like Senator Russ Feingold continue their defeatist antics by proposing useless, diversionary,
political games like the censure resolution of President Bush. It’s enough to make one
wonder whose side they’re really on! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)

The Hypnotized Never Lie

2007-07-09T08:00:00.000-07:00

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” so sings Roger Daltrey of the Who in the classic rock song “We Won’t Get Fooled Again.” He could have just as easily been singing about one of today’s worst psychological abuses- the Global Warming hysteria propagated by radical environmentalists like Al Gore.

Last Saturday, Gore presented the musical event “Live Earth” to raise awareness about Global Warming. Over 100 artists performed on stages on seven continents during a 24 hour period designed to help “save the planet!” Among the suggestions for keeping Mother Earth alive were: unplugging unused appliances and changing to low-energy light bulbs.

When Daltrey was asked what he thought of the project, he replied, “Bollucks, the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.” But he wasn’t the only one suggesting “the emperor has no clothes!”

Matt Helders of Artic Monkeys said, “it’s a bit patronizing for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world. It’s like, who cares what we think about what’s happening, especially when were using enough power for 10 houses just for [stage] lighting. It’s a bit hypocritical.”

Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys explained, “I’ve always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don’t- it looks arrogant.”

Bob Geldof, musician and concert organizer for previous relief projects: “Live Aid” and “Live 8,” was skeptical of the motives behind the event. “Why is Gore actually organizing them?”

Such criticisms weren’t reserved to those opting out of the event. Live Earth-participant Chris Rock sarcastically commented, “I pray this event ends Global Warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger.”

Still, artists like Madonna and Carlo Santone shouted to the crowds, “start a revolution,
it’s a revolution, do it, do it!”

Madonna- it’s interesting to note- with nine houses, a fleet of cars and a private jet, has a “carbon footprint” a hundred times larger than the average person. She also owns stock
in several companies considered to be among the world’s worst polluters: Alcoa, Ford Motor Co. and Weyerhaeuser. But, hypocrisy can’t be too bad of a thing when the organizer himself is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all.

Al and Tipper Gore own three houses, and although alternative energy is available to them, they don’t use it. Their 10,000 sq. ft. home in Nashville has 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms; and, according to the Nashville Electric Service, (NES), they use more electricity in a month than the average household does in a year! And furthermore, incredibly, Gore’s zinc mine in Carthage, TN has been cited by the State for polluting the Caney Fork River. The symbolic “S.O.S.” signal Live Earth participants were sending out with their various drumming and handclapping in London, Tokyo and New Jersey should have been directed toward Al Gore’s own backyard!

The truth is- the earth may be warming some. Estimates suggest the temperature rise has been approximately one degree Fahrenheit over the last hundred years, but this is a far cry from “the catastrophic nightmare” that some would have us believe. The earth has periodically warmed and cooled in the past without disastrous consequences. Six thousand years ago it was 5 degrees warmer. Ten thousand years ago the temperature rose 10 degrees in one decade as we came out of a cold spell.

Professor Reed Bryson of the University of Wisconsin is known as “the father of scientific climatology.” He says Gore’s apocalyptic vision is “not science” and “not true.” Bryson knows a little about the topic since he was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison. He says we’ve “been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years,” but “there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide.”

The warming of the globe has actually leveled off since the 90s. Greenland and the polar ice caps are not in the process of melting away. According to professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, drilling has revealed that 120,000 years ago, when the earth was 9 degrees warmer, Greenland was still covered with ice.

So why does this nonsense continue? Simply put, it’s a power play for more, centralized
government control over the world.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic recently surmised, “as someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

As if to illustrate this point, Dem. Gov. of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, just signed into law the first U.S. state mandate to reduce greenhouse emissions. The NJ Business and Industrial Association oppose it and the Utility managers say it will bring higher prices.

In the U.S. Congress, Dem. John Dingle, House Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has just announced his plans to introduce a new carbon tax.

Both of these measures are similar to European Union (EU) laws governing energy. It’s curious how these programs are now being criticized in Europe for failing to actually reduce carbon emissions and for breeding corruption in allowing companies to “game the rules” for their benefit!

Oh well, the Pussycat Dolls did announce after their performance that they will be cutting back on their hairspray volume. I guess I’ll just pick-up my guitar and play…just like yesterday. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro,TN 37757)

Prosperity Depends Upon Competition

2007-06-19T07:49:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson, the soon to be announced candidate for President, once said, “you can’t tax your way to prosperity.” That’s generally a true statement, but there are some folks who prosper pretty well as a result of taxes. Naturally, politicians, bureaucrats and government-directed beneficiaries love taxes, but did you know that Big Business also prospers from high taxes?

The Tennessee State Legislature recently passed a new tax on tobacco. The bill raises the tax on a pack of cigarettes 220%, from 20 cents to 62 cents. It’s still below the national average of 80 cents, but why in the world would our representatives in Nashville be raising any taxes at all when we’re experiencing a $300 million state surplus? The answer could be: there are prosperous advantages to be obtained by both Big Government and Big Tobacco.

In a new book written by Timothy Carney, “The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money,” the deceptively clever stratagem is revealed.

The name of the game is Monopoly. Centralizing power and control enables the “Royal Elites” in both our economy and our government to prosper. By eliminating the competition through government-created obstacles like taxes and regulations, Big Business- who can withstand such obstacles- obtains a greater market share for itself.

But, what do government officials receive for going to the trouble of instituting such state-sponsored franchises, or “syndicates?”

It’s been said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Politicians are always in need of more cash. The 2008 presidential race will likely be the first billion dollar campaign in history. Top candidates are facing the proposition of raising a quarter of a million dollars a day! Even local races are getting expensive. A small district seat in the Tennessee Legislature will run you about six figures today. This system of campaign finance and lobbying is nothing new, but increasingly, our government seems to be “for sale” to the highest bidder. But, how is it that those bidding the highest amounts are curiously the very ones who would SEEM to suffer the most from the political results they are buying?

One of the biggest lies ever produced is the populist idealism underlying Socialism. Socialism began as a Big Business ruse in the 19th century and continues to this day as a monumental ploy to enrich those already rich while creating the impression that its purposes are all for the benefit of the poor and “the working class.”

