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)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Tyranny of the Federal Registry
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)
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)
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The “Leave Us Alone” Conservative Coalition
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)
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)
Monday, March 24, 2008
Uncle Jeremiah
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)
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)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Ranking the Presidents
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)
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)
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Swing to the Left
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)
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)
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Playing Politics with Race
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
