|
 |
|
|
| | | | January 7, 2010 | During my annual Advent pilgrimage to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., I encountered a glaring example of how marginalized boys have become in our schools.
I always enjoy a particular display, sponsored by the Holy Childhood Association (HCA), which hosts a national competition of drawings related to Christmas. Every year since 1928, the HCA has chosen twenty-four winners from children in first through eighth grade, and these images are made into Christmas cards that all may purchase.
It is natural to admire the creativity and undisputed talent of all the winners. First grader Clara Belle drew angel wings in the shape of hearts. Fifth grader Catherine had Mary and Joseph literally jumping in the air with joy on either side of baby Jesus.
But amidst my delight in these adorable drawings, I observed a startling situation when I noticed the names of the winners: Jasmine, Stephanie, Samantha, Anna, Theresa, Carolina, Mirisa, Clara Belle, Angelica, Teresa, Annah, Fanny, Zharmaine, Sydney, Krista, Lucy, Catherine, Ulyen, Cindy, Haley Rose, Kristen, Katie, Berothy, Christina.
I contacted the HCA, and they confirmed what I suspected: out of over ten thousand applicants, every one of the twenty-four winners is a girl.
If the situation was reversed, and not one girl was among the two dozen winners, the feminists would shriek about bias toward women. It has been documented that, on average, boys use bolder colors as opposed to the softer pastels used by girls. In addition, the majority of boys have motion in their drawings, opposite to the quieter subject matter in the art of most little girls. But to claim prejudice is a superficial answer.
It is almost without doubt that the HCA judges are simply looking for the best drawings and do not have an inherent bias against the art created by boys. Rather, there are circumstances which are causing young boys to not apply themselves creatively in art just as they are not applying themselves academically.
A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “The Lost Boys” provided some statistics that demonstrate just how astray young men have become. Women now earn 58 percent of four-year college degrees and 62 percent of two-year ones. The gender gap of college freshman has females scoring ten points above the males. Girls have much higher grade point averages than boys, and both the girls’ college essays and extracurricular actives far surpass the males.
For the past two decades, boys have had a decreasing interest in academics, and now this lack of initiative is applied to art. Now increasingly more individuals, from parents to teachers to psychologists, are catching on to just how prevalent the disease of apathy has struck young men when it comes to their education.
Men are motivated by competition, and the present education system of coddling and unbridled compassion has dimmed the innate male proclivity to compete. When males feel that fair competition doesn’t exist, they will not make an effort.
The feminists have insisted upon the alteration of merit-based systems in favor of quota-based systems. By setting quotas, quality is automatically removed in favor of quantity. Socially-engineered equilibriums dishearten those who aspire to compete based on talent. Sadly, the HCA competition, which is a reflection of what is occurring across the country, reveals how much boys have become disheartened.
We are seeing a society which endemically lacks male contribution, which historically has been a driving force for America’s growth and superiority. Boys have become the second sex, and they have no advocates. If modern feminism were truly about equality for both genders, they would be fighting for fairness for men as much as they once did for women.
|
| |
| |
| | | | November 9, 2009 | More so than any other time in our history, Americans are beginning to believe there are no solutions to the many crises that we are experiencing. Even on a local level, which is often cushioned from the national difficulties of excess spending, a drastically increasing deficit and a larger percentage of our debt being own by foreign government, people are discouraged and disarrayed as how best to solve threats to our prosperity and way of life.
In one of her most recent opinion editorials from The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan offers a concise reason why so many of us are feeling disheartened: “…a large part is that our federal government, from the White House through Congress, and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths—spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy, locally and nationally.” Instinctively, Americans know that those schemes won’t work, as it is precisely those fallacies that led the path to our current chaos.
The list of industries which have failed is alarming: textiles, automobile, production, agricultural, energy, healthcare, banking, education. This is the logical outcome of the ever-growing Democratic control of American industry, which has, during the course of the past fifty years, accomplished their ideal form of socialism. The government now controls the innovation of business, and while commerce is floundering Washington is giving taxpayer-funded subsidies to their comrades.
The Democrats destroyed our industries, and those that were most controlled by the Democrats are the industries which are the most damaged through unions and left-leaning management. Now there is Wall Street to add to the list of liberal blunders.
It is a façade that Republicans control Wall Street and big business. Most of those who contributed to Obama’s campaign were from large businesses in the financial industry. The employees at Goldman Sachs, which is considered a “conservative” company, donated almost $1 million dollars to Obama, more than four times what they donated to the McCain campaign. Of all the companies whose employees donated to Obama, Goldman had the second largest of contributions; Citigroup and J.P.Morgan ranked sixth and seventh, respectively.
Wall Street gave Obama over $9.5 million, yet the Democrats and their allies in the media have successfully labeled our financial sector as a Republican bastion. In reality, the philosophy of those who are in charge is more socialist than capitalist. The Democrats have been running things, and they have been running them into the ground.
Our President has no answers, either, but seems to be faltering between contradictory proclamations on every important issue. Obama has called the conflict in Afghanistan “the necessary war,” but after close to one year in office he has yet to offer a consistent military strategy. Obama wants to offer health insurance to every American and claims that the deficit will not increase, but he cannot explain how many more millions of people will be covered through socialized healthcare without increasing the costs involved to do so. Obama approved of the $787 billion dollar “stimulus” as well as the Federal Reserve ensuring liquidity of $2 trillion dollars, but he has proposed no solutions to fixing our economic fundamentals for the long-term.
The only proposals coming from our President involve taking even more control over our financial industry, even though such regulation has a legacy of failure. Last week the Treasury and Federal Reserve publicized new rules to oversee and limit the salaries of executives at thousands of financial institutions. This was already attempted in the 1990s, and the motivation was similar then as now: politicians sought to control the risks taken by top executives in our financial sector.
In 1993, Congress passed the Budget Reconciliation Act (now Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code) due to their belief that financial executives weren’t taking enough risks. Instead of allowing salary to reward the performance of directors Congress favored stock options as executive compensation, which they believed would increase risk and which they allowed to qualify for limitless corporate tax deductions. Now Congress is blaming the very risk taking that they forced on the financial industry, as the reason for the current economic crisis.
In addition to more regulations, the liberal doctrine of taxing and spending is how Washington seeks to treat our economic affliction despite the documented history of its failure. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, in 2010 our domestic programs will grow by over 12 percent. Spending on Medicare and Medicaid will increase by 9.8 percent and 24.7 percent, respectively. Thanks in part to stimulus funding, the budgets for federal agencies have increased dramatically; the Environmental Protection Agency increased by 126 percent, the Department of Education rose 209 percent.
Clearly, there is no depression in Washington. Spending is now growing six times faster than inflation, which guarantees immense tax increases in the future.
A common layman definition of insanity is conducting the same action again and again but expecting different outcomes. With his ideas of tax, spend and regulate, Obama needs as much therapy as America needs industry. And Congress needs the most therapy of all.
|
| |
| |
| | | | October 3, 2009 | First President Obama’s Homeland Security department accused our veterans of being right-wing extremists and potential terrorists. Now his Veterans Affairs (VA) agency is advocating euthanasia and forcing our veterans to question if their live has any value.
In 1997, during the Clinton administration, an end-of-life booklet called “Your Life, Your Choices,” was distributed among all the VA hospitals and nursing homes. The main author, Dr. Robert Pearlman, is in favor of physician-assisted suicide and a rationing of health care services, and his beliefs were blatantly advocated in the booklet.
President George W. Bush did not allow this pamphlet to be used as he believed its treatment of the subject matter to be morally wrong. But now Obama has resuscitated what a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed called a “Death Book for Veterans.”
A July 2009 directive forces all VA physicians to distribute “Your Life, Your Choices” and to discuss “end of life planning” with all VA patients, not just those who are terminally ill or of extremely old age. Our physically and/or emotionally disabled or wounded veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve a VA system that they can trust to heal them as best as possible. Our brave soldiers should never be subject to a government agency that seems to be wishing them to give up and go away.
In “Your Life, Your Choices,” our veterans are asked to think about whether their life is “not worth living.” Seven questions are asked in which veterans are encouraged to sign a living will so their doctor can terminate their life if they are: 1. Living in a nursing home? 2. Being in a wheelchair? 3. Not able to “shake the blues?” 4. Ever heard anyone say, “If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug?” 5. No longer able to contribute to your family’s well-being? 6. Are you a severe financial burden to your family? 7. Do you cause severe emotional burden for your family?
In addition to Dr. Pearlman, the pro-euthanasia group that wrote this booklet was known as the Hemlock Society, which was founded by Derek Humphrey, a former London Sunday Times reporter, in 1980. In 2002, with the goal of appearing more benign to attract more supporters to their cause, their name was changed to “Compassion and Choices.” Despite their seemingly sympathetic new name, “Compassion and Choices” is a group which encourages voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to be made legal not just for the terminally ill but anyone who believes himself to be too old, too frail, or too tired of life.
On their website, www.CompassionAndChoices,org, they boast, “As Congress debates health insurance reform, Compassion and Choices is leading the charge to make end-of-life choice a centerpiece of any program that emerges.” Based on the health care rationing that Obamacare would bring, as well as the panels comprised of government bureaucrats who would be dictating healthcare decisions for the rest of America, our President and his party agree with the philosophy of groups like C & C.
The main responsibility of government is to protect the most vulnerable members of society, from the unborn to the elderly to the sick and wounded. Our courageous soldiers who have returned from the hell and horror of war deserve a government that honors them, helps them, and heals them.
The main responsibility of our president is as Commander-In-Chief to our soldiers. Obama has shown a total lack of concern for those who have fought for our freedoms and now need care in a VA facility, whereas he shows seemingly endless compassion toward terrorists and the dictators who enable them to wound and kill our troops.
The callousness of “Your Life, Your Choices” is a preview of what healthcare will be for all of us if socialized medicine becomes law. It is unconscionable to have such a booklet used in VA hospitals, and Obama’s goal is of all hospitals being run like the VA.
President George Washington stated, “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars to be treated and appreciated by their nation.” Our veterans, who believed our country to be worth fighting for, are now being treated by a government-run VA healthcare system that does not think our veterans are worth fighting for. Obama’s treatment of our soldiers and veterans is going to cause our young men, who are considering the military, to hesitate having this indifferent President as their commander.
|
| |
| |
| | | | September 4, 2009 | Our president seems to believe himself more King than elected representative. Barack Obama has shown himself to be as despotic as George III through overly harsh taxation and forcing his will on the people. Like George used the Parliament, Obama is using Congress to assert his supremacy in a socialist empire. Now, Obama is inciting coercion by advising his followers to fight “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists,” which is anyone who disagrees with his proposed healthcare policy.
On Patriot Day, one would “hope” that our President would encourage us to respectfully remember the victims of September 11, 2001, honor our brave soldiers who gave their lives or are fighting in the global war on terrorism, and remain vigilant in our quest for a safer country and world. But Barack has other ideas for how citizens should memorialize 9/11.
On his official website, www.BarackObama.com, whose theme is “Organizing for America,” a “Health Care Organizing Event” was publicized for September 11, 2009. Supporters of Obama are asked to stay home, “Be a true patriot,” and make phone calls to their senators demanding socialized healthcare.
Obama’s website continues: “All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped into a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”
The goal is clear: “Defeat Anti-Democratic forces of hate who conspire to remain healthy + wealthy while the public languishes under the burden of our present health care system.”
It is despicable and reprehensible for our president’s official website, which is a representation of Obama himself, to accuse any American who disagrees with his healthcare plan of being a “Right-Wing domestic terrorist” and being part of “anti-Democratic forces of hate.” Those opposed to Obamacare are compared to terrorists who flew planes into buildings and killed thousands of innocent people.
Despite the spin his party and allies will put on this, a radical group is controlling the government. These actual extremists are falsely accusing average patriots of extremism and targeting anyone who believes in traditional American principles. Our time-honored values, which holds to the love of God, family, our country and individual achievement, has made America great for over 200 years.
Obama and the leftists who love him are seeking to recreate and redefine our inalienable rights. Like former empires used to dominate land and sea, Obama and the liberals are trying to dominate the institutions of our lives. Like an army, they have taken a slow march through our political, economic, legal, educational, and media and entertainment establishments.
Obama and his party have spent more time denigrating average Americans who question him and his policies, than they do suggesting solutions and fixing problems. The only answer the Democrats have proposed is socialism. Their goal is complete control and to nationalize every industry and organization, regardless whether reform is actually needed in that particular area.
Americans who question whether our capitalist system should become a socialist state are labeled and treated as terrorists. Obama has less tolerance for respectful patriotic dissenters than he does for genuine terrorists whose goal is the destruction of the U.S.
How much more must average and traditional Americans take before legal sanction is taken against the unprecedented powers the Obama administration has exhibited?
The only way to stop this slip into socialism is to starve the federal government of its money. Patriots must join together to ensure we remain a representative republic instead of a republic represented by an information-age dictatorship, whose healthcare plan has as much power to determine its subjects’ life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as did the feudal despots of bygone times.
The above mentioned webpage from Obama’s site has been taken down, but for a screenshot of the original page please visit:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/01/obamas-team-crosses-the-rhetorical-line/
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 27, 2009 | The contempt and condescension of the left toward regular citizens has never shown itself more fully than these past weeks during the healthcare reform debates. Any person, from any party, who disagrees with Obama on socialized medicine, has been vilified by liberal politicians and their allies in the media, thus providing continuous examples of Average American Derangement Syndrome. Their first mode of attack was to generally insult the healthcare protesters:
- Barney Frank, responding to a lady at his town hall meeting with an opposing view from his: “On what planet do you spend most of your time?...It [the protests] is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated.”
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called those who disagree with Obama “evil-mongers” and accused them of using “lies, innuendo and rumor” to end rational debate. Mr. Reid continued, , “These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate…They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongers ... and insurance rackets.”
The second part of the elitist attack on average Americans was to accuse them of an “ism.” Thus the name calling specifically accused those opposed to socialized healthcare as portraying racism.
- MSNBC Correspondent Contessa Brewer declared, “People are talking…there are questions about whether this has racial overtone, I mean, here you have a man of color in the Presidency and white people showing up with guns.”
- John Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, stated, “This meeting has been heavily infiltrated rather heavily by folks who wish to make trouble.” He went on to proclaim, “The last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble.”
- NY Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, “…the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the ‘birther’ movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship.”
The third wave of assault came when Congressional Democrats began declaring the healthcare protesters to be un-American.
- Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in their USA Today op-ed, “Un-American Attacks Can’t Derail Health Care Debate,” wrote, “It is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue…These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”
After their disdain of average Americans caused more people to become sympathetic to and agree with the position of the protesters, the leftist elected officials declared that those who attended the town hall meetings didn’t really matter.
- Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania stated, “…although those people have a right to be heard, they're not really representative of America in my opinion. We have to be careful here not to let those town meetings dominate the scene and influence what we do on health policy.”
- Chuck Schumer, Democrat Senator from New York, said, “It is a small fringe group…and if we let a small group of people who want to monopolize the conversation and not listen to the facts win, you may as well hang it up.”
- Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, stated, “These town hall meetings have been orchestrated by the tea baggers and the birthers to just be a free-for-alls, make a lot of noise, go on YouTube and show discord.”
Lastly, after calling average Americans names, accusing them of being un-American, and dismissing them, the left has declared that the town hall protesters are dangerous to our country.
- Representative Baron Hill, a Democrat from Indiana, called the protesters who disagree with Obamacare “political terrorists.” He further stated, “They have only one purpose in mind and that's to blow up the meetings that are being held and that serves no one. If you just want to blow up a meeting that's a political terrorist.”
- Brian Baird, Democrat Representative from Washington state, called the healthcare protesters “extremists” and a “lynch mob,” and stated, “What we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics.”
President Obama himself, at a town hall meeting in McLean, Virginia, stated that those who disagreed with his healthcare reform should “get out of the way.” He also said he didn’t want his detractors “to do a lot of talking.”
The left is willing to require us to be empathetic and restrained in our reaction to terrorists who are trying to kill us, terrorist sympathizers who advocate our sabotage and destruction, and those who commit destructive anti-war demonstrations. Yet, the Democrats show scorn toward average Americans who are rightfully and peacefully requesting their government to justify its actions.
We are now being oppressed and targeted by the same elected officials who have been encouraging civil dissent when it came to traditional American values such as protecting our lives and liberty. Democratic hypocrisy is unbelievable; their attacks on average Americans are harsher than on our enemies whose aim is our demise.
The derangement is not with Americans asking legitimate questions as to why our country is being fundamentally changed and why we are being forced to accept radical alterations to our nation. The deranged ones are those who have been pushing socialized healthcare and similar government take-over agendas and who believe average Americans are incapable of seeing through their attempted slight of hand.
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 6, 2009 | As vicious as Bush (and then Palin) Derangement Syndrome is, there is a new target of the left that makes the former disorders seems mundane. Democrats and liberals have always been contemptuous of the average person, but their treatment of those citizens who disagree with the Obama administration’s policies is unprecedented. Peaceful protesters are likened to rowdy hordes, individuals who question their representative at a roundtable discussion are deemed traitors, any person who holds traditional beliefs of any kind is branded a fanatic, and most disgracefully our brave war veterans are labeled as extremists.
Such a disorder can only be called “Average American Derangement Syndrome.” Below are a few recent examples of Democrat treatment to those who oppose or question Obama’s proposed healthcare reform.
• The Democratic National Committee wrote, “Republicans and their allied groups…are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional districts across the country.”
• The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, stated, “They [protesters] are carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”
• Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, belittled the “loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town-hall meetings.”
• The Majority leader in the House, Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, called those who oppose healthcare reform “very rabid people…Normal citizens just do not act that way.”
• White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the Astroturf nature of grass-roots lobbying. This is manufactured anger.”
• Jennifer Crider, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, stated, “Conservative activists don’t want to have a conversation. They want to disrupt.”
• Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas, avowed, “This mob…did not come just to be heard, but to deny others the right to be heard.”
• Representative Gerry Connolly, a Democrat from Virginia and president of the freshman Democrats in Congress, stated that right-wing groups are moving the healthcare debate to “a dangerous level” by using false facts to create anger. He said, “When you look at the fervor of some of these people who are all being whipped up by the right-wing talking heads on Fox, to me, you’re crossing a line. They’re inciting people to riot with just total distortions of facts.”
• Democratic strategist Donna Brazile stated that, “This little small band of protesters are trying to stop members [of Congress] from doing their jobs. They know they can’t win the debate so they want to shut down the conversation…It looks like that mob scene coming out of Florida in 2000.”
As another example of the Average American Derangement Syndrome experienced by the Democratic National Committee, this past Wednesday they released an internet video entitled “Enough of the Mob.” The propaganda piece warns against the “right wing extremist base” and states that “desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs—just like they did during the election. Their goal? Destroy President Obama and stop the change…” They classify any dissent as “mob activity” and claim that Republicans “have no plan for moving our country forward, so they’ve called out the mob.” The piece also asserts that the “anti-reform mobs” are attempting “to intimidate and silence regular people who just want more information.”
The White House itself has even succumbed to Average American Derangement Syndrome, as an official White House website (http://www/whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/) is asking citizens to spy on each other and report on those who disagree with socialized healthcare: “Since we can’t keep track of all of them [disinformation, rumors] here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
After 9/11, President Bush enacted Operation T.I.P.S. (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) to allow citizens to report suspicious activity which endangered our national security. The purpose of this program was to allow people to report on terrorists trying to commit terrorist acts in our country. Democrats expressed such outrage over this supposed creation of citizen spies that Operations T.I.P.S. was permanently cancelled in 2002, however their silence on the use of citizen spies to further their own agenda reveals the lengths they will go to further their power.
Asking Americans to keep track of citizens who express a policy disagreement is not just a violation of our civil rights but it is the first order of sedition and should be an impeachable offense. There is no issue of safety that requires reporting people to the government. The Democrats are treating average Americans worse than potential terrorists.
What type of administration would even think of doing something like this? One that does not want the public informed or involved, and who will use any form of illegal and immoral intimidation to achieve this.
|
| |
| |
| | | | July 22, 2009 | This past Sunday a Hilton hotel right outside of Chicago hosted a conference for Hizbut-Tahrir, an Islamic extremist group connected to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. The seminar was entitled, “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam” and was attended by approximately 500 Hizbut-Tahrir members. As the title of their gathering suggests, the speakers condemned capitalist systems while encouraging a growth of global Islamic influence.
Hizbut-Tahrir’s official English-speaking website stated this conference, to be held in several cities around the world, will “illustrate the coming era of global change.” The first session is entitled “Fall of Capitalism,” which will “address its destructive mechanisms the world over.” Part one addresses how “Capitalism is Doomed to Fail,” whereas the second portion illustrates “The Suffering Under Capitalism.” The second session, “Islamic Perspective on Economy,” focuses on the “issue of distribution.” The third and final session, “Rise of Islam,” gives examples of the expansion of Muslim power.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11, 2001 as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, was a member of Hizbut-Tahrir. Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq until his death in June 2006, also belonged to Hizbut-Tahrir.
The former worldwide leader of Hizbut-Tahrir, Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, wrote that those who do not live under an Islamic system must “either retract or be killed…even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers.” The official position of Hizbut-Tahrir regarding plane hijacking states, “If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it.” In one of their publications from March 2009, Hizbut-Tahrir promotes “a state of war against America.”
In an interview with FoxNews.com, the only major media outlet who mentioned this story although they did so very briefly, Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated, “Hizbut-Tahrir is one of the oldest, largest indoctrinating organizations for the ideology known as jihadism.” Mr. Phares explained that this group focuses on indoctrinating young Islamic men between 9 and 18 years old to believe in the “khalifah,” the formation of a Muslim empire using any means necessary including jihad.
Although Hizbut-Tahrir does not openly train their members to perform terrorist acts, their indoctrination prepares these men to commit to performing terrorism. Mr. Phares stated, “It’s like a middle school that prepares them to be recruited by the high school, which is Al Qaeda. One would compare them to the Hitler youth…It’s an extremely dangerous organization.”
How to increase and enhance their enrollment methods was the purpose of Hizbut-Tahrir having their conference in our country. “The aim of this conference is to recruit within the Muslim community in America,” said Walid Phares. Hizbut-Tahrir already has visible networks in some Western countries such as Britain, France, and Spain, although they are forbidden in Germany, Russia, and several countries in central Asia.
Hizbut-Tahrir is not recognized by the State Department as an outright terrorist organization. This is very foolish and careless, as the evidence is overwhelming that Hizbut-Tahrir is engaged in actively promoting Islamofascist terrorism and aggressively encouraging war against America.
It is also very foolish and careless for a hotel in the United States to allow such a group to have access to their meeting facilities. The General Manager of the Hilton Oak Lawn, Rick Harmon, stated to FoxNews.com that, “if it’s legal, we’re able to host it, as long as it’s nothing that disrupts our other guest’s privacy and security.”
The State Department should immediately identify Hizbut-Tahrir as a terrorist group, and have the appropriate government agencies investigate their members in America and monitor their future activities. The Hilton conglomerate should be boycotted until an apology is issued and a promise is given that any group working for the hostile overthrow of America will be denied access to their meeting facilities.
Hizbut-Tahrir, while not actually training terrorists, is targeting those who would actively commit terror against America. They identify those who are sympathetic to terrorism, and recruit and cultivate them to actual jihadists. Although such groups may be, in Mr. Harmon’s words, “legal,” they should not be given support of any type. Commerce and business, by their indifference, have offered material aid to those who wish to destroy us.
This situation illustrates commerce at any cost and the deplorability of such unrestrained capitalism that, for a price, would give assistance to those who are striving for the overt destruction of America. How low has ethics sunk for American corporate responsibility? The Hilton Oak Lawn is only one example of how businesses have not done their best to thwart terrorism. The laissez-faire capitalistic approach of these corporations makes them accomplices in the Islamofascist plan for a forceful overthrow of American principles and government.
For those who wish to contact Mr. Harmon, or the executives of the Hilton Corporation, their information is below.
Hilton Oak Lawn General Manager Rick Harmon (708) 425-7800
Hilton Management 1-800-445-8667
|
| |
| |
| | | | July 17, 2009 | Speculations, even from Rush Limbaugh, that Governor Sarah Palin might form a third party has put her back in focus even more than after her recent resignation as governor. Thus, it is reasonable for Republicans, conservatives, and traditionally minded Americans to ask: Is Mrs. Palin producing a rebirth of conservatism and conservative candidates, or is she a distraction and a severing influence on the party?
A second question to ask ourselves is why there is such a cult-like status for Governor Palin among some conservatives? She is the best known female rightist in the national scene, and she does seem to want to address social issues in a conservative way. Nonetheless, the hype is puzzling, and is the intense emotion of the Palinettes disproportionate to what her talents actually are?
Her advocates admire Mrs. Palin for being pro-life, for running a state, for displaying common sense. Her detractors state she is inarticulate, ignorant of economic and foreign policy issues, and not savvy enough to handle the media. There is no doubt that Governor Palin is a very decent and hard-working woman, but is it fair for those on the right to ask if, as good as she personally is, she can be bad politically for the Republican party and conservatives?
When asked why they support Mrs. Palin, her fans most often state that she is “one of us.” But is this the right criteria for choosing our national leaders? We should not want an average person in Congress, in the Cabinet, and especially the Oval Office. We need someone extraordinary, who is smarter and braver and more talented than the rest of us, as our Commander-in-Chief. Rather than wanting a President who is a regular person, we should seek someone who understands a regular person.
The second most common explanation given by those who support Governor Palin is their outrage over the media treatment of her. The “hostile” interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric are mentioned, but why has Mrs. Palin’s performance in “friendly” interviews not undergone scrutiny among conservatives?
When interviewed by Sean Hannity, he asked her thoughts about the economy. Governor Palin commented on the “corruption of Wall Street” and stated that the government should have an “appropriate role in the oversight,” but she never defined what exactly that function was. Mr. Hannity asked if everyone benefits if the rich pay less in taxes; she replied that “everybody does benefit when the government takes less,” but did not clarify why that was. Her responses as to how she would bring reform to Washington and how she specifically took on her own party in Alaska were unclear. When Mr. Hannity inquired as to why Governor Palin supports drilling in Alaska, she vaguely responded that it would be good for the nation. Most ironically, when he asked her if she sees media bias in the campaign, Mrs. Palin’s initial response was, “I don’t know.”
It is fair to conclude that Governor Palin, when judged as a public speaker, is weak compared to others in the conservative movement. This may appeal to the average person, but is this in our best conservative and national interest? Mrs. Palin does not project the appearance of an intellectual and has difficulty in defending her positions.
In his July 15, 2009 piece, “Poor, Persecuted Sarah Palin,” Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank wrote that, even before her convention speech, The Weekly Standard predicted that liberals “will ridicule her and patronize her. They will distort her words and caricature her biography. They will appeal, sometimes explicitly, to anti-small town and anti-religious prejudice.”
In the same column Mr. Frank writes, “Indeed, if political figures stand for ideas, victimization is what Ms. Palin is all about. It is her brand, her myth. Ronald Reagan stood tall. John McCain was about service. Barack Obama has hope. Sarah Palin is a collector of grievances. She runs for high office by griping…She is known not for her ideas but as a martyr, a symbol of the culture-war crimes of the left.” Disappointingly, Mrs. Palin focuses on the criticism and insults directed at her instead of concentrating on articulating solutions for our country.
Is perhaps the real devotion and connection the Palinette’s feel for Governor Palin due to their feeling a kinship with a fellow conservative being persecuted? Many Christians and conservatives rightly believe themselves to be the target of the media, popular culture, and even some Republicans. Is Mrs. Palin just a symbol of the real victimhood that is occurring, or is she an agent for change to promote the values which have become so forsaken?
For a leader to guide America toward conservatism requires substantial tools, skills, and intellect. Just because Governor Palin is on our side doesn’t mean that she is the best leader of conservatism. Although she is more qualified than Obama, as she actually has executive experience, Mrs. Palin’s track record have some conservatives worried that she does not seem to be versed enough, read enough, and curious enough for the type of leadership our country demands.
Governor Palin is still unable to convince the three major wings of the Republican party, who will be forming ideas and making policy, that she is the right person to guide us. If she cannot convince the Wall Street, national defense, and foreign policy Republicans, how will she be able to persuade independents, moderates, and those on the other side?
The mystery remains of why Senator McCain chose Governor Palin rather than more obviously strong candidates who had a record of battling liberals. McCain’s choice was a Republican candidate who was successfully taking on others in her party. Granted, there were inappropriate things going on in Alaska, but why did McCain choose someone who attacks Republicans as he does other than to prove his fairness and make friends with Democrats? Is it possible he purposefully picked a weaker candidate, who wasn’t vetted properly, to decimate the conservative wing of the Republican party? First, he lost an election which he didn’t appear to put his whole heart into. Second, he gave a national platform to Governor Palin who wasn’t ready for the interviews, the scrutiny, and who has caused such strife within the party.
Mrs. Palin has adamant supporters who will defend her at any cost, but their reasons for this devotion have not adequately been explained. Why is there such vigor in defending her, instead of defending conservative principles?
Our economy, national security, and American way of life are being destroyed by a liberal president, government, and the ensuing programs. Whether or not Governor Palin is a candidate for anything in the future, she has fractured the Republican party. The focus of conservatives, and of the GOP, must be in strengthening our efforts in going after the Democrats and advancing and articulating conservative ideas.
Conservatives, unite; focus on making the Republican party stronger and advancing our conservative principles to independents, moderates, and sensible Democrats. The Democrats have the media as an ally so they are able to get away with illogical sound-bites and circular orations, such as that seen when our President is away from his beloved Teleprompter. But Republicans do not have the luxury of using canned lines such as those that Mrs. Palin recites; we need someone who is smart and savvy enough to quickly respond to questions and clearly explain complex issues.
For those on the right, stop worrying about the elections in 2012; right now our national defense and economy are swiftly being destroyed. Both those who are defending and those who are dismissing Governor Palin need to focus their energy on fighting this President and his radical socialist agenda.
|
| |
| |
| | | | July 10, 2009 | The passion versus power conflict within Governor Mark Sanford is a scenario seen in certain influential and important men, some of whom risk their ambition by engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior. But, when their indiscretions with a woman are based on love there can perhaps be more sympathy and forgiveness than if the affair was based on lust alone.
Of the many examples of a sacrifice of power for love, there was none so infamous during the last century as England’s King Edward VIII. He met Wallis Simpson in 1931 and after almost four years of friendship they, as she stated, “crossed the line that marks the indefinable boundary between friendship and love.” In 1936, after serving as King for less than one year he abdicated the throne for Wallis, who was an American, a divorcee, and still married to her second husband. She filed for divorce from her husband, Wallis and Edward married in a small ceremony in 1937, and by all indications they had an extraordinarily happy union.
Governor Sanford seems to have a similar love for Maria Belen Chapur, an Argentinean lady who he met in 2001. He writes to her in an email that he “had a special feeling about you from the first time we met” and that it was like a “lightning strike.” In an interview with the Associated Press, in between calling Ms. Chapur his “soul-mate” Mr. Sanford confirmed that “There was some kind of connection from the very beginning” between him and Ms. Chapur, although it was many years before their friendship took a physically intimate turn.
A reading of their emails shows two people who are very connected and deeply in love. Among expressions of love and longing for each other, Governor Sanford and Ms. Chapur reveal the details of their days and show a genuine interest in the simplicities of the other person’s life. Maria is very affectionate and supportive of him, asks nothing from him, and is even concerned about the content of their emails to keep Mr. Sanford’s position “safe.” Mark sends her little gifts that make him think of her, and while he admits that their relationship is unexpected and new territory he states that it has a “soul-mate feel,” and he puts her above himself in his wish to make her happy and not complicate her life.
