Facebook Twitter
Facebook Twitter
Home Blog Page 90

Urban environmentalists: Fundies in ponytails

By
Ian Plimer, Ph.D.
-

I write from the Arkaroola Wilderness Resort in the far north Flinders Ranges of South Australia where I do geological field work in this mountainous and unforgiving wilderness in summer. This is a privilege. Field work is an attempt to understand nature and this intimacy with nature stimulates questioning.

Science is based on dominant paradigms that are open to change at any time. Our understanding of nature requires a depth and breadth of knowledge, a healthy uncertainty, a willingness to change and a measure of awe provoked by the complexity of nature.

Nature changes rapidly and continues to surprise. Climate, sea level, the atmosphere, life, landscapes and temperature all change rapidly by many mechanisms for a diversity of reasons. For millions of years hominids and other organisms have survived, adapted and become extinct as a result of these changes. Nature is not mysterious; it is quantifiable. Science is married to evidence and divorced from value judgement.

We scientists argue about the data, which may be from measurement, calculation, observation or experiment. The explanation of data – a theory – is the neatest way of explaining such data and this, too, provokes healthy argument. New data or a re-evaluation of old data commonly results in the abandonment of a treasured popular paradigm. This is the methodology of science.

Herein lies the problem with city-based greens and religious fundamentalists such as creationists. The idol for worship is a dogmatic ideology enshrined in value judgements that allows no change despite scientific data to the contrary.

Nature is made the mystery by greens in isolation from integrated interdisciplinary scientific knowledge, somewhat contrary to traditional Christian views where the mystery is the supernatural. It is for this reason that I argue that environmental groups are a modern urban religion, albeit terribly flawed. From Paul Tillich’s theological perspective, the change from the dominant paradigm to dogma is a shift from preliminary to ultimate concerns resulting in evil.

Creationists have not evolved from the science and inexact literalist contradictory theology of the mid-17th century when the popular scientific paradigm was that the planet was 6000 years old and a mythical great flood shaped the planet’s surface, deposited fossiliferous sediments and killed sinners.

The greens can not accept that the good old days were not good old days, that natural changes are far greater than even their worst case human-induced doomsday scenario and that we now live in a society blessed with saviors such as science, technology and industry. Our greens bathe in the benefits of an industrial society yet, for reasons of nefarious politics, hypocrisy and ignorance, decide to be both within and without our industrial society.

Many city folk have lost contact with nature and this can be deeply disturbing. Such disconnection produces a romantic yearning for that which never existed, a yearning to be at one with nature despite a lack of understanding of nature and a yearning to do something, whatever something might be.

This disconnection produces irrationality, contradictions and the creation of green fundamentalism as the new religion of urban environmentalists. Disconnection of city people from nature has only added to the frustration of depoliticised rural people, thereby creating political instability.

In the cities, this disconnection is exacerbated by the lack of connection between seasons and seasonal foods or killing and meat protein and an uncompromising dogma about those outside cities who take risks to produce the energy, water, food and mineral resources we so voraciously consume.

We watch asinine survival programs unaware that there are 20 film support crew out of shot. Such programs appeal to our primitive instincts yet show how disconnected from nature we really have become. We plant gardens comprising water-hungry northern European vegetation, consume more and more water, don’t build new dams and don’t collect roof rainwater. We buy a four-wheel-drive to use on highways in the wilderness or watch concocted nature programs on television. We feel good to see large green areas on maps called national parks and then promptly forget about these areas.

The ancient monastics were correct. An extended time in a desert wilderness allows the discarding of trivialities, an interaction and connection with nature and an understanding of our place in the world. And it is not really a very important place after all.

This article was originally published in the Sydney Morning Herald under the title, Science kept out by the greens’ dogma. Republished on NewsCream by permission of the author.

England To Remove Term “Prostitute” From Law Books

By
Robert Paul Reyes
-

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but bureaucrats are constantly renaming occupations, diseases and disabilities to remove any perceived stigma. A garbage man is transformed into a “sanitation engineer” but at the end of the day I bet he still smells like crap.

The United Kingdom may be beset with many problems, especially terrorism, but lawmakers still find the time to introduce bills to give occupations a more politically-correct name.

From Reuters:

“Britain is proposing to remove the term ‘prostitute’ from the criminal statutes because it carries too much stigma.

Instead, a new bill that the Justice Ministry has drafted refers simply to persons who sell sex persistently – defined as twice or more in three months.

‘We just wanted to remove the stigma of the label ‘common prostitute’,’ said a spokeswoman for the Justice Ministry.”

The phrase “A person who sells sex persistently” may catch on in bureaucratese, but I can’t imagine Joe Sixpack saying “This weekend I will pick up a person who sells sex persistently”.

The Brits want to remove the term “prostitute” because it carries too much stigma. Duh! Shouldn’t we be shaming whores so that they will pick up a more respectable profession?

Will the Brit’s remove the term “burglar” from the criminal statues because it carries too much stigma. Instead, will they be referred to as “persons who repeatedly enter homes without obtaining permission?

CA. Court Denies Taron James, Victim of Paternity Fraud While Deployed in Iraq, Reimbursement of Stolen Money

By
Glenn Sacks
-

The Taron James paternity fraud case is one of the most egregious examples of the abuses the child support enforcement system visits upon men. In my co-authored column Defrauded Veterans Have Mixed Emotions on Veterans Day (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 11/11/03), I wrote:

“For Torrance photographer Taron James, a decorated veteran of Operation Northern Watch, Veterans Day always brings mixed emotions.

“James enlisted in the Navy at age 20 in the days leading up to the first Persian Gulf War, and carried out hazardous reconnaissance missions behind Iraqi lines in the war’s aftermath.

“He earned four service medals and three ribbons before his honorable discharge in 1994. Yet his reward for his service has been nine years of unremitting government harassment, financial deprivation, and a constant struggle to stay out of jail.

“While serving in Iraq, James was notified that a woman he knew back home was demanding that he pay child support for her newborn son. James knew from the beginning that the child could not possibly be his.

“The Navy’s Judge Advocate General is not authorized to handle a serviceman’s legal problems outside of the military justice system, but a sympathetic captain helped him obtain an agreement from the child’s mother for a DNA test.

“Before the test could be done, however, the mother reneged on the agreement and disappeared with the child.

“James requested a blood test from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, and was told repeatedly over the next year and a half that he would be notified when there was a new development in the case. The D.A. instead went to court without James’ knowledge and obtained a default judgment against him. James did not find out about it until the D.A. seized his driver’s license and began taking 50 percent of his take home pay.