“Old Money” Industrialists discovered a way in the late 1800s to begin engineering government regulations that were ultimately favorable to their monopolistic concerns. The preferential allowances these “Malefactors of Great Wealth” wanted to create presupposed the existence of certain established restrictions. Therefore, they arrived at a simple solution- first erect government restrictions, then bribe the authorities for granted allowances that could be exploited for competitive advantage. So, these allowances permitted by the power of law, helped “rig the game” with exclusive privileges that resulted in protecting the profits of Big Business. It’s a massive con game of loopholes, backroom deals and special exemptions all aimed at destroying fair competition.

So, why do they consider competition so bad? Competition means never slowing down and never resting from having to earn the customer’s business. John D. Rockefeller famously remarked, “competition is a sin.” He, like other power-brokers, resented the constant and humble service that’s required to maintain market share in an open and free environment.

Naturally, Big Business couldn’t overtly dictate their desires within the traditional, capitalist framework- so they got government to do it for them via the ingenious construct of Socialism. Big Business and Big Government were presented to the people as mortal enemies, but the Robber Barons and Politicians remained very cozy behind the scenes- carving up the economic pie like Mafia Godfathers.

As Carney points out in his book, Philip Morris lobbies for more regulation over tobacco because they know the resulting policies will hurt their small competitors the most! Raising the price of cigarettes can benefit Big Tobacco in a number of ways. It enhances the underground, smuggler’s market that they control with certain government acquiescence around the world. In addition, the higher price makes the “cheap” cigarette brands “cheap” only in content, and thus, less preferred. The lucrative duty-free market, is another instance, where it becomes more profitable for the name brands when taxes go up. Also, the tax increase creates a convenient “pay off” opportunity to the politicians who get their hands on more money to buy votes and fund campaign war chests. A well-paid politician then becomes a more faithful and pliable commodity for future purposes of fine-tuning “the game.”

The so-called “war on tobacco” is another example of this “now you see it, now you don’t” skullduggery. What this charade amounts to is a sophisticated racket for the prosperity of trial lawyers and Philip Morris.

The losers in this game are: taxpayers, consumers, less established businesses and small entrepreneurial competitors who create the most new wealth and jobs in our economy. The majority of the people- who operate without these inside connections- wind-up paying more and receiving less as a natural result of the inherent inefficiencies of a more centralized and monopolized economy. Once someone is free from competition and no longer has to “earn” the customer’s dollar fairly - the quality necessarily goes down.

Carney points out other examples: Big Oil actually profits from Environmental Laws; Enron- who is still receiving tax subsidies by the way- worked to keep laissez-faire officials off the commission that regulates the energy industry; Liberal Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer receives more contributions from Wall Street than any other senator; Warren Buffett is an advocate for higher Estate Taxes; and finally, KYOTO- the international environmental treaty restricting industry- is favored by most multi-national corporations.

Prosperity, ultimately, should be defined by what’s best for the people. Working a scam of higher taxes and more regulation that enable the wealthiest members of our society to escape the discipline of the market place- is NOT a prosperous philosophy with populist benefits. On the contrary, it’s a deception that will lead to greater bondage. We must one day free our minds of this mirage, or else, we will never be able to free our pocket books- and find true prosperity for all.

Finally, in the words of Howard Armstrong who so often quoted the motto of Hawaii: “Ua mau ke ea o ka aina I ka pono, the prosperity of the land is established upon Righteousness.”
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)

The Real War in Iraq

2007-05-25T08:06:00.000-07:00

Are you weary of the War? Are you tired of hearing all the “bad news” coming out of Iraq? Perhaps, that’s by design, huh? Well, how about some good news for a change?

Al Qaeda’s on the run! Coalition forces, buttressed by the recent surge in troops, is producing some very positive results. On May 1, five terrorists were killed and 20 were detained including some senior Iraqi, al Qaeda leaders. According to Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, “these operations will affect al Qaeda’s ability to operate effectively against the people of Iraq and provide us with more information to disrupt their activities.”

Gen. Petraeus, U.S. Commander in Iraq, refers to al Qaeda as “public enemy number one” for the fact that they are contributing the most support toward the sectarian violence there which is designed to establish a “safe haven for al Qaeda within the country.” Petraeus has said that “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign.”

Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Maples agrees, “al Qaeda in Iraq is the largest and most active of the Iraq-based terrorist groups.” Osama bin Laden himself has proclaimed, “Baghdad is the capital of the Caliphate.” The Caliphate is the Islamic idea of a new, Muslim World Empire that would eliminate the “Infidel Cross-Worshippers” and the “Jewish Pigs,” (aka the “Crusader-Zionist Coalition”), thereby subjugating everyone to the fascist dictates of Sharia-law as practiced most faithfully by the totalitarian Taliban regime. Under this type of tyranny- women would be imprisoned within their own homes, men would be beaten for missing prayer services and girls would never be allowed to go to school.

Two weeks ago three terrorists were killed in Baghdad, one believed to be an al Qaeda cell leader. Just prior to that Iraqi Special Operation forces- trained by the U.S.- captured three other suspected terrorists and an alleged leader of the Jaysh al-Madhi militia. This particular group has been responsible for orchestrating several death squads and car bombings.

Also in recent weeks, top Sadr militia commander, Osama Abu Qader, was killed in Basra by a joint British and Iraqi military operation. Sheikh Azhar al-Duleimi, a Shiite extremist who was linked to the deaths of five American soldiers, was killed by U.S. forces. And, we can’t forget, almost one year ago al Zarqawi, the second in command of al Qaeda behind Osama bin Laden, was killed by a fortuitous U.S. air strike.

These are evil people who have vowed to destroy America. Their threats are not idle ones. 9/11, what Osama bin Laden called a “magnificent feat of valor,” unequaled in human history, will forever stand as an undeniable testament to the twisted hatred and violent intentions of these Islamo-fascists. So, whether you agree or disagree about certain aspects of this war’s conduct, you must however admit that there have been significant military achievements and long-term benefits from engaging and defeating our enemy over there, (on the offensive), so we don’t have to face them over here, (on the defensive)!

Just last week we got news of a thwarted terrorist attack at Fort Dix. Six radical Islamists were attempting to “kill as many American soldiers as possible.” This is all part of the official al Qaeda plan for victory. There will be no concessions, no compromises and no diplomatic peace initiatives forthcoming. Their strategy, as stated by their own documents is:
(1) to divide the American people from their government;
(2) to cause them to grow weary of the war; and
(3) to bleed America financially until they are bankrupt.