Mark and Maria deserve privacy and understanding as they go through this private matter. This is not some tawdry and lust-filled affair, but one in which, as Governor Sanford wrote to Ms. Chapur, “despite the best efforts of my head my heart cries out for you, your voice, your body, the touch of your lips, the touch of your finger tips and an even deeper connection to your soul.”
Some might argue that adultery committed without emotional attachment, such as that of Bill Clinton or Eliot Spitzer, are “better” than a Sanford scenario where one believes his girlfriend is his soul-mate. But sex without sentimentality is little more than base passions.
As an elected official, Governor Sanford’s responsibility is to the best interest of South Carolina, and he showed a severe lack of respect for his position by leaving his post and being unreachable for days as he visited Ms. Chapur in South America. In case of an emergency or other unexpected crisis, his constituents would have been without their chosen leader. If Mr. Sanford needed some time alone to sort through his personal issues, there were more appropriate ways to do it. His weakness in not making professional decisions to prepare for his absence parallels his weakness in not being able to make a decision between his wife and girlfriend.
In the Washington Post’s September 21, 2008 issue of Parade magazine, their marriage poll revealed that 62 percent entered into matrimony because they had reached a certain age or they didn’t want to be alone. It is very concerning that almost two-thirds of people who marry are doing so for superficial reasons, which explains the increasing instability of marriages.
The honorable thing to do in a marriage that cannot be salvaged is to separate. There is dishonesty in adultery, but there is also dishonesty in living a lie and remaining in a sham of a marriage. And even worse than the two conditions previously mentioned is the dishonesty of entering a marriage with anything less than complete love and conviction.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 26, 2009 | Yesterday, June 25, to commemorate the day North Korean soldiers invaded their southern neighbor and began the Korean War, an anti-America rally was held in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang. Approximately 100,000 citizens were present as the communist regime stated there would be a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation” for any attack led by the United States. A senior official stated before the crowd that North Korea's “armed forces will deal an annihilating blow that is unpredictable and unavoidable, to any 'sanctions' or provocations by the U.S.”
This demonstration of North Korean belligerence came one day after President Obama imposed another year of economic sanctions on North Korea. He stated that North Korea’s production of nuclear weapons “continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the America.
Although their first testing of a nuclear weapon was over two years ago during the W. Bush administration, it was during the Clinton years that North Korea began accumulating the equipment needed to build a nuclear device. And it was twenty years ago when our intelligence agencies discovered that North Korea was beginning a nuclear weapons program. During the course of the past two decades and three presidential administrations, the North Korean issue has been avoided. A brief history of the significant events leading up to the current crisis is below:
1989 – The C.I.A. revealed that North Korea was building a facility to create nuclear weapons.
1994, spring – North Korea forces U.N. weapons inspectors to leave and withdraws from a treaty (known as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) in which countries pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons to nations which do not have them. President Clinton asked the U.N. Security Council to consider sanctions, but a North Korean official stated that sanctions would force them to initiate war.
1994, October – President Clinton appoints Jimmy Carter as his envoy to North Korea, which signs an agreement with us. The terms are that North Korea stops their nuclear weapons program and let inspectors back, and the U.S. would provide North Korea with two nuclear reactors for electricity as well as a large supply of oil. Congress did not approve the finances for the two reactors, although we began supplying North Korea with oil.
2002, October – President Bush stated that we are formally withdrawing from the 1994 agreement, which was drawn up by Jimmy Carter. The U.S. stops giving oil to North Korea and encourages other countries to end their economic dealings with them.
2002, December – North Korea kicks out the weapons inspectors again and publically restarts their nuclear weapons agenda.
2003, April – North Korea’s foreign minister announces that they have a nuclear arsenal.
On May 25, 2009, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. In response, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution condemning North Korea’s nuclear test and mandating that U.N. countries inspect North Korean ships thought to carry weapons or nuclear material.
North Korea then vowed that it will consider any interception of their ships as an act of war. Presently, an American destroyer is closely monitoring a North Korean freighter, the Kang Nam 1, which is suspected of having prohibited weapons on board. Intelligence analysts suspect artillery and missiles are on the Kang Nam 1, which is believed to have Myanmar as its destination.
A second situation is also being closely examined. Japanese intelligence stated that North Korea is planning to launch a Taepodong-2 towards Hawaii this July 4th. A Taepodong-2 is a long-range missile capable of reaching distances up to 4,000 miles. Hawaii is 4,500 miles from North Korea, but the close proximity is still very aggressive. On June 19th, the U.S. stated that it deployed anti-missile systems to Hawaii, which would enable us to shoot down the missile.
During the Clinton administration the North Korean population was starving and the government was on the verge of collapse, but U.N. humanitarian assistance was given with the intent to ease the suffering of the people. However, this humanitarian aid was diverted by the North Korean government and given to their military rather than the starving masses. Rather than allowing the regime to disintegrate under the pressure for democratic reform pushed by starving North Koreans, humanitarian aid enabled the continuation of this despotic regime as well as its ability to become a nuclear threat to the world.
The brutality of the North Korean dictatorship is known to include horrendous public execution, massive starvation among the populace, and harsh labor camps for any dissenters. In addition, North Korean assistance to Middle Eastern terrorists is well documented. They have exported missile technology to Iran and have given Syria the blueprints for building a nuclear reactor and weapons (the Syrian reactor was destroyed by Israel in September 2007).
We should do everything possible to ensure that the current North Korean regime is stopped. The U.S. must insist that there is no aid of any kind, from any country, given to North Korea, as any economic or humanitarian aid will be misused and will only prolong the totalitarianism. We must use our veto power in the Security Council to ensure that no U.N. assistance or humanitarian aid is given to North Korea. To take anything other than the most firm position with embolden them to become a greater threat to America and the world. If we do not want another hot war with North Korea, then we must start a war of attrition with them.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 23, 2009 | With six states allowing homosexuals to marry, and New York’s Governor insistent on it being the seventh state to allow such unions, the definition and legality of marriage has come under more introspection than ever before. During the 1960s with the rise of modern radical feminism, marriage as an institution was discouraged by the left whose proponents claimed it enslaved women. Now an opposite and equally flawed philosophy has appeared in leftist agenda, that all who wish to enter into a legal matrimony should be entitled to do so regardless of the wishes of voters, thousands of years of tradition, and the effect on children and civilization.
Marriage is a multidimensional institution. It has multiple facets and reasons for it to exist as the foundation for society. But throughout history, there has been a tendency for one particular conception of marriage to become dominant as all other aspects are excluded.
There are those from the past with an agrarian perspective who viewed marriage as an economic arrangement. For millennia, the bearing of children within a marriage was a necessity to sustain a family. Their present counterparts are those who argue that marriage is a business merger. It is a way for a woman to be provided for, for a man to have a pretty lady on his arm, or for either party to get someone who fulfills their qualifications.
There are conservative Christians who believe that marriage is for bearing children, although this is a very limited definition of being fruitful and multiplying. There are the prudish feminists, who aren’t against being married, who view marriage as a way to reign in male sexuality. There is the medical community who looks at marriage as a way to express sexuality without transmitting STD’s. There are artists who think marriage is for the purpose of inspiring creativity.
And there are others who think marriage is a way to codify a lifelong friendship and to give certain civil and legal rights for that relationship, beyond an ordinary buddy. This has been the strongest argument from the homosexual community.
There are a host of reasons to understand why the bond of marriage exists. It is a business in the sense that a mutual compatibility should be assured; it is for having and raising children; it is for conveying sexuality in a safe environment; it is to inspire and create a whole relationship that is greater than the individuals in it; and it is to legalize a family that people choose to create for themselves.
For many relationships, they may have some of five above-mentioned characteristics. However, it is only in a union between one man and one woman that each of the five qualities is fulfilled as only one man and one woman are able to naturally create a child. For a true marriage the ability to have and to raise a child, the most important qualifier for a legalized union, should be a possibility. And this is why the state, who sanctions marriage, and God, who created marriage, need to have all these factors met.
Marriage has both a private and a public persona. The private aspect is the love, romance, communication, and interaction between the couple. These elements may be kept only with the partners and not shared with anyone else. However, the public aspect is how these unions affect society. For decades the evidence has been conclusive, but overlooked by those who oppose the male-female union in marriage for political or social motives, that the best environment to raise a child is with a mother and a father. Children need both genders as parents to help them become a balanced person.
As we continue to tamper with fundamental institutions such as marriage, the consequences of such decisions cannot even be fathomed. When marriage is allowed just for sentimentality, it only exasperates the most superficial tendencies in matrimony. If we follow the same logic that the homosexuals are using to justify their getting married, where does it stop? With polygamy, polyandry (one woman married to more than one man), incest? For those who think that such lines will never be crossed, that is just what was said a decade ago about same-sex unions.
Marriage exists on many different levels, and it exists with multiple special components between a man and a woman. It is only within a male and a female can the institution be fulfilled; otherwise it is just a friendship or at best a life-long relationship.
A love affair should be within a marriage. But marriage is not just a love affair; it is a multi-dimensional union with love.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 17, 2009 | There have been some video games which display such explicit violence or sexuality that they have been decried as being too inappropriate for anyone to play. But there has never been a video game produced that is more despicable than XBox 360’s “Rendition: Guantanamo,” in which the game is “won” by killing American soldiers.
The game is seen through the perspective of a detainee in Guantanamo. The premise of the video game’s story is that the facility was sold by the U.S. Government to an agency called Freedom Corp. Before the prisoner is tortured and has scientific experiments performed on him, he escapes and attempts to kill as many of his captors as possible. Points are accumulated for each soldier who is murdered.
T-Enterprise, a Scottish company who created Rendition: Guantanamo, has as their motto, “Seduce By Technology.” They are known for producing video games that appeal to the global left, although none have been as blatantly anti-American as their latest venture. To make the scene of the game authentic, T-Enterprise solicited the counsel of terrorist Moazzam Begg, who was a prisoner in Guantanamo from 2003 through 2005. The Telegraph quoted Begg as stating, “The software firm approached me with this idea about making a game based on my experience in Guantanamo.”
Originally from Birmingham, England, Moazzam Begg was arrested several times in the United Kingdom due to activities associated with radical Islam. He moved to the Middle East in 2001, and was captured by the C.I.A. in 2003, who stated that he was training with Al Qaeda in Pakistan. The book Inside Gitmo, written by Colonel Gordon Cucullu, states that Moazzam Begg told the FBI that he “felt that jihad was an appropriate way to deal with those who harmed Muslims.” Begg signed a statement for the FBI admitting that he trained at Al Qaeda facilities and was ready to fight with the Taliban and Al Qaeda against their enemies including the United States. In addition, U.S. military intelligence documents state that Begg recruited Al Qaeda members, and provided money and other support to terrorist training camps.
Upon his release from Guantanamo, Begg has written articles and been on television shows and documentaries, relating his supposed horrific experience in Gitmo. As the owner of XBox, Microsoft did not create Rendition: Guantanamo. However, Microsoft must be more aware of what type of video game is being created by their developers such as T-Enterprise, who spent one year and two months creating Rendition.
If Microsoft was eager to use an escaping prisoner scenario for an XBox game, there are many examples from history that they could have applied. A U.S. soldier could be escaping a Vietcong prisoner of war camp. Or perhaps an American World War II era soldier could be breaking free from a German or Japanese prison. In each of these scenarios, the crimes committed by the captors against our soldiers are well documented, contrary to the alleged abuses in Gitmo. Certainly no one would be offended by an American soldier escaping from and even killing Nazis.
In a statement on their website, T-Enterprise stated, “It [Rendition] was never designed to be ‘propaganda’ or ‘a recruiting tool for terrorism.’ Neither was it designed to glamorize terrorism as has been reported.” However, the video game is blatantly expressing sympathy with terrorists by portraying them as innocent victims who undergo agonizing scientific procedures. In addition, Begg has a financial interest in Rendition: Guantanamo, although he stated that he has not received any money yet from T-Enterprise. Judging from his association and support of Al Qaeda in the past, it is easy to predict that if he received any compensation from Rendition video game sales, that money would have been used to propagate terrorism.
What will it take for Microsoft to pay more attention to what is being produced for XBox? On the morning of June 3, 2009, it was announced that Rendition: Guantanamo will not be distributed. Video games already tend to push the edge, but Rendition is so blatantly antagonistic to American values and culture that somebody at Microsoft should have taken notice. If a person or division at Microsoft did know about Rendition and did nothing, there should be consequences.
For those who wish to express their opinion on the video game they created, the contact information for T-Enterprise is below.
http://www.t-enterprise.co.uk/corporate-technology/contactus.aspx
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 8, 2009 | When America learned of the reality television show awarded to Nadya Suleman, the reaction was similar to the news of the octuplets born to her: the miracle of eight healthy babies was overshadowed by their mother being unattached, unemployed, and already having six children at home. Although an extreme example of a selfish instinct for motherhood regardless of one’s condition, this is an indication of an infection in society at large. The symptoms of the Suleman Syndrome began over forty years ago, beginning with a disregard for life, then a dismissal of marriage and men, and finally a glorification of single motherhood.
In June 2008, national headlines told of seventeen pregnant girls from Gloucester High School in Massachusetts who made a “pact” to become mothers simultaneously. In an interview with Time magazine, their school superintendent attempted an explanation by stating, “Families are broken. Many of our young people are growing up directionless.” One of their classmates, who herself gave birth her freshman year, further explained, “They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally.” The ramifications of these insightful remarks were lost on a community and a country that remains bewildered over such increasingly common occurrences. What should have been illuminated was that these girls lacked a coherent family and were therefore attempting to create their own to compensate for this emotional need.
As the above examples show, the basic urge of wanting to be loved is manifesting itself in many inappropriate ways. To many young women babies have become a commodity for the love they will give the mother.
As with the pregnancy pact girls before her, Ms. Suleman rationalizes her behavior by invoking her own unfulfilling family. In an interview she stated that she “longed for certain connections and attachments” that were lacking during her childhood, and that “feelings of self and identity” were missing. Ms. Suleman was not content to find such a connection through her first husband, as she said, “I wasn't in love at all with him. I was in love with having children.” This desire to have children to repair some previous life damage demonstrates the inadequacy of schools and their psychologists to compensate for shortcomings in families, which religion once used to help heal by providing philosophical and moral direction.
It was not too long ago when the decision to have a child was because of what the parents could bring to the new life. Now, more women are having a baby to make up for the mother and/or father that was lacking. Rather than a natural life progression and cycle of parents providing a loving and safe home for their child and then the child maturing and forming their own family, having a baby has become a regression to childhood. The new focus is on being a perpetual child instead of having a child.
There are 1.5 million babies born to single mothers every year in America, and their probability of poverty, crime, promiscuity, drug use, suicide, and failing out of school are exponentially higher than their two-parent peers. Since the 1960’s our culture has been brainwashed into believing the moral neutrality of all families being equivalent. But evidence has overwhelmingly proven that not all family structures are equal regarding the raising and outcome for children. In 1991, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead wrote in The Atlantic, “Family diversity in the form of increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families does not strengthen the social fabric. It dramatically weakens and undermines society, placing new burdens on schools, courts, prisons, and the welfare system. These new families are not an improvement on the nuclear family, nor are they even just as good, whether you look at outcomes for children or outcomes for society as a whole. In short, far from representing social progress, family change represents a stunning example of social regress.” Contrary to the popular portrayal, broken homes make broken kids.
Beginning in the 1970’s, the majority of Americans did not think it was morally wrong for a woman to have a child out-of-wedlock. Gradually the emphasis left the child and shifted to the mother’s happiness and well-being. The cycle is no longer correctly unfolding of children being the focus of their parents and then growing up and making their own children their primary focus. When children don’t become the center of their parents’ priorities they inevitably seek to become someone else’s focus to compensate, ironically remaining a child and attention junkie.
Although society is being told that love of self should be above all, we have seen the fantasy of individualistic freedom refuted. Octo-mom and the Gloucester High girls are concrete examples that, rather than just “me,” true human longing is for being part of an integral family unit where one feels safe to grow. The women and girls who feel this emptiness and desire fulfillment by having a baby love them should instead focus on finding a person they can love, and with this love to create a family and offer a feeling of belonging to a spouse and then children. The goal of a mature parent should be to love your children, rather than being loved by them.
In spite of these situations, perhaps the prognosis for society is beginning to look up. The one glimmer of responsible humanity from Ms. Suleman is her respect for life. Rather than see her remaining embryos discarded, she was implanted with all of them because, as she stated, “to dispose of a life is incomprehensible to me.” Selfish and foolish Nadya Suleman may be, but at least this woman values life, possibly the first step in the treatment needed to reverse the syndrome that now bears her name.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 5, 2009 | Twenty years ago, in the spring of 1989, millions of Chinese people peacefully demanded democracy from their Communist government. Centered in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, the protestors were protected by the populace who set up barriers to keep them free from government intervention. But on the morning of June 4th, the Communist regime ordered tanks and soldiers to quell the protest. The violence and bloodshed that was the result has two opposing witnesses. The Chinese government insisted that 241 people died, whereas the Chinese Red Cross stated that over 2,600 had perished.
Two decades later the innocent blood that was spilled in Tiananmen has been washed clean, but the Communist regime that ordered a military attack on its own citizens still remains. Communism came to China in 1949, and currently there are three theories regarding its sustainability in that nation.
First is the belief that economic development will naturally lead to a more open and democratic government, which is what the American public has been assured by every President since Nixon. The primary reasoning for this assumption is that economic development proceeded democracy for Taiwan and South Korea, and it is hypothesized that China will follow this path. However, there are two problems with this logic. As compared to Taiwan and South Korea, China is a much bigger country with diverse populations, with a 65-million urban middle class and over 900 million rural farmers. Both of the aforementioned countries were dependent on the U.S. military, and it was through American pressure that Taiwan and South Korea were influenced to become democratic.
China is neither dependent on our military or under our influence. To continue to believe that economic growth will bring democracy to China, after decades of their having increasing advances in their economy, is naiveté at best.
The second theory is that China is headed toward a disaster such as an economic collapse or political disintegration. Those who champion this view state that the corruption within all factions of the governing bodies, from the military to scientists, will bring about a revolution from within. The thousands of protests that the Chinese citizens are participating in every year is proof of the growing unrest. However, since Tiananmen the government has become more proficient at repressing dissent as well as assuring that the rest of the world is not aware of it.
The third scenario for China’s future is that they are not headed toward democracy or any other political liberalization. A China that would continue to grow economically as they remain a communist state is the most likely scenario, and one that has the most vocal critics through business executives eager to trade with China, and think tanks and other organizations whose funding depends on contributions from corporations that do business in China.
The inclination of American elites to refrain from public critique of the Chinese one-party system is influenced by money. As James Mann stated in his book "The China Fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression", “There are huge and growing financial incentives for prominent Americans to support the status quo in China.” Mr. Mann demonstrates that U.S. political leaders and cabinet members who do not challenge China are able to, after leaving office, more readily have lucrative careers as advisors to corporate executives doing business with China. Many former politicians, both on the left and the right, join consulting firms which advise companies seeking to do business with China, or join business or international law firms which assist with trade. And many of Washington’s most prominent think tanks, from the liberal Brookings to the conservative Heritage, receive substantial donations from corporations conducting business in China.
The repression in China is not improving but is getting worse. The Communist regime continues to arrest and detain political dissidents, Tibetan activists, journalists, and Internet pioneers. A 2007 Council on Foreign Relations report stated there was “no evidence to suggest that China is planning to pursue significant democratic reforms in the near term.”
Our trade with China has benefitted business interests in both their country and ours, but it has not helped the average working person in either nation. For over two decades the U.S. government and businesses has been eager to conduct business with China, and they have dismissed the impact of the repression of the Chinese people through their communist government.
China lacks a democratic history, and any increase in openness and freedom is usually short lived and marked by a new ruling group seizing control and using the same repressive tactics with a new face. There are certainly significant numbers of citizens within China who wish to open their society and merge it with more Western traditions; however, they are not the ones that hold power.
Perhaps the first sign that authoritarianism is leaving China will be when people are able to peacefully express themselves in public, run Google searches without censorship, and demand liberty. We can only hope that the Chinese Communist government will one day be willing to embrace the free choice of its citizenry and deal honorably with sometimes unpleasant situations, remembering that the dignity of life has both order and freedom.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 2, 2009 | Last month there were three independent studies released that, taken separately, would perhaps be seen as random blots of a Rorschach test. However, taken together as the sum of the findings of each, they clearly reveal a picture of the lack of happiness among American women. The results of all three analyses indicate that while we have become increasingly liberated and independent, we have simultaneously become unhappier.
A Pew Research Center survey on happiness found that men were shown to be happier than women. The second study found the happiness of women has steadily decreased since the 1960s. This trend was documented by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers in their recent publication, “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness.” The greater discontent of women, when compared to men, is seen regardless of race or class. And, as Ms. Stevenson and Mr. Wolfers write, this phenomenon is not just isolated to America but is also present in western Europe where over the past three decades women’s happiness has declined.
The third analysis released in May was at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting. Two studies were presented which stated that female veterans are much more likely to commit suicide as compared to women who have never served in our armed forces. The first, a 12-year study of female veterans, found that “women who have been in the military had a three-fold increased risk for suicide compared with non-military women.” The second analysis, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and the Prevention National Violent Death Reporting System, confirmed the findings of the first, stating, “Women veterans are at about 79 percent greater risk of suicide than nonveteran women.”
As with most studies, the three mentioned above presented the data but did not offer any explanations for the findings. It is very curious that as women have obtained control over the areas that feminists claim would bring contentment to women—education, easy divorce, readily available day care, reproductive control, and equal opportunity even in the most masculine of occupations such as the military—happiness is evading an increasing number of them.
Feminists might attempt to claim that women are unhappy due to continued prejudice and discrimination of women based on a biased society and the male patriarchy. But there is another explanation, a simpler one based not on socialization but on science: the consciousness of modern, feminist-influenced women is in conflict with their biological drive for a husband, children, and a home. Aspirations for a career, independence, and individuality are in competition with a female’s deep and permanent biological makeup.
The most revealing “laboratory” study of social versus biological origins of female behavior occurred in the Kibbutz movement among Israelis. Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, those in the Kibbutz sought to have a sexually egalitarian society. Children no longer lived with their parents but in children’s houses with roommates of similar ages. There were communal kitchens, dining rooms, and laundries in which men and women equally partook in these domestic obligations. In all things, women were supposed to work equally side-by-side with men, and the females even wore men’s clothes and shunned jewelry.
Two to three generations later, the positions of the women in the Kibbutz was the subject of two extensive studies, one by anthropologists Lionel Tiger and Joseph Shepher and the other by sociologist Melford Spiro. Both studies reported the same findings: life was very different from the founding generation’s ideology of sexual androgyny. Occupational segregation emerged with men doing the high-status farming and women working as teachers, nurses, or doing laundry and cooking. Men held most of the positions of authority, and the higher the position the stronger this tendency. A one-third quota for women was established for governing bodies, but this quota was not met because there were not enough women who wanted to serve. The women of the second and third generation Kibbutz had an interest in fashion and jewelry, and felt such emptiness at not living with their children that the children’s houses were eliminated. Sex-role distinctions became greater in the Kibbutz than they were on the outside.
The greater unhappiness of women began when they lost their respect for life, for men, for institutions such as marriage, and for themselves. From the 1970s forward inappropriate behavior became the norm with a disregard for children (both the born and unborn), propriety, and for all things that would stabilize society and bring personal growth by being more than just an individual. The main culprits are those who call themselves feminist.
Horace wrote that, “You may drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will still hurry back.” Feminism cannot banish biology. The traditional functions that females have filled, rather than being ones imposed upon them by a patriarchal world as feminists would have us believe, may instead be mother nature’s way of selecting for women paths to happiness. Evolutionary selection based upon powerful female biological imperatives led women to create roles for themselves in society. Nature has already decided what will make women happiest and it is those functions, which have become associated with traditional roles, that, on average, optimizes women’s happiness and mutual participation in society. Until females begin to embrace their inherent biological programming, happiness will continue to evade the modern woman.
|
| |
| |
| | | | May 29, 2009 | In the short time that President Obama has been in office, there have been many breaches of foreign protocol such as an overt familiarity with the British Queen and bowing to the Saudi King. But the most significant indiscretion will occur tonight as homosexuality is promoted in our embassy in a foreign land—in Baghdad, Iraq, no less.
In the May 22, 2009 edition of The Washington Post, columnist Al Kamen wrote a piece entitled, “For One Night, Baghdad Gets a Pink Zone.” He revealed that the State Department is “holding what the invitation says is the first-ever U.S. Embassy Gay Pride Theme Party next Friday at Bagdaddy’s, which is the embassy employee association’s pub.” The invitation, which was sent out on May 10, encouraged everyone to, “Dress in drag or as a gay icon.”
The ideas of tolerance, diversity, and understanding are frequently toted by President Obama and his allies on the left. They have claimed that these attributes were lacking during the Bush years, specifically regarding Middle Eastern policy. However, by allowing a gay pride party to be sanctioned by the government the current administration is not showing any tolerance or understanding of the Middle Eastern culture and religion.
These gay rights spectacles are offensive to many in America, which is a far more permissive country in tolerating such conspicuous displays of sexually based behavior. Although gay pride parties and parades are considered abrasive by many in U.S. culture, this is downright belligerent within a Muslin culture which considers unveiled women provocative.
The Islamic culture does not appreciate or allow public sexual displays to begin with. Now the American embassy is going to display sexuality in a way that will do nothing but offend the host population, needlessly complicating an already sensitive situation. The question becomes, who is going to suffer? Our embassy officials, or our soldiers on the ground who will endure the increased outrage when events such as this occur?
Frequently cited among Muslims is not a dislike of Americans, but a dislike of the American culture’s brazen sexual behavior such as that demonstrated during a gay pride event. Prominent sexual conduct is considered by the Middle Easterners as one example of the debauchery within Western culture that they do not want imported within their homes and country, and they are willing to fight us to allow their culture to remain unaffected. A gay pride display sponsored in an official location such as an embassy can only serve to provoke and inflame Muslim distrust and distain for Western and American culture.
Gay pride events began in 1970, to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall “rebellion,” when protests and riots ensued for several nights following a police raid at the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street in New York City. These parties and parades have since occurred during the end of June, spreading to cities around the world. In June 2000, Bill Clinton declared June Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, with the last Sunday reserved as Gay Pride Day. As this year is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riot, there has been an increased spotlight on gay pride, even among our State Department officials in Middle Eastern countries.
Gay activists have become as aggressive and assertive as the police were overzealous in the establishment on Christopher Street that prompted this whole affair. The homosexual agenda has transformed from desiring equal treatment under the law to demanding state sanctioning of their chosen way to life. This has gone far beyond any private or unconventional sexual behavior between consenting adults, to a diminishing of dignity and discretion regarding private matters.
The liberals scream abridgement of the separation of church and state at the thought of a prayer being said at a public school graduation, a university that has accepted government assistance, a military service, or any other gathering involving government officials or funds. But now we have the religion of liberalism taking over the state as its church to espouse their theological values.
More offensive than our men in arms in an Islamic country are men in drag, as this strikes at the very core of propriety and decency within their culture. To the average Muslim, the threat of a Christian solder in their country to provide order is not nearly as threatening as the Westerners’ presence being the harbingers of gay pride and other events reflecting moral decadence. The Islamic world is already leery of moral decay in America, and tonight’s party at our Iraqi embassy celebrating conspicuous sexual behavior will only give the Muslims more motivation for wanting American and Western influence permanently out of their lands.
|
| |
| |
| | | | May 26, 2009 | There are some of us lucky enough to know very early what we are supposed to be. My brother, Sergeant Jonathan Cadavero, was one of those fortunate people. He never had dilemmas about the path he was supposed to take. Jon always knew he wanted to be a soldier. A picture of him on his first birthday shows little Jonny giving a salute, albeit with his palm facing out, an infantile indication of his future profession.
There are some who are born with a warrior spirit. I thank God for these men every day. They have protected and defended our families, values, and freedom that have kept America strong and great for 233 years.
Those with warrior souls find kindred spirits in our armed services. They embark upon duty and honor mixed with adventure and daring, free from the feminization of the civilian world. The biological male urge of protecting women and children is positively realized by their protecting our country from her enemies.
It was into this Army world that Jon ventured after graduating college with honors. His choices were many, his chosen path was one. Jon believed he was destined to be a soldier. He joined the 10th Mountain Division because of its frequent deployment. He then decided to leave officer candidate school and remain on the enlisted side to be closer to the men.
In an ironic twist of happenstance, Jon decided his specialty would be that of a combat medic. The sight of needles always made him queasy, until he began medic school. His wariness of medical instruments and procedures was replaced with a dedication to help every wounded soldier on the front lines. Medics are the number one target of our enemies. But medics are also the heroes of our heroes.
The simplest way to describe Jon’s personality is that of a true Christian in the sense of treating others as one would want to be treated. His favorite Bible verse is a little known one, Proverbs 3:27: “Whenever you possibly can, do good to those that need it.” That is exactly how Jon lived his life.
His favorite quote from a book was from Anton Myrer’s Once an Eagle, a novel about a soldier’s career from World War II through Vietnam. The protagonist, when trying to define honor for his young son, states, “You can’t help what you were born and you may not have much to say about where you die, but you can and you should try to pass the days in between as a good man.” Jon appreciated the simplicity of the description of honor and underlined the statement and wrote it on the first blank page of the book.
Jon had no choice in the circumstances of his passing, on a convoy patrolling for I.E.D.s outside of Baghdad. But he chose to live his life as a good man, an honorable soldier, and a brave medic.
Like many of our soldiers, Jon believed that it was during war time when his country most needed him. He joined a front-line unit as their medic because he stated that being on the front lines was where he was most needed. And in our last conversation Jon told me that he was considering re-enlisting because he wanted to continue the positive contributions his unit was making.
After being in Iraq for three months, Jon came home on leave. I asked him a rather silly question, if he was ever afraid. Jon admitted that he was always afraid, but said that the true character of a man is how he behaves while he is afraid.
There are no words adequate enough to describe the devastation upon hearing of your soldiers’ death. The frenzied blend of emotions is incomprehensible. Jon’s whole family was so proud of him. We were honored that he would choose to protect us and this nation. But there was unbearable grief at the thought of never seeing him again, at least on earth.
Since my brother’s passing, the meaning of Memorial Day changed for me. The holiday was always solemnly celebrated in our small hometown with a parade and remembrance ceremony. Memorial Day symbolizes the start of summer when everything is blooming and alive. It is reflected by the hope we have as individuals, a community, and a nation. But it is also a recognition that we have this hope and optimism because of the service and sacrifice of our military heroes. Especially on Memorial Day, our most solemn of American holidays, our soldiers, veterans and fallen heroes are remembered for sustaining freedom in our country and world. Where we would be without these guardians of freedom is a thought to terrible to imagine.
Perhaps in heaven, although filled with all good people, there are those with truly kindred spirits who find each other. Our fallen heroes will never get the opportunity to have their grandchildren around them as they tell their tales from their military days. But perhaps our fallen warriors come together sometimes to swap stories. Although among the angels now, these brave souls continue to inspire patriots. And, I like to think, they are watching over America and those of us still left below.
|
| |
| |
| | | | May 20 2009 | The first reported case of the recent outbreak of swine flu was a five-year old boy in the small village of La Gloria, Mexico. It is currently unknown how this boy contracted the swine flu on April 1, 2009. The closest pig farm, located six miles outside La Gloria, which is owned by the American company Smithfield Foods, tested the animals for the virus but all the results came back negative.