“Despite subsequent legal appeals and an April, 2001 DNA test which confirmed that the child is not his, the courts have refused to set aside the judgment. In the years since the D.A. and later Los Angeles County Child Support Services have: seized James’ tax refund for six years in a row; blocked him from renewing his notary public license, which in turn caused him to lose his job as the manager of a business; ruined his credit, denying him the chance to purchase the business at a low price when the owner offered it to him for sale; blocked him from obtaining a passport; and forced him to drop out of college before
finishing his degree.”

Los Angeles attorney Marc Angelucci, who does excellent work for men, represented Taron James and Taron was eventually able to get his child support order set aside.

On Tuesday, a California Appeal court ruled that James is not entitled to reimbursement for the money stolen from him. To learn more about the new ruling, see No Refund Due Man Ordered to Support Child Not His-C.A. (Metropolitan News-Enterprise, 6/20/07).

To learn more about paternity fraud, see my co-authored column New American Bar Association Article Points to Crisis in False Paternity Judgments (Baltimore Sun, 8/20/06).

Alicia M. Crowe’s Real Dads Stand Up!
Alicia M. Crowe’s new book Real Dads Stand Up! explains what every single father should know about child support, rights and custody. www.realdadsstandup.com

Joe Lieberman’s “War Talk” On Iran

By
Robert Paul Reyes
-

Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s claim to fame is his unflagging support of President George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq war. Lieberman has extensive foreign policy experience; he should recognize a lost cause when he sees one. Lieberman would have placed bets on Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo and cheered on Gen. Custer at Little Big Horn.

It’s bad enough that Lieberman has been dead wrong on Iraq, but now he’s taking the wrong approach on dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and meddling in Iraq.
On CBS’s Face the Nation, Lieberman said, “If the Iranians don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they’re doing.”
From Courant.com:
“While stressing that any specific military action would be up to the generals, Lieberman said he foresaw not a massive invasion, but knocking out camps where Iranians are training and equipping terrorists who then try to kill American soldiers.”
Does Lieberman imagine Iran would respond to an American bombardment in a “tit-for-tat” fashion? Iran would unleash Armageddon in the Middle East; they would attack Israel and our forces in Iraq and initiate a terrorist campaign in our homeland.

I can picture Lieberman in a shouting match with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad:

Ahmadinejad: Death to the Great Satan!

Lieberman: Nuke Tehran!

Ahmadinejad: Destroy the moral cesspool that is Hollywood!

Lieberman: I’m with you on that one you crazy nut!

This kind of “cowboy rhetoric” has already resulted in the greatest military debacle in American history; the last thing we need is to strike preemptively against another country. Do we really want to be at war with three Muslim countries at the same time? That might be Dick Cheney’s most cherished wet dream, but it is a nightmare scenario for most Americans.
This is the time for diplomacy and not saber-rattling. Lieberman is unlikely to listen to lowly pundits, but perhaps he will pay attention to the words of General Wesley Clark:

“Senator Lieberman’s saber rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shia militias in Iraq, or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. In fact, it’s highly irresponsible and counter-productive, and I urge him to stop.”

This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of President Ahmadinejad, and those who seek an excuse for military action. What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran. We should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options. The Iranians are very much aware of US military capabilities. They don’t need Joe Lieberman to remind them that we are the militarily dominant power in the world today.”

Somali Piracy or Terrorism?

By
Jim Kouri, CPP
-

In spite of the news media distancing the recent attack on a ship off the coast of Somalia from global terrorism, intelligence experts believe this is just the latest operation initiated against the United States and the West by Al-Qaeda.

Recently a failed assassination attempt on the prime minister of Somalia, as well as the attempt to hijack a luxury American cruise ship, has intensified apprehension and fear that the shaky Somali government is losing to Al-Qaeda and Wahhabi terror groups.

Three people were mortally wounded in a terrorist attack on the Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, while he was visiting the war-torn capital of Mogadishu. He survived the deadly encounter which entailed an explosion set off near his convoy, according to security experts. Mr. Gedi was merely visiting since his government is in quasi-exile in Jowhar. The danger in the Somali capital is so great that the transitional government must avoid setting up their headquarters there.

Since 2003, Somalia has witnessed the growth of a brutal network of Jihad with strong ties to Al-Qaeda. In fact, when the US forces faced a bloody battle in 1995 during what became known as the Black Hawk Down incident, it was Al-Qaeda joining with a local warlord who killed and wounded US special operations soldiers.

Somalia has been without a functioning national government for 14 years, when they received their independence from Italy. The transitional parliament created in 2004, but has failed to end the devastating anarchy. The impoverish people who live in the ruined capital of Mogadishu have witnessed Al-Qaeda operatives, jihadi extremists, Ethiopian security services and Western-backed counter-terrorism agents engaged in a bloody war that few support and even fewer understand.

In an incident that gained some American press attention, Somali-based terrorists armed with rocket-propelled grenades launched an unsuccessful attack on Seaborn Spirit as it rounded the Horn of Africa with American, British and Australian tourists on board. For unexplained reasons, the attack is being treated as an isolated incident and the terrorism link is being all but ignored by journalists. The term pirates is routinely used with only a few reporters calling the attackers terrorists.

The ship came under attack during the early morning hours when the heavily armed terrorists in two speedboats began firing upon the ship with grenade launchers and machine guns. They assailants were repelled by the ships crew who implemented their security measures which included setting off electronic simulators which created the illusion the ship was firing back at the terrorists.

According to passenger accounts of the attack, there were at least three rocket-propelled grenades or RPGs that hit the ship, one hit a passenger stateroom without inflicting injuries.

There are now some counter-terrorism officials who wish to deploy a naval task force to try to prevent attacks, and kill or apprehend these modern-day pirates in Somali waters. Most travel advisories issued by nations throughout the world recognize this area as being among the most dangerous in the world.

There are some who oppose this combative approach fearing the opening of a new front in the war on terrorism. But these opponents of using force have no suggestions for dealing with these dangerous terrorists and thugs who prey on people on land or at sea.

During the 1990s, a group of Saudi-educated, Wahhabi militants arrived in Somalia with the aim of creating an Islamic state in this dismal African country. Also, the renowned Al-Qaeda established an operations base and training camp. They would routinely attack and ambush UN peacekeepers. In addition, they used Somalia to export their brand of terrorism into neighboring Kenya.

Leading members of Al-Qaeda continue to operate, mostly in secrecy, in Somalia and have built up cooperation with some of the warlords who control food, water and medicine. And the people of Somalia starve, mourn and die.

Somalia has lacked a functioning central government since 1991. In December 2006, the Ethiopian military intervened in Somalia to support Somalia’s transitional government, opening what many considered a window of opportunity to rebuild the country and restore effective governance.