Iraq IS the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle for freedom will be decided. Iraq IS the war on terror. What we have to find is the intestinal fortitude and ultimate resolve to finish them, before they finish us! According to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, after expelling America from Iraq, the next three steps are clear: establish the Caliphate, conquer the secular countries bordering Iraq by replacing moderate governments with radical ones, and then-- attack Israel!

The Liberals in Congress can’t even be counted on to stand firm when surrendering! Last week they caved-in on Bush’s threat of a veto regarding a new spending bill for the war. The Leftists wanted a time-line for withdrawal, but the President refused to sign it out of concern for the ongoing strategy being conducted by Gen. Petraeus. Now, al Qaeda has just opened a new battle front in Lebanon. They are attacking the modern, democratic government of Lebanon with the financial support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. I guess Assad wasn’t too impressed by his recent visitor: Nancy Pelosi. Or, maybe he was…
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)

Sarko Has France Tilting Right

2007-05-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

France has just turned Red, but not in the communist sense. Yesterday, May 16, could go down in history as a “May Day” for right-wing celebration. Conservative leader Nicolas Sarkozy of the UMP became the 23rd president of the French Republic promising great reforms that mirror the “red-meat” idealism of Red State America. Sarkozy came to power by defeating socialist candidate Segolene Royal 53 to 47 percent in a run-off election that was held May 6. Producing a turnout of 85%, it was the most heavily-participated election since 1965.

All of the left-wing candidates who didn’t qualify for the run-off united behind Royal in firm opposition to Sarkozy and his so-called “radical,” “fascist,” and “authoritarian” agenda. The trend, however, for all left-leaning parties in France since 2002, has been a
loss of public support.

Sarkozy, or “Sarko” as he is known, received considerable help from the National Front party in a coalition of the Right. Their platform consists of: Traditional Values, including opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexual marriage and support for religion; National Independence from the EU and similar international organizations; reinstitution of the Death Penalty; Stricter Sentencing for criminals; Opposition to Muslim Immigration; maintaining a Strong Military; Lower Taxes; Less Spending; Privatization; Smaller Government; Limits on Labor Strikes for public servants; and, an overall more favorable foreign policy toward the U.S.

By contrast, the socialist Royal promoted an agenda for: reinstitution of free medical care for illegal aliens; voting privileges for illegal aliens; free contraception for women under 25; taxation of private TV companies to fund public media; guarantees of government-provided housing; protection of all welfare-state benefits; the creation of over 500,000 subsidized jobs; the raising of the minimum wage by 20%; and, reducing the highly successful nuclear energy program.

Liberals in America may not like the socialist label, but in almost every important aspect they resemble their socialist counterparts in all other countries around the world. The voter breakdown also follows a familiar “red/blue” pattern.

Those typically voting for the French conservative Sarkozy were: men, farmers, the middle and upper classes, the religious and the non-Boomer generations. Those favoring the socialist ticket were: women, urban-residents, the unemployed, public servants, students and the hippy generation.

Sarkozy is regarded as a very charismatic leader with great oratory skills and a high “likeability” factor. He’s advocating an economic model in the style of American and British capitalism. He seems to be a political revolutionary in the mold of Reagan and Thatcher who wants to overhaul the tax system to make it more fair and simple. He believes in “workfare” and reducing budget deficits. But, perhaps his greatest revolutionary influence will be in the area of Immigration.

France, like most of Europe, is culturally disappearing as the result of a negative birth rate and a huge influx of legal and illegal immigration coming primarily from Muslim countries. As Minister of the Interior, Sarkozy has more than doubled the number of deportations since 2002. He has been criticized for saying immigrants who don’t like France “should leave it.” His police raids against illegal aliens have been strongly opposed by the Left.

Sarkozy must wait for a June Parliament election to determine how far he will be able to go with his reforms. With so many party factions splintering the vote it may be difficult for him to obtain a working majority for his mandate of change. Nevertheless, Sarkozy remains optimistic and confident that the election will yield successful results.

Unemployment has been running in double digits for many years during the Chirac-era, and the youth unrest of 2005 underscores a continuing disturbance that must be addressed by the new administration. During the famous Paris riots and fires of 2005 Sarkozy disturbed many on the Left by calling the agitated participants “riff raff,” “delinquents,” and “thugs.” He’s also drawn condemnation from the Liberals of France for questioning a judge who freed a man on parole who later committed murder. Chirac even took Sarkozy to task for showing public disdain for anti-American sentiments being expressed by the French government. In Sarkozy’s victory speech, he pledged, “friendship with the world’s greatest democracy,” adding that, “France will always be there when they [the United States] need us.”

Maybe what irritates the French Leftists most is Sarkozy’s recent book “The Republic, Religion and Hope,” in which he suggests to the French youth that they should consider investigating Religion for some of the answers to their problems. It may not quite be the equivalent of the “Religious Right” in America, but Sarkozy does profess that his chief role model is Pope John Paul II. Considering that great Cold War, conservative alliance of Pope John Paul, Reagan and Thatcher- maybe France really does have its own modern conservative hero who will finally revolutionize their country with a rebirth of freedom, patriotism and a resurgence of national confidence. Liberals worldwide…should takenote. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)

The Value of Life

2007-04-30T08:16:00.000-07:00

“Civilization,” or The Law and Government, exists to protect the innocent and the weak from the predatory evils of the powerful, who otherwise would operate with impunity under the dictates of a lawless, Darwinian Jungle where only the strong survive.

Hold that thought in mind as I relate to you the description of a “medical” procedure, called partial birth abortion, recently sustained as an outlawed practice by the Supreme Court on April 18, 2007.

As told by a nurse who witnessed the operation, here are the actions found to be “morally, medically and ethically inhumane.” --

“The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…the baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he’s going to fall. The doctor opened the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. The doctor cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”

Court statements regarding other examples told by abortionists, who were fighting this ruling, related how the head of the baby is often crushed to collapse the skull, or even pulled from the body, before removing the remains. One “doctor” confessed that he crushes the skull to ensure the fetus is dead before removing it. How gruesome is that?