It is also unknown if this boy from Mexico really was the first victim of swine flu. A report from Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory stated that a boy in San Diego, California, who became ill on March 30, may actually be the very first swine flu patient. What is known is that within weeks over forty countries have confirmed cases of swine flu, most patients are experiencing mild symptoms, and the majority of those afflicted are children, teens, and young adults.
The latest numbers from the World Health Organization state that the confirmed cases of H1N1 influenza are 10,243, with the total deaths around 80. The number of swine flu patients in the U.S. is reported as 5,469. Of the 6 fatalities in America, 3 were in Texas and 1 each was in Arizona, Washington, and New York.
According to Health and Human Services, there have only been three influenza pandemics during the last hundred years: Spanish flu in 1918, Asian flu in 1957, and Hong Kong flu in 1968. But if one were to rely on the media for medical advice, every year’s flu season is a presumed outbreak until proven wrong. This is not just observed with different flu strains but with every new illness such as SARS and West Nile Virus, with the media creating a frenzy and then dropping the stories even quicker than the sickness stops spreading.
A pandemic is defined by geography. If an illness is prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or even the world a pandemic is occurring. The definition of an epidemic, a word commonly misused and manipulated by media outlets, is any disease that is more widespread than previous records. If the average number of flu cases in a given area is 20 per year, and then the number of cases increases to 25 during a particular 12-month period, an epidemic is occurring although in most cases there is nothing to cause alarm.
The media may be accurate in calling the current outbreak of swine flu an epidemic, as the number of cases is higher than previous, non-existing ones. But as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that the average number of deaths due to the regular flu is 36,000 per year in the U.S., and they have confirmed only 6 deaths due to swine flu, the latter is nothing to worry about at least for now.
According to the CDC, just as with the current swine flu outbreak, the origin of the 1918 Spanish flu is unknown. One-third of the world’s population experienced Spanish flu, with an estimated 50 to 100 million deaths worldwide. In the U.S., the first case of Spanish flu is believed to be a soldier at Fort Riley, Kansas on March 4, 1918; within three weeks more than 1,100 others on the base were hospitalized with the same condition. The second affected American city was Queens, New York, which saw their first case on March 11. One of the largest unsolved mystery of the Spanish flu is how it spread to remote locations such as the Arctic and isolated Pacific islands.
The Spanish flu, and also the “Asian” flu which was first seen in China in 1957 before it spread worldwide, commonly infected children and young adults although the elderly had the highest fatalities. This is different than most flu outbreaks which sicken the very young and old and those with weakened immune systems. More than 70,000 people in America died of Asian flu during the 1957-58 season.
In 1976 a new flu virus, which was later named “swine flu” as it was the first case of its kind seen in humans, was identified at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Experts believed the virus was related to the Spanish flu virus of 1918, which led to a large vaccination campaign in America. Cases were reported in 19 out of 21 counties in New Jersey, but then the virus disappeared.
In January 2004, the CDC began an experiment to combine human flu with avian flu (http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/panflu/news/jan1404hybrids.html). The scientists planned to infect animals with this hybrid flu to determine how this virus affects them and how quickly it can spread. As the current swine flu outbreak is a hybrid of pig, avian, and human flu, having the human-bird genome should aid in the making of a vaccine that could be effective against this newest influenza type.
In 1918, Spanish flu emerged in the spring, practically disappeared during the summer, and then reappeared as a mutated lethal strain in the autumn. It is too soon to determine if swine flu will become a devastating and lethal illness, a plague of the twenty-first century. Or perhaps swine flu will join SARS as the media hysteric that wasn’t a true epidemic.
|
| |
| |
| | | | May 13, 2009 | The hypocrisy of Elizabeth Edwards is apparent even before her recent interview with Oprah Winfrey begins. In the current issue of her magazine, Oprah writes that Mrs. John Edwards told her, “We’re not fancy people.” But Elizabeth declared this as they were walking through the Edwards’s 28,200 square-foot home, itself a very obvious sign of ostentation.
Mrs. Edwards recent book, “Resilience: Reflections on the Burdens and Gifts of Facing Life's Adversities,” focuses on losing her son Wade in a tragic car accident, her personal battle with cancer, and her husband’s infidelity. Elizabeth’s courage after the death of her child and a health crisis did show strength, and she truly is an inspiration in those regards. But on the last subject of John’s adultery, Mrs. Edwards has behaved in ways that are opposite to classy and composed, even for a betrayed wife. She seems oblivious to the effect her publicly insulting John will have on their three children, two of which are quite young and who should be shielded from such tirades.
When John Edwards began the love affair with his campaign staffer and videographer Rielle Hunter is unconfirmed; Ms. Hunter’s sister publicly stated that their relationship began in early 2006. In July 2008 Mr. Edwards made tabloid headlines when he was photographed visiting Rielle and her daughter, Frances, and the next month John admitted his affair. What is seldom focused on is the long duration of Mr. Edwards’s romance with Ms. Hunter, and the years-long secrecy and cover-ups that were involved to allow him to discreetly visit her and Frances, who he took a very devoted interest in for a child that he claims is not his.
As the knowledge of John’s relationship with Rielle became more known to his staffers, some members became determined to sabotage the Edwards presidential campaign should there be a chance of his being the Democratic nominee. This was done for political reasons with the intent of avoiding a potential scandal for their party, although one would have hoped that the primary purpose of these staffers would have been a point of principle to avoid the country going through such a fiasco. However, throughout John’s campaign Elizabeth Edwards did not, even once, equivocate about her husband being the best candidate for our American president although she knew that his affair with Rielle could be exposed. This speaks very poorly to Mrs. Edwards’s character as she was not able to put her country, and even her political party, above her own personal quest for power.
If a Republican woman behaved as Mrs. Edwards did, she would have immediately been called a liar and fraud by the media. But wives of former Democratic presidential candidates are given compassionate, non-judgmental treatment and receive glowing book reviews.
During the interview which aired on Oprah’s television show on May 7, Ms. Winfrey asked if Mrs. Edwards was still in love with her husband. Elizabeth responded, “You know, that’s a complicated question,” and further stated, “Neither one of us is out the door so I guess it’s day by day, but maybe it’s month by month.” What is even more apparent than her lack of conviction is Mrs. Edwards’s self-righteousness and cattiness, evidenced by one of her spokeswomen admitting that Oprah was forbidden to mention Rielle Hunter by name. There are some who glorify in the victimhood of the perpetually wronged wife, and Elizabeth has shown herself to be one of those women. Mrs. Edwards is willing to use her personal pain for both profits and pity, garnering increasing prosperity and prominence, even at the expense of her children.
If Elizabeth Edwards was truly honorable, she would put her desire for societal sympathy behind her protecting her children from their parent’s personal issues being discussed in detail publicly. She also would have encouraged her husband to recognize the innocent baby, Frances, an adorable one-year-old who looks exactly like John Edwards, as it is the responsible thing for a man to acknowledge his own child. As Ms. Rielle Hunter quietly raises Frances in northern New Jersey she has shunned publicity and continues to remain silent regarding her relationship with John Edwards; her lack of obsession with attention and making private matters public is a lesson that Elizabeth could learn from.
It’s not that complicated to know your own mind, feelings, and ability to forgive. The time is already overdue for Elizabeth Edwards to make a decision. She either needs to fully forgive John and stop punishing him and move forward with him (which she does not seem to be even close to based on her recent interviews), which includes partaking in every aspect that makes a whole marriage. Or, she needs to divorce him and end her sham of a matrimonial union, giving up some power for dignity.
Marriage is too serious to be entered into lightly. But it is also too important to remain in indefinitely when no trace of a real marriage exists anymore.
|
| |
| |
| | | | May 4, 2009 | As Rush Limbaugh walked onto the stage to address the Heritage Foundation’s President’s Club spring dinner this evening, he received an enthusiastic standing ovation from the 1,100 audience members. When the applause died down, someone shouted “Where’s your teleprompter?” causing laughs and more cheers. Mr. Limbaugh used no teleprompter or notes, but spoke with as much eloquence and passion that he displays on his radio show he spontaneously addressed many topics.
His speech began very positively as he stated: “Every year in America is better than the year before.” Rush then cautioned, “Never in my life have I seen so many achieved people scared to death of their government as they are today.” The premise that Democratic plans will succeed is automatic, and there is no debate anymore about whether something is effective.
Mr. Limbaugh stated that he didn’t want the federal government owning Chrysler, the U.A.W. (United Auto Workers), or the banks. He then gave a grade to President Obama’s first 100 days in office as “barely a D.” The grade of “F” was not given yet because, “You got to allow for future failure.” Regarding the press conference on President Obama’s 100th day in office, Rush said, “It was a joke, it was a mockery.” Although there were questions about his dog and what enchants him, “not one question about anything negative” was presented to Obama.
“The Republican party and the conservative movement are two different things,” Rush firmly declared. He further stated that “It offends me when someone calls me the leader of the Republican party because it is in a heap of trouble and so is the conservative movement.” Conservatives do have an opportunity right now, as, “We've never had a better chance to contrast who we are than with the current administration.”
When one looks that the internals, Obama does not have the approval of the vast majority, Mr. Limbaugh noted. People like Barack personally but don’t agree with his plans for a government takeover. There is therefore a “disconnect between what he says he wants to do and who he is.”
Rush gently mocked the “listening tour” that some Republicans, who he did not mention by name, embarked on this morning. He asked if this is what Eisenhower would do right before an invasion, to listen to the troops. After shaking his head, Rush declared, “People want to be lead, people want to be inspired.” He recommended a “teaching tour” instead to spread the message of conservatism.
“Conservatism is not tied to one man,” Mr. Limbaugh stated, referring to Ronald Reagan. “Conservatism will never go out of style because conservatism is based on freedom and freedom will never get old.” Enthusiastic applause demonstrated the agreement of the audience that traditional principles are timeless.
Rush outlined the differences between him and the politicians. The elected are obsessed with polling data, but as a broadcaster he doesn’t have to pander to anybody and say what people want to hear. He reminded the audience that, “Fifty-eight million people voted against this man [Obama], and they’re dying for somebody to stand up and say what they already agree with.”
He reiterated that now is the chance for conservatives to distinguish themselves from the current administration. After the 2000 and 2004 elections, the Democrat party didn’t move to the center, but moved to the left to contrast themselves from the Republicans. “The one thing the Democrats can’t put up with is to risk a debate in the arena of ideas.” Rush insisted that “We must start tying Obama to the economic disaster” as the stimulus bill passed last fall and there has been enough time to prove that the Democratic economic plan will not work. “Obama likes chaos, he like confusion, because it’s an opportunity for him to fix things.”
The advice Rush gave to conservatives to reach out to Americans was simple: “Teach them. Inspire them!” Democrats must be fought, but conservatives cannot surrender their principles. We don’t want our country to be turned over to those who only have emotion, Mr. Limbaugh said. Rather, Americans are “seeking leadership.”
The contributions of America and her people was Rush’s next focus. “This country’s greatness depends on you,” he declared as he looked at the audience. “It is the people of this country who made it great.” He continued, “For the country to remain as great as it has been the individual must pursue excellence.”
“We are the greatest country on the face of the earth in all of human existence,” Rush stated, noting that in only 300 years America has out-produced and out-created other nations who have existed for thousands of years. Our dominance in the world has produced much good such as spreading liberty and helping those who are oppressed. Our founding fathers had the courage to place “in our founding documents that the source of our freedom is God.”
When the applause died down, Mr. Limbaugh continued. “It is a natural yearning of the human spirit to pursue happiness.” He further stated that, “The more liberty and opportunity people have the less the federal government is able to control them.”
“This administration thinks the country is unjust, immoral, and unfair,” Rush said. However, nowhere in the Constitution is anyone given the power to remake America. The message of the opposition is negative. “The party of the Democrats and the left is the party of no: no to freedom, no to life, no to victory in Iraq.”
America is in need of leaders who will lead and inspire. “People love being inspired. People love being told they are better than they are,” Rush stated. “Conservatism takes thinking and understanding. Liberalism is easy; all you have to do is say ‘I care’ when someone is suffering.”
Rush quoted one of Jack Kemps statements during a tribute to him: that you cannot count compassion by how many people the government helps, but one counts compassion by how many people no longer need the government’s help. He insisted that, “Conservatism doesn’t need modernization. Conservatism needs application.” It is what is best for the American people, because “we want everyone to succeed.”
During the Q&A, in which questions from the audience were written on index cards and then selected to give to Mr. Limbaugh, the first inquiry asked for Rush’s advice for today’s college graduates. He quickly responded, “Forget everything you learned.” Rush continued, “Don’t listen to negativism. Don’t listen to pessimism. Find someone who succeeded and feed off of them.”
Rush’s final thought was, “We don’t need to remake the United States of America, we need to stand up for it.” As he slowly walked off the stage and waved to the audience, enthusiastic clapping and cheering followed him and continued even after Mr. Limbaugh was no longer visible to the attendees.
|
| |
| |
| | | | April 7, 2009 | Everywhere one turns there are examples of a forced equality where all unique distinctions and achievements of individuals are discarded. The recent bailouts, both of citizens and companies, is one case of the lack of differentiation between those individuals who were responsible and those who were self-serving, as the latter were rewarded and artificially elevated to a similar status of the former.
Not content that in America today there are equal opportunities for all, groups that declare they are disadvantaged are demanding equal outcomes. This misplaced emphasis on a superficial comparison of results clouds the correlation of contribution to consequences. Rather than looking at successful outcomes and tracing through the efforts that produced this, self-interested groups choose to focus on a demographic difference to cry discrimination.
Forced equality to make everyone equal in all ways is mutating us into an androgynous country where no one is distinguishable. This androgyny is the result of feminism, which sought to remove distinctions between males and females to create a gender-neutral culture, and then other groups emulated this pattern to move us toward an artificial egalitarian society.
The first feminists advocated for equal voting rights, and when this was achieved they sought equal education and economic prospects. But once women entered the workforce in large numbers their emphasis shifted from equal access to an outcome-based standard of salaries as a measurement of equality. The feminists equated differing dollar amounts with discrimination. The presence of men already in the workforce, and the subsequent seniority and skill they had achieved over time, was dismissed in favor of a salary-based comparison to validate effort rather than result. This started to destroy merit-based systems and compensation based upon individual achievement.
Personal accomplishment then began to be discouraged in the very place where the perception of males and females being androgynous began: our public schools. Feminists shrieked that the lower participation of girls in math and science was a sign of discrimination rather than a sign of disinterest. They encouraged the teachers unions to change the curriculum to boost the number of girls taking hard sciences, ignoring how these feminizing changes began to disenfranchise young men.
The motivation or natural interest that produced a higher participation of males in math and science became the impetus for the feminists to start altering fundamental systems such as education to ensure, even to the disregard of its impact upon males, an increase in the number of females in each academic area. This became the model for increasing the number of girls who compete in school sporting events. Rather than creating more opportunities for females who desired to be on an athletic team, feminists decreased the number of boys playing sports so the number of athletes would be equal for both sexes.
A quota system, while destructive in schools and places of work, has potentially catastrophic consequences for our national security when it is applied to our armed services. Even the last bastion of masculinity, our military, was not immune to the feminist assault upon unique identities.
The feminists have practically achieved their goal of a gender-neutral military. In 1992 a Presidential Commission on women in the military discovered that only 1 out of 100 female soldiers were capable of achieving the same physical fitness standards as 60 out of 100 male soldiers could. But because test scores were “gender-normed,” with the grade of “A” for a woman being the equivalent to a “D” for a man, females were prevented from failing. The same Commission heard evidence from top military officials that between 40 and 50 percent of enlisted women were not physically capable of performing their specific occupations. But servicewomen were promoted and advanced alongside the men regardless of their physical ability to do their job.
Feminists have gone beyond manipulating physical fitness scores to ignoring the misdeeds of women soldiers that should warrant some disciplinary action. Beginning in the Persian Gulf War, servicewomen who got pregnant in the war zone and were sent home were still awarded a badge for combat service, and allowed to have equal recognition with their brothers and sisters-in-arms who remained in combat during the duration of their deployment. This diminished the perseverance of soldiers who remained at war, and endangered the mission due to manpower shortages.
Once the mandatory equality of men and women were instilled in our armed services, the next step became an androgyny for all soldiers. Beginning in 2001 black berets, traditionally worn only by Army Rangers, one of the army’s most elite all-male units tasked with doing impossible missions with near-impossible odds, were issued to all soldiers as an attempt to make everyone feel equally important. The years of gallant effort it took to wear a black beret was something to aspire to, and distributing them to everyone in the Army reduced the value of the Ranger unit who deserve to be distinguished.
Gender-norming is not as apparent in professions where physical capabilities don’t underlie measures of performance and contribute to readiness. But in the military, and those in the public safety such as fire and police officers, the measure of physical capabilities of women which are being manipulated to ensure androgyny demonstrate how far radical feminists are willing to go to prove there exists no distinctions between men and women.
For the past fifty years, feminists never remained satisfied with equality but continue to demand special rights and a glorification of everything feminine with a suppression of men and masculinity. The classical feminism of the suffragettes is not recognizable in its modern form of forced androgyny through gender-norming.
Where emotion makes logic leaps, the product is rarely rational. The aggressive feminization of our schools, workplaces, and military has fractured our society into diverse entities all competing for special rights rather than the betterment of our country. The distinctions which make us valued as unique individuals are disappearing, and the result is a society that is less productive, less cohesive, and less capable of advancing.
|
| |
| |
| | | | March 18, 2009 | Last week President Barack Obama signed an executive order creating a “White House Council on Women and Girls.” The purpose of this group, as stated by the President, is “to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters…” The Council will specifically focus on gender equality in the workplace.
The feminist claim that working women are disadvantaged when compared to men is deception to the point of deceit. Evidence shows that in every area of occupation, as well as education, females are outshining the males.
Warren Farrell was previously on the board of the National Organization of Women (NOW) in New York City. But after studying government data, which he initially thought would provide undisputable evidence to feminist claims of a wage gap, Mr. Farrell realized feminists were not just misinformed but were lying. He subsequently wrote a book entitled “Why Men Earn More,” which provides sharp insights to a much-manipulated topic. The feminists included all women of working age in their statistics, but honest reporting requires an exclusion of the one-third of women who choose an occupation which receives no salary such as housewives, stay-at-home mothers, and philanthropists. Mr. Farrell illustrates that it is the choices that many women make for their families, desiring a flexible job or working fewer hours or less responsibility, which lowers the average female salary and is the true reason for the disparity between wages.
There is no difference in pay for the average male and the female’s single counterparts. Since the 1950’s, there was a less than 2 percent gap between the average wages of never-married men and women. Today, never-married educated women make 117 percent of the salary of never-married educated men, and even among part-time workers women earn $1.10 for every dollar a man does. If there is any gender that should be complaining about salary inequality, it should be the males.
This unequal pay deceit is still continuing, as the Presidential Council on Women and Girls claims that females make 78 cents for every dollar a male makes. Such an allegation goes against common sense and the basic economics of supply and demand. If a woman could do the same work as a man for a much cheaper salary, any employer would be crazy not to hire women exclusively.
Women are not just doing better than men in occupations, but also in education. Girls achieve better grades and have a higher enrollment than boys in Advanced Placement classes, including the hard sciences such as math and science. Girls outnumber boys in student government, honor societies, school newspapers, and debate clubs. Young women are now almost 60 percent of college freshman.
In contrast, young men aren’t doing so well. Boys are much more likely than girls to be suspended, held back a grade, and drop out of school. They are also four times more likely to have special education needs, and boys are overwhelmingly more prone to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Crime, drugs, alcohol, and promiscuity are problems which affect more boys than girls.
Beginning in the 1970s, our entire education curriculum was changed, with the intent to be more inclusive to compensate for the disadvantages of girls. But why do we now see the extreme and pervasive problems with boys in the education system that has been adjusted for females? If the education establishment had truly been so male centric, the treatment was a benign discrimination. However, the supposed fixes to help girls have been pernicious to the progress of boys.
Both in education and occupation, feminists are lying about supposed discrimination against women to make a political point. They are like any partisan organization manipulating very obvious facts for selfish gain at the expense of others. Given the economic restraints of any business for supply and demand based upon revenue, one can wonder if men’s salaries are being artificially suppressed to placate feminists, resulting in women being compensated more than what their work product would actually merit so employers could avoid potential complaints and accusations of being anti-women.
Modern feminism has never been about equality, but superiority. They do not want equal rights, they want better rights. This is exactly what has been accomplished through our education system by disadvantaging boys. And this is what occurring now through more false claims of discrimination at the workplace.
In her book "The War Against Boys", Christina Hoff Sommers stated that “History is one long lesson in the dangers of combining moral fervor with misinformation.” If in fact women are neglected in schools or paid far less than men for the same job, a moral fervor should be raised and steps should immediately be taken to remedy such mistreatment. But the truth shows that women are the second sex no more and as a gender females are achieving more success than males in school and work. Any statistic that attempts to explain the contrary is misdirected and misused.
KRISTIA IS NOW ON TWITTER! YOU CAN FOLLOW HER AT: WWW.TWITTER.COM/KRISTIACAVERE |
| |
| |
| | | | March 4, 2009 | Last Friday, February 27, 2009 was the two-year mark for the death of a hero. Sergeant Jonathan Cadavero volunteered for the United States army after he graduated from college, he requested a placement in the 10th Mountain Division which is frequently deployed, he accepted a position as a combat medic in a front line unit rather than accepting a medical job on the base, he tirelessly worked as part of a team to locate and neutralize IEDs which indiscriminately kill both soldier and civilian, and on the morning that he died in Baghdad a light went out in the world although his presence will always be felt among us. Sergeant Jon referred to himself as a rebel, not because of any purposefully rebellious actions he committed but because he had an independent spirit which was led by his conscious in the rightness of his actions, even when his beliefs were unpopular and even when he stood alone.
Citizens of America, during a time such as this in the Long War we are fighting, it is understandable why the reasons we must defeat Islamofascist terrorism are not at the forefront of our society. But what we must remember is this: our current enemy is not rational like the Russians during the Cold War who would have surrendered rather than risk losing their nation; rather, our present adversary is irrational, and ruthless, and patient.
Last Friday, February 27, 2009 was the beginning of a new American revolution. Dozens of “Tea Parties” were held across Americans as regular people came together to protest the overreach of government that is encroaching more and more in our lives. The principle should not be just the increase of our wages going to Washington for them to appropriate as they wish, but the loss of freedom that is a result of the federal government having increasing control over our earnings and thus our lives.
If the citizenry is this upset due to the politicians manipulating the law to demand an increase of our pay, you haven’t seen anything yet if we lose the global war on terrorism. The enemy we are fighting seeks to leave us with no freedom left.
This terrorism combines the misery of socialism, the brutality of communism, and the control of a dictatorship into the worst tyranny known to modern man. Our enemies are not rational, and they cannot be reasoned with or educated enough for reform. To believe we can win this battle in a judicial court system is the utmost of naiveté; there is but one method to deal with those who commit such acts of terror, and that is a swift and final execution of justice.
There have always been those who wish to take away the freedoms of others. History is plagued with men who, despite all the power and possessions of an empire, had an unquenchable desire for more. Control over land and resources are only possible after a population has been denied their personal freedom. And it is when the people begin to accept this powerlessness when a society is able to crumble from within.
Freedom is not just about politics and voting. The fundamental pier of liberty is individuals having the freedom to choose how to think and believe and live, with the only restrictions being the laws necessary for a just and decent society. Many in the generation of our Founding Fathers fought and died for our freedom. Yet today, as Felix Frankfurter stated, “We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights.” The cost of our freedom can never be forgotten, but must be reinforced through an acknowledgement of the challenges America faced and triumphed over, as well as the current conflict which also demands victory.
We have changed philosophically in our country and our culture to allow an erosion of the pillars of our representative republic. Once, we had elected leaders to represent us and our best interest; now, elected representatives dictate to us what our interest should be. They have focused on taking away more of our freedoms through litigation and regulation with the rationale that it is for our own good, while ignoring the larger picture of our entire society being threatened by those who do not want us free. Our military and a global war for independence have been whisked away from focus, as Congress expands its concentration on the mundane.
Our soldiers are fighting and dying for our freedom. We cannot allow our chosen leaders, from the community to the national level, to take it away from us.
|
| |
| |
| | | | February 25, 2009 | There are over fifty thousand fatal car crashes every year in America, and there are hundreds of thousands of other accidents, sudden medical emergencies, and so on. But never does one expect to see a somber-faced policeman at their door relating bad news about a loved one. You never think it’s going to be your family that is touched by tragedy.
Comparable to this civilian experience is a military family seeing an armed services officer and chaplain at their door. Your first hope is that perhaps your soldier has been injured. Nothing can prepare you for the shock that your hero is not coming home. Despite a conscious knowledge of the risks and danger facing them, you never think that something will happen to your loved one.
Amidst the shock and grief, the military family must wait several days before their fallen hero is brought home to them. The soldier is transported from overseas to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where final military and medical procedures are performed before the fallen is escorted home.
The practice of photographing the flag-draped coffins of soldiers as they arrive in Dover was banned by President George H.W. Bush eighteen years ago, and this was continued under President Clinton and the second President Bush, to allow the family privacy and respect. However, a journalism professor and anti-war activist at the University of Delaware sued the Pentagon in 2005 to force a media presence at Dover. President Obama has since overturned the ban and is allowing photographs of our returning fallen soldiers. This is a great disrespect and inconsideration to those who have lost a soldier, as current polls show that almost 90 percent of military families do not want the media at Dover.
The fallen soldier’s loved ones should not be subjected to the indignity of his casket on the television, before they are allowed to physically pay their respects. For photographers to intrude at Dover is an invasion of privacy and very inappropriate at such an emotional and devastating time.
For those few families who want photographers at Dover, if their true motive is to honor their hero, they are many opportunities for them to invite the media to pay respect to their fallen soldier without compromising the great majority of families who do not want the media present. For example, they can request the media to photograph their soldier as he is being transported from Dover to Arlington or their hometown, they can be at funeral and gravesite ceremonies, and days before their soldier even arrives in Dover the family can invite the media into their home to give a tribute to their fallen hero.
The Secretary of Defense has stated that photographs will only be allowed at Dover with the family’s permission. But this still adds confusion and unnecessary stress during such an emotional time. Pre-existing family strife, such as divorce, separation and blended families, can escalate at such times. Determining whose wishes should be observed can become a battle. All this will detract from the function of Dover, which is to conduct a routine military procedure before escorting the fallen soldier home to family.
The military ritual at Dover is a solemn one in which respect is paid to a fallen comrade-in-arms. Dover is a place of transit for the soldier on their final journey home, and it is not a place for media.
After a soldier passes, the Department of Defense releases to the press their official military photograph of the fallen hero. From the very start of such a tragedy, the media is provided with a picture that they are free to use in telling the life story of a soldier. But to photograph a coffin at Dover reduces a sacrifice of a human being to an anonymous, depersonalized commodity.
During last year’s presidential campaign, Barack Obama graciously declared to the press that that families of the contenders should be off limits in their coverage. Accurately reporting an event in a candidate’s child’s life is acceptable; however, the use of children for political purposes is not just inappropriate but is morally wrong. How much more so inaccessible to the press and the potential politicizing, should be someone’s child who has fought and died for our country. President Obama, please have as much compassion on our fallen soldier’s families as you did for your political opponents, and allow the media ban at Dover to remain in place.
|
| |
| |
| | | | February 18, 2009 | When America learned of the octuplets born to Nadya Suleman, feelings of joy at eight healthy babies quickly turned into anger when it was revealed their mother was unattached, unemployed, and already had six children at home. Although an extreme example of a selfish instinct for motherhood regardless of one’s condition, this is an indication of an infection in society at large. The symptoms of the Suleman Syndrome began over forty years ago, beginning with a disregard for life, then a dismissal of marriage and men, and finally a glorification of single motherhood.
In June 2008, national headlines told of seventeen pregnant girls from Gloucester High School in Massachusetts who made a “pact” to become mothers simultaneously. In an interview with Time magazine, their school superintendent attempted an explanation by stating, “Families are broken. Many of our young people are growing up directionless.” One of their classmates, who herself gave birth her freshman year, further explained, “They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally.” The ramifications of these insightful remarks were lost on a community and a country that remains bewildered over such increasingly common occurrences. What should have been illuminated was that these girls lacked a coherent family and were therefore attempting to create their own to compensate for this emotional need.
As the above examples show, the basic urge of wanting to be loved is manifesting itself in many inappropriate ways. To many young women babies have become a commodity whether for the love they will give the mother or the money, through government subsidies, they will bring to her.
As with the pregnancy pact girls before her, Ms. Suleman rationalizes her behavior by invoking her own unfulfilling family. In an interview she stated that she “longed for certain connections and attachments” that were lacking during her childhood, and that “feelings of self and identity” were missing. Ms. Suleman was not content to find such a connection through her first husband, as she said, “I wasn't in love at all with him. I was in love with having children.” This desire to have children to repair some previous life damage demonstrates the inadequacy of schools and their psychologists to compensate for shortcomings in families, which religion once used to help heal by providing philosophical and moral direction.
It was not too long ago when the decision to have a child was because of what the parents could bring to the new life. Now, more women are having a baby to make up for the mother and/or father that was lacking. Rather than a natural life progression and cycle of parents providing a loving and safe home for their child and then the child maturing and forming their own family, having a baby has become a regression to childhood. The new focus is on being a perpetual child instead of having a child.
There are 1.5 million babies born to single mothers every year in America, and their probability of poverty, crime, promiscuity, drug use, suicide, and failing out of school are exponentially higher than their two-parent peers. Since the 1960’s our culture has been brainwashed into believing the moral neutrality of all families being equivalent. Evidence overwhelmingly proves that not all family structures are equal regarding the raising and outcome for children. “Family diversity in the form of increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families does not strengthen the social fabric. It dramatically weakens and undermines society, placing new burdens on schools, courts, prisons, and the welfare system. These new families are not an improvement on the nuclear family, nor are they even just as good, whether you look at outcomes for children or outcomes for society as a whole. In short, far from representing social progress, family change represents a stunning example of social regress,” wrote Barbara Dafoe Whitehead in The Atlantic. Contrary to the popular portrayal, broken homes make broken kids.
Beginning in the 1970’s, the majority of Americans did not think it was morally wrong for a woman to have a child out-of-wedlock. Gradually the emphasis left the child and shifted to the mother’s happiness and well-being. The cycle is no longer correctly unfolding of children being the focus of their parents and then growing up and making their own children their primary focus. When children don’t become the center of their parents’ priorities they inevitably seek to become someone else’s focus to compensate, ironically remaining a child and attention junkie.
Although society is being told that love of self should be above all, we have seen the fantasy of individualistic freedom refuted. Octo-mom and the Gloucester High girls are concrete examples that, rather than just “me,” true human longing is for belonging and being an integral part of a family unit where one feels safe to grow. The women and girls who feel this emptiness and desire fulfillment by having a baby love them should instead focus on finding a person they can love, and with this love to create a family and offer a feeling of belonging to a spouse and then children. First it takes understanding that this emptiness is there, and then the courage to act properly to remedy this void. The goal of a mature parent should be to love your children, rather than being loved by them.
In spite of these situations, perhaps the prognosis for society is beginning to look up. The one glimmer of responsible humanity from Ms. Suleman is her respect for life. Rather than see her remaining embryos discarded, she was implanted with all of them because, as she stated, “to dispose of a life is incomprehensible to me.” Selfish and foolish Nadya Suleman may be, but at least this woman values life, possibly the first step in the treatment needed to reverse the syndrome that now bears her name.
|
| |
| |
| | | | February 11, 2009 | The great debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, falsely referred to as a “stimulus,” focused on the excessive spending, but the new rules governing healthcare were completely ignored by both parties. These new medical stipulations, as stated by the bill, will affect “every individual in the United States.” One of the secret provisions hidden in the massive thousand pages of the stimulus is the nationalization of our healthcare, and now the federal government can decide who lives and who dies.