The United States has been the largest bilateral donor to Somalia, providing roughly $362 million in assistance since 2001. Recently, the Government Accountability Office reviewed documents from US and international organizations; interviewed US, United Nations (UN), Somali, and other officials; and conducted fieldwork in Kenya and Ethiopia. Overall, the GAO analysts assessed US strategy the desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy that the GAO previously developed.

Several challenges have limited US and international efforts to stabilize Somalia. The international community, including the United States, is seeking to improve the security situation in the country, mainly by funding an African Union peacekeeping operation. However, a shortage of troops has hindered peacekeepers’ ability to achieve their mission.

In addition, the most recent attempt at political reconciliation was limited, in part because several important opposition groups were not involved. For example, while this key attempt resulted in resolutions to end the conflict and return all property to its rightful owners, these opposition groups denounced the resolutions, citing their lack of participation in drafting them.

According to many officials, Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government lacks institutional structures and national acceptance, and these weaknesses have constrained US and international efforts to establish the transitional government as a fully functioning central government.

To mitigate these challenges, the international community, including the United States, is taking steps that include encouraging all parties to participate in reconciliation discussions. While the international community, including the United States, continues to provide vital humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia, its efforts have been limited by lack of security, access to vulnerable populations, and effective government institutions. The international community’s humanitarian assistance to Somalia, which primarily consists of food aid, has not reduced the country’s acute malnutrition rates, which have remained above the emergency threshold in some parts of the country.

According to United Nations officials, however, malnutrition is the result of a combination of immediate and underlying causes, including insufficient dietary intake, inadequate health care, and inadequate water and sanitation services.

Ongoing insecurity constrains the international community’s ability to monitor its provision of humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia. Furthermore, US officials’ inability to travel to the country has prevented them from independently monitoring assistance.

The international community’s plans to increase development assistance to Somalia depend on political progress and stability, which have not yet been achieved. US strategy for Somalia, outlined in the Administration’s 2007 report to Congress on its Comprehensive Regional Strategy on Somalia, is incomplete.

While the Comprehensive Strategy addresses the components required of it by US law, it does not include the full range of US government activities related to Somalia, such as Department of Defense efforts to promote regional stability, and it does not reference other key US government strategic documents for Somalia.

The Comprehensive Strategy does not fully address any of the six desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy, lacking information on necessary resources, investments, and risk management. A separate, classified report provides more information on selected US strategic planning efforts for Somalia.


Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, NewsCream.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at

Movie Review: “300″

By
John Dias
-

Tonight, I went to the theater to see the movie “300,” a glorified account of the conflict between the Spartan city-state (in modern-day Greece) and Persian invaders, led by the Persian king Xerxes. The movie is about the battle of Thermopylae in 450 BC, in which 300 Spartans held off millions of invading Persian armies.

The movie depicts the harsh warrior culture of Sparta in glowing, glorified terms. Children are trained in combat “from the time they could stand,” and the movie depicts their fathers striking them with closed fists during intense bouts of training. No one seems reluctant to endure this suffering; ALL maddeningly embrace it. Boys are sent out into the wilderness in rags, armed with a spear, braving the ice and snow bear-chested and without so much as a shoe on their feet. I suppose to wear warm clothing would be a sign of shame, culturally-imposed by the glorious warrior culture.

Of course, the subtext behind this whole movie is that all this harsh living is necessary for the survival of the state against foreign invaders. Those who would demur in the face of such a threat would surely be called cowards, whether their motivation was cowardice or not. As the movie unfolds, it becomes immediately obvious that there is no room for tenderness, no longing for a life of peace, no enjoyment of one’s existence. There is only self-sacrifice, of boys and men, who must constantly prepare to pay the ultimate price in order to defend this culture of self-annihilation. But in the movie “300,” the headlong rush toward violent conflict is not depicted as a necessary evil, or even an evil at all. Death is depicted as glorious, so much so that the truly brave lust for death. This is not a movie that promotes bravery, but rather bravado. The value of each Spartan soldier is measured in terms of his lust for danger and death, for his willingness to pay for the country’s “freedom” through willing self-sacrifice. This is how men are portrayed: valuable if they hope for, run toward, and drink deeply of death.

The wife of the brave Spartan king is portrayed much differently. While he is off fighting a desperate struggle, she remains behind. Her burden is the sorrow she feels that her husband is away. Her parting words to him – as he departed from her for a hopeless battle – were, “Come back with your shield, or with your head on it.” Moviegoers are intended to respond to this display with stupefied admiration.

Our warrior hero is Sparta’s King Leonidas, now on the battlefield in a desperate struggle against overwhelming odds. His wife is Queen Gorgo. Left behind, Queen Gorgo is left with the task of summoning the country’s political leaders to send the full army to reinforce her husband’s tiny force of 300. The leader of this council is named Theron, a corrupt politician. He intimidates her with veiled threats to kill her son, then comes at night with a promise to lend her political support if she will submit to being raped by him. He tries to shame her by pointing out that her husband is defying Spartan law by deploying troops without authorization. He tries to shame her by comparing her comparatively comfortable existence with the gore her husband is swimming in. Taunting her, he asks her, “What do YOU have to offer?” She drops her clothes in response, turns around, and as he begins the rape, he tells her the encounter will “not be short, and it will not be pleasant.”

The next time we see Queen Gorgo and Theron together is in the presence of Sparta’s council. She makes a plea for the deployment of troops to assist her husband, a speech laced with platitudes about bravery and freedom. Theron, convinced that he “owns” the council (“I created it with my bare hands”), unexpectedly denounces the plan to save Queen Gorgo’s husband. In a spiteful tirade, he belittles and mocks her. Some in the council speak against him (“how dare you” insult the Queen), but he shames them into silence by pointing out their own corruption in the acceptance of bribes. Even the queen’s defenders lack moral value. As Theron’s tirade against the queen reaches a crescendo, he insults her honor by calling her a whore. The queen turns away, defeated, insulted, her honor in disarray. Suddenly she turns the tables and stabs Theron with a sword, the picture of female empowerment – saving her own hide despite the good intentions of her would-be saviors, the corrupt male politicians who were too impotent to defend her. As I watched this scene come to this climax, women sitting throughout the theater erupted into spontaneous applause. The queen’s honor had been avenged, and by the only one competent enough to avenge it: the queen.

Back on the battlefield, a disfigured and weak Spartan (who was rejected by King Leonidas as unfit for battle) lends his support to the Persian enemy in a display of revenge. The Persians take tactical advantage, and soon the 300 brave Spartan warriors are surrounded, then annihilated – including King Leonidas. The parting shot of our hero is of a man beaten, but brave – pinned to the ground with scores of arrows dug into his flesh. He dies in agony, but he dies bravely – a martyr – the epitome of what all Spartan men should aspire to become. A volley of thousands more arrows are launched at his twisted body as the camera fades out.