President Bush- who signed the 2003 Federal Law that banned partial birth abortion- had this to say about the landmark ruling, “the supreme court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made in the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

It was Bush’s Attorney General Gonzales who challenged the lower courts adverse ruling, and it was sustained, in part, by two of Bush’s appointees: Justices Alito and Roberts. Rounding out the majority was Bush Sr.’s appointee Thomas, and Reagan’s appointees: Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

Dissenting were Justices: Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Stevens was a Ford appointee and Souter, a moderate Bush Sr. appointee. Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by Clinton. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion calling the ruling “alarming.” Apparently, for this old ACLU lawyer, the horrors of infanticide is NOT as alarming as a sensible restriction on abortion.

As science moves the viability of fetuses further back during the pregnancy term, the rationale for abortion becomes less convincing. Roe v. Wade will take its place alongside the Dred Scott decision as one of the most abhorrent decisions in the history of our country. Just as the Supreme Court in 1854 ruled that all blacks were incapable of being regarded as American citizens with God-given rights, so the 1973 Roe v. Wade case made all unborn babies similarly “unprotected.” Don’t these helpless children have a choice? In the balance of rights, doesn’t the child’s right to life override the limited loss, (9 months), of the mother’s right to liberty? One is permanent, the other, only temporary.

Politics matters. Having presidents who will appoint justices who will honor the sacred purposes of law, government and civilization can save countless lives from the destructive butchery of an abortionist’s unflinching hand. President Bush said it best, when signing the ban into law, “today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com

It’s Foreign Policy, not Foreign Pelosi

2007-04-01T07:38:00.000-07:00

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
The Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States.”–U.S. Constitution

Under our Constitution, the President’s Executive Power includes the primary responsibility for maintaining the relations of the United States with foreign nations. With the Secretary of State, the President manages all official contacts with foreign governments. The President is also granted the power to negotiate treaties and make executive agreements with other nations and foreign powers.

What are the corresponding Constitutional Powers of the Speaker of the House? Generally, they are the presiding duties over the House of Representatives, the influence over a legislative agenda and a limited control over certain committee appointments.

So what is Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing? She has recently helped to pass a bill that would cut the number of troops in Iraq below a level that U.S. military leaders say they need. The bill, additionally, would require that combat operations cease before September 2008- setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal. In effect, the bill is tying-up war appropriations with “cut and run” demands that undermine our progress in the war. Fifteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces are stabilized and Baghdad-since the Surge- is enjoying the most peace its had since the beginning of the war.

According to Vice President Cheney, “if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi is suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy of throwing in the towel and coming home. Then they win because we quit.”

Now Speaker Pelosi is in the Middle East getting ready to meet with Syria against President Bush’s wishes. Syria is recognized as an “Axis” state that has helped to sponsor terrorist attacks against us. They are trying to disrupt the Saniora government of Lebanon and are allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq. The Administration believes that a visit by Speaker Pelosi sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Syria is, after all, a sworn enemy of the new Iraqi government. Why would Pelosi think she has a role to play in America’s Foreign Policy?

Imagine if the tables were turned and someone like President Roosevelt was getting this sort of treatment from his Speaker of the House in the late 1930s. What do you think would be the response?

Well, we don’t have to wonder. It did happen. In 1938, Speaker William Bankhead, under pressure from the appeasers of his day, was considering a proposed resolution that would call for a public referendum vote as a preresquisite for a declaration of war. Here is Roosevelt’s response: “I must frankly state that I conclude that the proposed amendment would be impracticable in its application and incompatible with our representative form of government. Our government is conducted by the people through representatives of their choosing. It was with singular unanimity that the founders of the republic agreed upon such free and representative form of government as the only practical means of government by the people. Such an amendment to the Constitution would cripple any President in his conduct of our foreign relations, and it would encourage other nations to believe they could violate American rights with impunity.”

What is past, is indeed, prologue. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)

Walking On Water

2007-03-05T08:29:00.000-08:00

The people of the Democratic Underground website welcomed him to hell, Michael Strong said, “he was probably responsible for more human happiness and well-being than any other individual in the 20th century-- advancing the cause of Liberty more than any other person.” Who are they talking about? - Economist Milton Friedman.

The Economist magazine called him, “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century, possibly of all of it.” Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, had this to say, “he was one of a very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization.”

Milton Friedman passed away November 16th of last year at the age of 94. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently declared January 29, 2007: “Milton Friedman Day.” Airing on that same night was a PBS special dedicated to Friedman entitled, “The Power of Choice.”

Friedman, ironically, began his career as a Keynesian “New Dealer,” but later converted to the Classical Liberal point of view of Laissez-faire Capitalism. This is not to be confused with today’s “liberal” politics of the Left- in fact, it’s just the opposite. One of the reasons for his conversion involved a key analysis he developed which showed how the Great Depression was, in actuality, more the effect of a damaging over-use of government power- in the area of unwise monetary policy- than it was the effect of some mysterious under-use of government power. His resulting monetarist conclusions put him on the path to rewriting many of the major economic theories of his generation.

In 1992, an interesting situation emerged that would forever secure the legacy of Milton Friedman’s theories. Mart Laar, at age 32, was elected prime minister of Estonia. He had read one book on economics, “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman. Facing a terrible fiscal crisis and having nothing to lose, Laar initiated Friedman’s policies of: Free Trade, Low Flat Taxes and Privatization. Now, his country is known as “The Baltic Tiger,” and is among the top 10 most free economies of the World. It is the most successful of all the post-communist Soviet economies enjoying an amazing annual growth rate of 7%. His political retractors claimed it couldn’t be done, that it was impossible, like “walking on water.” Laar, who was awarded the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty by the Cato Institute in 2006, said it was based simply on a fundamental belief in the People of Estonia. The creative energies of individual initiative were unleashed and the Estonians became incredibly empowered through the freedoms of LESS government intrusion upon their lives. Does this sound familiar? It should, because these policies of minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom informed the administrations of two other prominent governments in recent years: Reagan and Thatcher.

Mart Laar, like Reagan and Thatcher before him, followed an idea of placing faith in the people and in their natural abilities to satisfy their own needs through free enterprise. He believed that you shouldn’t punish Achievers in your society through “progressive” taxation- a major thesis of communism- but rather, encourage Achievers to create something more for themselves with optimism, hope and a renewed motivation to dream big dreams. For Laar, this is what Freedom is all about, and it’s something that the old Soviet system could never produce.