The stimulus provides $50 billion dollars towards the creation of a new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, and this agency will compel every person in America to have an electronic medical record. Health information including abortion procedures, mental health problems, sexual issues, patient non-compliance, and lawsuits against doctors will be shared with over 600,000 healthcare entities and will therefore allow millions of people to access these private documents. The Institute for Health Freedom has warned that these national digital healthcare records will be imposed on everyone, without allowing people the choice to not participate.
What is even more alarming is that everyone’s medical treatment will now be tracked by this federal electronic system. The government will be monitoring all healthcare decisions made by doctors and hospitals to ensure the treatment is correct and cost effective. The federal government is not just seeking to reduce the costs of healthcare but, as the bill states, to “guide” your doctor’s decisions. This hidden portion of the stimulus has mandated that doctors give up their independence and work hand-in-hand with the government, and to ensure compliance there will be penalties for physicians and hospitals who do not comply with this new system. The definition of compliance was deliberately left undefined, but the bill gives the power to the Health and Human Services Secretary to define both compliance and the penalties.
Within this secret healthcare section of the stimulus was the forming of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, an appointed group given the power to decide whether new medications or treatments are cost effective. In her column entitled, “Ruin Your Health with the Obama Stimulus Plan,” Betsy McCaughey writes, “The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined.” The government already had a great deal of power over healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid deciding which treatments to pay for. But these new healthcare rules in the stimulus create a new totalitarian cost-effectiveness standard that the Federal Coordinating Council will dictate.
According to Congressional Democrats, our Constitution guarantees a “right to privacy” in matters such as abortion. They have argued for decades that such personal matters should remain between a woman and her physician. But does not this right to privacy extend to keeping a citizen’s medical records between them and their doctor? Perhaps for the Democrats in Congress dismissing the possibility of life before birth and allowing unfettered abortions is not enough, as they are now demanding to control the medical definition of life throughout the lives of those who are born.
In Minnesota, their Department of Health ignored current law regarding genetic privacy and parental rights to their child, and they took and stored the DNA from hundreds of thousands of newborns without the knowledge or consent of the parents. This heinous practice was exposed by the Citizens’ Council on Health Care (CCHC) and stopped by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. However, Democratic state senators in Minnesota are strongly advocating for the continued collecting and warehousing of the DNA of every newborn, without parental consent. The CCHC is especially alarmed because Minnesota scientists were searching for genes related to violence, crime, and other behaviors. The government was criminalizing newborns based on their DNA.
There is no such thing as something “free” from the government for there is always a cost for whatever services they provide. The nature and extent of the price needs to be carefully examined to comprehend both the monetary and the ethical costs for any plan as well as its impact upon our society. We have seen many times that one cannot accept at face value that what is enacted by the government is good for us just because someone in politics says it is so; instead we must understand and evaluate any government efforts to ensure consistency between what we value and our principles. Our cherished freedoms of privacy, from doctor-patient confidentiality to a newborn’s genes, have come under threat by those who would wish to once again redefine freedom for their personal benefits while violating the public trust of office, and we must not allow this to occur.
|
| |
| |
| | | | February 4, 2009 | Last summer’s trillion dollar bailout was supposed to help banks and credit markets to stabilize the economy, but now another trillion of our dollars is deemed necessary to manage this continuing meltdown. Many are wondering how best to stimulate the economy; however, the main question should be why, after trillions of tax payer money has been spent, no one who initiated this financial crisis is in jail.
The cause of the mortgage catastrophe had its beginning in the well-meaning but misguided Carter administration’s “Community Reinvestment Act” which encouraged home ownership among the underprivileged, in particular minorities. During the Clinton years this act was resurrected due to a strong focus on multiculturalism, and lending institutions were forced to grant mortgage loans to unqualified applicants or face harsh penalties. While these financial institutions slowly crumbled under this banking ideology, the Clinton cronies who were leading these companies profited. One example is Franklin Delano Raines who, during his six years as CEO of Fannie Mae, received 100 million dollars in compensation before being forced to leave due to questionable ethics and accounting; a second is Jaime Gorelick who pocketed 75 million dollars during her years as Vice Chairman of the same institution.
During the tenure of Mr. Raines and Ms. Gorelick at Fannie Mae, government regulators discovered that the institution had lost $9 billion dollars in “unrecorded losses” due to improper accounting. If the average American stole nine thousand dollars they would be arrested, however, those who stole billions of dollars and have affected millions of people’s lives continue to remain unaccountable and unpunished.
Although the so-called “stimulus” bill is being marketed as helping the regular workers during these troubling economic times, the real entity who gains both money and power is the federal government. Some examples of the unnecessary expenditures of this bill include: 80 billion dollars to bail out state’s education budgets; 7 billion to modernize federal buildings; 600 million for new hybrid cars for federal employees; 400 million for climate change research; 400 and 345 million for new computers for the Social Security Administration and the Agricultural Department; 200 million to refurbish the National Mall; and 150 million for the Smithsonian.
A dangerous precedent would be set by rewarding states with billions of bailout dollars due to their lack of proper planning and budgeting. Money going towards federal buildings, cars, or computers will not stimulate the economy in any way save for the lucky companies who get the order. Ninety percent of the “stimulus” package will increase the size, power, and funding of the government, and only ten percent of the funds will create jobs by building infrastructure or encouraging small business through tax breaks.
The government depriving the people of their hard earned money to support an even larger government is incomprehensible given that the number of elected officials caught stealing continues to increase. Tom Daschle, the presidential nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, withdrew after it was revealed that he owed over $140,000 in federal taxes. Nancy Killifer, nominated by the president for the brand-new position of Chief Performance Officer, also had to step down due to failing to pay taxes. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson had to decline a position in the Obama administration due to a federal investigation of his awarding state contracts to his political donors. Representative Hilda Solis had her nomination as Labor Secretary halted due to her husband not paying taxes on his business, with some of his tax debts being sixteen years old. Most disturbing, Timothy Geithner failed to pay taxes for years yet was ironically nominated as Treasury Secretary, the very agency that oversees that IRS.
If the average American failed to pay taxes, they would be in court or jail and certainly would not have been rewarded by being promoted to oversee a federal office. By holding the citizens up to a higher standard than those we have appointed to represent us is the highest form of governmental hypocrisy. The federal government is seizing the wealth of the people to fund their own quest for increasing power and control, even as those in government conceal their own money.
If the leaders of a country fail to pay their taxes and obey the law, they cannot expect the citizens to do the same. Perhaps if all Americans united and escrowed their federal taxes until this corruption is cleaned up, a clear message will be heard that those elected should serve their constituents, not their personal agendas and desire for power.
The current administration is seeking to expand government in areas that are completely unrelated to the problems they are claiming to fix. With typical government inefficiency they offer a remedy for the ailing economy and instead use it as a vehicle for expanding desired government bureaucracy at the expense of the average taxpayer. Responding when Congress appropriated fifteen thousand dollars to French refugees, President James Madison stated, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects on benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
The three legitimate federal government expenditures as stated in the Constitution—providing for our national defense, establishing justice, and promoting general welfare—is not an excuse for thievery through taxes. You cannot use the common defense and establishing justice to expand out untold numbers of pet projects in the name of promoting the general welfare. Those crooks in the Capital should remember that such policies of taxation, causing deprivation among the people for their leader’s ideological gains, originally caused the American colonists to resist government actions and begin the Revolution.
|
| |
| |
| | | | January 28, 2009 | With the creation of her own political action committee this week, it is clear that Governor Sarah Palin may not intend to remain isolated in Alaska forever. Since her entry unto the national political scene some have been asking when she will run for a national office, and a few are even preparing for Mrs. Palin to run in 2012. But the proper question should be not “when” but “if.” If she were a man would Sarah Palin have garnered the same enthusiastic endorsement from conservatives and from women particularly? The answer is an emphatic “no.”
Sarah Palin is a great example of the honor within the Republican party. Unlike Democrats, who relish attacking and looking for misdeeds committed by Republicans, by her clearing up Alaskan politics first she put into practice the Christian value of removing the plank from your own eye before you remove the splinter from your neighbor. As we have seen many times in the past with governor scandals, Democratic elected officials project disgrace upon Republicans in an attempt to obscure the grievance of problems generated by the Democratic political machine. Mrs. Palin was inarticulate and not studied as a vice-presidential candidate should have been. But she possessed one of the qualities most lacking in public officials today: simple honesty. She demonstrated ethics in trying to reform a corrupt political system in Alaska. Our country, our towns, and our world might function much better if we had more leaders who spoke less about the right thing and did more of the right thing.
However, outside the talking points what Sarah Palin says is disappointing. She has no familiarity with any major issue facing America (the one exception perhaps being energy) and no thoughtfulness of speech to give evidence that she has long and deeply contemplated international and domestic concerns. Mrs. Palin was simply a Harriet Myers candidate, chosen for her gender rather than her qualifications.
In interviews Mrs. Palin was unable to mention one example of John McCain’s economic leadership during his twenty-six years as a Senator. She could not name a single newspaper or magazine she reads. Sarah Palin could not name a single Supreme Court case, with the one exception being Roe vs. Wade. She fumbled through the constitutional role of the vice-president, and offered an incorrect answer.
Most disconcerting is Governor Palin’s shortsighted attempt to focus on her gender as the way to appeal to women voters. In trying to quote Madeleine Albright, she stated at a McCain rally that “There is a place in hell reserved for women who don’t support other women” (Ms. Albright used the world “help,” not support). Republicans had been asking women not to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman, but to look at the person and their positions on the issues. Mrs. Palin brought back a superficial standard of women in politics, where women were supposed to vote for her based on her gender. By asking for special consideration simply because one is a female, that is itself an indication that she is not qualified.
If Sarah Palin was a man, she would have been forced off the Republican presidential ticket. For the good of the party, she should have done the same. If a man expressed Mrs. Palin’s unfamiliarity with problems facing America, was unable to communicate artfully, and was unable to offer any solutions, women would not have been intensely drawn to him as they were to Sarah but would have rejected him.
To this day Mrs. Palin has offered no sound and specific suggestions to assist the economy. But during the campaign she did offer the following as a foreign policy qualifier: “Our next door neighbors are foreign countries.” Sarah Palin’s fan Ann Coulter gave this wise admonition: “…she [Sarah Palin] will need to become wiser and better read.” As foreign policy experience was the much talked about qualification deemed as needed for our commander-in-chief, perhaps Governor Palin will receive this understanding by remaining in Alaska.
|
| |
| |
| | | | January 21, 2009 | In a brilliant new commercial by CatholicVote.org, viewers see the image of a baby in the womb as the following messages are shown: “This child’s future is a broken home,” “He will be abandoned by his father,” “His single mother will struggle to raise him.” The music increases in tempo and “Despite the hardships, he will endure” is read on the screen. The symphony plays a triumphant tune as a picture of President Barack Obama is shown with the words: “This child will become the first African American president.” The advertisement concludes with the message “Life: Imagine the Potential.” This truth may give more pregnant women, perhaps in similar situations of being alone and afraid, a reason to reflect that despite the difficulties facing them and their unborn baby, there is a reason and purpose for that life she carries inside her even if she cannot yet realize the potential for the positive impact her child could have.
There is a false perception, perpetrated by the media and popular culture, that fathers are much more dangerous to their children than mothers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, of all the infanticides (which they define as 5 years old or younger) between 1976 and 2005, the child’s father accounted for 31 percent of these horrific crimes but, almost equally, the child’s mother was the perpetrator 29 percent. The total number of infanticides committed by men of any relationship to the child (fathers, acquaintances, strangers, etc.) between 1976 and 2005 totaled 10,621. This is approximately 350 infants being killed by men each year.
In contrast, the Centers for Disease Control reports at least one million women receive an abortion each year, and of those 25 percent have had the procedure once before, and 19 percent have had at least 2 previous abortions. That equals at least 440,000 serial infant killers among women each year. Every day in America there are, on average, 3,300 abortions, thus in one 24-hour period, females commit ten times more infanticide than males commit each year, This is ironic as a woman, with her almost equal rate of killing infants compared to males, plus the high rate of abortion, is almost 3,000 times more likely to have hurt an innocent life.
In our fallen state, there are a small percentage of men who commit horrific acts of violence and abuse. There are also a percentage of women who commit violent acts through the termination of a pregnancy, many of them routinely. We cannot allow this callousness towards life to become engrained and then institutionalized into our society. The current Freedom of Choice Act, which goes beyond even the flawed argument of a woman’s right to choose, compels religious hospitals and doctors to violate their own conscious to perform abortions. What began as a government mandate of showing compassion to a woman by allowing her to choose what she does with her body has spiraled into a state-sanctioned denial of freedom of dissent to healthcare institutions and workers who oppose abortion.
Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has declared that “Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.” She has bravely called upon President Obama to encourage equality in all stages of life, from the moment of conception through natural death. The very first right we are given is that to life, and any subsequent rights are premised upon our upholding that sacred right. Making one’s life better, at the expense of another life, is not freedom but is oppression. Those who believe in the betterment of society at the expense of the innocent are no different than those who argued that the life of a slave was to be treated as mere property.
There are those misguided persons, some who align themselves with fiscally conservative groups, who may argue the institution of abortion is a means to stop the promulgation of the poorest and least desirable in society. This argument is one founded in selfishness and cowardice, for a soul born to any station in life is a gift from God and it should be our duty to ensure all these children are properly educated and equipped to become productive, principled, and patriotic citizens. If we lack the motivation to adequately protect and educate our young, then this laziness and irresponsibility will permeate the rest of the culture. This is a fundamental philosophical change from rising to meet a challenge rather than avoiding responsibility and the consequences of one’s actions.
The baby-boomer generation that gave us legalized infanticide in the form of abortion is now entering the second most vulnerable time in a person’s life, their final years. The unconcern they perpetrated in society for the unborn has also been transferred to the elderly, as another group that has become an inconvenience that should be disregarded. Appalling conditions are seen in the majority of nursing homes, the final destination for most as the financial crisis has destroyed pensions and they raised their children to have an equal disregard for life and responsibility. In the karmic laws of the universe, it seems that the baby-boomers may receive the same disregard in their final years of life that they have shown innocent babies at the start of theirs.
|
| |
| |
| | | | December 6, 2008 | The honeybees are disappearing and no one knows why. First identified in the autumn of 2006, this new happening is defined by scientists as “colony collapse disorder” (CCD) as honeybees are inexplicably vanishing and, except for a miniscule proportion of bees, their dead bodies aren’t able to be located. The theories attempting to explain this range from global warming, chemical pesticides, radiation from cell phone towers, an unidentified microbe, and genetically modified crops, but no one knows the answer.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Bee Research Lab has stated that among bees of the same hive, there is no sign of disease among those who have died and the bees that are still alive are healthy. In their research of this new phenomenon, the USDA noted a particularly strange mystery: the empty hives that have been abandoned by honeybees are filled with eggs and larvae, although bees never leave their young.
In the past two years, the population of honeybees has declined by 70% across North America, and similar crises are occurring in Europe, South America, and Australia. One-third of the food we eat is dependent on honeybees, as they pollinate many crops such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds. They are so vital to our food supply that honeybees were brought over on the Mayflower to ensure viable harvests, and if they continue to disappear this will have disastrous effects on our ability to feed ourselves.
Perhaps this is a natural pattern of nature and evolution. In the fossil record, there is evidence that the same species of dinosaur had a worldwide extinction at approximately the same time. For example, the Tyrannosaurus Rex simultaneously declined in places as distant as the American West and China.
On the other side of the bee spectrum, the killer bees are thriving. In the 1950’s scientists in Brazil, under the direction of biologist Warwick Kerr, began experiments to create a new hybrid bee to improve honey production. This hybrid, a mixture of the African and the European honeybees, was accidentally released in 1957 and once in nature this bee evolved unexpectedly. Nicknamed killer bees, they are fierce and aggressive creatures that relentlessly attack in large swarms, stays angry for days after being disturbed, pursues their prey as far as one-fourth of a mile, and will even wait for their victim to resurface if it delves underwater.
This hybrid bee experiment was initiated to create a new form of honeybee to improve honey production. However, the resultant killer bees have become a threat to both honeybees and the production of crops. Brazil, which ranked 4th in the world in producing honey, quickly declined in status to 27th.
In the late 1990’s, our food began to undergo gene-modification (GM). Now one-fourth of all American crops are genetically modified, and those ingredients are present in two-thirds of our processed foods. But this process does not just breed apples with apples, but blends unrelated species such as a fruit and an animal to create an improved vegetable.
This new type of science is called biolistics, which mates unrelated species that are not able to breed naturally in nature by going to the center of a cell to manipulate and change its DNA. The British medical journal Lancet warned that GM crops should never have been allowed, medical associations in Britain and Germany have expressed similar statements, and the National Academy of Scientists concluded that GM food has created new allergies, disrupts chemical processes, and generates unknown protein combinations in humans.
The biotechnology field has made increasing attempts to control nature. But it is delusional to think that a human scientist has this power. The blending of unnatural gene lines, whether plant or animal or both, have had unforeseen and disastrous consequences.
There can be harmful effects from even the best of intentions. The good intention of making a more productive bee resulted in a killer bee that is increasingly destroying honeybee populations. The good intention of increasing the nutrition of food has resulted in GM crops which have increased allergies and cellular mutations in humans. Whatever the noble intentions of the scientists who began work in genetic engineering, the unexpected and negative results should be a lesson to those naïve enough who are trying to disarm the boundaries of nature.
Our progression in the realm of science is not a question of can we, but should we. Pearl S. Buck wrote that, “Science and Religion…are two sides of the same glass through which we see darkly, until these two, focusing together, reveal the truth.” It is through a blending of both science and religion that one can best understand God and His laws of nature, but there is danger when one worships science as a religion in itself where the scientist becomes a godlike being who decides what occurs in nature.
Nature’s boundaries have been set for a reason by a Creator unfathomably higher than we. Our manipulation of genes has had unpredictable consequences both in nature and in our bodies, and an acknowledgement of our limitations and a careful respect of natural boundaries should be heeded.
Everything in nature is connected. The killer bees released in Brazil have adapted to colder climates and have now migrated as far north as Kansas City, Missouri. With honeybees intricately connected to our food supply, their extinction might have graver results than we now realize; thanks to Dr. Kerr and company one day, indirectly, the killer bees may kill us all. |
| |
| |
| | | | November 26, 2008 | The adultery of John McCain, committed with his current wife Cindy while he was still married to his first spouse, was strangely never highlighted by the Republican base that chose him as their nominee. In contrast, Rudy Giuliani’s decision to leave Donna Hanover for his current wife, Judith, was deemed by some as an indicator of his inappropriateness to serve as our commander-in-chief. Those who, with the passing of time, have made Senator McCain’s adultery irrelevant failed to offer the same sympathy towards Mayor Giuliani; however, a less shallow analysis of his situation allows one to understand that Rudy’s unfaithfulness was a byproduct of a woman unwilling to fully commit herself to her husband.
Justifying Judith may not be possible for everyone, but it is disingenuous to assign the blame of the breakup of a marriage solely on her. Donna Hanover and Rudy had been living separate lives for many years before he met Judith. The image of the other woman or a home-wrecker is, in this context, inappropriate. A label of home wrecker is more appropriately applied to the two parties involved in the marriage. Mr. Giuliani was not a victim to a manipulative woman who was just using him; he made a decision to leave one unhappy union for a happy and fulfilling relationship.
Without a doubt, almost all cases of adultery are based on emotional attraction, often lust, and those feelings will nearly always fade with the passage of time. But after nine years together, enough time has passed to give testament to Judith and Rudy’s relationship having a much firmer foundation than some gave them credit for at the beginning. This is especially true as Mayor Giuliani suffered from prostate cancer for almost two years, a disease in which sexual activity is unlikely during treatment and in many cases is still not probable even when the illness is in remission.
The aesthetically beautiful looking and career focused Donna Hanover was portrayed as the victim, no doubt helped by the feminists in the media who also focus on their work at the expense of family. Judith’s career as a nurse and pharmaceutical sales manager was demeaned, and her clothes, hair and figure were ridiculed. After September 11th, Judith led 3,000 volunteers during the construction of a “Family Center” in New York City where survivors could grieve in dignity and get needed help. This shows the character of Judith as focusing on others, as opposed to Ms. Hanover.
If Judith didn’t truly love Rudy she would not have put herself through the media scrutiny and public humiliation, and she would not have been by his side during eighteen months of chemotherapy treatments he was undergoing to cure his cancer. A woman would either be crazy to put herself through that for a superficial reason such as social status, or else she would be crazy in love; by all evidence Mrs. Judith Giuliani was and is the former.
The contrast between Donna Hanover and Judith Giuliani is striking. Donna refused to take Rudy’s name (although she took and kept the name of her first husband, Stanley Hanover, and is now known as Donna Hanover Oster in reference to her third husband); Judith immediately changed her name to that of Rudy’s as a symbol of them being equal and a family unit. For years Ms. Hanover, though her career as a newscaster put her in the public eye, barely appeared with Mayor Giuliani in public and would not go through the most perfunctory efforts of being a wife in support of her husband’s career, such as attending functions together. Judith is always at Rudy’s side at events and was his support during terrible times; he stated that “Nobody did more to help me than Judith” while he was stricken with cancer. When given the choice between a current wife who concentrates on herself and her career and does not express equal support to her husband, as opposed to a new relationship where the lady is considerate and thoughtful of him and others, it is understandable why Rudy chose Judy.
Rudy Giuliani stated the following about his first meeting Judith: "It was the thunderbolt. Our attraction was instantaneous. There was almost something mystical about the feeling." This is not justifying unfaithfulness as it is an understanding of the events which, unfortunately and inevitably, flows from selfishness which is destructive in any partnership and fatal to a romantic one. Challenges of remaining married can become insurmountable when from the beginning one in the marriage is not vested in it being a true union, and this will often lead to unhappiness for one or both parties. Rudy’s infidelity, though not excusable, is understandable when placed within the context of his relationship with Donna Hanover, a woman who openly put herself and her career over her husband; theirs is another example that the feminist—i.e. institutionalized female egoism—model of marriage yields divorce or a sham of a union.
|
| |
| |
| | | | November 12, 2008 | The biggest threat to fascism is the love of freedom. The most substantial evidence of the progress of Eastern Europe to undo almost a century of oppression by Russia was Ukraine’s Orange, Georgia’s Rose, and Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip revolutions. These three countries chose democracy over communism despite Russian influence, election-rigging, fraud, and intimidation at voting locations. The love of freedom among these ex-Soviet countries has met with the disapproval of Czar Putin, who is determined to control Russia’s neighbors. Because he was ineffective in influencing the free elections of Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, Vladimir Putin has showed ever increasing aggression toward America, who Russia blames for the spread of liberty in Europe’s Eastern lands.
After the breakup of the Russian Empire (i.e., the U.S.S.R.), the Bear hibernated, sharpened its claws, and waited for a chance to strike. But now the Bear has arisen once again and is using violence and intimidation to compel its neighbors and the West. Moscow has invaded the sovereign Georgia, renewed military exercises which ceased with the demise of the Soviet Union, gave speeches by the highest Russian officials containing antagonistic language and blatant anti-Americanism, and armed enemies of the West such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and China. Their extreme push for military modernization indicates the Kremlin is preparing for war with a major power. More specifically, Russia is practicing for war against the United States as during pretend military exercises, some of which Putin personally participates in, they destroy American bases in the Pacific and sink our aircraft carriers. Some have stated that this new Russian aggression has signaled the beginning of another Cold War. With respect to all who hold this opinion, the situation the West is currently in with Russia is the unfinished Cold War; the bear may have temporarily retreated to its cave, but only with the purpose of strengthening itself before it emerged once more.
Absence of conflict does not mean peace, and although Russia has not engaged in open hostilities with the U.S. it would be dangerous to assume they are our friend. Western appeasers have excused Russian behavior since time immemorial. But it is time to see the Bear for what it has always been: an uncivilized, barbaric, imperialist-dynasty which has amalgamated the worst of the Middle Eastern and Asian traditions.
Europe has shown their predictable cowardice when it comes to dealing with Moscow. The reason is that the western and central European countries are highly dependent on Russian energy, importing 50 percent of their gas and 25 percent of their oil from Russia. Moscow is the world’s number one producer of natural gas and the second largest producer of oil. With energy demands increasing worldwide, unusually high energy prices have provided Russia with the capital for its military budget, and the capital to hold the Western European nations hostage for energy.
In his book “The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West,” author Edward Lucas, Central and Eastern European correspondent for The Economist, stated that Russian “Repression at home is matched by aggression abroad.” He writes that the moral aspect of the Cold War has been forgotten, and the U.S. has been lazy in defending the principles which distinguish democracies. Mr. Lucas cautions: “Until we make it clear that we believe in our own values, we cannot defend ourselves…” If we truly believe in the rightness and goodness of our form of government in America, we must resurrect the communication programs used during the height of the Cold War. We cannot be ashamed or worry about being called arrogant if we proudly state that the ideas upon which America was founded have formed the best nation on earth, albeit a flawed one, but a nation which seeks to ever improve itself and offer assistance to other countries seeking to do the same.
The first concern that must be addressed is Russia’s belligerence at our wanting to add missile defense in Europe. Despite Putin’s protests, the U.S. should show the moral resolve to immediately place missile defense in Poland for we cannot allow our European friends to be at the mercy of a rouge terrorist or nation. Further aid should be given to Georgia, including enough military equipment to ward off another offensive action by the Kremlin. The West cannot abandon the ex-Soviet countries, but we also cannot abandon those within the Russian Federation who desire something better for themselves and their country.
There is hope for Russia’s future, but as with all sustainable change in a society the United States wishes to influence for the better, we must reach the people, not just the politicians. Moscow controls and censors the media throughout Russia, filling radio waves and television screens with false tales of the glory of their own country and lies told about America. We can instill a love of democracy within Russia by appealing to one of the universal principles of humanity: that given the choice between freedom and tyranny, people will choose freedom if they believe they have a real chance of obtaining it. We have been successful in many of the ex-Soviet states, and now it is time we turned our attention to the country that has been the creator of so much conflict. It will take a generation to remove the culture of communism and corruption from the collective consciousness of the Russian people, but it is only by bringing deep, long-lasting internal change can the Bear ever be truly tame.
|
| |
| |
| | | | November 5, 2008 | Now America has their version of the 5th of November, as the first day of the decline and fall of this country. In choosing Senator Barack Obama as the 44th president, those who were foolish enough to have believed in the idolatry of a false messiah have sent America on a socialist path towards its own demise. Citizens voted for “change” rather than the correct kind of change, voted for “hope” in a man with no experience or history of difficult decision making, voted for “yes, we can” become more dependent on the federal government to ease all burdens and provide all answers. Ronald Reagan advised, “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” The real victory yesterday was for a slide into socialism and prescribing the individual in society instead of an individual prescribing society.
This is the fault of President George W. Bush, who has the most responsibility in the recent destruction of the Republican party, as an otherwise supported administration among its base and the American people lost their trust with a few but major missteps. With his support of the Dubai Port Deal, this entrenched in the minds of Americans that the GOP is more concerned with profit potential than they are with our safety and security. Next came the Harriet Myers fiasco; America deserves better than a Supreme Court candidate being chosen simply by gender, as Ms. Myers was, rather than someone with qualification. Then there was the Katrina debacle. And, there is the continued chaos with illegal immigration that has increased exponentially under Mr. Bush’s terms in office.
This is the fault of Senator John McCain. His long history of attacking members of his own party, while excusing those of the opposing party for the same positions, has been detrimental in his receiving any loyalty from the Republican base. In reaching across the aisle, McCain has forgotten where he is supposed to stand. His choice of Governor Sarah Palin, a Harriet Myers candidate chosen on her gender and unknown status rather than her knowledge of the issues facing America, was a horrible mistake. The “honor campaign” McCain ran was a disorganized and chaotic one which refused to mention Obama’s communist upbringing, his unrepentant terrorist friends, his anti-Semitic minister, and his socialist plans for America.
This is the fault of the Republican party, primarily for choosing Senator McCain in the primary. But beyond that, the GOP has lost their focus and has failed in intra-party unity, failed to offer a concise alternative to the Democratic agenda, and failed to stand against those who are wrong. This is the party that was founded by Abraham Lincoln and other abolitionists because they believed that every American deserved the same hope and opportunity, but the Republicans have done an inefficient job of communicating their message to every American and especially those groups, such as African Americans, who have strayed away from the party and those, such as Hispanic Americans, who have yet been welcomed to enter.
Lastly, this is the fault of the American people who have been blinded by rhetoric. There has been rampant gullibility due to fear, and placing all trust on one individual, a supposed social savior who will magically cure all ills, is common in third world countries where charismatic individuals have a history of welding tremendous and dangerous power, often inevitably to negative ends.
Repercussions of this election decision are already apparent. Today, the 5th of November, the stock market plunged almost 500 points, approximately a 10 percent drop of the total value, in the largest sell-off in the immediate post-election period in our nation’s history. This is no surprise, as Senator Obama has promised to raise corporate taxes, raise capital gains tax, raise income taxes, bankrupt the coal industry, and have the government take control over 401K’s.
To the 52 percent of America who voted for Obama: Remember, remember the 5th of November. Remember this day when taxes are raised, prosperity declines, and our economy wanes. Remember this day when our president elect with meet with tyrants and dictators from other countries, when our foreign policy is one of appeasement, and when our national security is threatened. Remember this day when, under socialized healthcare, going to a physician becomes similar to going to the DMV with long lines, incompetent government workers, and unnecessary paperwork and regulation. Remember this day when the tyranny of liberalism takes all that has been America and twists it into something that none of us will recognize.
To the 48 percent of America who voted against Obama: Remember, remember the 5th of November. Remember this day as one in which keeping the faith is difficult but essential. Remember this day when speaking to someone from the other side, for it is through communicating our ideas to others and changing their minds can we ensure a socialist will never again be elected. Remember this day when honor is challenged and replaced by convenience. Remember this day when more unborn children are murdered, when the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman is disputed, when wealth is spread from the successful to the idle, when standing up to enemies turns into pacification, when our borders become more porous and our nation becomes less sovereign. Remember this day when more of our fundamental rights have been taken away for it will require courage, determination, diligence, and unity to get them back again.
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 13, 2008 | Not one to deny their wish for a return of the U.S.S.R., Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has made quite clear his goal of a reemergence of Russian greatness, calling the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.” What was obvious to Winston Churchill was that “Soviet Union foreign policy is a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma, and the key is Russian nationalism.” In attempting to undo what they perceive was a tragic mistake, on August 8, 2008, Russia invaded Georgia in what is only the first step of their trying to compel the countries the Soviet Union lost to accept Russia’s hegemonic rights.
After the breaking of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, the region of Ossetia separated into two provinces: South Ossetia became part of Georgia and North Ossetia remained in Russia. Of the 70,000 people who live in South Ossetia, there has been a growing number who want to secede from Georgia due to Russian influence. In the past few weeks South Ossetian separatists, instigated and supplied by Russia, attacked surrounding villages in Georgia with machine gun and mortar fire. Georgia responded by sending their troops into South Ossetia on Thursday, August 7 to quell this unrest. The next day, Russia reacted by sending their own troops into their sovereign neighbor, Georgia, acting as if it was the height of the Cold War and Georgia was still one of its puppet republics. The Russian response was brutal, bombing Georgian economic infrastructure such as their largest Black Sea port, as well as the main roads. Russia then invaded the Georgian province of Abkhazia, which also has Russian-backed secessionists.