The lesson to be learned from this movie is subtle. Men are portrayed as valuable and noble not when they lust for life, but when they lust for death. The most honorable men are indeed the ones who die. Contrast this with the portrayal of Queen Gorgo. Her worth was her dignity, not her compulsion with self-sacrifice. Her worth was shown in her desire to live – despite the specter of rape, child molestation, and public humiliation. Her worth was shown in her empowerment to exact revenge against her male oppressor, despite having no one capable enough to risk themselves to save her. Her departing camera shot has standing in a majestic field, gazing off into the distance as her young son runs to her side. She is the mother, the nurturer, and the intact survivor. She has braved this battle, and despite her pain has prevailed. Not only this, but she has saved all of Sparta by convincing the male politicians that they are well-served in deciding to defend themselves.

The final shot of the movie is of a sea of tens of thousands of Spartan warriors, yelling battle cries in willing anticipation of the coming military threat. King Leonidas’ death, along with the deaths of the 300, had been the catalyst to convince the warrior culture to defend itself. This was, however, only possible when his wife made a speech.

If you can’t see the cheapening of human life in this movie – especially that of boys and men – and the glorification of males only in their embrace of self-demise, you are truly a part of the misandry generation.

Glenn Beck’s Muslim Distraction

By
Doug Powers
-

Before writing about Glenn Beck’s hiring as a commentator for ABC’s Good Morning America, which now has certain Arab groups engaged in active protest, I should offer a disclaimer. I have done some writing in the past couple of years for Beck (specifically for Fusion), spoken to him in person, and appeared on his syndicated radio show.

Beck is one of the nicest, most congenial personalities I’ve ever met. Some say that he’s evil. I didn’t see it. Glenn must have left his devil horns and red pitchfork at home that morning.

If that disclaimer doesn’t say unbiased, nothing does. I have not, however, been paid, nor encouraged to write, this commentary ” and you’ll see why soon enough.

At any rate, Beck’s nightly television show on CNN Headline News, which is approaching a year on the air, is a breath of fresh air in the evening. I’ve visited with some of the writing and production crew for the show and nowhere will you find a more talented staff of folks, and that all comes through on the air.

The television show is different “ in a good way. When I first saw Beck’s TV show, it reminded me of a trippy composite of Meet the Press, The Late Show with David Letterman, Saturday Night Live, and Firing Line. It’s nice to watch a news-oriented program that doesn’t consist of a couple of people yelling at each other. The light-hearted approach to the news is why the show became the fastest growing cable news program.

Inevitably, whenever you find a star on the rise, you’ll find somebody trying to shoot it down. Beck has devoted many of his programs to highlighting the dangers posed by radical Islam, and this has, for some reason, angered people who would define themselves as non-radical Islam.

I have to admit, when I heard that Glenn was getting more and more into highlighting the dangers posed by radical Islam, I said uh oh. My concern, oddly enough, had little to do with what was being discussed and more to do with Beck as an entertainer, which is, after all, why so many are catching on to his programs.

During a November interview, Beck asked Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, to prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.

Beck said the question/statement was poorly worded, but Arab activists are now, of course, lobbying ABC to let Beck go as a commentator.

After this story began to spread, Beck said this:

My message is clear: Islam is a peaceful religion for over 90 percent of the world’s Muslims, he said. I have urged viewers repeatedly to understand this, while asking all of the proud, peaceful Muslims here in America to take a more visible role in our fight against those who make a mockery of the Quran. I also make airtime available, at any time, to any Muslim organization to help reinforce this realistic, peaceful view of Islam.

I’ll bet my last dollar that Glenn Beck, not to mention others, regularly receive ironic death threats from self-proclaimed peace-lovers. After all, there’s a reason that gaining entrance to the Time-Warner building or Radio City is about as easy as getting into the White House.

Glenn and his staff have produced some fantastic exposes about the threat posed by radical Islam. Ratings for Glenn Beck on CNN Headline News have doubled since the program’s premiere. My only fear is that all this will be a distraction and cause Beck to lose focus on why so many of us becamefans years back. In other words, this is all dangerously close getting a little too serious for my taste.

True, rising stars cast angry shadows while at the same time offering big bright targets. The key is to keep moving upward. If Beck spends too much time engaging his detractors and parsing comments, the comedic focus of his programs will give way to caddy pissing matches and “no, this is what I really meant to say” monologues.

There will be all sorts of groups constantly lobbying against Beck. This happens even more when part of your game is humor. Every joke has a butt, and nobody wants to be an ass. This, however, is the nature of the beast. What to do? Ignore them, move on, and keep being funny.

It’s the fun, light-hearted and comical approach to the news that makes Beck’s shows fun to watch. This is his element. I hope Beck can make his points concerning radical Islam, perhaps even using one of the more effective daggers in history ” humor “ and subsequently move on and leave those necessary serious chores to somebody less equipped to entertain.

Coveted Maples Endorsement Puts Hillary Clinton in the Driver’s Seat

By
Doug Powers
-

Marla Maples, former wife of Donald Trump, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

Maples made the endorsement in an email sent to friends. The letter concluded with a quote from Winston Churchill:

“You make a living by what you get, but you make a life by what you give.”

Not the least of those things you make a good life by giving is fellatio to really rich guys.

Cultural Momentum

By
Thomas Brewton
-

Will enough traditions and customs of civility and decency survive long enough to keep the United States from internal disintegration and conquest by Islamic Jihad?

Liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., often referred to his father’s theory that political standards follow a thirty-year cycle, first conservative, then liberal, and back to conservative, and so on. There is some truth to that observation, but the problem is that meanwhile the underlying social standards trend downward as a nation becomes more prosperous and life becomes easier. People vaunt their own intellects and come to believe that they no longer need God, that they are sufficient unto themselves for all matters.

After the United States emerged from the fiery furnace of the Civil War, on the road to becoming the most powerful economy in the world, liberal secularists in the 1880s believed that, having shed religion, they were directing us along the path of progress toward social perfection.

Secularists will contend that ridding ourselves of religion has freed us from ignorance and enabled us to make the world according to our own designs. This, of course, is essentially the religious promise of the many varieties of socialist collectivism.

Undeniably we have experienced great changes in social relations since then, the Civil Rights revolution being among the good outcomes (ironically a result of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, Bible-based preaching, not secular liberalism). But no one can demonstrate that American society is more civil and decent today than it was in 1929. Nor can anyone argue effectively that the nation is more united now than then.