Prime Minister Laar said he knew Friedman’s policies had a chance to work because the
communists hated him so much, calling him “dangerous!” He reasoned that Friedman must be a “good” man if he could elicit so much fear from the Soviets! Quoting Reagan at the Cato award ceremony, Larr said, “the difference between Marxists and anti-Marxists is that the Marxists read Karl Marx’s books and the anti-Marxists UNDERSTAND them!” He added, “my experience with communism taught me how wrong it is. They hate the words ‘free’ and ‘choose.’” Besides Milton Friedman, Laar expressed a great fondness for Reagan saying, “he was the first politician in my lifetime who was not afraid to speak the truth and call the Soviet Union an Evil Empire.”

Ironically, the advice that most often came from Western economists during this time of Laar’s administration involved the advocacy of Big Government solutions. It’s a long way from Reagan’s 80s, when he built a movement on the words, “government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” This relapse involves the modern love-affair with Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez, among other Marxists. It reveals a disturbing trend according to Laar. He believes not enough has been done over the years to educate the deceived masses regarding the evils of all forms of Marxist governments. The task, as Laar sees it, is to one day regard the Communists as just as evil as the Nazis.

Upon the passing of Milton Friedman, Mart Larr had this to say,
Milton Friedman’s legacy in the modern world is the best proof that ideas really do matter. In the Soviet Union there was no place for ideas such as freedom, free choice, human initiatives or dignity. Human beings did not have any value there. Friedman’s ideas of liberty and free markets are the most powerful weapons in the fight against different kinds of dictatorships- in helping to break away from state control. Supporting free initiative and the people’s choice will
allow countries to build up prosperous societies and develop human happiness. His economic policies- flourishing as they are in my country- provide living proof that the ideas of Milton Friedman really work. Now that his ideas have been tested, it is easy to say that Friedman is right and Marx is wrong. Too many countries in the world are trying to ignore the ideas of liberty. They know that the teachings of Marx allow them more easily to control and rule their
people. The ideas of Milton Friedman make people free—that is the reason why they are not liked in countries with big government or real dictatorship. The best help we can give the modern world is to keep the heritage of Milton Friedman really alive. No, even more, to develop the cause of freedom everywhere, in the West and in the East because all of us deserve to be free! Without liberty our life is empty and meaningless. Liberty is what raises our spirit. Thank You Mr. Friedman. When we can all move in the direction you have shown us- we can make this world a better place.

“If Estonia is not a vindication of everything we believe in- from free trade to privatization to sound money to balanced budgets- I am at a loss as to how else one could validate our ideas.” Former GOP House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.

There is no collective means to individual success.
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)

WMDs in Iraq

2007-03-02T06:38:00.000-08:00

Since we just celebrated Independence Day number 230, I think it would be an appropriate, patriotic exercise to ask the question: To whom do we grant the benefit of the doubt, to the President, or to our enemies? A couple of weeks ago Sen. Santorum and Rep. Hoekstra held a press conference where they revealed the recently declassified Intelligence report claiming WMDs had indeed been found in Iraq. One would think this type of information would be welcomed as a unifying insight to help strengthen our resolve for the war, but Liberals, predictably, are instead making excuses for why we should remain skeptical and divided on this core issue that’s defining our time.

The report states that since 2003, Coalition Forces have recovered approximately 500 weapon munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Liberal critics, who showed no caution or qualification in calling President Bush a liar before, are now fervently equivocating for the benefit of our enemy by saying that such WMD discoveries are insignificant and irrelevant. How convenient for them!

Even if all of these particular projectiles of chemical weapons are pre-’91 and degraded, as some suggest, it doesn’t change the fact that it was illegal for Saddam Hussein to have them in the first place, and that it was he, and not Bush, who was the Liar. This proves that Saddam was explicitly in violation of some 14 separate UN Security Council Resolutions that prohibited him from having these agents. And, though they have degraded and weakened over time, nevertheless, experts maintain that these canisters remain a very deadly threat. Funny how the UN and Liberals can talk a big game, condemning Iraq for their WMDs before the war asClinton, Kerry and Kennedy did, only to shrink from the fight once tough action is required to do something about it. After Saddam kicked out the UN weapon inspectors in ’98, what else could have been done- wait and watch him nuke Jerusalem?

Besides this report, and the pre-war, historical record of various Intelligence agencies from around the world, there’s also three other credible sources to consider which have chronicled the discovery of WMDs in Iraq: Richard Miniter, Georges Sada and Israel. Miniter is an internationally-recognized expert on Terrorism. In his book, “Disinformation” he catalogs the recovery in Iraq of 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons, 1,000 radioactive materials and 17 chemical warheads with cyclosarin- an agent several times more deadly than sarin.

Geoges Sada, who was an Iraqi General and the number two official in Saddam Hussein’s Air Force, offers a compelling testimony from his unique, inside perspective. In his book, “Saddam’s Secrets” he talks about dozens of active WMD production facilities in operation during the 90’s. Sada, a Christian who now works for World Compassion, a humanitarian ministry headquartered in Tulsa, OK, also exposed Saddam’s plan to attack Israel with both chemical and nuclear weapons. Coincidently, Sada relates how it was on the very eve of our invasion that Saddam was actually in the process of launching a new chemical attack on Israel.

We should never forget that Saddam did attack Israel in the first Gulf War with SCUD missiles. He also used chemical weapons on his own people, in the horrendous 1988 genocidal attack where he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Is it so outrageous to think that he would have done so again?

Saddam, according to Sada, engineered a meticulous plan to hide his WMDs prior to the war by moving them to Syria. Syria had the misfortune of experiencing a catastrophic natural disaster in the summer of 2000 and Saddam used this tragedy as an opportunity to conceal his illegal weapons as emergency aid. Loaded upon commercial trucks, ambulances and reconfigured Boeing airliners, Saddam strategically relocated thousands of tons of chemical weapons into Syria. In December of 2002, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also confirmed that chemical and biological weapons from Iraq had been moved into Syria. In addition, Israel’s top General, Mosha Yaalon is also on record alleging this Syrian relocation of WMDs occurring during the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Is it conceivable to believe that all of these men are lying? Maybe if your name is Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon or Natalie Maines!

