WMDs in Iraq

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

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

“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?

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

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

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)

Fairy Tales Can Be Deadly

In the late 18th century a professor named Alexander Tyler made the following observation regarding the life cycle of social cultures:

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

The fairy tale which so often subverts civilizations from sustaining some form of prosperous and free existence is the dual seduction of Collectivist Gain coupled with Irresponsible Behavior. The success that liberty and abundance brings fuels the tendency among some citizens to imagine ways they can obtain further riches without due effort, by orchestrating various government-directed arrangements. Thus, the virtue of individual, self-initiated merit is sacrificed upon the altar of what Frederick Bastiat calls “legalized plunder.”

Enter the Welfare State! In our Western Civilization, beginning earnestly in the early 20th century, we started down a path called “The Road to Serfdom” by acclaimed economist F. A. Hayek. This Socialistic tendency to reshape the world according to one’s wishes apart from certain economic realities was also called “The Fatal Conceit,” by Hayek. It’s a selfish lust to advance beyond one’s qualifications of legitimate, economic success and acquire rewards, or spoils, through political means.

This selfish temptation to arrange a system where others are made to provide for one’s well-being is the very prescription of apathetic dependency that will take a society right back into bondage per Tyler’s warning.

Celebrated journalist and author Mark Steyn calls this love affair with the Welfare State the “suicide of the West.” His basic thesis is this: we will lose the will to fight for our freedoms as a natural consequence of our conceited addiction to various collectivist entitlements. The more we become dependent upon government wealth transfers for our well-being, the more we will forget the survival instinct we need as individuals to stand-up to the ever-present, natural threats around us. Among these threats is the current Islamic Fascism that’s working to establish a new, global Caliphate. Declining birth rates, in Europe particularly, is assisting in this growing, internal weakness. The various Welfare Programs in Europe are unsustainable at their current rate. The extensive State “give-aways” are such that there won’t be enough workers paying into the system to keep it solvent in the years to come. Sound familiar? It should. To confront this growing actuarial problem, Germany has just announced a dubious program to start paying Germans to have babies!

In America, with the Liberals taking over Congress, we soon will be facing a whole host of new, European-styled, entitlement proposals that will simply put us farther down the road toward eventual bondage. The Liberal Agenda of tax, spend, regulate and appease our enemies, amounts to a wholesale capitulation of the virtues of self-reliance and personal responsibility. What will be delivered in its wake is a pitiful dependency from which there’s no escape. This stands in stark contrast to the Lincoln maxim of not doing for a man what he could and should do for himself. There remains- no Collective means to Individual success.

Alexander Tyler is also noted for another quote:

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote
themselves largesse form the public treasury. From that moment
on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the
most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a
Democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by a Dictatorship.

As abolitionist Wendell Phillips explained it- “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” The vigilance must be for the virtues of a Republic, not the whims of a Democracy. And in that organization of a republic, it is the individual’s virtue that guarantees our liberty through the dedicated, spiritual faith in Duty over Benefit.

It was Kennedy who said, “ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country!” Becoming apathetic about our faithful commitment regarding Individualism amounts to a slow, but sure, death. Ben Franklin described it this way, “he who exchanges his [individual] liberty for a little bit of [social] security, deserves neither.” He knew just how dangerous Liberal Fairy Tales could be. He told the lady outside Independence Hall- “We’ve given you a Republic- IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.” It’s been said, “a young man who’s not a liberal has no heart, but an old man who’s not a conservative has no brain!” Fairy Tales, after all, are nothing more than an emotional luxury for the young. They have no real place in the world of grown-ups. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)