In the first 330 years of our colonial and national experience, most political leaders and ordinary citizens were intimately familiar with the Bible, as literature and as the source of social standards. Viewing the disintegration of social custom and standards of morality in this country since the late 1960s, they would have feared for our nation’s future. They would have seen the catalog of today’s amorality and immorality (such as sexual promiscuity, marital infidelity, illegitimacy, drug abuse, and abortion) in light of God’s chastising the Jews with the Babylonian captivity for breaking His covenant with Moses by worshiping wealth, power, and man-made gods.

Humans are potentially both the worst and the best of God’s creatures. The keel that keeps the human race from capsizing and sinking altogether is the human soul, the portal to understanding God’s Will. In the Jews’ case, abandoning God led to the destruction of Jerusalem and 70 years of captivity in exile. The fearful question is what’s in store for us?

In that vein, Kartik Ariyur recently emailed the following to me:

Thank you for the posting on the libraries–having never used a public library in the United States, I didn’t realize the magnitude of this problem. Some individuals appear to want to recreate the social habits of ancient Greece, Rome, and Persia–a sure road to ruin.

I have to admit it is difficult to work with individuals who grow up in non-religious families without the inculcation of devotion to God. You never know what they will do next.

While individuals acquire certain habits through the religiosity of their ancestors, and keep society functioning for a while, circumstances soon change, and the new habits the non-religious form are guided by the instincts of self preservation and procreation–an abrupt loss of civilization.

Thus, morality does not appear to survive religion by more than a couple of generations, and with the present pace of change, it won’t survive even one.

But there is another force acting on individuals–as they fail to find in sense pleasures the joy they expected to find, after surfeiting themselves with them; and instead find themselves suffering (Shakspeare–Sonnet 129–The expense of spirit in a waste of shame.all this the world knows well, But none knows well enough To avoid this heaven that leads men to hell).

This is what gets, in my experience many atheists into religion later in their lives. And we may well be on a threshold of another religious transformation of society.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

https://thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

Where is Our Soros?

By
Erik Rush
-

Are you familiar with the Channel Channel? Depending on the type of television service you have it varies, with the digital variety being the most state-of-the-art. It’s the channel that shows the schedule of television shows being offered on the other channels to which you subscribe (and to quite a few you probably don’t, or wouldn’t with a gun to your head).

Anyway, I came inside after shoveling lots of snow recently (contrary to what some of the troglodytes who flame me think, I don’t have people for that) and the Channel Channel was on. Now, on a lot of systems the Channel functions as follows: Only the bottom half (or three-fifths) of the screen is occupied by (scrolling or viewer-scrollable) programming. The top half (or two-fifths) is reserved for distracting advertisements, short pop-culture features and celebrity news. Very highbrow.

Methane Man was a minute or so clip of a guy dressed as a superhero (tights, mask and so forth) who performed “ in front of an audience and cameras “ various stunts using his own flatulence.

On the Channel Channel. In the middle of the day. For my kids to see. As if the periodic mini-deprogramming sessions in which my wife and I have to engage as a result of our children attending public school isn’t enough of a pain in the rear.

Exposure to the intellectual, spiritual, and moral decay in America has officially become inescapable. Of course I’ve installed filtering software on the computer my children use, because even safe websites generally have advertising or other links that eventually lead to decidedly unsavory material.

With regard to Methane Man, all I could think of was the proverbial ET mother-ship hovering miles above Earth. As the occupants, monitoring our airwaves view this, their commander gives the order: They’re funky. Destroy them.

The American Family Association, an organization that’s been monitoring media since the 1970s, recently shared a review of Bill O’Reilly’s new book, Culture Warrior with its members. In particular, they addressed comments concerning the machinations of billionaire banker George Soros and Peter Lewis, the Chairman of Progressive Insurance:

For traditional-minded Americans, George Soros is public enemy number one, the AFA newsletter read, quoting O’Reilly’s book. It went on to inform its members what some Americans already know relative to Soros’ and Lewis’ activities. Peter Lewis owns $1,176,130,144 worth of Progressive stock. That is over one billion dollars worth of Progressive stock! Some of you will remember Lewis donated $8.5 million to the ACLU about a year ago.

What puzzles me to no end is that the people who are transforming America into the Disunited States of Pigdom are a tiny minority. Despite Republican and Democrat base voters and Independents sliding elections results between 60%-40% depending on the way political winds blow, the majority of Americans do not want an ultra-socialist nation that is soft on crime, accepting of all forms of individual self-destructiveness, deviance and debauchery, tolerant of early childhood sexualization, unfettered abortion, pedophiles, and which projects weakness abroad.

The search engine Yahoo!‘s Top Ten searches for December 29, 2006 were as follows:

1. Britney Spears (Pop singer with rapidly disintegrating morals)

2. Angelina Jolie (Actress, media hound and avowed bisexual)

3. Lindsay Lohan (Actress, singer, teen icon)

4. Beyonce Knowles (Pop singer, generic sex kitten)

5. WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment)

6. LimeWire (Music file sharing service)

7. Paris Hilton (Heiress and exhibitionist slut)

8. James Brown (Recently-deceased legendary Soul singer)

9. Pamela Anderson (Actress and exhibitionist slut)

10. iTunes (Music file sharing service)

All but three of these are, in my view, pretty scary results. James Brown is understandable because of his professional longevity, groundbreaking work and the fact that he recently passed away. LimeWire and iTunes are less threatening than the remaining seven, but still indicative of another example of social malaise: Our proclivity toward electronic isolation.

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 88% of individuals 18-29 are online, 84% of those 30-49, and 71% of those 50-64. Only 53% of those making less than $30,000 per year are online; this curves up to 91% of those making $75,000 or more per year. Only 40% of those who didn’t finish high school are online, as opposed to 84% who responded Some College and 91% who finished college.

So it’s hard to credibly offer that the majority of people using search engines are simply morons, young and ignorant or far-Lefters. Yet, the values and interests promoted by the far Left political-entertainment complex seem to be permeating our collective consciousness quite effectively.

It’s a matter of public record that between media and political interests, billions are being spent by the far Left in the name of social activism to promote a valueless, morally suicidal culture.

So where’s our Soros?

The AFA is out there, and the more well-known (and well-excoriated) Focus on the Family, and scores of Christian organizations who decry what’s going on. Mustn’t there be at least one frustrated, morally-grounded billionaire in America willing to put his or her money where their mouth is?

I’ve made no secret of the fact that given Soros’ cash, my solution to fellows like him and Lewis might land me in the penitentiary. I say might because there are obvious and proven advantages to having that level of financial clout which might serve to neutralize the likelihood of incarceration.