Liberals have shown very little tolerance for these facts. Ted Kennedy has said, “there’s no question (the Bush Administration) misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq.”Jimmy Carter has flatly called Bush “dishonest,” and Al Gore describes Bush’s “march to war” as an “abuse of the truth.” One has to wonder what side they’re truly on! In Connecticut, Democrat Sen. Joe Leiberman is now, unbelievably, being confronted with charges from his own party that he’s not a true Democrat because he favors the war! His Democrat-primary opponent Ned Lamont is claiming Leiberman is really more of a Republican than a Democrat simply because he refuses to adopt the “mainstream” Democrat position of an immediate pull-out out of Iraq. Hillary Clinton has abandoned Leiberman and Maxine Waters has just announced she’s on her way to Connecticut to help Lamont. Amazing how fast one can move from a party’s candidate
for Vice President to party outcast. The Liberal mindset on Iraq is definitely twisted and has poisoned their sense of rational debate. Instead of abiding by the time-honored tradition of showing bipartisan unity beyond “the water’s edge,” Liberals now seem to relish every opportunity to divide and discredit our nation’s foreign policy in spite of the aid and comfort it clearly gives to our enemies. It seems, as Reagan once said, that Liberals can only build themselves up by tearing America down. It’s the classic “blame America first” strategy. Yet, in the spirit of this month’s celebration of 230 years of Independence, I’d like to believe there’s hope that someday we might find some unity for our country’s foreign engagements. But, given the prevailing attitude found on the Left today…something tells me I shouldn’t hold my breath.
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)

The Conceit of Victimhood

2007-03-02T06:36:00.000-08:00

Domestic Violence is a serious problem in our modern world. In the majority of cases the scenario is exactly the same: a tyrannical, over-bearing man seeks to dominate a weaker, more-vulnerable woman. But, as they say, “it takes two to Tango!” Most of the time these incidents escalate into tragic proportions because the woman fails to respond in a logical manner to the emerging threat. Instead of simply leaving the relationship, the woman, typically, internalizes her situation, imagining that part of the reason for her abuse must lie within her own failures and inadequacies as a woman. ie. “blaming the victim” This is the classic syndrome of victimization and co-dependency. At it’s perverted core, it is a selfish point of view which perpetuates the very conditions for continuing the abuse. It is the irrational idea that, somehow, the culprit is excused from taking full responsibility because he is involuntarily manipulated by the distinct choices and actions of the Victim!

Flash forward to our War on Terror, or as our President has most recently, and more- accurately, termed it: “the War on Islamic Fascism.” There are those who believe that our very existence in the Middle East is ‘the reason’ for the Terrorist attacks against us! They are seriously suggesting that it is our reactionary impulse to “fight back” which is motivating all the grotesque actions of the jihad! Funny, how the Terrorists of the 1985- 1996 period, (Achille Lauro, Pan Am 103, USS Cole, World Trade Center bombing #1, and the Khobar Towers), all had a premonition of the Iraqi invasion, and proceeded then to act upon it- ahead of time! My, these are a conscientious lot, aren’t they? It’s as if the Liberal critics are saying: “these poor, Terrorists can’t help themselves, they’re strapping bombs onto their bellies and blowing up innocent civilians because they’re probably just anticipating all the bad, over-cooked dinners we’ll be serving them in the future!” Ahh, I guess it really is all our fault then, huh? We should patronize them more, don’t you think? “Won’t Daddy Terrorist please tell me…what Daddy Terrorist wants for din din…so Daddy Terrorist won’t have to go out and incinerate another ol’ icky car bomb?” Can’t you just hear the refrain: “sure Mahmoud has his bad side, but I can change him, I know I can!”

An element of the Victimhood belief system is the conceited notion that one’s “appease- ment” will be so intoxicatingly beautiful and alluring that the offending party will have no choice but to immediately surrender all aggression and melt like butter in your forgiving arms! A senior Bush official put it this way in a recent statement following the thwarted London plot: “the idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren’t for U.S. policies, strikes me as not a valid idea. [Liberals] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces!”

Indeed, it is just as foolhearty to expect an Islamo-fascist to be magically transformed by an appeasing, geopolitical gesture as it is to expect an abusing spouse to spawn into a Prince simply because you have an obsession with kissing a frog! There’s a quote from my all-time, favorite movie, “First Knight” that sums it up best: “there is a peace that is only to be found on the other side of war.” That is the type of peace that is secured by whatever means is necessary for the cause of triumphing over evil. The type of “peace” that a battered wife endures by placating her boorish husband is no more preferable than the “peace” that the Liberals want for our country now as we face Islamic annihilation. Both strategies ignore the culpability of the aggressor and endeavor to “buy-off” the evil-doer with a short-term, self-limiting peace that comes at the expense of long-term freedom and justice. Winston Churchill characterized this bankrupt, appeasement process as the idea of “throwing others to the alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.”

In domestic relationships, as in international affairs, “feeding the alligator,” ultimately proves to be a stupid strategy. It is cowardice, wrong-headed and selfish. It’s a course of action that only strengthens the beast, until that fateful day when it comes down to- you or him! (send comments to WFC831297@aol.com)

Immigration: An American Ideal

2007-03-02T06:34:00.000-08:00

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
These are the words on our Statue of Liberty, but what do they mean?

Lady Liberty is a symbol for America’s “golden door” to freedom. It’s a proud legacy stretching back to before our nation’s founding. From the very beginning, refugees from countless shores have risked all to find a new life in the New World of America.

Today’s dilemma involving the flood of illegal immigration from Mexico is challenging this notion like never before. So, what questions should we be asking?

Should there be any limits to immigration? What is the motivation spurring this influx of new arrivals? Currently, there are many proposals in the offing for resolving this mess, but which one is right?

I don’t believe, as the Left does, that borders are irrelevant and that all restrictions on immigration are motivated by racism. Sure, there are those who might prefer a different ethnicity for our new citizens, but the question remains: in this dangerous era of Terrorism and social anarchy what makes any of us, a citizen of this country?