Georgia had no choice but to respond to the increasingly violent acts by South Ossetian separatists. Moscow has made unsubstantiated claims that Georgians have killed Russian peacekeepers in Ossetia and have been ethnic cleansing native Russians living there, thus the rationale for the invasion was liberating the Russians who live in Georgia. This sounds remarkable similar to the excuse used by Hitler in October 1938 during the Nazi invasion of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, when he stated he was liberating the 3 million Germans living there who wanted to separate and become part of Germany.
But when it comes to mad men invading other countries, despite the excuses accepted by the West, the real reason for incursion is an insatiable quest for control of people, land, and recourses. Perhaps Putin has less affection for the Russian people living in Georgia than he does for the energy supplies there. The world’s second longest oil pipeline passes through Georgia, which is the only one from the Caspian region that is not under Moscow’s control.
How was Russia allowed to cruelly takeover fourteen countries and form the U.S.S.R. in the 1930’s? Because the Soviet Union was a communist nation and FDR and his party sympathized with that philosophy. Many American academics were socialist and touted the advantages of collectivism, our labor was being infiltrated with socialist ideas, Republicans were isolationists and unwilling to lift their heads above their bank ledgers to take proper action to deal with the emerging Soviet threat. And the average American, concerned with the Great Depression, was apathetic to anyone outside their own backyard.
Because of the socialist domination of the Democratic party (through presidents FDR, Truman, Johnson, and Carter), Russia was allowed to enslave half of Europe and destroy not only the lives of people but their hopes and aspirations. Traitors within the U.S. government and other Western powers allowed the Soviets to gain access to technology and ideas, which further encouraged the U.S.S.R. to commit atrocities within their empire. For over half a century, the Soviet Union was allowed to keep the world on the precipice of nuclear annihilation as their socialist social system was rationalized among our intellectuals, media, and politicians. And now the same devil we knew in the Soviet Union has been reconstituted as Russia, with Putin pulling its strings, and the chill of the Cold War is upon us again.
In this initial phase of Russian aggression on sovereign nations, it is time for Western leadership, not Western impotence. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, in response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia, gave the following statement: “We seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government, and friendship with the Russian people. We want Russia to play its rightful role as a great nation.” It seems little has been learned in the Democratic party from history and the dangers that Russia presents, as once again the Democrats, through their nominee for president, are offering appeasement instead of courage. In contrast, Republican presidential candidate John McCain stated, “The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors — such as Ukraine — for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values.” Russia must not be allowed to once again grow and engulf its neighbors or the world in hostilities, whether hot or cold, and it is time for Hitler’s unpunished ally, Russia, to be held accountable for the intimidation and violence it has resumed.
|
| |
| |
| | | | July 23, 2008 | Imagine a country with the most fertile soil in the world, plentiful recourses, healthy water supply, and a non-aggressive, hard working, religious people. Now picture this land, nicknamed “The Bread Basket of Europe,” decimated by a famine so severe that one-third of its population perished from starvation. Visualize this food shortage not being due to a crop failure or natural disaster, but caused by a man-made famine in which soldiers entered each village and took away all the food, with resisters being shot on the spot.
A story too horrific to be true? No; tragically, this genocide occurred in Ukraine during 1932-1933, a time when it was the world’s largest exporter of wheat. This was not a natural catastrophe but a deliberate effort of Stalin’s Soviet regime to destroy the hope of freedom in the nationally conscious Ukrainian people, and this holocaust still remains largely unknown to those in the West.
In 1929, the Soviet Union instituted collectivization in Ukraine. Farmers were forced to give up their farms, they became serfs under communism, and each was forced to surrender almost all their harvest to Russia and left to live off what little portion of their crops the communist party officials might allow. Dealing with deprivation, peasant protests ensued and in response communist soldiers entered designated villages and burned them to the ground, killed the most outspoken protesters, arrested men, and deported women and children. This still did not quell the Ukrainian’s nationalism and longing for liberty. In 1932, Stalin began an unyielding policy of submission through starvation, ensuring that the Ukrainians were either dead or so frail that freedom was not a concern compared with the wish for food.
The book "The Ninth Circle: In Commemoration of the Victims of the Famine of 1933," sponsored by Harvard University’s Ukrainian Studies department, has the heartbreaking testaments of those who survived the famine: “In every village, all over Ukraine, day by day, hour by hour, these mobs [Soviet soldiers] visited one house after another in search of grain. They pierced floors with their iron pikes, probed the walls, dug holes in the farmyards, orchards, vegetable gardens, and roamed across the fields and meadows. They took away everything edible they could find…leaving entire families without a piece of bread.”
Stalin’s massacre was aided by those in the media who were either Soviet sympathizers or who were financed by the Kremlin to deny any holocaust. One example is New York Times foreign correspondent Walter Duranty, who not only emphatically denied any famine in Ukraine but made outrageously false claims of conditions being prosperous and comfortable. Through documents which became unclassified after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was discovered that Duranty was well paid by the Russian government to write his denials, although that has not induced the New York Times to denounce Duranty or demand his Pulitzer to be withdrawn.
Through declassified National Security Agency files, we also know that the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration had extensive knowledge of the true situation in Ukraine, and FDR’s passivist position allowed the annihilation of millions of Ukrainians, the lowest estimate of which is 10 million. He chose the perception of peace at any cost, and although the Soviets allied with the Nazis and Stalin killed twice as many people as Hitler did Jews, the U.S.S.R. was allowed to, both during and after the war, remain unchallenged for their Ukrainian genocide.
The United States fought World War II to end the tyranny of Hitler, however, an even worse tyrant, Stalin, became our ally and was rewarded with more land and power in Europe than Hitler ever had. An intervention occurred to stop Hitler because he invaded a sovereign nation, Poland, in his quest for dominance. However, Russia, as a reward for switching sides and fighting Hitler, was allowed continual dominance of Ukraine as well as other sovereign nations east of the iron curtain, which allowed them to continue to murder millions.
Reporter Eric Margolis observed, “While the world is by now fully aware of the destruction of Europe's Jews by the Nazis, the story of the numerically larger holocaust in Ukraine has been suppressed, or ignored. Ukraine's genocide occurred 8-9 years before Hitler began the Jewish Holocaust, and was committed, unlike Nazi crimes, before the world's gaze. But Stalin's murder of millions was simply denied, or concealed by a left-wing conspiracy of silence that continues to this day. In the strange moral geometry of mass murder, only Nazis are guilty.”
One lesson we must draw from this is a well-founded suspicion of the media, who have shown themselves quite willing to report what they wish people to see instead of reporting the truth as it is occurring. Stalin was the architect that Hitler drew from to create his own holocaust, using Stalin’s blueprint of using the media to manipulate international perception. The same New York Times that reported that Ukraine was thriving as millions were being murdered by Soviet-induced starvation is the same newspaper that has continuously biased its coverage.
A second lesson is the evidence of Russian brutality and contempt for life and the degree to which they will go to maintain power. These are the people who were allowed to dominate half of Europe and intimidate the rest of the world for half a century. Because there were no consequences for the Soviet Union when they committed the atrocities of the holocaust in Ukraine, it showed the Russians that the west will do nothing which emboldened their ambition of dominance and gave them the ability to enslave Europe.
Can you imagine a similar holocaust occurring in America, with one-third of our population deliberately put to death by starvation? Picture there being no denunciation of the perpetrators, no truthful reporting of the media, no assistance from any nation, and no concern or mention from the world. American academics, the media, and FDR and his party, all of which sympathized with socialist systems, were willing to sacrifice millions of innocent souls to further a flawed ideology. It did not benefit us as a country to reward Stalinist Russia, a country just as evil as Hitler’s Germany. If we did not have the power to defeat the two evils of Germany and Russia, we should at least not have allowed the second to expand.
|
| |
| |
| | | | July 9, 2008 | According to Rutgers University’s National Marriage Project, Americans are on a quest to find their "soulmate," someone whom they feel intense desire for. This is in contrast to previous generations which looked for a “helpmate,” someone reliable and responsible who would be a good parent and provider and help them throughout life. Now, one is looking for a soulmate immediately instead of believing that one would turn into a soulmate after many years together. Among young people in their 20’s, stated the project, the most desired characteristic for a future spouse is to be the soulmate ideal, and this feature came before a similar religion, comparable economics, and even the ability to be a good parent. This is also in contrast to previous generations who sought spouses with similar religious and financial backgrounds, believing persons of similar philosophy and conditions would be well-matched to them.
A soulmate marriage, using the definition from the project, is based upon passion and intense romantic feelings. This type of marriage is in danger once the level of infatuation drops and one is not so enamored with their spouse, with the temptation of finding someone new who provides those experiences of powerful feelings. Whereas, a helpmate marriage is based upon an almost contractual arrangement providing tangible benefits whether financial, professional, or someone providing you with and helping you raise children. This type of marriage is in danger once someone stops being helpful or providing for their spouse in the way they have come to expect. In the romantic soulmate marriage once a spouse stops giving you that loving feeling, or you find someone else who gives you that loving feeling better, it’s over. In the utilitarian helpmate marriage once a spouse loses their function, whether helping in business or as a parent, it’s over.
In the project survey, 88 percent of all Americans believe that there is a soulmate “waiting for you somewhere out there.” Among those in their 20’s, 87 percent thought they would find their soulmate by the time they were ready to get married. But what occurs to these twenty-somethings when they enter their 30’s and have a desire for marriage and a family, but have not found their soulmate? One solution would be to give up on the idea of marrying a soulmate and marry a helpmate instead, making a sacrifice of passion for the experience of marriage and having children. Another resolution to is give up on marriage altogether with the hope that you will meet your soulmate at a later time, potentially making a sacrifice of companionship for someone whom you may never meet in this life, or not meet in time to have a child together.
A third suggestion is to get a pre-nuptial agreement, which has been strongly endorsed by lawyers since they became legally enforceable in 1983. Prenups are a rising trend, as 5 percent of all first marriages have a prenup, as do 20 percent of marriages when at least one party is on their second marriage. This is an indication that attorneys have replaced the clergy and trusted family members in offering marriage preparation advice to those betrothed. At first glance, prenups seem to be the answer to it all, allowing someone the experience of marrying a helpmate when they are ready for the alter while at the same time providing them an easy-out once they meet the soulmate they are still pursuing.
If someone wants a prenup, either they are not ready for the commitment of marriage or they are knowingly marrying the wrong person. The Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler, one of the founders of modern psychology, stated, “We only regard those unions as real examples of love and real marriages in which a fixed and unalterable decision has been taken. If men or women contemplate an escape, they do not collect all their powers for the task. In none of the serious and important tasks of life do we arrange such a ‘getaway.’ We cannot love and be limited.” It is understandable, and could be forgivable, for a married couple to over the years gradually become incompatible or unhappy together and seek a divorce. What is not understandable is for a couple to enter a marriage having divorce as an option for escape, either in their own mind or tangibly through a prenup. Among the journey of life and the complexities of marriage, the person who you believed to be your soulmate on your wedding day you may realize years later is not. But when one enters into a marriage, they should believe that they are marrying the best person for them of all the people they have ever known, even if in the future they realize that the person is not their soulmate or they meet someone else who truly is.
We’ve gone from a society of helpmate marriages based mainly on a utilitarian need to a society wishing for a soulmate marriage based solely on a romantic ideal. A true union of Soulmates, with a capital S in the traditional sense of a Soulmate being the only one in the world who can complete you, combines components of both marriages and has raw emotional attachment with objective rational compatibility. In the most fulfilling relationships three components can be observed: compatibility, communication, and passion. It is far easier to turn a helpmate, someone with whom you are compatible and communicate with, into a soulmate that one feels passionate about, than the difficult task of turning a soulmate into a helpmate. Chemistry does not equal compatibility, but the way we achieve both is far broader than a soulmate ideal who we feel instant-on passion for which movies, magazines and the media have misled us into believing.
Experts state that the soulmate quest sets unrealistic expectations for marriage and often leads to divorce, as 43 percent of new marriages end within the first 6 years. A false ideal of the perfect marriage propagated by movies is one where the couple is intensely romantic with each other, which is reinforced by magazines offering advice on how to achieve continuously higher heights of physical passion. Amidst our frenzied lives where we are working longer hours to increase our material possessions, booking up our social calendars to ensure there are no empty hours and being constantly bombarded with disconnected sexual images, we have grown increasingly detached to people in general and have put all of our demands and hopes into finding a perfect romantic partner. We have become a culture of idealism and post-it notes, little reminders of something else we are supposed to do or another way we are supposed to improve our lives because nothing is ever good enough. As a society we have come to believe that if we can’t have the ideal marriage, at least we can have the ideal divorce through a prenup, and post-it notes on prenups remind us of another way to make an expected divorce the least hassle possible before we move on to another false ideal.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 25, 2008 | An Enormous Crime: The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia was written by former Congressman Bill Hendon and attorney Elizabeth Stewart, whose father Colonel Peter Stewart went Missing In Action (MIA) in Vietnam. It is the product of 25 years of research and includes the most recently declassified intelligence reports, documents, and satellite images. The book provides irrefutable evidence that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of our POW’s left behind in Vietnam and who have since been disregarded by the U.S. government. In 1988, an American satellite observed the twelve-foot tall letters “USA” dug out of the ground in a rice paddy in Laos, and right below was a highly classified Vietnam War-era escape and evasion (E&E) code. In 1992, a U.S. satellite surveying a prison in northern Vietnam saw the name of an MIA air force soldier and a legitimate E&E code dug in a field, and in the adjacent ground was a secret four-digit identifier of another MIA air force soldier. Even recently, between March 2005 and July 2006, the U.S. government received 63 additional reports of American POW’s seen in southeast Asia.
The evidence, beginning in 1973 and continuing through today, that hundreds of our soldiers were left in Vietnam as POWs and still remain there is undeniable. But how did such a tragedy occur? During their peace talks, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger accepted the proposals put forth by North Vietnam, some of which were that all American soldiers would be withdrawn from the region, and the United States was to provide massive economic aid totaling $4.75 billion to the North Vietnamese. In return, North Vietnam pledged to return all U.S. POW’s that they and the Vietcong held. During Operation Homecoming in 1973, North Vietnam released a total of 577 American POW’s, however intelligence reports insisted that over one thousand of our prisoners were still being held in Vietnam. With the coming crisis of Watergate concern over our POW’s became a lower priority; the $4.75 billion was not approved by Congress, and there were no further negotiations for the release of our soldiers.
To protect their political careers, American politicians forgot our soldiers, our principles as a nation, and our military’s history of never leaving a man behind. Thus our prisoners of war became prisoners of politics. The last time our government focused on our prisoners in Vietnam was in 1993 when the Senate POW/MIA Select Committee reviewed evidence from our intelligence agencies and satellites. Before the meeting, Senator John McCain insisted that the gathering should end before any evidence was brought forward. After the briefing the committee chairman, Senator John Kerry, ordered that all classified documents presented should be burned. One can only speculate as to the reasons for such questionable behavior of the two John’s; maybe the comforts of Washington have dulled their memories to the sacrifices of our troops and the involuntary servitude our POW’s have been forced to endure as politicians, lobbyists, and foreign entrepreneurs reap the benefits of politics and profit.
By tolerating such an atrocity as leaving our men as POW’s for political or economic convenience, the very foundation of American character was changed from one founded upon principles to one dominated by expediency. Kennedy set a precedence which subsequent presidents followed to allow a material benefit priority over doing the right thing. Teddy Roosevelt stated, “The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, and safety-first instead of duty-first…” America, which has prided itself from its inception as being the Light of the World and in spite of its failings has endeavored to do right, with the Cuban hostage crisis began an erosion on the soul of her conscience by allowing a false prosperity, peace and safety at the price of keeping our American soldiers captive. But a hundred years after a Civil War caused by a compromise of our values in the form of slavery, Kennedy shifted us as a country to compromise our character for political gain and redefined our values as a nation as to how we would treat our soldiers; this stain on the America soul could one day prove to generate a sin on American society and its character as great as we had seen with slavery.
On November 11, 2006, President George W. Bush met with the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command in Hanoi, which seeks to account for missing American soldiers from the Vietnam War. According to a Washington Post article written five days later, the President left the meeting without speaking publicly, aides stated that Bush “wants to focus not on Vietnam’s past but on its future,” and the current administration became the seventh presidential one which has dismissed the plight of our soldier prisoners. The future of a country is linked to what is presently believed about its past. Vietnam is one example of a Communist country which has yet to be held accountable for the atrocities committed under a totalitarian regime, atrocities which Vietnam continues to execute in keeping our prisoners of war. America lost its moral compass when we lost the will to ensure that none of our soldiers were left behind in Southeast Asia, and this moral compass cannot be found again until all our men are retrieved and finally, finally brought home.
Dedicated to:
…all POW soldiers who were ever held in Vietnam or other sympathetic communist countries, and especially to the POW’s who are currently enslaved: you will always be remembered.
…the families of our soldiers who are MIA, who have had to live with the excruciating pain of never knowing what became of their loved ones.
…and to the Vietnam War activists who have never stopped fighting for the safe return of their brothers. I have the honor of being next to you every year during the Ride to the Wall.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 11, 2008 | Those who in the present remember the Kennedy years as “Camelot” oftentimes forget that JFK expected to be impeached due to his inept handling of the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall, and the Cuban missile crisis. In the first fiasco, the United States government trained twelve hundred Cuban freedom fighters, and planned and equipped their mission to establish a democratic government in Cuba. Most importantly, the U.S. pledged to destroy Castro’s air force before the freedom fighters landed in the Bay of Pigs, thereby preventing any bombing raids on the independence seekers. But in the crucial early hours of the invasion in April 1961, our American President personally withdrew our Air Force from the planned participation, preoccupied with being a peacemaker among his bickering advisors rather than being a decisive Commander-In-Chief. The freedom fighters pleaded by radio for U.S. air cover, but the promised American assistance never came, and these brave fighters were quickly overwhelmed. The U.S.-backed invasion of Cuba was a total disaster, and became the first of three humiliations President Kennedy was to suffer regarding our communist neighbor. It was also the first time an American president promised military assistance to a band of freedom fighters that sought to overturn tyranny in their native land, and then went back on his word.
President Kennedy’s second humiliation was his failure to liberate the 1,179 freedom fighters that were captured by Castro’s regime. When Castro stated that Cuba might be willing to trade these prisoners of war (POW) in exchange for 500 bulldozers to help Cuban agricultural output, President Kennedy formed the “Tractors for Freedom Committee” to raise the $28 million dollars needed to purchase this equipment. Castro was presented with this offer and stated that the 500 bulldozers would be “indemnification” for the damage caused by the invasion. In Congress, a broad and bi-partisan attack began on the President’s plan out of concern that a dangerous precedent of bargaining with a dictator would be set. Democratic Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut stated, “Our national concern for the plight of the Cubans…should have been evidenced by effective help on the beachhead to enable their just revolution to succeed. By paying Castro’s price for a thousand good men, we give him the means to strengthen his enslavement of six million others. The American people will, for the first time to my knowledge, be making use of ransom and tribute as an instrument of policy.” The political storm increased further as the Committee was unable to ascertain if the bulldozers would be used for military rather than agricultural purposes; embarrassed, they withdrew their pledge to Castro and returned all the donations received.
In May 1962, almost one year after the Tractors for Freedom plan ended, Castro put the Bay of Pigs prisoners on trial. All were found guilty and sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment or payment of fines ranging from $25,000 to $500,000, the total amount of which was $62 million. John Kennedy sought a second chance of freeing the Cuban freedom fighters and placed his brother, Robert, the United States attorney general, in charge of raising the money to get the prisoners released. A deal was reached with Castro: in return for the POW’s, America would provide Cuba with $53 million dollars worth of medicine, medical supplies, canned goods, and baby food. Using a mixture of persuasion as well as blackmail techniques to pressure pharmaceutical, medical and food companies, Robert Kennedy was able to get the supplies to Cuba in December 1962 and the Bay of Pigs prisoners were released. Although portrayed as a victory this was a humiliation for America for it was the first time an American president acquiesced to the demands of a dictator, and thus began the loss of our moral compass as a nation.
Although at that time America was oblivious to the effects its actions had on the rest of the world, many were paying close attention, most notably the leaders of communist North Vietnam. In 1964 the Senate voted 88 to 2 in favor of allowing our military to provide assistance to our allies in southern Vietnam. In response the North Vietnamese formulated a plan based on what they had observed between Kennedy and Castro less than two years before. All northern Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were trained to capture American troops alive so they could be exchanged for economic aid at the end of the war. North Vietnam placed such importance on exchanging American POW’s for capital that it created a Committee of Inquiry to keep a daily record of the damage caused by the American military, to have an exact amount they would demand from the U.S. in return for our soldiers.
An Enormous Crime: The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia was written by former Congressman Bill Hendon and attorney Elizabeth Stewart, whose father Colonel Peter Stewart went Missing In Action (MIA) in Vietnam. It is the product of 25 years of research and includes the most recently declassified intelligence reports, documents, and satellite images. The book provides irrefutable evidence that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of our POW’s left behind in Vietnam and who have since been disregarded by the U.S. government. In 1988, an American satellite observed the twelve-foot tall letters “USA” dug out of the ground in a rice paddy in Laos, and right below was a highly classified Vietnam War-era escape and evasion (E&E) code. In 1992, a U.S. satellite surveying a prison in northern Vietnam saw the name of an MIA air force soldier and a legitimate E&E code dug in a field, and in the adjacent ground was a secret four-digit identifier of another MIA air force soldier. Even recently, between March 2005 and July 2006, the U.S. government received 63 additional reports of American POW’s seen in southeast Asia.
|
| |
| |
| | | | May 28, 2008 | In 1895, British writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, traveled to Egypt and while there wrote a story entitled “The Tragedy of the Korosko” about a party of British, American, and French tourists who are kidnapped by the followers of Mahdi, the Al Qaeda of its day. What is easily recognized in the story is that the terrorism emanating from the Middle Eastern region has not altered in over 100 years. What has also remained unchanged is the conflicting views in the West about what ought to be done about Islamofascism. One of the characters in the tale complains that Britain has “been the policeman of the world long enough,” policing the sea for pirates and slavers as well as the land for brigands and other dangers to civilization, all without thanks, and as such Europe should “do its own dirty work.” In contrast, the hero of the story, a Colonel Cochrane, responds, “Behind national interests and diplomacy and all that there lies a great guiding force—a Providence, in fact—which is forever getting the best out of each nation and using it for the good of the whole. When a nation ceases to respond…the virtue has gone out of her. A man or a nation is not placed upon this earth to do merely what is pleasant and what is profitable. It is often called upon to carry out what is both unpleasant and unprofitable, but if it is obviously right it is mere shirking not to undertake it.”
In the middle of the last century, the United States overtook Britain as the world’s superpower, and with this we inherited certain responsibilities to help and positively affect other countries. We had the support and friendship of England, who was prepared to be, as Winston Churchill once remarked, “Greece to America’s Rome.” Churchill realized that the torch had been passed from Britain to the United States as the country that would provide the most light for the world.
America is exceptional because we have continually sought to perfect our role to bring out the best humanity has to offer, beginning with the idea that every individual is born with certain inalienable rights and they should be given the opportunity to be the best they can be in their own capacity. The majority of the rest of the world has been so influenced by socialism that it renders those countries inept to positively impact the advancement of humanity. America seeks greatness for each person in their own individual way. This is in contrast to most other nations which, through both socialism and fascism, attempt to impose a contrived artificial equality, exploitation of an individual’s gifts, or repression. To those isolationists who would have America pull back from the world and remain within her shores the question remains: what other country on earth has both the ability and the proper principles to lead all other nations?
The countries of Europe do not have the population or successful enough economies for protracted involvement anywhere in the world. The largest country in Europe and Asia, Russia, which has the potential to be a superpower again, is fraught with internal chaos. Russia has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at 1.2 children per woman, has one of the highest abortion rates as 70 percent of pregnancies are terminated, and their population is sharply declining except in Islamic dominated areas. Russia has the fastest growing rate of HIV in the world and with 1 percent of their population now HIV positive they have been declared by the World Health Organization to have an epidemic. Russia was already reckless in its regard for life and now that it is a country in decline this makes it all the more dangerous. It also has an unbroken historical chain of tyranny and oppression of its people, from serfdom to communism. What positive outcome would there be if Russia was the dominant power and influence in the world?
As with Russia and its disregard for life, too many of the dominant Asian powers have historically disregarded the dignity of its people, from the sweatshops to the sex trade. Japan is an economic superpower, leads the world in technological innovation and is the most advanced among the Asian nations; however its constitution (which the United States implemented after World War II) forbids it from having a military which goes outside the country. North Korea has a large and capable army, but it is run by a mad dictator who murders his own poverty-stricken population through starvation so he can maintain power. China’s economy and army is closer to American ability than any other country but given the tens of millions that have been killed under communism, and the oppression of Chinese citizens today, we should all hope that China’s army and influence goes no further than its borders. India has continually struggled with a stagnant economy, and as their military is unable to properly combat the Islamofascists within its own borders there is no indication that it would be able to defeat terrorism globally. What positive outcome would there be if an Asian country was the dominant power and influence in the world?
In spite of incredible amounts of revenue being infused into it, the Middle Eastern people live illiterately and in poverty. They had massive amounts of capital coming in with the discovery of oil, but they did not expand their economy either under Western control of the oil or even when the Middle East nationalized and took control of the oil the Westerners found. The countries of the Middle East have been a source of tyranny and oppression for thousands of years, and none have ever been able to ensure the safety and dignity of their citizens in their own land. What positive outcome would there be if a Middle Eastern country was the dominant power and influence in the world?
A common problem among Africa and Central and South America has been a proclivity toward authoritarian regimes. Tribal brutality and an HIV epidemic are sweeping across Africa. Dictatorships and corruption are common among the nations in all three of those lands, with the crumbling economies and ineffective militaries that such leadership brings. Even if they could be a dominant power, what would a country from one of those regions be like?
It is not an accident that America is a great nation. This is not just because of our resources or safe placement between two less dominant countries, but because of our goodness and democratic ideals which have propelled us to be the world’s economic, military, and moral leader. With problems such as nuclear weapons in North Korea, the pursuit of nuclear weapons in Iran, communist China’s rising military-industrial complex, increased Russian aggressiveness and the instability of the entire Middle East, there is a potentially overwhelming future ahead. As during the founding of the country, America has been ever endeavoring to create a more perfect Union and see that a more perfect Union is able to have a positive impact upon its world neighbors. Although perhaps there have never been as many challenges in the world as there are today, America has never been in as advantageous position as she is today to help the world and assist other nations in their path to freedom. As our Founding Fathers did, using the experiences of the past anchored in our beliefs and conviction, we must act in this current day to continue the legacy of our Founders and show that America is an exceptional nation endowed by our Creator with an exceptional purpose.
|
| |
| |
| | | | May 14, 2008 | There is only one comprehensive history book of America that was written before the Civil War. Titled A History of the United States, its author, George Bancroft, argued that America’s mission in the world was to promote human freedom. This belief in American exceptionalism had its origins among the earliest days of the American colony. The settlers from Britain who came to the New World in the seventeenth century sought to create a new community, a city on a hill. They believed that America offered exceptional promise and was preordained to bring hope and freedom to the human condition.
During the American Revolution, the colonists maintained that the British government had deviated from the concepts of liberty, law, and government by consent. The Americans wanted to ensure that the practice and principle of liberty were the same. As the dispute with Britain intensified, the Americans invoked principles such as their inalienable rights endowed by their Creator, rights which could not be established nor abridged by king, court, or legislature. Recognized with our Declaration of Independence and codified in the code of the Constitution, the American Creed was stated with its principles of liberty, justice, equality, individualism, representative government, and private property. Our Founding Fathers held that America was an exceptional country because our unifying identity was based on ideas we valued, unlike other nations who formed because of location or ethnicity.
The suppression of the human spirit through tyranny, governmental overreach, or any other institution which distorts the relationship between man, His Creator and the state, was never to be allowed in our nation. The American focus on the individual encouraged a man to advance in society based on his skill and effort. Unlike the monarchies and aristocracies of Europe which suppressed the advancement of all except the few who were born into a specific social station, an American had a right, by his efforts, to determine his destiny. New to that time of Western civilization, America pioneered a man being judged on the person he chose to become and his work ethic in the present, instead of setting his value on how he was born or his ancestor’s past glories.
Our ideology of Americanism was described by G.K. Chesterton as being “a nation with the soul of a church,” because, he observed, “America is the only nation in the world founded on a creed.” We are the only country which has endeavored for a harmonious balance linking the relationship between man and God, and between man and the state. Through our Judeo-Christian heritage and as students of man’s long history we sought to create, amongst the ever conflicting impulses of man, a more perfect balance between devotion to God and the exercise of free will. America has consciously labored to establish not a state church but a state’s moral law, and to encourage the expression of religion but never the coercion to a religion.
Our Founding Fathers believed that moral law is derived from our Creator and is higher than our government, thus they sought to limit government and increase the rights of individuals. Our country encourages the fostering of faith but does not mandate a particular expression of that faith, allowing free will so we can find God on our own without coercion or negative consequence when we fall short in our personal way to Him. The American system has always offered an unstated contract with those coming here and those who have lived here. The American Contract, simply stated, is this: you are allowed to take the gifts and talents that God has given you and use them to your fullest for your betterment and the betterment of others, so long as in the process of your own advancement you are not hurting others in their progress.
Despite the flaws and excesses that have periodically developed in the American system of capitalism, it has a remarkable self-correcting property unlike any other country or philosophy. Nowhere else in the world has a political system so consistently addressed wrongs, even when those we may now consider to have wronged were our enemies at the time, such as the American Indians. As a country we went from revolution to functioning nation without the bloodshed and depravation of resources from the people as was done during the French Revolution and during the Soviet and Chinese communist takeovers. So many atrocities have been the product of socialism in countries such as Russia, China, and Nazi Germany that it makes the few hundred years of America’s greatest sin – slavery – pale by comparison with the death and depravation of communism. American slavery made slaves of some, but communism and socialism made slaves of everyone. Within the traditional American system we have come to acknowledge the excesses of the robber barons, the wrongfulness of slavery, and in the true American spirit we have accepted the criticisms for where we had fallen short in our process. But detractors of the American system who wish to alter it to be more compatible with a socialistic philosophy continue to explain away the failures of the alternate systems and fail to acknowledge the mass murders that continue to be carried out under such regimes today.
Dr. Bradley Thayer stated: “The American Empire is an empire of ideas, and its ideas are those that led to its founding in 1776.” Those ideas of liberty and justice, of man rather than government being the best judge of how he should live, and freedom of thought, word and (within reason) deed have permeated our history and guided our will. As was believed during the colonial era, through our country’s darkest days during our own Civil War, and which must form our ideas for the present, America is blessed by Providence and is pre-ordained to be an example of freedom as we also seek to spread it beyond our shores. America has the obligation to help other nations and the responsibility to encourage them to adopt our principles, for America’s hope extends to all nations and people who dare to believe that an idea can form the fabric of a country instead of one being defined by geography, a monarch, or heritage. Guided by God, born from a creed, practiced by man, America has always been that city on a hill letting her light shine, and during these days of growing tyranny from the East America must continue to shine ever more brightly for the world.
|
| |
| |
| | | | April 23, 2008 | The more power and influence the United States has in the world, the more opportunities there have been for prosperity in the world. Our country is not only the freest and most democratic country, but one that offers more opportunities for advancement and more protection for the rights of its citizens than anywhere else on the globe. America’s influence on other nations has been to promote freedom and democracy. Cynics often try to confuse the prosperity America brings to other lands with the economic bounty which is the byproduct of our influence, reducing the noble ideals, which have guided America from its founding, for our promoting freedom and justice to a base and selfish mercantile motive. Within the confusion attempts are made to dismiss America’s selfless idealism at helping others with a selfish, self-centered motivation so common among other systems.