Still, high-powered rifles aren’t being used by the Left’s billionaire benefactors in their attempts to completely disenfranchise most Americans, particularly the religious. So it stands to reason that the resources of an anti-Soros, similarly applied, could be employed with even more impact given that the majority of Americans are on the same page anyway.

Why hasn’t it happened?

I have a theory: Fear “ like so much of what of what motivates humanity. Let me offer an example: Believe it or not, I frequently work in the area of print and broadcast media advertising. It’s on the production end, thank God, but there’s a phenomenon I’ve noticed that is both disturbing and indicative of how successful the Left’s propaganda machine has been.

Many business-people who buy or place advertising media, whether conservative or apolitical, are loath to do so in venues they perceive might be considered too conservative. The same people conversely have no qualms whatever with regard to placing media in mainstream venues that are blatantly progressive-left. They hold the perception that everyone patronizes these outlets since they’re so plentiful and hold preeminence in the market. This is fallacious if one looks at statistics addressing newspaper sales, radio listener-ship and network television ratings.

Newspaper circulation is down nationwide, as are major television network shares. Yet the two top radio markets are country music and talk radio, both of which have a majority conservative audience. Still, intimidated advertisers pussyfoot around the issue of reflecting majority values for fear some Greens, gay activists or the ACLU will descend upon them and take a flamethrower to their business.

So-called experts (politicians, academics and diplomats) like to present social issues as complicated so that Americans will continue to defer to their wisdom. The fact is that this one is very easily explained:

1. Those on our side with the resources lack the stones to act as delicately as men like Soros and Lewis.

2. We’ve been so inundated with (minority) far Left propaganda that we’re actually beginning to buy it “ hence the 2006 midterm election results, among many other things.

Individuals are afraid to express their opinions in the public arena, in the workplace, amongst friends, or via their buying habits; they’re fearful that some deluded, self-righteous, adrenalized far Left cobra might spray venom in their face.

Well, to hell with that, I say. If I’m to be a voice in the wilderness, I’m going to be an earsplitting, goblet-shattering, seizure-inducing one. Perhaps between me, my colleagues and organizations like Focus and the AFA, we’ll eventually accomplish the same thing.

Who knows? Maybe we’ll even inspire that anti-Soros out there.

Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations

By
David R. Usher
-

If United States Ambassador John Bolton fails to act, world feminists will seize vast powers to destroy families internationally while committing tremendous human rights violations against men, women, and children in every country of the world.

The Secretary-General’s study on domestic violence against women [DAW], developed under the corrupt leadership of Kofi Annan, is a much greater threat to America than the rejected Kyoto Protocol ever was. It calls for the establishment of a new feminist world order, possessing unilateral powers to mindlessly destroy marriage and steal family and business assets by teaching women how to holler abuse.

Everyone agrees that domestic violence is a problem. Feminists dishonestly pretend it is entirely problem of unruly men, buttressed by unreliable myopic surveys of women. The purpose of this feminist approach is to achieve the primary goal of radical feminism: to destroy marriage, seize children and family wealth, and establish the liberated single-mother family. Unfounded allegations of abuse are the political and legal vector already used in many western countries to achieve this end.

The senseless destruction of marriage, homes, families, and the lives of children in western cultures has deeply violated the human rights of everyone. It has transformed many good cities into third-world urban disasters suffering from rampant illegitimacy, prostitution, crime, child sexual predation, and poverty. Radicals at the United Nations wish to force their new world order on the rest of the world.

The truth is this: women are as likely, or even more likely than men to engage in, and initiate, domestic violence. According to a 32-nation by Murray Straus, female-only partner aggression is twice as prevalent as male-only partner abuse.

Many credible individuals now recognize this fact. They acknowledge the truth, and in many cases advocating strongly against the looming radical takeover of the United Nations. You can count on leaders and knowledgeable professionals (not driven by entitlements or political power) such as President Bush, Phyllis Schlafly, Dr. Gerald Koocher (President of the APA), Dr. Murray Straus, Dr. Don Dutton, Wendy McElroy, Dr. Felicity Goodyear-Smith, and Lee Newman [SAFE International] to speak the truth.

Even a child could see through the rumor-mill-fed machinations of feminists. Here are a few examples:

  • The 113-page United Nations Report admits it is based on a lack [of] systematic and reliable data on violence against women. There is no evidence in the report that any information was collected about women’s violence against men. Without any supportive factual foundation, the U.N. Report claims that Violence against women persists in every country in the world as a pervasive violation of human rights and a major impediment to achieving gender equality.
  • The U.N. Commission on Human Rights framework for model legislation on domestic violence is a carte-blanche vehicle empowering feminists to violate science and human rights in every country of the world. It defines domestic violence solely as gender-specific violence directed against women, and admonishes states to adopt the broadest possible definitions of acts of domestic violence. It states, There shall be no restrictions on women bringing suits against spouses or live-in partners. The victim must be advised of her rights as outlined below. The responding officer must arrange for the removal of the offender from the home and, if that is not possible and if the victim is in continuing danger, arrest the offender. It permits immediate seizure of assets, and criminal conviction on the sole basis uncorroborated testimony by the alleged victim.
  • The World Bank estimates that sexual and domestic violence accounts for 19 per cent of the disease burden among women aged 15-44 in industrialized countries. Do banks scientifically study domestic violence?
  • A UNPF report alleges that two-thirds of married women in India were victims of domestic violence, and then contradicts itself by claiming that 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of 15 and 49 are victims of beating, rape or coerced sex. This report also asserts that the rate of domestic violence is much higher in Egypt with 94 per cent and Zambia with 91 per cent.

Where do these dangerous claims come from? Non-Governmental Womens organizations around the world generate volumes of narcissistic surveys about violence. These are fed to feminists in the United Nations, whose re-sytheses are recited round-robin by NGO’s, creating vast illusions for predatory political use.

Here are a few examples how the revolving feminist rumor mill works:

  • Based solely on self-generated surveys of women, feminist activists in India claim that 70% of women are abused, despite the fact that no credible scientific studies have ever been undertaken to support the claim.
  • The Feminist Majority cites World Health Organization (WHO) surveys of women, saying that More than 25 percent of women said they had experienced moderate to severe domestic violence in the last year. At six of the 15 sites, over 50 percent of women had experienced a moderate to severe level of domestic violence. The study found that rural Ethiopia had the highest rate of domestic violence, with 71 percent of women experiencing violence in the home.

United Nations should be involved in ending domestic violence. The approach must be realistic and scientifically appropriate on a country-by-country basis. Clearly, the ideological feminist approach will harm many women, men, and families, and be dangerous to the world. The United States must not submit to foreign controls that lump it in the same category as Sudan.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Ambassador Bolton should testify against acceptance of the Secretary General’s Report, and state why it is unacceptable. President Bush should send a message that the United States will not support the United Nations at the present level of $5.3 billion annually, should it pursue a course of action that will clearly violate human rights in most egalitarian countries of the world. You can send a message to Ambassador Bolton in just 60 seconds via RADAR.