I think the idea of citizenship involves the responsibility that comes with freedom. There are laws in place that determine the qualifications for citizenship, and these laws must be obeyed. We exist as a nation because we have certain responsibilities that go along with our civil liberties. Qualifications must be in place to guarantee an assimilation within this framework. We are nothing without our common culture and the stability that it provides. It remains our solemn commitment to one another.

Most of the immigrants now marching in our streets for their so-called “rights” are outlaws, sponsored by Marxist-organizations, showing no respect for this honorable commitment. How can they legitimately call for our nation’s protection when they are simultaneously flouting our nation’s laws? It seems a bit hypocritical to me. Plus, it’s not fair to all those other immigrants who are “playing by the rules” and waiting in line year after year for the chance to come to our country legally.

One of the circumstances that’s different now, than at other times in our history, is the vast social, safety-net we currently have in place. Welfare programs represent a pledge by our government to help those qualified citizens who warrant such considerations. In years past, immigrants came to our country, not for a handout, but for a fair chance to pursue “the American Dream.” I’m not saying that all immigrants are the type who would abuse this privilege, but many are, and frankly, we just can’t afford it.

The President seems to have offered a fair program to sort-out these differences- being sure to assist those who are willing to fulfill their obligations toward citizenship while appropriately challenging those, (including their employers), who do not.

Freedom is a two-way street. One cannot reserve a freedom to himself that he would not equally extend to another. It’s interesting that Mexico has very tough immigration laws that severely limit the rights of those who would attempt to go there, yet they expect us to unilaterally surrender all restrictions that we might impose.

The poor Mexicans who are trying to better their lives in America, are seeking a laudable goal. However, shouldn’t they also have an interest in maintaining the culture that is already here that has afforded them this very opportunity?

We should be careful to make sure that the last one closing the door behind them coming across the border isn’t ultimately, a deceived traveler who finds no American Dream left upon his first day pursuing happiness in the good ol’ USA! At the end of that scenario- we all lose! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)

Is It Hot Enough For Ya?

2007-02-11T06:35:00.000-08:00

Look, up in the sky, it’s a bird…it’s a plane, no it’s Booga Booga! “Dr.” Al Gore and his traveling medicine show is at it again, hawking his latest anti-Global Warming elixir. Actually he’s morelike a witch doctor. All that’s missing is a bone through the nose, a little paint on the face and a couple of ominous rattles in his hands. His new film, ”An Inconvenient Truth” is making the rounds like a bad recurring dream. This is your life…Booga Booga. The movie, which is turning out nice numbers at the box office, (albeit on a proportional basis that factors in much fewer screens), plays more like a sad, syrupy, sentimental attempt to revitalize one man’s failing political career than an authentic news story based upon fact. At various points you wonder when Ralph Edwards is going to appear saying, “do you recognize this voice, from your 4th grade biology class?” One could write this off as one big hilarious joke, in a long line of hilarious Al Gore-jokes, if not for the very serious threat we face from the Al Gore-brand of radical, leftist environmentalism. Their “junk science” may be silly and easily dismissed, but their efforts to expand the powers of government are not!

Before detailing with some of the deceptions in this latest Global Warming Hoax, it should be remembered that Al Gore’s family has a considerable interest in the Occidental Petroleum Corporation. This company has been cited for creating many environmental hazards over the years. It would seem appropriate and logical to me that one should clean-up one’s own backyard first before pointing fingers at others.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Lab in Australia, has this to say about the film, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that his film is commanding public attention.” Carter maintains that most of Gore’s scientists are not even in the climate field. Carter’s assessment is that they can provide no conclusive proof that human emissions of CO2 are having any significant impact upon the global climate. Carleton University paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson agrees, “there is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geological] time frame.”

Nevertheless, Gore keeps chanting away demanding we stop analyzing his data and accept the “consensus truth.” To make him happy we simply must come forth with an acceptable sacrifice to appease the angry gods of Global Warming. Booga booga. We’re not suppose to listen to folks like Dr. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg Climatologist, who says, “these models (mathematical computer models that predict Gore’s apocalyptic visions), have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios.”

Professor Patterson contends that it is completely unsubstantiated to believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming, “in fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years!”

I could go on with countless other quotations from scientists who are experts in the field of climate research, but for those with a superstitious point of view, what difference does it make? The crucial point is: how would Al Gore’s agitprop affect us, if it actually succeeded in gaining political acceptance? By the film’s end it’s no secret what the true agenda is. The key to the witch doctor’s sacrifice is America’s endorsement of the global environmental treaty known affectionately as the Kyoto Protocol. The goal of this accord is in getting top industrialized nations to cut their industrial emissions by 5.2 percent from their 1990 levels. Canada, an early signer to the treaty, has since renounced it as an unrealistic and over-burdensome policy. MIT professor, (and Democrat), Richard Lindzen calls Kyoto “baseless” and “bad” for its potential impact on government policies and the economy. He adds, “there’s no current Western leader who’s as well informed on the [climate] issue as Bush. European politicians are just using Kyoto for cheap virtue.” President Bush has always been against Kyoto. Gas prices would be in the $3.50 range, electric bills would nearly double, coal prices would rise by a factor of 153%, the GDP would be cut in half and the cost to the economy would tally in the hundreds of billions- if we listen to the witch doctor!

Al Gore seems to pride himself on being more of a prophet than a witch doctor, but I wonder if he’s contemplated what the good book says about what should be done with False Prophets? Maybe we’ll get a voodoo dance out of it yet. Anything would be better than the Macarena Megalomania we’re seeing now! (send comments to wfc83197@aol.com)

To Spank, or Not to Spank

2007-02-06T08:25:00.000-08:00

Another San Francisco Liberal is busy at work- introducing a bill in the California State Legislature to ban spanking. No, this isn’t a new measure to regulate proper Bathhouse decorum. Democrat Representative Sally Lieber has proposed a law that would outlaw the spanking of children three years old or younger, carrying a penalty of jail time, or a $1,000 fine, for convicted parents.

This begs the question: at what point does the State have a right to infringe upon a parent’s right to discipline their own children?

Naturally, there are some genuine cases of child abuse that should be confronted by government intervention, but where does one effectively draw the line? Is spanking always wrong? Not if one believes in the Biblical injunction of “spare the rod, spoil the child.” In fact, one can make the case that “sparing the rod” is a form of child abuse in itself. Tolerating disobedience and neglecting the responsibilities of applying “adequate” discipline is one of the surest ways to corrupt a child. The results of an undisciplined child can be far-reaching and tragic. The duty of child-rearing is clear: either discipline them when they’re young and in the home, or society will be forced to discipline them when they’re old and in prison! Aka, spank me now, or spank me later.