The largest expansion of democracy the world has ever seen was at the end of World War II when the authoritarian regimes of Germany, Italy, and Japan moved toward democratic traditions. The combined population of these three countries was over 200 million at that time, and freedom was granted them because of the efforts of the United States. We did not ask the Germans, Italians, or Japanese if they wanted freedom, or if they were ready for democracy, but we insisted upon not only the establishment of democratic principles but also its practice.
Before World War II American foreign policy was focused close to home in the regions of Central America and the Caribbean. Our involvement in countries such as Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic encouraged democracy by registering voters, preventing violence during elections, and monitoring the election process to ensure honesty. Through the noble efforts of the United States, those countries were moving toward a more democratic system and witnessed the freest elections in their history. However, when American involvement ended, the democracies that had begun to flourish in Central America withered and, without America’s cultivation, then shifted toward dictatorships.
In the twenty-five years after World War II, the most democratic structure in eastern Asia (outside of Japan) was in the Philippines, the place of the strongest American presence in the region. When our attendance declined in the early 1970’s, an authoritarian government was installed in the Philippines, which for decades had been a free country. The height of Unites States involvement in Vietnam was during 1967, which coincided with the period of the most liberty in that nation. During that same year, the only democratic election in the history of Vietnam occurred. After the withdrawal of our troops from Vietnam, a brutal authoritarian regime was able to gain control.
Latin America became a focus for American involvement in the 1960’s after Cuba was seized by Castro. We promoted democracy in the area through economic aid and military assistance. The time of the highest involvement of the United States corresponded to the period of the most promotion of democracy in Latin America, where every South American country except one had some form of democratic government. But again, in the early 1970’s when American involvement ceased in the region, the democracies slid toward authoritarian dominance.
The surge of liberalism in the early 1970’s inhibited the expansion of liberty. Liberal politicians and government officials reduced our military and diminished the effectiveness and cohesion of our intelligence agencies, causing an overall decrease in American power. This decline in our influence around the world had the effect of a decline of democracy around the world. The prosperity from free markets, which offers the most economic opportunities for average citizens, is only possible through properly functioning democratic traditions. Liberals and progressives speak of advancing the cause of human rights, but they are the same ones who did the most to destroy our means of expanding human rights to every human.
The history of American foreign policy reflects our values through the promotion of democracy and liberty around the world. Unlike other nations which have allowed brutality and endless corruption, our system of checks and balances does not allow for repression, instillation of totalitarianism, or needless occupation of other lands. The historian Samuel P. Huntington wrote, “Being human, Americans have never been able to live up to their ideals; being Americans, they have also been unable to abandon them.” The Unites States, unlike any other nation in the world, was founded on and from the belief that with the right principles and institutions to support it an unimaginable prosperity is possible. Our ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom have been the best hope in the world. America is exceptional because it continually endeavors to perfect itself long after the times others have given up. These lessons from the past distinguish America as being a force for good when we involve ourselves in other countries; wherever America went, democracy followed.
|
| |
| |
| | | | April 9, 2008 | Being soulmates requires more than being in love, for there are a great many people who love each other but are not soulmates. A pair of soulmates compliment and complete each other and neither one is truly whole without the other; being in love is only the beginning. A soulmate knows their other half so deeply that it appears that they can read each other minds, and this comes from knowing what is inside the other’s heart. When soulmates meet it is as though they have always known each other. History abounds with tales of soulmates, two people who had an instant sense of recognition which led to a lifetime of devotion. Three familiar examples are Ronald & Nancy Reagan, Johnny & June Cash, and Bob & Delores Hope. When soulmates labor together, the love which binds them creates far more extraordinary outcomes than each of the individuals contributing could ever hope to achieve alone.
True soulmates are rare and it is perhaps this scarcity that leads many to unbelief and the thought that complete love does not exist. Skepticism causes some to doubt and others to be cynical when the mere mention of a soulmate occurs. But if one looks carefully at all their acquaintance they should recognize at least one or two couples that can be considered soulmates, who are so compatible and in love that all know there could be nothing to ever separate them. There are enough examples of soulmates from the past and present that one cannot but think that they really do exist.
The question then becomes: how do we find our own soulmate? British novelist Sir Hugh Seymour Walpole wrote, “The most wonderful of all things in life, I believe, is the discovery of another human being with whom one’s relationship has a glowing depth, beauty and joy as the years increase. This inner progressiveness of love between two human beings is a most marvelous thing, and it cannot be found by looking for it or by passionately wishing for it. It is a sort of Divine accident.” It is not a matter of us finding them, but rather of two people finding each other, and our plans and prayers have very little to do with the Providence of it all.
We must believe that we will find the second half of our soul at the proper time. We may wish for them now, but perhaps are not ready to have them quite yet; there may be a lesson for us to learn, an area in which we must grow, or a flaw that we must overcome that will ultimately enhance the relationship.
In the intricate journey of our life we may see the workings of the hand of our Creator, who places guidance in the form of coincidence or chance, and many times it is years later that we realize that what we called coincidence was fate misnamed. If we believe that for each man He made a woman to be his equally compatible companion, we must also believe that He would not have done so if His plan was to separate them forever. We must continue to trust that our journey will lead us nearer to them and that either in this life, or one to come, every pair of soulmates will find each other and the fairy tale will come alive, when just a glance will cement a future together. In the three couples listed above, Nancy and Ron, June and Johnny, and Delores and Bob, each pair found each other after other relationships and sometimes in the midst of complications, and all when they were not looking; only after merging together could one see that even during their years apart they were gradually moving closer to each other all along. Searching for a soulmate is confusing, frustrating, and disappointing sometimes, but as it is all the more sweeter reaching a destination after a long journey, finding “The One” after a long search will be all the more glorious.
|
| |
| |
| | | | March 26, 2008 | In 1899, of the four public high schools in Washington, D.C., one of which had African American students and three had Caucasians, the black students scored higher on standardized tests than students in two of the three white high schools. The school for black children, the Dunbar School, continued to exceed national averages on standardized tests from the late 19th century through the 1950’s. A comparison of records reveals that Dunbar high school students also had less absenteeism and tardiness than the three white schools in D.C. The academic and citizenship success of Dunbar cannot be contributed to the economic level of the children, for the majority of their parents were poorly educated and had low-income jobs such as laborers, messengers, and janitors. The achievement of students was also not due to adequate spending per pupil as the school had meager funds and some classes had more than 40 students.
Despite the lack of resources for both the children and the school itself, Dunbar had a history of academic success for African Americans from 1870 through 1955, with most of their graduates continuing to college, which was very unusual for either black or white students during that time. However, beginning in the 1960’s liberalism began to dominate collegiate education programs, teachers’ unions, textbook writers, and federal organizations such as the National Education Association, and their well-meaning but unsound philosophy devastated schools such as Dunbar as well as the overwhelming majority of educational institutions in our nation. This has especially hurt African Americans who, with their higher rates of poverty, are in most need of a quality education to propel economic advancement. Liberals have originated dubious education reforms during the last fifty years, such as whole language, new math, open classrooms, noncompetitive grading, teachers as facilitators instead of instructors, cooperative learning, creative spelling, sex education, and the building of self-esteem. Every one of the fore-mentioned methods has been a failure but the originators of those techniques, who continue to control the centers of education, have never been held accountable for the damage they have caused to the millions of students who graduated with an inadequate education and are ill-equipped to enter either higher learning or the work force, let alone be prepared to lead our nation.
There is a false assumption that poor children will not do well on standardized tests because of sociological or psychological reasons, establishing a need for specialists who can help the child overcome their background. In almost every major urban school district in America teachers are a minority of employees; during the 1960’s through the 1990’s student enrollment in schools increased by 9 percent, but during this same time frame the number of auxiliary staff which include specialists, counselors, psychologists and other aids, increased by over 500 percent, without positive academic result. Liberals have claimed that income or family background is heralded as the main influence for a child and that the school the child attends does not make a difference, but successful minority schools of the past and present show that educational achievement and economic advancement is not preordained by socioeconomic circumstances. A sound curriculum and an emphasis of teachers upon achievement more than compensates for a lack of funding for the school or the parents being uneducated and unable to assist their children in academic pursuits. In the past, parents instilled discipline, another area liberals have eroded with inappropriate rights for students, and parents let their children know they were expected to learn and behave themselves which contributed to their accomplishments in school.
A current example of a thriving public school is the Cascade Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia. Ninety-nine percent of the children are black and 80 percent are from low-income families. Despite these economic hardships, the students’ average score on standardized tests is in the 74th percentile in reading and the 83rd percentile in math. The teachers at Cascade are not a “guide on the side” who allow students to discover themselves; rather, “directed instruction,” what was once known as teaching, is the standard. Misbehavior is not tolerated and the principal, an African American gentlemen, has a policy that children who misbehave are personally escorted to their parents’ place of work; not surprisingly Cascade has almost no discipline problems.
There are too many successful minority schools to mention here. The Heritage Foundation studied twenty-one such schools in their “No Excuses” project. They looked for schools with the majority of students being poor (at minimum of 75 percent of children had to qualify for lunch assistance) yet the students scored above average on national tests (a minimum of the 65th percentile in both reading and math). The secret to the success of these schools, and those such as Cascade, were summed up in three findings: first, standards were high and students knew they were expected to work hard; second, discipline was strictly instilled; and third, old-fashioned but effective teaching methods with organized instruction instead of facilitation were used. With many thriving, predominantly African American public schools as an example, why has their success gotten such little attention by educators and the media, and why have their methods not been implemented everywhere? Because it does not advance the political agenda of liberals.
Despite the undeniable evidence of the effectiveness of conservative educational principles, liberals continue to insist that they know what is best for children. In 1985, federal judge Russell Clark took control of the entire school district in Kansas City, Missouri, and implemented every liberal philosophy imaginable beginning with the excess amounts of money that were supposedly needed. Fifteen brand new schools were built with amenities such as Olympic-sized pools, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a model United Nations with translation facilities, art galleries, and greenhouses. More than $2 billion was spent. Despite all this, Kansas City students continue to score well below the national average on standardized tests, and in 2000 only 5 percent of black eleventh-graders scored a proficient level in reading in statewide tests.
Booker T. Washington stated, “If you can't read, it's going to be hard to realize dreams.” The major factor in the rise of African Americans out of poverty has been education, which has proven far more effective than the civil rights movement or dependence on governmental social programs; the rise of blacks into professional and high-level occupations was greater in the 20 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the 20 years after its passage. In 1940, 87 percent of black families lived in poverty and this number dramatically dropped to 47 percent in 1960, but since 1970 has remained steady at approximately 30 percent. The liberal education reforms of the late 1960’s and 1970’s, rather than having the stated objective of more rapidly reducing the poverty rate among African Americans, instead, although with the best of intentions, has had the exact opposite effect and created a wall to what otherwise had been a very steadily decreasing gap between blacks and the white majority. Merit and achievement gains, which propelled the progress of African Americans before the 1960’s, were arrested with the numerous ill-conceived and executed progressive education policies. Both the previous bonds of a plantation as well as the current bonds of state dependence take from its victim achievement, dreams, and hope for advancement; this has been the legacy of white liberals and the new black slavery they created which formed an institution as destructive for the mind as it once was for the body.
|
| |
| |
| | | | March 12, 2008 | It is a shockingly sad statistic that abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans in America, and over half of all black pregnancies end in abortion. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the abortion ratio for black women is 503 per 1,000 live births, more than 3 times the ratio of white women which is 167 abortions per 1,000 live births. (Although the total percentage of abortions by race is approximately 55% white, 35% black, and 10% other races, because the African-American population is only 12% of the total American census their ratio is the highest.) A black hole of potential has been created through the high abortion rate, which has destroyed our countries’ most precious resource: its people of all kinds. In this instance the concern is an indicator within the black community, but in America all communities are connected and depend upon each other.
To all European-Americans, Asian-Americans and others who fail to understand the significance of an abortion of a black baby, who some might rationalize to be “one less criminal” or some other equally negative connotation: you are not realizing that the same disregard that is shown for this unborn child is similar to the disregard shown to life and the law. When half of the pregnancies in a given community are euthanized, it is an indication of a lack of respect for humanity and the governing principles which guide us. The same self-indulgent and self-destructive behavior produces both the high number of abortions as well as the record amount of crime.
Self-centeredness has been taught in urban education settings for the last forty years, and a lack of accountability in their studies contributed to children who, when they became adults, continued to dismiss personal responsibility. Whatever the good intentions of the white liberals who have been in charge of urban school boards for almost half a century, the lowering of education standards and the dumbing down of serious scholarly material has diminished African-Americans in a way in which none of the other past grievances against them can compare. Quality skills which led to power and accomplishment were once taught by our education system, but a shift occurred in which platitude and praise was given to students who were without the requisite skills that legitimately merit such praise. Before the 1960’s, commendation occurred through achievement; after the 1960’s, mere existence was enough for praise; and once substantiative achievement was dismissed in favor of simply being, it was an easy but gradual leap to dismissing the dignity of life.
City schools have emphasized teaching self-esteem and sex-ed, while stripping students of instruction for skills sets and proper behavior. This has contributed to too many urban children having a sense of entitlement and lacking tangible abilities for what is generally held to be productive participation in society. Despite the sex-ed practice of putting condoms on cucumbers, the African American rate of abortion, out-of-wedlock births, and STD’s is higher than any other group in the country. Births outside marriage affect 70% of all black newborns, and the Center for Disease Control states that of the total sexually transmitted diseases reported in 2006, African-Americans comprise 47% of all Chlamydia cases, 69% of all gonorrhea cases, 43% of all syphilis cases, and 49% of all HIV/AIDS cases.
Beginning in the 1960’s with the liberal education indoctrination, a systemic destruction of man’s spirit overtook society in waves, but it was most keenly felt in the black community where their higher rates of poverty allowed this liberal tidal wave to be most destructive. Since 1973, there have been approximately 300,000 African Americans who have been killed by homicides, 1.6 million have died by cancer, 2.3 million have died of heart disease, and over 14 million African Americans have perished through abortion. An increasingly pervasive dismissive attitude toward the dignity of life most often is first seen in your own home or community.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood which is the largest abortion provider in America, advocated abortion and sterilization to limit the size of black families. In her magazine Birth Control Review, which Sanger began in 1917, she wrote articles expressing conviction that “inferior races” were “human weeds” and “a menace to civilization.” In her 1940 “Negro Project,” Planned Parenthood convinced a number of unsuspecting black ministers on the morality of birth control as a method to escape poverty, and encouraged them to preach this message to their congregations. Beginning in the 1960’s, again under the influence of Planned Parenthood, some black clergymen began supporting abortion for black women as a means of economic betterment. The supposedly progressive agenda to assist African Americans cloaked the malicious intent of Planned Parenthood, and by taking advantage of influential black leaders they have engineered an African genocide in America.
Alveda King, daughter of slain civil rights leader A.D. King and niece of Martin Luther King, has stated, “There is a genocide threatening to erase our hope and eliminate our future. It is three times as likely to strike black women. It’s claimed 14 million of our children. It is abortion. It doesn’t solve problems; it creates different ones. Help restore our dream by restoring the dignity of human life in our community.” Slavery can be defined as an institution in which a person has complete ownership over another human and views them as property, has the control to make all decisions for their slave’s life including if they live or die, and has the option of thinking of the slave as a non-human. Abortion, like slavery, is another practice which bequeaths to one human an absolute right over another person based upon a defined relationship which justifies repugnant behavior.
|
| |
| |
| | | | February 27, 2008 | Promiscuity is not only dire for society but it is one of the catalysts that destroy civilizations. Anthropologist Reo Christenson has studied more than eighty societies, and he found a strong correlation between sexual restraint and social progression. He stated that, "Cultures that were more sexually permissive displayed less cultural energy, creativity, intellectual development and individualism, and a slower general cultural ascent." How does a person’s sexual behavior affect civilization? Because how an individual behaves privately is reflected outward through their beliefs of what the society should be, therefore the principles of people form the values of their civilization. It is these values that create the decisions made by society, such as the rules of governance and law. If there is no thought to the future consequences of actions taken privately, the most tangible of which are unwanted pregnancy and disease, there is a lesser chance of a consideration of the long-term outcome of public action. If a man is cavalier toward his relationship with women, he is likely to be careless in his regard for how his society is directed. The overall course a society takes will ultimately lead to its assent or descent, and history has clearly shown that those who choose promiscuity not only do not advance, but exhibit a decline. The rise of hedonism parallels the rise of feminism, and the women’s movement quickly moved from assertion of individualism in the true spirit of American independence, to a selfish rationalization for wanton self-indulgence and excuses for abandoning one’s responsibilities.
Although feminism has been bad for women, it has had even more disastrous consequences for men. By feminism insisting upon equality in ways that do not exist has put them on an adversarial footing with men, instead of a complimentary one. This has produced men who have forgotten who they are, has paralyzed men’s decision making abilities, decreased their dependability as boyfriends and husbands, increased indifference to their children, and diminished their overall regard for women. Women have major contributions to be made, at home and at work, but the way in which they contribute is not the same in which men contribute. By marginalizing the differences between the genders, feminists have eliminated the synergistic advances that should have occurred with women and men working together in both the home and the workplace.
The elements that make a good friendship in general have been taught to be ignored in relationships between a man and a woman. What men (and women) should look for in a relationship are the three C’s: compatibility, communication, and clarity. The best indication of a lasting relationship is a deep, similar core of compatible values, which is the foundation of friendship of any sort and what is necessary to sustain any relationship. Communication is derived from honesty and openness, and people will be more comfortable with those they are morally compatible with. Clarity of purpose and destination is gained when one is with the right person, for it will help you focus, and it will allow you to give. By focusing on the past repression of women, feminism has deliberately focused men’s and women’s attention to seeing the male-female relationship in the context of usury, and this had the ever-growing effect of destroying the traditional context of a loving symbiotic relationship where two people of different skills and talents could work together to make a home and a family. Feminism has taught women that they must stop being women and they must start being men, that they must lose their femininity and desire for romance, that they must reject the aesthetics of their own appearance, that desire for a commitment and family is unnatural, and that joys of the home should be secondary to those in the office. Women of America, do not be afraid to be beautiful. Feminism has indoctrinated men into thinking that they are the perennial oppressors, the destroyers of female potential, that it is wrong for a man to stand up for his rights whether in the home or the place of business, that marriage is an antiquated patriarchal institution, and that promiscuity is merely a form of self-expression. Men of America, do not be afraid to be strong and reject the false feminist message that has been misleading you.
Compatibility should come before condoms. It is admirable for a man to want to wait for the right woman to complete him. This does not make him less of a man but more of one, as he exhibits good judgment, self-control, discipline, responsibility, and respect for her and him. Men without personal restraint need not apply for jobs in the American intelligence sector, for just as societal promiscuity is in indication of a weakening civilization, personal promiscuity is a warning that a man is more likely to betray his country or get distracted from his mission. In their private lives our top spies, among the bravest and strongest men in our country, are more like James Dobson than James Bond.
Feminism, a female’s own personal repression, and even misguided religion have taken away a woman’s physical accountability to her husband. After marriage, it is a women’s responsibility to not deny herself to her spouse. A bit of advice from my Mummy: “Nothing before marriage, everything after.” Men must compromise on the first principle; women must compromise on the second. As a woman must trust a man to remain faithful to her if she is saving herself until marriage, a man must trust a woman to faithfully give herself to him after marriage. Although her modesty may repress their sexual behavior before matrimony, her love for him should allow no restraint in their intimacy after their nuptials.
There is a modern breakdown of relationships in general among family members, friends, and romantic partners. Many are searching for a connection, but there is a stronger disconnect to others than ever before. Feminism has destroyed the obvious distinctions between male and female, which removed the centuries-old practice of male chivalry stemming from kindness and honor. This has undermined the feeling of men’s self-control and affection towards females that has been so critical to the safety and security of women in civilized society. By combating chivalrous codes among men, feminists have forced women to focus in areas they are not innately talented, such as competing against male physical prowess. There are areas in which men excel, and there are areas in which women excel, but feminism has confused the two in their incessant bid for an artificial equality where equality clearly does not exist, such as the physical arena. Feminism has shamed men into apathy. However, male assertiveness must be productively channeled to where it has done the greatest good for society and civilization: fighting for our country, defending principles of freedom and democracy and liberty, breaking new grounds in science, protecting women and children, and being the initiator of marriage.
Conservatives go too far against divorce, whereas liberals go too far against marriage. When the state of marriage becomes one of perpetual unhappiness, it should be ended as quickly and amicably as possible through a legal divorce, albeit after waiting one year to see if the situation improves. When the state of a relationship becomes one of continuous happiness, marriage should be entered into promptly and enthusiastically, albeit after spending enough time together to ensure compatibility. An old adage states that there is the person you love, the person who loves you, and the person you marry, and it is very rare to have all three together in one relationship; the never-ending challenge is finding the one that you have this trinity with and producing a union more fruitful and bountiful than can be accomplished by either individual alone. Soren Kierkegaard said, “What distinguishes all love from lust is the fact that is bears an impress of eternity.” True love is a perfect blend of friendship with fire, of gentleness and passion, of agony and ecstasy, from the agony of being apart to the ecstasy of being together. Real love does exist; men and women of all ages should allow themselves the time to find it.
(Please look at the previous week’s column, “In Defense of Modesty for Women: Restraint, Not Repression,” which is the first half of this piece.)
Dedicated to all men who are waiting for the right woman, because an alpha male who shows restraint is the most perfect kind
|
| |
| |
| | | | February 13, 2008 | Corporeal moderation perhaps is the most difficult kind. One example of this is the consistent rise in obesity levels, although the prescription for moderation in food intake and exercise is the common sense cure known to all. Another example of lack of bodily temperance is sexuality, where people too often show either an excess of or no restraint in their behavior. During the Victorian era married women were told to feign indifference to their sexuality and were not allowed to enjoy their husbands. However, during the last fifty years the pendulum has swung in the other extreme where women are told to feign indifference to commitment and are not allowed to enjoy remaining innocent until marriage. Too frequently, from an early age women are encouraged to be licentious through the education system, entertainment venues, and the media. Together this has created a societal pressure on young girls to explore types of intimacy well before the time which they should. By their own hands women, through their fanatical striving for equality, have weakened and victimized their gender.
Dating and romance has become nonexistent, causing women to complain about the very traditions that they stopped. Feminism strove to take away all the differences between men and women, and in doing so they discontinued recognition of what made each gender special and unique. The concept behind courting was that a man had to prove that he was worthy of the woman, just as the woman had to prove that she was worthy to be gotten. Feminism itself is based upon so many contradictions as to make the entire philosophy irrational. They demand that women be treated equally as men, but simultaneously stipulate special treatment. The feminists complain when a man opens a door for a woman since she can do that herself, but they also complain when a man does not open a door for a woman since he is not showing enough consideration of her; either way, the man is wrong and the femi-nazis will criticize him. This schizophrenic duality has created bewilderment in men’s perceptions of women, causing a greater misunderstanding and distrust between the sexes than ever before.
The sexual revolution hasn’t been good for women. It has produced broken homes, broken hearts, broken bodies, and broken lives. It has shattered women through disease and unwanted pregnancy, and contributed to women becoming more depressed, more prone to anxiety disorders, more prone to counseling due to unhappy romantic relationships, and feeling less fulfilled than ever before. Radical feminists have indoctrinated men into thinking that a woman’s sexuality is no different from a man’s, which has had disastrous consequences in society. Women are now being raped, stalked, and harassed at higher percentages than ever before in our nation’s history.
Modesty in dress is a delicate balance that few women seem to accomplish, as the majority fool around at either extreme: dressed drably and unattractively, or dressed so revealingly as to be distasteful. The former is afraid of attention and does not want notice that she is a woman, whereas the latter is screaming for attention through her womanly parts. Both has contempt for the other extreme which disables them from seeing that the best place is in the middle wearing modestly alluring clothing, showing off your figure in the most positive way by reflecting the attributes given and the character of how you take care of them. A famous saying by Audrey Hepburn is a good first step for women in choosing how to dress: “A girl’s clothes should be tight enough to show that she is a woman, yet loose enough to show that she is a lady.” A second step comes from advice my mother told me: “A lady should only play one asset at a time.” If a woman is wearing a low-cut blouse, she should ensure that her skirt length is modest; whereas, if she is wearing a shorter skirt, her collar should be a higher one. Women must differentiate who they wish to dress immodestly around. As first impressions are typically received based on the appearance and clothing of a person, it is reasonable that we dress ourselves in public to give the sense that we are both ladies and women at the same time. Dressing immodestly should be reserved for one special man that we are in a committed, lifelong relationship with.
Although moderation perhaps goes against human nature, it can be achieved. A fitting example of modern modesty is Adriana Lima, a twenty-six year old Victoria’s Secret model, who has publicly vowed to remain a virgin until marriage and encourages other women to do the same. A woman who is comfortable wearing lingerie for photo shoots and the catwalk does not display repression or prudishness, as young women who are saving themselves for their husbands are accused of displaying. Adriana is not repressing her sexuality; rather, she is restraining her sexual behavior until marriage. Anyone who does not respect the choices that a modest woman makes does not respect her.
It is natural for a woman to want something more for herself than the myth of a popular culture that encourages women to behave in ways that are destructive. A modest woman displays more respect and freedom than those who are not, by desiring a man to earn her affections and take time to get to know who she is, to allow herself the choice to wait until after the commitment to give herself to him completely, and to be free from worry about diseases or pregnancy out-of-wedlock. A modest woman respects herself enough to ignore society’s lies that she is childish or unreasonable or suffering from a psychological malady. It was once the most natural thing in the world for a woman to want to be treated like a lady, with all the romance and respect and tenderness that entailed, and it is time that women become worthy of that special treatment once again.
Tocqueville observed that the virtue of American women was ruthlessly protected: “American legislators, who have made almost every article in the criminal code less harsh, punish rape by death; and no other crime is judged with the same inexorable severity by public opinion.” The reason for this was, “as the Americans think nothing more precious than a woman’s honor and nothing deserving more respect than her freedom, they think no punishment could be too severe for those who take both from her against her will.” Whereas, in France, Tocqueville noted that rape was subject to much milder penalties and it was difficult to find a jury that would convict. He asked, “Is the reason scorn of chastity or scorn of woman? I cannot rid myself of the feeling that it is both.” A society that does not allow women the freedom to choose to be modest is a society that does not respect a woman’s freedom, and because the majority of women have stood silently by as this has occurred is evidence that as a woman’s rights have increased, her respect for herself has not.
(Please look for next week’s column, “In Defense of Modesty for Men: The Necessity of Restraint,” which is the second half of this piece.)
Dedicated to all girls who are strong enough to wait
|
| |
| |
| | | | January 23, 2008 | One can tell a lot about someone by the friends they have, and even more so by whom they choose to be in a special relationship with. A person’s choice of a romantic partner reveals what they find attractive in someone else, but even more so it discloses how they feel about themselves. An extreme example is a woman who remains with a man who abuses her; what is obvious about the lady is an absence of self-respect and security. Another example is a man who is rampantly promiscuous, which exposes a man who either has no control over himself physically or a man who is desperately trying to control himself emotionally, as many partners do not leave room for much attachment. Respect is increasingly demanded in the workplace and regulations abound for proper speech, action and dress. However, requiring respect from a romantic partner has increasingly become less of a requirement. Respect is the basis for good manners, and without this common courtesy a couple will not likely last. Perhaps there is no such notorious couple whose relationship was devoid of manners as Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. After the flames of attraction that consumed them faded, the ashes that remained were not strong enough to keep a continuous spark alive, because the very foundation of a successful relationship—respect—was never present.
Theirs is a tumultuous example of what not to do when one is looking for love. During the six months that Monica was involved with Bill, from November 1995 through April 1996, co-workers noticed that she oscillated between joys at the President’s attention to her and vexation at his perceived disregard. In the infamous taped conversations, Monica would fluctuate between gushing Bill’s praises and casting insults by describing him as “the creep” and “schmucko.” A person who is not constant in their regard for you is not mature enough for an adult relationship. A recurring ebb between affection and the absence of it speaks of someone who does not know who they are or what they want, and they should not entangle their life with another’s.
In the book Modern Manners, an essay by Janet Carlson Freed states, “Manners are best applied to those we love. Manners aren’t window dressing, nor are they about conforming to social ideals; they are a matter of making the other person comfortable, happy, or safe…If love, which presumably fuels a marriage, means wanting the best for the other person, then love, logically, generates manners between the spouses.” Feminism has destroyed not only manners between the sexes but good conduct in society overall. Feminists first assaulted the gentlemanly behavior of men towards women in time honored traditions of holding open doors and pulling out chairs, and quickly progressed to an insistence that men disregard, and hence disrespect, a woman’s inclination toward modesty, the commitment of marriage, and a desire for motherhood. The feminists then assailed women’s behavior toward men by encouraging contempt toward men’s natural talents, character, and their willingness to personally sacrifice to provide for their family and nation. Feminism exhibits as much self-centered bullying as a male brute, who they try to portray all men to be.
A bit of advice: love is a perfect mixture of friendship with fire and both halves must be nurtured and respected; although the balance may be tipped in favor of the friendship before a marriage, after the nuptials the fire must have an equal share. Ladies, if the thought of him touching you makes you want to cringe, you clearly are missing the fire. Although modesty may repress the expression of fire before marriage, your test for love is recognizing the passion and having an expectation of it not being restrained after the commitment. Gentlemen, if the thought of talking to her all day makes you want to cringe, you clearly are missing the friendship. Your test for love is not if you want to spend all night with her, but if you enjoy spending all day with her, too.
An important aspect of manners is privacy. Monica described flashing her thong at Bill as a “small, subtle, flirtatious gesture.” Turned the other way around, how many ladies in an office would consider it a subtle gesture if a man pulled his trousers low enough to purposefully reveal his underpants to her? Acts of this kind may be subtle on Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras in the Big Easy, but as for the Oval Office the word brazen is more fitting. Such shameless exposure of herself reveals a woman who either has an ill formed conscience, a reckless disregard for standards, or no confidence in her intelligence. This also reflects the lack of respect Bill had in selecting and maintaining professional relationships for the highest office of the land.
It is those love affairs that begin in the work place where manners are most required. Among colleagues, a developing romance implicitly warrants professionalism and good judgment. A man in the corporate world who chooses a girlfriend among his staff must be careful to ensure no undeserved favors during the relationship and stability in office production in the case of a break-up. However, in the classified world of the federal government a man is not beholden to stockholders but to the American people, and extreme certainty is needed of the woman’s character before a romantic relationship begins. Your personal happiness should not compromise the well-being of other individuals. A woman who truly respects a man will also respect the professional position he holds and will not want to impair him, just as a man who truly respects his occupation will not allow a woman to divert his attention away from the important work bestowed upon him. A man or woman who does not believe this is using an office relationship for inappropriate professional or personal gains.
A woman can know a lot about a man by knowing about his mother, but a woman can know everything about a man through knowing who he chooses for a wife. In the corporate world, a man who is seeking a love interest to replace his current one has as his consequences some hurt if the intrigue is broken off, embarrassment if the relationship is exposed, and in the rare cases where real love is involved he may even marry the mistress. However, a man who operates in the classified world for the public good does not have the self-indulgent luxury of pursuing a substitute for a wife that he poorly chose; as his sphere of influence is much greater and his impact is far broader the consequences are far more profound with the potential to endanger the security of the nation. Bill chose Hill and Hill chose Bill, they decided to remain together to expedite their rise to power, but the shambles they left the nation in is example enough why people in public trust should not be so self-centered in their pursuits.