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Healey’s miscalculations doom conservative hopes

By
Mark Charalambous
-

It’s not just social conservatives who have been left out in the lurch in this gubernatorial election. Fathers Rights advocates have already accepted the inevitability of a hostile administration come November.

In the last election, we actually had a choice: Cast a protest vote for the indefatigable and outspoken independent candidate Barbara Johnson, an unrelenting advocate for Fathers Rights who practiced what she preached in the courtroom. Or, if we didn’t want to ˜waste’ our vote, we could opt for the safer of the two major party candidates, Mitt Romney. Being not a Democrat, he was perceived as least likely to adopt policies further exacerbating the already intolerant plight of men who insist on maintaining their parental rights following divorce.

In hindsight, most would agree that Mitt Romney could not have been elected Governor in Massachusetts without reversing his position on abortion. This is simply the realpolitik in our state. Even so, it took Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien’s critical miscalculation of the limits to which extreme feminist principles are actually shared by the average voter to ensure his victory. Recall, in a televised debate days before the election, O’Brien took the position that minors should be allowed to have abortions without their parents’ consent.

During his administration the Governor refused our efforts to engage him on the devastation to men and their children by the state’s anti-father policies on child custody, child support, and the issue that is particularly germane to the present election: domestic violence”more specifically, the state’s notorious abuse prevention law, 209A.

Whereas the best we got from Romney was a holding pattern, his second-in-command, Kerry Healey, made 209A and domestic violence one of her signature issues.

Candidate Healey’s strategy appears to be to adopt feminist positions on social issues (with the exception of gay marriage, though she supports civil unions) to try to drain some of the women’s vote from its traditional position in the base of the Democratic Party. Socially progressive Healey champions abortion on demand”excuse me, choice”and goes further by adopting radical positions on domestic violence exemplified by her crusade for ankle bracelets for 209A defendants.

But in her attempt to appeal to the women’s vote, she will lose a big chunk of the men’s vote”particularly those who have suffered the loss of their children because of the injustices institutionalized in our family courts. Her tough talk on restraining orders and gender crimes and her position on abortion will do for Massachusetts what the Mark Foley scandal threatens to do nationally: drive Republicans away from the polls. Only the most naïve advocates in the Fathers Rights community fail to recognize that 209A and the abuse prevention/domestic violence regime are key components of the ˜perfect beast’ carefully constructed over the past several decades that manufactures ˜deadbeat dads.’

Kerry Healey is right on one thing: 209A should be an important campaign issue. She’s just completely wrong on what needs to be done about it. For every flagrant injustice whereby a violent man escapes punishment through legal loopholes, there are a hundred innocent men who suffer from the blank-check provisions of a law that treats every man accused of a gender crime as guilty until proven innocent. The majority of 209A abuse protection orders are taken out by women who are in no fear of danger, but rather use the ˜protection’ order to gain power and control of the alleged ˜abuser,’ especially in divorce and child custody litigation. These bogus restraining orders are the direct cause of real violence and mayhem, as we are frequently reminded in the news.

Those who have been personally affected by this know to beware of politicians like Healey who claim ˜expertise’ in domestic violence. What that invariably means is that the ˜expert’ has been indoctrinated in the victim-feminist paradigm, which is, unfortunately, the only viewpoint presented in social science and criminal justice curricula.

At the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Violence Against Women Act last year, experts who advocated for eliminating the gender bias in the law and sought to inform the committee on facts contradicting the standard model were simply prevented from giving testimony. Only the shills from the domestic violence industry who have zero objectivity and present a completely one-sided and false picture were invited to testify. Senator Joseph Biden, who prides himself on his role in the creation of VAWA, would not allow the committee to hear one word from one person who might challenge the party line.

Some professional criminologists have gone on record criticizing Healey’s professed expertise in criminal justice. According to a recent Boston Globe article*, members of the American Society of Criminology have formed a group, Massachusetts Criminologists for Justice, expressly to raise concerns about Healey.

James Alan Fox, the Northeastern University criminal justice professor who started the group, said that they are offended by Healey’s claim to being a career criminologist, and then using that authority to advance a campaign that is so out of line with justice credentials.

If the Republican Party is serious about making some headway in Massachusetts, they should consider giving social conservatives a reason to vote. Pandering to the liberal left on feminist issues guarantees Democratic hegemony on Beacon Hill for years to come. Remember, Margaret Marshall and most of our liberal judges were Republican appointees. With a Deval Patrick administration, is it possible that we may some day look back on this as the good old days?

* Criminologists group takes on Healey Assails her ads, political agenda, Boston Globe, Oct. 19

TV Ad: Get Her What She Wants for Christmas or You’ll End up in ER

By
Glenn Sacks
-

From Shawn, a reader who works in a hospital:

“I guess this commercial is supposed to be funny somehow–these men are in the Emergency Room with horrible injuries because they bought their wives the wrong gift for Christmas.”

The UK commercial is from 2005. The company’s press release describing it–”LX Direct knows what women want”–is below.

To watch, click here

Press Release: LX Direct knows what women want
Release Date: 20 December 2005
Home shopping retailer launches innovative Christmas viral campaign

Home shopping retailer LX Direct, launched a Christmas e-mail campaign with a difference this week, surveying 5,000 of their customers to uncover ‘What Women Won’t Want For Christmas’ this year. Designed to be a guide for the hapless blokes of Britain – the campaign was the gift guide equivalent of ‘What Not To Wear’.

The viral email campaign centred on a short film featuring a group of sorry looking men in a hospital casualty department at Christmas who had all evidently bought inappropriate gifts for their partners and were now nursing slapstick minor injuries. (more.)

Fathers & Families: Advocacy for the Child-Father Bond
Fathers & Families is a non-profit organization advocating for the right of every child to have two parents. Fathers are an essential part of a child’s life–divorce or separation should not change this. www.FathersandFamilies.org

Mexico Election Recount Begins Amid Dispute Over Who Won California

By
Doug Powers
-

Mexico is getting a little taste of U.S. 2000 this week.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Election workers across the country began a marathon review of vote tallies Wednesday to determine whether conservative candidate Felipe Calderon really won Mexico’s tight presidential race, while his leftist challenger insisted he was the victor and denounced what he called widespread irregularities.As the recount began, the Conservative Party accused the Leftists of trying to trash the election, reports CBS News’ Adrienne Bard. The Left is implying the vote count was rigged in some way.Ibelieve in Mexicothey don’t call it a “recount,” but rather “stoppage time.”