We all can’t wait for TV’s Super Nanny to show-up in a van to fix little Johnny’s “problems” with fancy “time-out” games. Sometimes, a swift smack on the rear is the most direct way to communicate what it takes this modern-day Mary Poppins to do in an hour! The simple idea is this: Stove Hot, pat on rear stings, but not as bad as three degree burns and a visit to the Emergency Room. Children need strong suggestions about how to control their behavior in order to avoid serious injury to themselves or to others. By stinging their little behinds one transfers this notion in a meaningful way that the child clearly understands. Not all 3 year olds can “reason” why- Stove Hot.

Another argument against this Nanny State proposal is the idea that we already have too
many people in our society abdicating their individual responsibilities in favor of “collective” solutions. Adopting this additional area of government oversight will only suggest to many that here is yet another opportunity to surrender one’s natural sovereignty in favor of government usurpation. Such unconstrained belief in the efficacy of government- for matters of personal responsibility- results only in furthering the negative trends of victimization and dependency among the People. Supplanting the natural, God-given order of “Parenting-done-by-the-Parents,” yields a condition where, ultimately, no one takes responsibility for the hard work of nurturing a child. If the child belongs to EVERYBODY, the child effectively belongs to NOBODY. Sometimes, frankly, “The Village” is just too darn busy to break-off a switch and stripe a few legs! Bottom line: initiatives like Ms. Lieber’s only encourages the damaging belief that it is the government’s responsibility to raise a child.

There are currently 28 states in the US that ban corporal punishment in schools. Those
states which “do not” are characteristically Red, and in the South. Studies have also shown that Christians are disproportionately in favor of spanking by a ratio of 9 to 1. It’s interesting to note, that although recent surveys show that only about 33% of Americans currently support this form of discipline, in the 1930s, the rate was similar to today’s Evangelical point of view- about 90%. Does anyone truly believe that our Society in America today is trending toward too much discipline? Isn’t it more likelythat most of our societal ills are the result of just the opposite trend: an overly permissive culture that tolerates every manner of deviancy?

NY Sen. Patrick Moynihan used to warn, “we are defining deviancy down beyond the limits our community can afford to recognize.” He was referencing the Durkheim Constant, advanced by preeminent Sociologist Emile Durkheim in 1895, which states, “by defining what is deviant we are enabled to know what is not, and hence to live by shared standards.” A quick perusal of the Jerry Springer Show should assuage any doubt regarding the direction we are heading in vis a vis our “shared standards!”

So, this battle in the Culture War will continue. Fifteen European states currently ban spanking in both home and school. The European Network of Ombudsmen for Children, (ENOC), which regards spanking as child abuse, is urging all governments to work collectively towards abolishing all forms of corporal punishment. The actions of Ms. Lieber are yet another example of how liberals in this country are taking us down that primrose, socialist path of “Government Knows Best!” Robert Young where are you?
(send comments to wfc83197@aol.com)

The Minimum Wage

2007-01-22T08:02:00.000-08:00

The Minimum Wage has been increased from $5.10 per hour to $7.25 per hour. Thank You Speaker Pelosi and the new Democrat Congress! Isn’t this terrific? By a simple vote, we now can create higher wages for about 2% of Americans who fall within that special category of workers alleviated from the burdens of managing their own personal labor contracts. Their
negotiations, for good or for ill, are now under the auspices of a new Government-directed,Wage Control. Yippee! Employers, beware!

That’s really “sticking it to the man” isn’t it? But hold on a second, who’s really “the man?” Like the commercial says, it’s US! It’s Small Business, not Big Business, that will feel the brunt of this new edict coming down from Mount Pelosi. Small Business makes up half of our economy and is responsible for a full two thirds of first-time, entry-level jobs! These are the type of jobs- usually filled by low-skill teenagers- that will suffer the most adverse impact.

In order to remain in business, and therefore ‘capable’ of providing jobs, owners and managers of Small Businesses- not the movers and shakers of the Forbes 500- must transfer these additional labor costs, imposed by the Federal Government, to other areas. Either they will cutback on production (thereby depleting supplies), lower their quality (cutting corners),
suspend further hiring ($0.00 per hour), or simply raise their prices on goods and services you and I buy! What a deal! In 2007, as in all years past, the statement is still true: “There’s no Free Lunch!”

Wouldn’t be great if this Fairy Tale was true? Why not pass a law that says everyone in Ye Kingdom of Pelosi Shall Be Paid $100 per hour, or $1,000 per hour? Why not go for broke and demand $1,000,000 per hour?! Naturally, this policy reveals its inherent foolishness upon further review!

Another area of whimsical folly for the Minimum Wage Police is in the Mickey Mouse expectation of a “one size fits all” flat rate that yields equal benefits to all in every part of the Country. Surely, one can grasp the reality that a two-dollar raise in San Francisco is not exactly the same thing as a two-dollar raise in La Follette, Tennessee!

Nevertheless, we see the Liberal, lapdog press applaud our Pelosi Benefactors as if they’ve really accomplished something!

The punch line to all this is- We don’t really need a Minimum Wage! Individuals have been freely negotiating higher rates for their low-level jobs for years, completely independent from Nanny Pelosi and her team of bureaucratic hall monitors! States have also worked independently from Commissar Pelosi by implementing their own specific ideas for
commercial/labor contracts. Vermont, New York, Hawaii and others have already had in place a Minimum Wage Law of $7 plus. Isn’t this a more equitable socialistic-intrusion into the market place than a Federal Law? But, to those still bound to Marx, I suppose Command Economies still operate best from the very top, down.

Sorry Charlie! There’s one odd thing about this “crown jewel” of the first 100 hours of the Pelosi Regime- Neo-Nancy made sure to exempt the U.S. Territory of American Samoa from the Minimum Wage Decree. Why? Del Monte and Star Kist Tuna, corporate residents of her home district in California, have operations there where they employ 75% of the Island’s workforce, at a pay scale that averages $3.60 per hour!

It turns out- some Minimum Wage Laws are more equal than others!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)