There is much to learn from the triad of Monica, manners, and matrimony; the second is needed for a successful relationship leading to the third, and the example of the first should be avoided. Throughout the long history of America, up until the 1960’s, there was not a distinction made between a politician’s public and private life; in fact, the respect people had for his ability to conduct his personal affairs was considered the basis for any office or public trust he was to be given. We see the alteration of philosophy in the 1960’s laying the groundwork for people in public trust believing they can maintain the public’s respect as they vacillate between public and private roles to obscure personal failings. Underneath the confidence, Bill is a man so insecure and so desperate for romantic attention that he was willing to use a young girl who was even more desperate for attention. Who you choose to be with romantically is a reflection of how you feel about yourself; make sure the partner you choose is consistent with who you are and the respect and goodness you deserve.
|
| |
| |
| | | | January 9, 2008 | As is the recent custom to blend the names of Hollywood couples together to form a single unit which identifies them, the same can be applied to the 42nd president of the United States and his wife who seeks to become our 44th commander-in-chief. Fittingly, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have many similarities with the entertainment celebutante. The media does not hold them accountable for their self-destructive behavior, large portions of the masses idolize them without really knowing anything about them except their carefully guarded outward persona, and they thrive for power for power’s own sake and not as a means of positive influence.
Prior to the Communist takeover of the film industry in the late 1950’s, the purpose of movies was similar to that of other forms of art: to portray an honest reflection of humanity, to encourage honorable behavior and if not to outright discourage harmful behavior at least not to glorify it. Without being forceful or preachy, early movies reflected our American virtues and were models as to how we should live. After the Communist dominion of the Hollywood industry, movies ceased to be created which embraced values of heroism and decency. In the past, movies served as an inspiration to uplift humanity to reach their potential, in contrast to the flounder of depravity in the films of today.
Perhaps more than any other external influence, the socialist philosophy present in movies and television series has shaped the perception many Americans have of human nature. Under the illusion of “equality” or “rights” for some supposedly oppressed group, the agenda of absolute government control over citizens is carefully shielded. It is a socialist idea that people need the government’s permission and approval for every major and minor decision necessary in their life. Whether in film, other media or messages from elected officials, Americans have been duped into thinking they are unable to live productive lives without guidance from the government. This socialist ideology has influenced many in public office, most notably Hillary Clinton (for a more detailed analysis, please see last week’s column, “Way” To Get Up There, Hill). A brief reminder of five Clintonian scandals serves to illuminate the narcissism of those with a socialist mentality, who seek to make laws for others as they hold themselves to be above the law.
Cattlegate. Although she has always denounced the greedy predators of Wall Street, Mrs. Clinton secretly worked with them to increase her personal wealth. In 1978, Hillary invested $1000 in cattle futures and within one year made a $100,000 profit. Two-thirds of the trades showed a profit by the end of the day that the trade was made; according to the Journal of Economics & Statistics the odds of a trader achieving these results are 250 million to 1. The most realistic scenario was that the broker was fraudulently assigning trades to Mrs. Clinton’s account. The account manager was the right-hand-man of one of the major contributors to Bill Clinton’s campaign in Arkansas, resulting in accusations that the soaring cattle futures account was a conduit for a bribe.
Whitewater. In the early 1980’s Mr. and Mrs. Clinton partnered with Jim and Susan McDougal to buy 220 acres of riverfront land in Arkansas. They formed the Whitewater Development Corp with the goal of selling lots for vacation homes. The McDougal’s owned a savings-and-loan association which funded the land deal. Through a series of fraudulent loans their company went bust and cost the taxpayers approximately $60 million. Both McDougal’s were found guilty of fraud, and as Hillary did legal work for them she was abetting their swindle.
Billing-gate. Mrs. Clinton’s law-billing records were subpoenaed in 1994 to adequately judge her involvement with the Castle Grande real estate deal. The billing accounts were missing until 1996 when they were inadvertently found in a room adjacent to Hillary’s White House office. Mrs. Clinton stated she had no recollection how they got there, although her fingerprints were found on the pages that contained information on Castle Grande. Federal regulators determined the real estate transaction was a sham fraught with “insider dealing” and “fictitious sales.” A federal inspector general discovered that Hillary created the legal papers that were used to improperly funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to a family member of one of her ex-law partners.
Filegate. In 1993 through 1994, over 900 confidential FBI files of Republican officials from the Reagan and senior Bush administrations were discovered in the White House. A formal investigation revealed that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton’s close friend and advisor, Anthony Merceca, illegally requested these files at the ordering of Hillary.
Travelgate. In May 1993, seven members of the White House Travel Office were indiscriminately fired, although none had done anything improper or incompetent, in order for friends of the Clinton’s to replace them. An FBI investigation ensued to determine the justification of the unethical firings. Former White House administrator David Watkins testified before a grand jury that Mrs. Clinton demanded, “We need to have our people in there,” and that there would be “hell to pay” if the First Lady’s wishes were not granted.
There can be no listing of scandals involving the Clinton’s without a mention of Willie’s women. In addition to the twelve-year affair with Gennifer Flowers, the indecent propositioning of Paula Jones and the inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, there is the credible accusation of rape by Juanita Broderick. It is unfathomable to believe that Hillary was not aware of her husband’s infidelity. There can be three reasons for Mrs. Clinton’s acceptance of Mr. Clinton’s behavior. First, she has no respect for herself, which is a terrible example for men and especially for women. Second, she will go to any ends for the sake of power. Third, she is an apt pupil of the Frankfurt School and for their ideology will allow the ends to justify the means in the most Machiavellian sense. If the first explanation is correct that would make Mrs. Clinton weak; if the second explanation is accurate she would have a self-obsession bounded only by self-preservation; and if the third were true she would be an ideologue willing to sacrifice the nation for their own ends. The former would reveal Hillary to be stupid; the latter two would reveal her to be dangerous because she is ruled by unenlightened self-interest.
The Clinton’s were able to survive and thrive through a stream of scandals that would have rightfully crippled and destroyed the career of any Republican wishing to hold office. This illustrates the extent to which intelligent and resourceful people are willing to go to maintain an illusion for the right ideological ends in politics. Saul Bellow stated, “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.” We let communism into our entertainment industry and it changed who we are as a people; by allowing a socialist into our presidential office it changed who we were as a nation. If the American people elect another Clinton into our highest office, under the illusion that she will “take care of us,” we will cease to be allowed the independence to take care of ourselves. Both the last five decades of Hollywood, and the rise of Billary to national prominence, served as a distraction from who we were and who we were meant to be as a nation and as a people. Despite the scandals Mr. and Mrs. Clinton enjoy a celebrity status among the entertainment elite, one that is greatly undeserved. The role of President of the United States is a mixture of spouse, parent, and priest. As a spouse to America, they must exhibit a devotion and selflessness that places their country above all else. As a parent to America, they must show protectiveness and a desire to encourage greatness and growth. And as a clergyman to America, they must be the example of the principles and values that guide us as a nation. President Mr. Clinton was a miserable failure on all three counts, and there is no evidence that a President Mrs. Clinton would fare any better.
|
| |
| |
| | | | December 26, 2007 | Perhaps the reason why happiness evades today’s western world is because a proper understanding of thankfulness has been lost from many individuals. It is impossible to be happy without being thankful for all the little things that make a life good and being appreciative of the people who have a positive impact on us. In America, being thankful for others, at least those in our immediate family, is increasing rare.
A recent Gallop poll shows that only 6 out of 10 Americans consider their family among the top three things they are most thankful for. Merely 20 percent of American parents said they are especially thankful for their children. Among those who are married, only 12 percent are thankful for their spouse. Sadly this reflects a predictable consequence from the past half-century of re-education emphasizing diversity, feminism, and multiculturalism which stressed “me” over “we.”
The cornerstone of post-modern thought has been criticism of family, marriage, religion, and other traditional values which emphasized strong individuals striving to serve others, and which have given us many reasons to be thankful for countless generations. In the wake of this destruction, it is no wonder that both individuals, and the society comprised of these individuals, are becoming less satisfied and less thankful for the blessings we have been given. We’ve become increasingly more reliant upon things to make us happy, from technological gadgets to designer clothes to pharmaceuticals, and these objects now form a stronger friendship to many than does spending time with a loved one. The media-entertainment industry has formed an institution which has replaced family and friends to become our new spiritual guide, a church singing the psalms of the here-and-now, with verses of adoration for socialism and hedonism, and refrains inspiring narcissism and superficiality. Increasingly lost are those simplest of pleasures that should not cost a thing yet which would be far more fulfilling.
In my own personal reflections on giving thanks, my family makes the top of my list. I am especially thankful for my brother Jon, who was the best brother while he was living and who, I am confident, is the best guardian angel anyone can have. His light shone brightly in this world, and although I will forever be devastated at his loss I am thankful for the twenty-four years of friendship and adventure that we did have. Number two is my gratefulness for being an American, for no other country on earth provides its citizens with such personal freedom and economic opportunity. We have been given this liberty because of our soldiers, the third on my most thankful for list. They are an example of how to be brave and how to be selfless, and constantly rekindle the hope of America so our light as a nation remains ever shining.
The physician and philosopher Albert Schweitzer wrote, “Sometimes our light goes out but is blown into flame by another human being. Each of us owes deepest thanks to those who have rekindled this light.” Nothing should stop you from searching for those who will bring you light, and in turn bring your spark to those who seem to lack it. Whatever family members you have been born into or are given, try to bring your light to them even if they do not bring a light to you. Whatever spouse you choose should be the person whose flame you most want to enkindle during the dark times of life and the one you would trust to brighten you during the same. The person we should want to become is one who has the most positive impact on the lives of others, for the more we let our own light shine the more we enable others to do the same, thus increasing the good that is in the world and the reasons why we should be thankful.
|
| |
| |
| | | | December 12, 2007 | Persia, the historical name for Iran from antiquity until 1935, has always been a problem for the West whether its attempt to conquer the ancient Greeks, its alliances with Nazi Germany during World War II, and its currently being the main sponsor of Islamofacist terrorism. One of our current troubles with Iran is their providing $3 million dollars each month to the terrorist proxies in Iraq. Another dilemma is Iran’s Quds Force (an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard whose purpose is to finance and equip Islamofascist groups) bringing Iraqi terrorists to camps inside Iran, educating them in the use of mortars, rockets, IED’s and other methods of unconventional warfare, and then sending them across the border back into Iraq to murder our soldiers. Forensic evidence implicates Iran in the deaths of hundreds of our troops. According to our military the senior government officials in Iran are aware of the many methods of aid being given to the Iraqi insurgents.
Iran is a dangerous country, and it will be dramatically more so with the nuclear weapons they are fanatically pursuing. Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has been a source of instability and extremism for the entire Middle East. Some claim that Iran is attacking our soldiers only because they are in Iraq and that once our forces are withdrawn the insurgency will end. However, Iran has been training, providing monetary aid to, and supplying Islamofascist terrorist groups in Lebanon, Palestine, and Afghanistan for decades, long before the United States entered Iraq. Were we to withdraw, it would be taken as a victory for the fundamentalist revolution that was initiated with the Ayatollah and the seizing of the American embassy, and the current Iranian leadership would increase their efforts to expand their radical Islamofascist theocracy throughout the region. Iran is sponsoring terrorists to murder our soldiers because they are hoping to push us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East and then dominate those countries themselves in their gradual campaign to recreate an Islamofascist Persian Empire, before it then expands into the West.
As an example of Iran’s increased aggressiveness and goal of pushing Western forces out of the Middle East, last summer Iran kidnapped fifteen British sailors who were patrolling international waters under the request of the United Nations. As Iran held these Royal Navy members hostage, Britain was quick to announce that they were not contemplating the use of force in a rescue attempt. In their typical appeasement fashion, the European Union rejected England’s request to threaten Iran with a halt of its imports; in their typical paralysis, the United Nations refused to even condemn Iran. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton stated that the Iranians were “testing” British resolve to see if there would be any consequences for their actions, which historically has been a justifiable cause for war. It appears that Iran received their answer, both from Europe and the United Nations, that its violent behavior can continue without fear of retaliation, and once again Iran was not held accountable to international standards.
Israel wishes to give a different answer to Iran through their advocating of the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities. Debates abound for if and when Israel would strike Iran, but the question remains whether Israel has the military capability for such an operation. The often cited 1981 Israeli air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak is not comparable to Iran, as Osirak was located much closer to Isreal, and the target was a small number of above-ground buildings which were not guarded. In contrast, the many Iranian nuclear sites are spread across the country, are underground, and are heavily protected. Furthermore, the Israeli air force would have to fly over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, all of which could fire upon the aircraft given their less than friendly relations with Israel.
The only country whose air force has the strength, range, and targeting capability to most effectively destroy Iranian nuclear facilities is America. Military force should always remain a last resort. But with Iran diplomatic efforts have failed for the last four years and the threat of U.N. sanctions is futile as neither China nor Russia will agree. China, Russia, and Europe have shown that they will overlook any transgression Iran makes as long as the Iranians offer up enough oil. Iran has shown over the last thirty years that they do not respect diplomacy if it is not in their favor and they cannot be relied on to honor the most cherished of diplomatic traditions such as respecting the sovereignty of an embassy or the rite of passage in international waters. It is unrealistic to expect substantial progress on any diplomatic front with Iran unless they have been broken.
The United States cannot tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. Senator John McCain has stated, ““The only thing worse than bombing Iran is allowing Iran to get the bomb.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated the course his country will pursue if their nuclear sites are attacked: Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz, the channel where oil tankers exit the Persian Gulf, choking 40 percent of the world’s oil exports; and Iran threatened to use terrorist proxies against Israel, Iraq, the U.S., and our allies. However, what is more alarming is what the Iranians have declared they would do with a nuclear weapon: “wipe Israel off the map,” in the words of Ahmadinejad; seek to dominate the entire Middle East; expand the influence of Islam throughout Europe; and establish “a world without America.” Although the consequences of bombing Iran are significant, the consequences of allowing Iran to become a nuclear armed state are far more detrimental, and it is the responsibility of America to ensure its citizens safety and that the world does not become a hostile place to our American beliefs such as liberty and the freedom of religion.
The problem with Persia is they have a history of warfare for nationalistic purposes, they currently are the greatest potential threat to the world, and their acquiring nuclear weapons would create an even more dangerous Islamofascist regime. In stark contrast to what the West associates with worship, every Friday for the last 28 years in the capital of Tehran crowds of Iranians emerge from evening prayers at mosques to gather in the streets and protest the existence of Israel and the influence of America. Flags of those two countries are burned; effigies of our president and Israel’s prime minister are set on fire; and chants such as “Death to America” fill the air. We cannot know when exactly Iran will build a working nuke, or exactly how they will use it. They may use it against Israel or American forces in Iraq, sell it to terrorists, or blackmail Europe by holding one of its cities hostage to Iran’s demands. Whatever option they choose we know it will be antagonistic to our principles and ideals; negotiating with Iran will not bring peace but will only allow them more time to build bombs and wage a more effective terrorist war against us.
|
| |
| |
| | | | November 28, 2007 | The purpose of this article is not to attack Hillary Clinton personally, nor to mention her mistaken political positions, nor to list all the scandals and controversies that she has been a part of. What this brief piece wishes to accomplish is to illuminate the deeply held ideology that Mrs. Clinton has had since the late 1960’s, and use that as a comparison to the American ideology that is centuries old. In delving into Hillary’s background, one sees a consistent sympathetic attitude towards Communism, an obsession with achieving and maintaining power, and a blatant disregard and distain of the principles that characterize the United States.
In an interview during her tenure as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton stated that a 1966 article entitled “Change or Containment” played the dominant role in her transformation from a Goldwater Republican to a leftist Democrat. The piece, written by Marxist Carl Oglesby, defended dictators such as Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh, espoused Maoist violence, and stated that the oppression of American capitalism was the cause of the pain and rage which incited violence. The thesis Hillary wrote during college relied on the theories of radical Saul Alinsky in concluding that the federal social programs initiated by President Johnson still was not sufficient enough in redistributing wealth.
While she attended Yale Law School, Mrs. Clinton’s mentor was the radical Duncan Kennedy, who, based on principles from the Communist Frankfurt School, founded the discipline of “critical legal studies,” which advocated revolutionary change and a rebuilding of society on Marxist principles. Hillary’s summer internship was with the Stalinist attorney Robert Treuhaft, whose entire legal career was devoted to assisting the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB.
After graduating law school, Mrs. Clinton became an attorney at the Children’s Defense Fund in Washington, DC. She assisted Yale psychology professor Kenneth Kiniston in writing a report entitled “All Our Children.” This paper encouraged a dramatic expansion of social welfare entitlements and a federal guaranteed income for every person in society. It also stated that the traditional nuclear family was not better than any other type of familiar unit; promoted alternative families such as single family households; stressed that the primary role in raising children should be played by teachers, pediatricians, and social and daycare workers; the wellbeing of children should be monitored by judges, government bureaucrats, and social workers; and the child’s parents should have a secondary position to all the experts mentioned above. These ideas were furthered in an article that Hillary authored herself for the November 1973 edition of the Harvard Education Review, in which she stated that children must be liberated from the “empire of the father,” and the conventional nuclear family was harmful for children.
During 1982 through 1988, Mrs. Clinton was the chair of the New World Foundation. Under her direction, large grants were given to organizations such as Grassroots International (which had ties to Yasser Arafat’s terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization) and Committees in Solidarity With the People of El Salvador (which funded communist revolutions in Central America).
During his first term President Clinton placed his wife in charge of the Health Care Task Force team, although Mrs. Clinton had never had any healthcare experience. Under her guidance, the team conducted illegal secret meetings with the intent of socializing medical care in America. Hillary was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for violating the “sunshine laws,” which prohibits secret meetings with non-government employees. A federal judge ruled against Mrs. Clinton and her husband’s administration, and condemned the “reprehensible” deceit of Hillary’s task force.
Along with her friend and strategist Sidney Blumenthal, Mrs. Clinton calls their political philosophy “The Third Way.” Ironically, “The Third Way” was a term used by the Nazis during the 1930’s to describe their national socialism, by the Trotsky’s to describe their form of Marxism, and by the Leftists of the 1960’s to describe their form of socialism.
It is obvious that throughout the last forty years, Hillary Clinton, through the mentors she was drawn to, to the ideas she promoted for social change, to the distribution of funds of the charity she guided, has a deep core of socialist values which frames her worldview. Nowhere throughout this history has she shown an admiration or appreciation for the American tenet of capitalism, whereas she has consistently shown loyalty to the flawed communist ideal. The basic conflict between capitalism and communism is where control should be centered in society. Capitalist systems are organized to allow control to remain with the people, believing the individual should have the freedom to make decisions in their life. Communist systems are organized to allow control to remain with the few who lead the government, believing the individual is not capable of making proper decisions and therefore should not have the freedom to choose. The “Way” to get up there to the ultimate seat of power, for Hillary, is insisting on increasing amounts of control over Americans, from how parents should raise their children, to healthcare availability, to how people save or spend their earned money.
It should greatly concern us that many, such as Hillary, who call themselves “progressives” are sympathetic to socialism and have been able to achieve public office, let alone be among those campaigning for the highest office in our land. Improving America through change is good, but for the good of America the change must be consistent with our core American values. Our capitalistic principles of innovation, individualism, and independence propelled us from being a third world nation in the 19th century to a superpower in the 20th century, while other countries were overrun by socialists and fascists. We must place in office those who have a record of consistently supporting and defending our Declaration of Independence and Constitution as the instrument and ideology that made us a great nation, and reject those who hold Marxist, communist, or socialist ideals. We owe a debt to those who have gone before us who have provided us these opportunities of freedom, and we have an obligation to those who will follow us to ensure the same equality of opportunity of our American system will always exist.
|
| |
| |
| | | | November 14, 2007 | 1.What exactly are the Five Laws Sacred to Spartan Warriors?
In order, they are: treasure freedom above life; obey orders implicitly; shun pleasure for the sake of virtue; suffer pain and hardship in silence; find the enemies of Sparta wherever they may be and fight them fearlessly until victory or death.
Lycurgus (700 B.C.? – 630 B.C.), the legendary lawgiver and warrior of Sparta, created these laws. He transformed Sparta by developing a simple set of laws that maintained the national identity of Sparta through every sort of adversity. Because of his legacy as an excellent lawmaker, Lycurgus is depicted in several United States government buildings, including the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives and the south side of the U.S. Supreme Court building.
2. Do you think terrorists will strike America again?
The question is not if they will attack, but when and how it will be done since Bin Laden and his accolades have made their intentions very clear. The global war on terror must continue to be fought to remove terrorist havens, which will reduce the probability and the size of any attack they could mount.
3.What can regular Americans do to support our troops?
First, outwardly show your patriotism for our great country. Current soldiers, and especially those in or returning from overseas, are extremely appreciative of displays of American pride. Wear a flag pin, place a patriotic magnet on your car, fly the American flag wherever you can, and in honor of “Red Fridays” wear the color red every Friday to show support for our troops and their families.
Second, write a letter or send a package to a soldier or platoon. Don’t worry about what to write about; a message thanking them for keeping us safe (and perhaps some current news stories) will be very welcome. Some favorite parcel items to send to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are hard candies such as Starburst or Tootsie Rolls (anything but chocolate, which will melt in the heat), deodorant, shaving cream, toothpaste, sunscreen, and lip balm with SPF.
Third, send a donation to an organization that helps our soldiers, such as Operation Wounded Heroes or Operation Provide Comfort.
Fourth, politely and firmly speak up! Don’t remain silent when people are denigrating our troops or the war effort.
Fifth, pray for our troops and their leaders, also remembering the family members of our fallen heroes.
4.Who is the person you would most like to meet?
Margaret Thatcher. There is no leader alive who I admire and respect more, since Ronald Reagan and John Paul II are no longer among us but in the company of angels.
5.What do you think about stem cell research?
I support research that uses adult stem cells, which are found in such places as blood, fat, umbilical cord blood, and placenta and amniotic fluid. However, I believe research using embryonic stem cells, in which future human beings (embryos) are destroyed, is unethical and immoral. To date, adult stem cells have treated 73 diseases whereas NO diseases have been treated using embryonic stem cells despite a plethora of research. The debate regarding embryonic stem cells has little to do with any medical advances made since there have been none; rather, it is an attempt to sustain a political agenda that encourages abortion and seeks to destroy the sanctity of human life.
6.What is the best way to fix the failing public school system?
Deteriorating public schools must seek to emulate the most thriving public schools as a model for success. Among the characteristics consistent in achieving public schools is a strict sense of discipline and high standards of academic behavior. Schools must have a curriculum based upon imparting substantiative knowledge rather than one based upon progressive indoctrination and psychobabble. The primary function of school is to increase the student’s knowledge through hard work, rather than focus on increasing their self-esteem. If public schools were as intent upon teaching students math, science, history and literature as they are at teaching them about sex and progressive ideologies, perhaps the system would not be in such a crisis.
7.Are you pro-life?
I am against abortion in ALL cases, with the one exception being to save the physical life of the mother. Abortion for birth control is the most heinous act that any civilized society can allow. Eighty percent of the over 1.3 million abortions that occur annually in the U.S. is the woman’s third or more abortion. In other words, only twenty percent of abortions are the first or second mistake for the woman. Currently one out of every four pregnancies ends in abortion.
Feminists demand “choice” and “control over their own bodies.” However, by the time an unwanted pregnancy occurs, it indicates that the woman made very poor “choices” in how to “control” her body given the number of preventive options available, the first of which is abstinence. The issue should always have been what a woman’s responsibility is for her body, and not merely simplifying the issue to some cliché of control of it.
Personal responsibility is that which the federal government has taken away from women in the guise of those who argued for reproductive control. It falls upon the federal government, since it was through the federal institution of the courts that started and maintained this climate of wonton disregard for responsibility, to redirect attention to increased personal responsibility to alleviate the need of abortions for a means of birth control.
8.Do you think America is ready for a woman president?
I believe the American people would vote for the best person to lead them, regardless of gender. However, I do not believe that Hillary Clinton will ever be President of the United States. Historically, prominent female leaders have come from the right and not the left, two recent examples being Margaret Thatcher from Great Britain and Angela Merkel from Germany.
(Please look for an upcoming column as to why Hillary Clinton is the worst role model for women because she has accomplished very little due to her own determination and skill, as the majority of her advances and achievements were due to her husband’s position and power.)
9.Who do you think is the worst American president?
It would be a triple tie: President Johnson, instead of preparing us for the information age, instituted antiquated FDR-like programs which stymied the American economy; he also fully engaged us in the Vietnam War without committing us to victory. President Carter destroyed American credibility with his inept handling of Middle Eastern affairs, the worst of which was the Iranian hostage crisis. President Clinton: too many reasons to list since his self interest consistently came before his duty to America; please look for a more detailed upcoming column.
10.Last but not least, for the many who requested “another story about Sgt. Jon,” here it is.
Even when he was a little boy, Jon enjoyed dressing up in costumes, acting out scenes in movies that he memorized, and practicing speaking with foreign accents. He was able to imitate anyone, both with his facial contortions and with his tone of voice. One of the funniest examples of Jonny acting out a scene from a movie was, the day after we saw the movie “Home Alone” for the first time, he happily told our waitress to “Keep the change, you filthy animal.” Thankfully, she had seen “Home Alone” too, and found his saying that phrase very funny. (Our mother was not so amused and gave Jon and me a stern lecture about appropriate times to perform an act from a movie.)
When we were in college, Jon used every holiday as an opportunity to wear a crazy costume. Both the professors and students would be prepared to laugh themselves silly, as Jon’s costumes were so funny. During his last Halloween at CUC, Jon wore a cow costume with realistic looking udders sticking out from his abdominal area, and a hood with little horns attached. During his last Christmas at CUC, Jon wore shorts and obnoxious Christmas-themed socks that reached over his knees and would play Christmas carols if you pushed Santa’s face. Jon loved life and laughter, and especially enjoyed making others laugh, and one of his favorite ways to achieve this was dressing up in outlandish costumes that the rest of us who laughed with him will always remember.
|
| |
| |
| | | | October 31, 2007 | The big picture seems to be ignored by some Christian groups regarding the celebration of Halloween. Although Halloween had pagan beginnings it has evolved to a holiday of candy and costumes. The reason why Christians often go too far against Halloween is that they compare it to a Christian celebration or an American holiday when it is neither. Halloween should be seen for what it is: an ancient holiday which has taken on an innocent air of childhood frivolity. Some Christian groups have used a similar tactic with the personal lives of certain Republican presidential candidates, most especially Rudy Giuliani, who is not applying to be the minister for America but the political leader of America.
Ideally, an American president should be a political, military, administrative, economic, and moral leader. When these core characteristics are not present in a field of presidential candidates (and candidates with these requisite traits are not running), we must weigh the significance of these qualities as to which are the most important. What is equally imperative is identifying which traits are so weak that they would disqualify someone for that office. In this age, with some candidates having a history of unapologetic drug use and financial scandals as if to brazenly assert this is a necessity for politics, divorce should not be one of the reasons to reject a presidential contender. Drugs and financial corruption are behaviors that are entirely the product of the simple choices of an individual, unlike marriage which involves the complex choices of two individuals. There are presidential candidates who have remained married in name only, all the while damaging the institution of marriage far more than any divorce.
An accurate gauge from the National Center for Health Statistics, based on the actual current divorce rate, is that 40 percent of first marriages end in divorce. (The often quoted statistic that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce is misleading as that figure is based on all current as well as future marriages, however, it is difficult to predict future trends.) An unusual reality is that this divorce rate of 40 percent is seen equally among conservative Christian denominations as well as other faith groups including atheists and agnostics. Although men may be from Mars and women from Venus, on both planets their reasons for divorce are remarkable similar. According to the Journal of Marriage and the Family the percentage of men and women who listed the following reasons for divorce are as follows:
Top Reasons Women Divorce
1.Communication problems (69.7%)
2.Unhappiness (59.9%)
3.Incompatibility (56.4%)
4.Emotional abuse (55.5%)
5.Financial problems (32.9%)
6.Sexual problems (32.1%)
Top Reasons Men Divorce
1.Comminication problems (59.3%)
2.Incompatibility (44.7%)
3.Unhappiness (46.9%)
4.Sexual problems (30.2%)
5.Financial problems (28.7%)
6.Emotional abuse (24.7%)
Like 40 percent of Americans, Rudy’s first marriage ended in divorce. Like 75 percent of American divorcees, Rudy chose to remarry and like 60 percent of Americans who marry a second time, his second marriage ended in divorce. Not everyone is as fortunate as Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee to meet their soulmate in high school, begin their lives together very young, and live happily ever after. Christians who would have Rudy still miserably married to his first wife should perhaps show more understanding and tolerance, unless they were also as fortunate as the two former governors mentioned above to have their soulmate with them from the beginning. There are not many married persons, whether Judeo-Christian or not, who could deny lusting after or even loving someone else, or secreting wishing for a divorce from their spouse, or harboring feelings for a past flame.
In spite of what may be personal shortcomings, Mayor Giuliani was an effective administrator and his record clearly shows he was aggressive in fighting threats against the safety of New Yorkers. There is every indication that Rudy would be a success in the two big-picture areas of vigilantly protecting American national security and decreasing the size and taxation of the federal government. Governors Romney and Huckabee, and most especially Senator John McCain, have a history of flip-flopping on issues. In contrast, Rudy Giuliani has shown a consistent philosophy throughout his public life of astutely administering, decreasing crime, and being fiscally conservative. Although Rudy has been more progressive than conservatives would prefer on social issues, he is at least honest about his positions and does not attempt to reverse his view. This is almost reminiscent of Ronald Reagan who, as governor of California, allowed the most liberal abortion laws of any state in the country but who was consistently conservative fiscally and in regards to external threats.
Even President Reagan, the conservative ideal of a leader, made a bad judgment of character and compatibility in choosing his first wife. The marriage should not be referred to as a failure or mistake, for it produced two children who have contributed much to the world. Samuel Johnson stated, “Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.” Ronald Reagan chose hope in marrying a second time after meeting his Nancy. No one could deny that Ronald and Nancy were soulmates, just as there is no denying that part of the reason why President Reagan was so effective was he had Nancy by his side.
Those who do not approve of Rudy’s remarriages should acknowledge the achievements he made as the leader of New York City. All humans make mistakes and employ bad judgment occasionally, someone can make poor personal decisions and still be a good leader, and given the high divorce rates a great many of us make important decisions with too much of our hearts and not enough with our heads. Pulls of the heart sometimes cannot be explained. We should wish Rudy, and all who choose to give love and marriage another chance, the best. We should also realize that despite some bad private decisions, Mayor Giuliani made a good deal of great public ones.
|
| |
| |
| | | | October 10, 2007 | America has an Achilles heel and it’s called the Democrats. The Congressional Democrats dismiss the significance of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan as a concocted war instead of what it is, has been, and will continue to be: a dangerous, new, ever-growing war against those who think differently from fundamentalist Islamofascism. The most extreme religious right in this country are secular progressives compared to the Islamofascists, who see everything we cherish and hold dear as a sacrilege that must be rooted out and destroyed at any cost, in any way. They accept none of the freedoms that we in the western world cherish. The Democrats, of all people, whose progressive lifestyles are most in conflict with the Islamofascists, should be the most ardent advocates of this war on terrorism.