Here’s another item that may sound familiar to U.S. voters:

Lopez Obrador aide Claudia Sheinbaum said Wednesday that the party found “very grave inconsistencies” in at least 50,000 polling places, including 18,646 in which votes cast outnumbered registered voters. Federal electoral officials had not had a chance to respond.

Americans are increasingly worried about illegals coming to the United States and turning the place into Mexico, but it sounds like the reverse is happening, at least as far as elections go. The Mexicans seem to have the American voting system down pat, so at least that’s one thing they won’t need to learn once they get here.

Now it’s down to which candidate, Felipe Calderon, or Lopez Obrador, won California.

“Every time I think I’m out, they keep pulling me back in!”

Late addendum: Welcome Farkers! There’s a discussion thread on this post at one of my favorite site’s for gathering stories, Fark.com. Thanks to whoever got it green-lit for posting. And yes, that is in fact a weak MS Paint job of a mustache. Trying tocreate a hispanic version of a Broward County recounterwith no computer editing skillswas truly a bitch.

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Framing as Strawman Politics

By
John Bambenek
-

Has George Lakoff ever met a conservative? Read any conservative books? Actually sat down and talked over conservationism with someone who actually holds it? From his latest co-written article “Bush is not Incompetent” it appears the answer is no. Lakoff’s latest “research” shows that refraining from a discussion isn’t about getting your points out, it’s about changing the facts and definitions so you can demonize opponents who may have perfectly valid points of view. It’s the politics of tyranny, not democracy.

Consider how Lakoff defines the three fundamental tenets of conservativism: individual initiative, the President is the moral authority, and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity. Focusing exclusively on the second tenet for a moment, where does this come from?

Certainly not any conservative books, politicians, or for that matter, any conservative church has ever or would ever say the President of the United States is the moral authority for the nation. If this were so, Bill Clinton would be doing crusades instead of Billy Graham. Or George H.W Bush. Or Jimmy Carter. No one is suggesting we supplant the Pope with George W. Bush. Not even dominionists believe this, and that’s easy to verify because you can fit every real dominionist in this country in a phone book (despite hysterical claims that there are hundreds of millions of them about the wreak death and destruction on pagans, cross-dressers, and mixed-fabric clothing).

I challenge Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute to back up their “research” to prove that conservatives believe the President should be the moral authority. I have a veritable library of conservative books and articles in my office, and no where has this ever been suggested to my knowledge.

Moving to the third tenet, that free markets are enough to foster freedom, not only do conservatives not believe this, if they did believe it they’d be anarchists. When talking about the right to own property, absolutely, the free market is the answer. However, there are some areas that the free market is not sufficient and conservatives recognize that. If the free market where enough, there would be no need for government. Laissez-faire conservatives are by and large a thing of the past, or for that matter, they’re called “libertarians” and even they would argue that government should enforce contracts.

Lakoff can say conservatives disregard stewardship of the commons all he likes, it still isn’t true. If this were true, conservatives would be calling for disbanding (or at least privatizing) police departments, fire departments, and the like. Government should be the last resort when dealing with how to manage an asset, that doesn’t mean it’s completely off the table.

Lakoff further contents “where profits cannot be made “ conservation, healthcare for the poor “ charity is meant to replace justice”. The horror at having a society that of its own initiative provides for those least fortunate and most in need! That’s virtually putting the poor in boxcars to be gassed.

In regards to Katrina, one can argue that Bush (who is a moderate, not a conservative) failed to handle the situation appropriately. To blame conservationism for the failure is highly incongruous with the facts. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (D) and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco (D) would be astounded to know that they are conservatives and they certainly share some blame in the fiasco. As far as planning in how to deal with hurricanes in New Orleans, it was entirely the effort of local officials, not federal ones. Lakoff engages in a radical rewriting of history in addition to his rewriting of conservative philosophy to construct a nice little strawman.

Lakoff demonstrates clearly the problem with framing, PR consultants, and politics in general. Instead of viewing the opposition as someone who may have reasonable disagreements with you, one portrays their opponents as demons, as evil incarnate that must be destroyed. Political discussion is impossible. Compromise is impossible. All that is left is the mud-wrestling that has become the norm on talk shows and blogs. No one wants to compromise or work with incarnate evil.

This is the beginning of the demise for democracy. As much as the left likes to claim that dissent is patriotic, with articles like this it is clear that dissent isn’t what they want. Two sides arguing and presenting their ideas is one thing. One side insisting that an entire class of people, any iteration of ideology that disagrees with their own, is a demon to be destroyed isn’t a free society. It’s the politics of division. It’s the founding blocks of tyranny.

It’s time to lose the PR consultants, the focus group spin, and popular demonology of politics to realize that our political opponents may disagree with us, but generally they are sincere and honest people. Let’s let the ideas do the talking and do battle and lose the politics of personal destruction that both sides use to devastating effects to democracy, to unity, and to freedom.

John Bambenek is an academic professional at the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini. He blogs at Part-Time Pundit

Senator Barack Obama Should Shut Up About His Faith

By
Anonymous
-

Democrats examined the entrails of the 2004 presidential election and came to the conclusion that they need to mention Jesus more often to siphon some of the religious voters from the Republican Party.

To inject Jesus or any other deity in partisan politics is a wretched and divisive act. For a politician to cover himself with a mantle of religiosity is as unseemly as a prostitute sporting a “virginity pledge” pin.

Some Democrats who don’t know a Bible from a paper weight, all of a sudden are citing chapter and verse like a Pentecostal preacher on crack.

Sure you can find Bible verses that support liberal ideas like helping the poor, feeding the hungry and freeing the oppressed, but you can also find verses supporting every political ideology and philosophy including genocide and slavery.

Democrats should stop searching the Bible for “sound bite verses”, and pick up a copy of the Constitution and reacquaint themselves with the important doctrine of separation of church and state.

Democratic Senator Barack Obama recently delivered a speech to religious progressives that was very well received by the press and most Democrats.

The senator from Illinois criticized liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as “inherently irrational or intolerant.”

Obama is dead wrong, it’s religion in the public square that leads to irrational acts and intolerance of gays and anybody else who is perceived as not towing the fundamentalist line.

Obama was praised for speaking honestly and eloquently about his faith. I condemn Obama for injecting religion in the political sphere. For a politician to talk about his faith in public is as out of place as talking about his sex life.

We live in a pluralistic society, we need politicians to make more references to the Constitution and less references to the Bible.

1...899091...94Page 90 of 94

Popular Categories

© 2020 NewsCream Media, All Rights Reserved.