History shows the failed results of Democratic foreign policy stretching back over fifty years. Their isolationist passivism strategy would have us pull back from the oceans, or use questionable proxies to do the dirty work in other lands. In the past Democrats insisted on the use of local tribal chiefs or the United Nations, both of which have been the source of just about every embarrassment and failed policy during the previous century. Their willingness to trust local figures, who often times are little more than throw-backs to feudal lords or petty despots, reveals a blind trust that borders on gullibility. When the policy fails, the Democrats blame the government for it failing. However, most of the crimes and grievances that other nations have against the U.S. and its foreign policy are often found to be the brain child of someone in the Democratic political establishment.
It is ironic that the left are offended and intolerant of Judeo-Christian fundamentalism, which formed the basis of all the rights we enjoy today, yet are so tolerant of fundamentalist Islamofascists. The ideas of liberty, democracy, and the rights of the individual came out of the Judeo-Christian belief system. As Christ regarded all men equivalent and presented His message of Truth but allowed people to have the freedom to decide what path they would follow, so our Founding Fathers declared all men to be equal, formed a government which allowed men the freedom to decide what kind of leadership would guard the nation, and granted people the freedom to make decisions for their own private lives that conformed to the bounds of a lawful and just society.
Western democracy has been one of our finest tools to iron out our differences, improve our flawed human character, and establish public order. American democracy grew from local to regional, then to state and national levels, and finally to a system which has sustained itself for generations. America’s success was based on centuries of ever-growing democratic traditions in Europe. This is completely foreign to Iraqi traditions, where at best they may have some tribal democracies but certainly after years of tyranny they have no strong rooted local, city, town, regional, provincial, or national democratic traditions to draw upon. To expect a well-run democratic system to emerge within a few years is unreasonable. In the aftermath of World War II, it took the United States many years and much coaxing and compelling to influence Japan to become a democratic nation by Western understanding.
Democracy was created in Europe after centuries of effort and a gradually increasing understanding of the relationship of man to the state. However, in Iraq democracy was suddenly imposed and then order was expected. America should have kept control of Iraq, and held limited elections and constitution writings, until order was achieved. Unfortunately, this was not done and we must move forward from where we are. For Iraq to become a successful democracy, there must be creations of “democracy zones” which correspond to smaller local units, increasing in size with success to a national democracy.
If the U.S. does not lead the world, who will? A quick glance at the rest of the world looks rather dismal indeed. Unstable Russia still remains close to its Communist past, China is Communist, and both nations are highly nationalistic with world ambitions. No European nation has the resources, willpower, or experience in creating successful democracies elsewhere. Our Canadian neighbor to the north is not even a unified nation as Quebec frequently attempts to succeed; our southern neighbor Mexico is fraught with drug lords and corruption, and only sustains itself through half of its discontented population moving to America (illegally). Latin and South America, and Africa are the ruined remains of socialism trying to sustain their failed economic system by extorting money from capitalist countries.
We have forgotten what a special nation America is. From its founding, the United States was described as being “a nation with the soul of a church.” Historically, Americans believed that our foreign policy should be directed to the promotion of our values of freedom and democracy, which made America very unique in the world. Our distinct American heritage has been to stand out among nations as the proponent of freedom, and no other country has made more positive contributions to the continuation of liberty.
When people have the choice between freedom and democracy, and fascism and tyranny, they will always choose freedom when they believe they have a chance. Iraqis believe they have that chance now, as evidenced by a higher proportion of Iraqis going to the election polls than Americans. It is not enough to bring a democracy to the Middle East; we must bring a civilization that honors human life, individual freedom, and liberty. The more Western style democracies there are in the world, the safer America will be, and a more peaceful world will be.
Ironically, the U.S.’s first ever foreign excursion was to face the Barbary pirates on the shores of Tripoli, who Europe ineffectively sought to placate with tributes. Europe was unwilling to stand up for the principle and preferred to tolerate the injustice. Two hundred years later, Europe still has not changed, and the world is still being threatened by Islamofascism. The fallen culture in that region has ever remained one of brutality, repression, and injustice. When we act strongly toward them, it gives them pause and perhaps they retreat; but when we act weakly, it emboldens them. What should the long-term strategy of America be? To bring Western democracy to the rest of the world, beginning with the Middle East as that poses the greatest threat to us. Then continue working down the ladder of threats as the urgency of danger and our resources permit, not trying to accomplish everything simultaneously but by choosing one fallen nation at a time as we did with Iraq, and continue at it until our success is evident. And we may all say in unison, in the words of Ronald Reagan: "I believe it is our pre-ordained destiny to show all mankind that they, too, can be free without having to leave their native shore."
To the Spartan General at Thermopylae: for his dutiful upholding of the Five Laws Sacred to Spartan Warriors; for his foresight in seeing the threat to Western Civilization coming from the East; for his willingness to confront these enemies with a self-effacing loyalty to his King; for his tenacity and intelligence in leading 300 men against an army of a million, and succeeding; for his actions which have reminded and inspired for millennia, greater than any remembrance commemorated in ancient stone.
|
| |
| |
| | | | September 26, 2007 | 1. Which GOP candidate do you support for the 2008 presidential election?
My ideal candidate would be someone with a military background and a consistent history of conservative political ideology. It is unfortunate that none of the candidates possess both of these characteristics. However, because of his strong stance against illegal immigration that has spanned over twenty years, as well as his other unwavering conservative beliefs, Tom Tancredo is my first choice for President, followed by Fred Thompson for his eloquent communication skills and history of advocating traditional conservatism.
2. Will building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico be effective in stopping illegal immigration?
No; history has shown walls, such as Hadrian’s Wall in Britain and the Great Wall of China, to never be very effective in stopping unwanted illegal immigration. Walls only postpone the internal decay that is already occurring. In America today, a wall will never be sufficient when the elected officials, employers, cities, and advocacy groups continue to undermine federal law and legal immigration.
Stopping illegal immigration will only be possible if the following steps are taken. First, no welfare benefits should be awarded to illegal aliens; second, no healthcare (except in true emergencies) should be given to illegal aliens at the taxpayers expense; third, require the family members of anchor babies to go home; fourth, deport the illegal aliens who comprise one-third of our federal prison inmates; fifth, severely fine business’ who knowingly hire illegal aliens so they are forced to pay what they are stealing from the system, followed by jail for the business executives if the fines are not deterring them.
3. What is the greatest threat to the U.S.?
There are presently two threats which are equally perilous to our country: the external threat of Islamofascist terrorism and the internal threat of illegal immigration. These threats are linked as the following three examples show. First, it was illegal aliens who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, killing 6 and wounding over 1,000 citizens. Second, the September 11th terrorist attacks were carried out by aliens who over staid their visas and should have been apprehended. Third, the Washington, D.C. sniper, who killed 10 people in 2002, was an illegal alien. We cannot adequately fight terrorism unless we are equally vigilant in fighting those who would abuse the hospitality America has offered for generations and exploit both tax-paying American citizens and our laws.
4. What is the most dangerous country in the world right now?
China, Russia, and Iran are in a three-way tie for different reasons. Each has the propensity of intimidation of their neighbors with forceful compliance to their ideologies. Collectively, they have a long-term antagonism to the U.S. that we often choose to ignore for what we perceive to be short-term diplomatic or economic gains.
China is dangerous because they have an economy based upon exploiting foreign technology to fund military gains. Iran is dangerous because they have had a jihadist attitude that has remain unchanged since the seizing of the U.S. embassy in the late 1970’s. Russia has a long-standing insecurity of the West and too many weapons unaccounted for, for any world stability. All three country’s have a callous disregard for human life and the willingness to exchange lives for marginal objectives, which makes each potentially lethal.
5. How do you respond when someone says the war in Iraq doesn’t matter?
The war in Iraq is one front, of the many, where America and freedom are against Islamofascism and tyranny. It may not be a perfect location, however, it is adequate to show America’s resolve towards standing against Islamofascism and committing us in an all-ready familiar location to seek out would-be terrorists and create a functional democracy in the Middle East. Of all those countries, Iraq has probably been the most studied during the last 20 years. If we are unable to stay in Iraq and make it a workable democracy in the spirit of what we know democracy should be, then there is nowhere in the extremist Islamofascist world where we would be able to stop the infiltration of terrorism.
To leave Iraq now or any time in the near future will not only bring a loss, but it will pave the way for a disaster we cannot yet imagine as Americans, even after September 11th. Iraq was a calculated middle ground to challenge the Islamofascists by depriving them of a sympathetic state and removing a well-known dictator. Even with our belief that Saddam was hanging on by a thread and our tactical familiarity with Iraq and its terrain, it has proved far more difficult than imagined, yet this would be easy compared to other nations that support Islamofascism; how can we possibly win the war against Islamofascism when in our first foray people are crying for retreat? Retreat in Iraq equals victory for Islamofascists; to not be in Iraq is to believe that running from evil makes it go away.
6. Do you think the U.S. invaded Iraq under false pretenses?
We invaded Iraq because of economic, moral, and imminent security concerns due to Saddam providing a secure location to raise terrorists. All the intelligence stated there were weapons of mass destruction; the fact that we have not found them does not mean they did not exist, and the likelihood that they did not exist is far less than the probability that they were moved into a sympathetic neighboring country, as were their military planes that were moved to Iran during the first Gulf War to avoid destruction.
7. How do you feel about President George W. Bush?
I admire President Bush’s tenacity and his unwavering fight in the global war on terrorism. However, he has been inadequate in his response on the second front in stopping the influx of illegal aliens who cross our southern border. I was very disappointed in certain aspects during his second term of office, such as the nomination of the woefully ill-suited Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court, his support of the Dubai Port deal, and his slowness in recognizing the inept response and incompetence of the local and state officials in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.
President Bush’s attempts to reach out to Democrats have been at the expense of GOP loyalists, when the party across the aisle has done little to reciprocate. He has made the same mistake his father has by being bi-partisan with those who do not share the same spirit and are unwilling to reach as far as he has.
8. How are you and your family coping with the loss of your brother?
I think I speak for all of us in saying that this is the darkest time that we have ever known. There is a devastation that will be present in us all the remaining days of our lives.
My Christian faith has helped and strengthened me the most, followed by the support and care from family, friends, and kind patriots and strangers. The love and concern that has been shown to me, although not lessening the pain, has reminded me of the wonderful people that are in America, who live the ideals our Founding Fathers inspired and the dreams that our soldiers are defending.
There have only been two kinds of people who have willingly died to save others, the first being God’s Son Jesus and the second being our defenders such as soldiers, policemen, and firemen. Jon has inspired me to fight for our American ideals in the way in which I can do best.
9. What was your brother Jon like?
Sergeant Jon had a lot of light in him. One of the passages he highlighted in his Bible was Proverbs 3:27, “Whenever you possibly can, do good to those who need it.” That was exactly how Jon lived his life.
My brother was the funniest person I have ever known. He was a true super soldier; he barely slept and was never hungry or tired or cold. He was very unusual in that not only was Jon a natural leader, but he was unafraid to stand alone for what he knew was right. Jon absolutely loved America and was passionate about defending his country.
Sometimes Jon would joke about running for President someday, and those who knew him would seriously encourage him to do so. He had the intelligence, charisma, military knowledge, courage, and incorruptibility needed in such a leader. I can only hope that someone like him will one day direct this great country. (For more information about Sgt. Jon, please go to www.SgtJon.com, and click on the link for “Jon’s Bio.”)
10. Who is your favorite president?
It would be a tie between Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. It may be of interest to note that the first was a Democrat, the second was acknowledged by friend and enemy alike as being “half-Republican and half-Democrat,” and the third was a Republican.
|
| |
| |
| | | | September 12, 2007 | Based on the numbers alone, Iraq is a safer place than a college campus. There are approximately 1,100 suicides each year on college campuses in America, whereas on average there have been 800 soldier deaths per year in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suicide rates on colleges have been steadily increasing every year, however, that is a risk that many are taking, believing the potential benefits of advanced comprehension and career advancement outweigh the danger that a student may become so depressed or anxious that they take their own life. As a society, higher learning is encouraged because we know that even with the sad loss of over eleven hundred lives each year, the benefits to society are far greater. It is acceptable to encourage a young person to take up books, but what of those who take up arms for our nation? The media constantly inundates us with soldier fatality statistics, yet there is no mention of the college casualties. Imagine what would occur to the American psyche if the media focused on the average five college suicides that occur daily during the semester? We would begin to believe that college was a more dangerous place than it really is, and gradually abandon the desire for our children to receive a higher education, despite the rewards it offers to the many.
Better than any Al-Qaeda shell has been the Democrats and media in breaking the American spirit and with it the soldier’s morale. Both have singularly focused on the lost lives of our young soldiers, and ignored what we as a country, a democracy, and a land of freedom have gained. I am familiar with the devastation of losing a loved one at war, having lost my brother Sergeant Jonathan Cadavero, a medic with the 10th Mountain Division, on February 27, 2007 when the armored Hum-V he was a passenger in was struck by a roadside bomb in Baghdad. To focus only on their sacrifice and ignore the reasons for their service is to forget what they were fighting for: to ensure a government for the people by the people with inalienable rights will never fall to tyranny.
The Congressional Democrats want to ensure the failure of President Bush’s current military tactics through legislation, while striving to appear to support the very troops that they want to sever funds from. One year ago military intelligence reports declared Anbar province (which comprises about 1/3 of Iraq) to be controlled by Al Qaeda. After the surge, the tribal sheiks joined our side, committed their own fighters, and with American and Iraqi forces have driven out Al Qaeda. Diyala province outside Baghdad is having comparable results as Sunnis have turned against Al Qaeda, decreasing sectarian violence. The Democrats have ignored these positive reports on the surge and continue to advocate withdrawal, but they have no plans beyond that for Iraq or the global war on terrorism. Pull the troops out, they say, but the question remains: then what? And where will the Al Qaeda members go? The purpose of our army is to protect and defend the United States, and our military has faithfully executed the orders they have been given. Pulling out of Iraq will not diminish the threat of Islamofascism. What is the Democrats plan to fight back? Or, are they still trying to convert quitting from a vice to a virtue?
We have heard their cries for withdrawal before, and history has shown what a disaster it was. Vietnam was not just a war between north and south, it was a front of the war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., between capitalism and communism. After the Democratically controlled Congress withdrew funds and supplies to South Vietnam, Russia and China sensed victory and gave North Vietnam all they wanted. The rapid withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam resulted in a genocide that slaughtered 2 million Cambodians, millions of South Vietnamese, millions placed in re-education camps, millions enslaved, and hundreds of thousands of boat people seeking to escape.
History has also shown what occurs when the U.S. stays and works through the problems. After World War II, 350,000 of our military occupied Japan from 1945-1952. During this unilateral occupation Japan’s military was barred, Shinto was abolished as the state religion, a new constitution was enacted granting basic rights and liberties such as freedom of the press and women suffrage, and emperor worship was banned. To this day, 47,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan. The legacy of America staying and rebuilding led to Japan becoming a secure nation, which led to its economic success.
Vietnam is still a fallen nation, filled with poverty, political corruption, chaos, and economic despair. In contrast, Japan is an economic superpower, a democracy, and an ally of America. We are at a crossroads with Iraq: let it remain a fallen nation, or be the first building block of a stable and democratic Middle East. An Islamofascist victory will not help America. The terrorists in Iraq would be unopposed in taking over the country, and they would then be able to finance even more terrorism through the wealth generated by the large oil deposits. This would result in ethnic cleansing and slaughter, Iran becoming more involved in Iraq, and the territory reverting back to a land that supports Islamofascist terrorism.
The presence of elections alone is insufficient to denote a successful democracy, as Hitler rose to power through democratic elections. It is through the nature of that democracy reflected by its actions can one see success. What we allow to happen in Iraq will reveal the character of our country. Winning is only possible if our reconstruction efforts are as focused and comprehensive as were our labors in Japan. What is “winning” in Iraq? Winning is a country that will look more like Japan in twenty years than Vietnam, a country that holds all life sacred, that grants people the freedom to define God in their own way, that allows women to reach their potential, and that believes in the truths of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Parents of America, hug your children tightly as you drop them off at college next month. For over 1,100 families, it will be the last hug ever given to their sons and daughters. For hundreds of military families, the last hug to their soldier will be given before deployment to the Middle East. Yet despite the hell of war and potential of fatality, reenlistment rates are at the highest level they have ever been in the history of our great armed forces, for all five branches of our military. This is especially true of those who have seen combat. Clearly, many young Americans are choosing to volunteer themselves again for a cause and fight they believe in. It is a pity that those in Congress are not as united as the military in winning the global war on terrorism, for if they were America would truly be invincible.
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 22, 2007 | It would have been easy for him to turn back to safety, but he didn’t. Through the smoke and chaos and sniper fire, Sergeant Jonathan Cadavero made his way to a soldier bleeding on the ground. They were a convoy of I.E.D. hunters, from the Army’s 10th Mountain Division, whose job it was to find and neutralize I.E.D.’s in southern Baghdad, Iraq. On that particular mission, a Hum-Vee was hit by a roadside bomb, causing massive injuries to a soldier’s leg. As the medic in the group Sergeant Cadavero knew it was his duty to help the wounded soldier. His first priority was to stop the bleeding, and after the wound was stabilized his secondary precedence was to get the soldier to safety and away from the center of the road where they were vulnerable to enemy fire. Sergeant Cadavero ran to the closest building, made sure it was secure, dashed back to the soldier, and carried him on his back to the shelter where they waited until further medical reinforcements arrived. Four times Sergeant Cadavero passed through treacherous sniper fire to save the life of a fellow brother. He humbly related the story and his resulting nomination for the Bronze Star for bravery, while on a brief home leave from Iraq. With a casual shrug and smile, Jonny confidently stated that his fellow soldiers would have done the same for him.
Such stories of courage are common in war, yet so uncommon in civilian life. General George Patton stated, “All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.” Courage is not the absence of fear, but a continuing on despite the fear. Soldiers have a moral clarity amongst the hell of their surroundings, doing what is right when it is difficult and perhaps even against their nature. It is an American principle that men are given by their Creator the right to live in freedom and to choose the kind of life that they will lead within an orderly society, and it is the duty of our leaders to ensure this principle is encouraged here and abroad when making policy. Freedom is what our soldiers are fighting for right now, against a tyranny that seeks to control and impose its will indiscriminately on all. A passage from the Army’s Soldier Creed declares, “…I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade…” We need to require of our politicians, working in D.C. as our soldiers serve overseas, similar devotion and uncommon virtue in supporting our soldiers and the adequate completion of their mission, and never accepting defeat or defection. Our duty as Americans demands that we bring freedom according to the finest democratic tradition, and not allow a democratic façade to hide a new generation of fascism’s rise as there was hidden through democratic elections in Nazi Germany. We are in for a long, difficult struggle, and while our soldiers show bravery on the battlefields those at home should be inspired to place our morals first and never leave our principles behind.
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 8, 2007 | There is only one horror worse than having a loved one be murdered, and that is when justice is not served. Four months ago, on February 27, 2007, my brother, Sergeant Jonathan Cadavero, stationed in Baghdad, Iraq with the 10th Mountain Division, was murdered by Islamofascists. He was the medic in a convoy heading out to find and neutralize improvised explosive devices, which often kill indiscriminately women and children as well as soldiers, when an I.E.D. exploded under the armored Humvee Jon was a passenger in. The Army did their best to locate the perpetrators who were responsible for the bomb, but they were not found. However, justice was served that day, and every day since, as America systematically destroys all havens, regimes, and countries that harbor such terrorists. The Islamofascist terrorists do not want the U.S. to leave Iraq. They want America and the West to either be converted to radical Islam or taken under the sword, and they will commit any act of barbarity until this is accomplished.
The global war on terrorism that began after September 11th was a long overdue reaction to the six terrorist attacks America suffered throughout the 1990’s. In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, killing 6 and injuring over 1,040. In October 1993, eighteen U.S. troops were killed and 73 wounded in Somalia, and the corpse of one soldier was savagely burned and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. In November 1995, a car bomb at our embassy in Saudi Arabia killed 5 and wounded 30. In June 1996, the U.S. Air Force complex Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia was bombed, resulting in 19 casualties and hundreds injured. In August 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were simultaneously bombed, killing 225 and wounding over 4,000. In October 2000, our warship U.S.S. Cole was attacked; 17 of our sailors died and 39 were wounded. September 11th was the next step in a predictable trend of evil prevailing, when lost souls rationalized away the evil acts occurring, and good men did nothing.
After six declarations of war on our country, President Clinton and his party merely talked amongst each other and with the U.N. as the enemy continued their preparations for ever-increasingly violent acts. The trend of Islamofascist terrorism remained unaltered and as we saw on September 11th our country was no safer. Talking has no impact upon those whose only method of negotiating is force. For every supposed action taken during the Clinton administration, we’ve seen but a few years later all the resolutions unravel which created the necessity for our troops to be present in Iraq and Afghanistan now and for an undetermined amount of time in the future to deal with the problems which were improperly dealt with before.
The media was an accomplice by creating misperceptions of the terrorist events that were occurring. They treated each of the six attacks as daily sensationalist headlines instead of a dangerous trend, and today devote most of their efforts in trying to convince us that Iraq was irrelevant to our national security and the global war on terrorism. The media likes sensationalism but only the sensation they want us to feel, and my brother resented their negative storylines and the effect it had on his brothers-in-arms. The coverage of Iraq and the global war on terrorism is horrific, and reminiscent of the media’s attempts to misdirect attention away from the true significance of the six terrorist attacks during the previous decade. They are misdirecting the events to make the public as dismissive as they are. As we still hear voices from Abu Graib, the media remains silent on the ever-growing number of current terrorist attacks.
Instead of just reporting U.S. soldier casualties, the media should be applying equal vigor to exposing the worldwide casualties of Islamofascism. For example, yesterday, June 26, 2007, two American soldiers were killed in Iraq. On that same day, outside the Middle East, there were nine casualties of terrorism: in Pulwana, India a police officer was kidnapped and beheaded; in Mogadishu, Somalia two roadside bombs killed 7 and wounded 13 civilians; in Pattani, Thailand a gunman opened fire in a Buddhist tea shop, killing 1 and wounding 4. Also, in Nilphamari, Bangladesh 10 Christian converts from Islam were savagely beaten. The threat of Islamofascist terrorism goes far beyond Iraq, and anyone who thinks our support of Israel or any other U.S. foreign policy is the cause of terrorism has not been paying attention. Anyone who believes that if the U.S. leaves Iraq or Israel gives up, and then this threat will disappear, is in complete denial.
We are in Iraq because that is one front, of the many, where the enemy is. After we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declared war not just on Japan but also on Germany and Italy, because fascism was our enemy, not just the one fascist state who bombed us. During World War II, we did not limit ourselves to fighting our enemies only in their native countries, but we fought Germany and Italy also in France, Poland, and Africa; and we battled the Japanese in China, Philippines, Guam, and Samoa. Wherever the enemy went, so did we. Why attack Iraq? Because it was a first step to show our resolve to eliminate places in the world that are sympathetic to terrorists; we already fought in Iraq and were tactically familiar with the terrain; and Saddam’s crimes against his own people, his neighbors, and humanity were so numerous that no government with any moral standing should have allowed that regime to have continued. Iraq offered a safe harbor rouge state for Islamofascists that seek to destroy America. How we handle Iraq will send a clear message to the other countries that are actively supporting or sympathetic to terrorism, such as Iran and North Korea. If we continue to timidly deal with terrorists in Iraq, this will encourage terrorist networks and their copycats.
The inept handling of Iraq in the mid to late 1990’s served to embolden terrorists by showing Islamofascists and their state supporters that America quickly forgets. “A nation that forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.” These words by Calvin Coolidge remind us that the forgotten fallen from the 1990’s, both citizen victims and soldier heroes, demonstrates that we forgot who we were as Americans. The question remains: will America acquiesce to Islamofascist depravity as Europe and the rest of the world has, or will we stand up for what is right even if it is difficult, with our solace being the principles and traditions established by our Founding Fathers and carefully stewarded throughout the generations until today? Will we remember our past, our traditions, our principles, and our heroic fallen; or will we become like those our Forefathers sought to separate us from? There are things worth fighting for, beyond our lives; freedom, justice, and defending the innocent are some of the greatest of these.
In memory of the lone soldier at Mogadishu and all those who never should have been left behind – you are not forgotten.
|
| |
| |
| | | | July 25, 2007 | Heaven welcomed three new heroes on the morning of February 27, 2007: Sergeant Paul Soukenka, Corporal Lorne Henry, and my brother, Sergeant Jonathan (Jon) Cadavero. As part of the 10th Mountain Division’s Alpha Company, they were on a routine mission to search for and neutralize IED’s in southern Baghdad, Iraq, when the armored Humvee they were traveling in was struck by the very device they were hunting for. It occurred at approximately 9:30 a.m. local time, 1:30 a.m. EST. We were sleeping safely in our beds. They had been up before dawn, continuously doing their duty to ensure that we at home would continue to live in freedom.
The darkness that comes over the loved ones of fallen soldiers is indescribable. An ever-present shadow will always remain with us, for this is a loss that one never gets over or gets accustomed to, but somehow learns to carry along with them. The feelings experienced are a mixture of admiration for their bravery, respect for their service, devastation for their sacrifice, a continuous wondering of why-with a 98% survival rate of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan-our beloved soldier was one of the few that was taken, and a slow realization that although they are gone from earth they will always remain here with us. We may live on earth, but we are alive in the next place. Jon is now transformed and fully alive, waiting for us in a place of comfort and warmth and peace.
When Jon came home in late November 2006 on a 2-week leave from Iraq, I revealed to him that on Veteran’s Day I survived, without injury, what could have been a fatal car accident. He in turn confessed to me his exact occupation in Iraq of being an I.E.D. hunter, something that he kept secret from everyone. Before I could even begin my request of his staying on base and working in a medical clinic, Jon quietly stated that being on the front lines was where he belonged because that was where he was most needed. Jon trusted in fate and had a belief that there was a grand plan, known to God, yet unseen to man. Jon found his way to serve God by loving his country and protecting his family, which challenges each of us to discover our own way to lift the veil providence places over our lives to understand how we, too, can best serve God and love our neighbors.
There are times when God whispers quietly that He is with us, and other times when He is shouting that He is here. On the Sunday before Mother’s Day, in that misty place between sleep and waking, I was overcome with the feeling that Jon was sending me a message about two specific Mother’s Day cards that he wanted me to purchase, a purple card with yellow butterflies for our mother and a purple card with dark purple flowers for our aunt. Although I searched every card store for the specific qualifications that Jon wanted, my search was in vain (and my faith faltering) until a seeming misfortune led me on Mother’s Day morning back to a store to correct a mistake made with a duplicate photo of Jon. A box of forgotten Mother’s Day cards had just been discovered, amongst which I immediately saw the two cards I had frantically searched for; as if written by Jon himself, the card to our mother stated the bond between a mother and child can never be broken by “time, or distance, or separation,” and her positive influence helped the child to “change the world in a positive way.” Jon is with God, and God is with us.
There is a spark of the divine in each human life, and Jon’s spark shone bright. He really lived life, he made every moment count, he stood up for what he believed in, he didn’t ever want to wonder “what if,” he didn’t live passively but as a leader. Up until Jon’s last moment he was moving forward with his eyes open, but it was time for our beloved Jonny to stand down; his watch was over, and he has been assigned a new post. The life that soldiers live is not just their own, but they live, between their loved homes and the desolation of war, for the continued hope and promise of all Americans; my vow is to use Jon’s influence and example to live for both of us, to live for two, until the day when we are together again. We as Americans have a responsibility to live our lives in the best way we can, taking the special talents God has given us, in tribute to our soldier heroes who lived and laid down their lives for us, and were welcomed to heaven far too soon, to ensure that our country would remain a bit of heaven on earth, a glorious land of freedom and safety and faith.
|
| |
| |
| | | | July 11, 2007 | A war is an instrument of national policy, not a tool of domestic opportunity. After the horrific events of 9/11, it became U.S. policy to seek out the terrorists in their lands before they came back to ours. Senator Harry Reid’s recent assurance, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” demonstrates the priorities of the confused Congressional Democrats, and tragically answers the question as to why not enough progress is being made in Iraq. Although less treasonous than his statement that “this war is lost,” it is clear that the Democratic leadership’s quest for power has hindered their offering any conclusive strategy of their own. They campaigned last November on changing the course of Iraq by stating a new direction is needed, but only offered “re-deployment,” a thinly veiled disguise for quitting, as the solution. To withdraw is to retreat, and once you begin to retreat from terrorists, where and when do you stop?
The Republicans, who must be held responsible for their lack of contingency planning for the period after the invasion, have at least presented a new tactic of clear and hold with the troop surge, although they have still failed to offer additional methods to stabilize the nation. What we are engaged in now is the complicated post-war policy of nation building and the tedious problem of what to do when you’ve broken an army but not their will to fight. The answer has escaped the bickering bureaucrats and the clueless Congress, however, it was incredibly obvious to my brother, Sergeant Jonathan Cadavero, who deployed to Iraq in August 2006 with the 10th Mountain Division and quickly formed a comprehensive plan that he believed should be instantly implemented.
First, award money for economic development only to areas that show decreases in terrorist activity. Instead of being dealt with as an undistinguishable mass, Iraq needs to be broken down into identifiable sections, whether town, city, region, or province. Economic aid should be based upon these units holding their own citizens accountable for peaceful coexistence. Competition needs to be created among neighborhoods so that stable areas, which are able to identify and neutralize terrorists, get direct economic funding, whereas unstable areas receive spending exclusively for security.
Second, more scrutiny must be applied in recruiting members of the Iraqi military and the police to predict better the individual’s behavior and to follow-up if they turn. Two criteria that should be used for these are verifiable personal referrals and recruits having stable family ties to an area. Care then should be taken in placing new recruits from the same neighborhood into the same unit. This should discourage potential traitors because their remaining family members will face the consequences of their betrayal instead of the rewards Al Qaeda is offering to bomber’s families. The scrutiny and careful placement creates an accountability that has not existed, but is desperately needed, in the rebuilding process.
Third, detain all radical Islamofascist clerics. When General McArthur was charged with the reconstruction of Japan after World War II, he stopped the practice of Shintoism, the extreme religious view which encouraged the Kamikaze suicide pilots during the war and threatened the peaceful post-war rebuilding. Any advocacy that interferes with Iraq becoming a peaceful democracy must be eliminated, and all extreme religious leaders must be imprisoned to ensure their rebellious ideas never influence or create discord amongst the populace. These clerics, who either collaborated with Saddam or were silent during his enslavement of the Iraqis, should be treated as the war criminals they are and given no sympathy for having exploited the people.
Fourth, relentlessly pursue the insurgents in the Sunni triangle until they are broken and both the terrorists and their supporters dare not surface. Sherman warned that, “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.” A decision needs to be made: break the backs of the resistance unequivocally or tolerate this slow bleed of American troops which comes from the doctrine of trying to fight a sterile war. War has never been clean, and it has always been hell. That is why we fight it hard and with resolve to ensure that our enemy wishes to end it as quickly as we do, for anything less jeopardizes the original goal. We cannot fight a politically correct war and win.
Fifth, use satellite technology to find and capture insurgents who build and detonate I.E.D’s (improvised explosive devices). Also known as roadside bombs, I.E.D’s have been the cause of 70% of U.S. casualties in Iraq. It is inconceivable that Google Earth is able to focus on citizens in their driveways, yet our military and intelligence community is not dividing every Iraqi city into a grid where each satellite frame is monitored for terrorist activity. It should be obvious that something iniquitous is occurring when earth is dug out in the center of a road and dozens of pounds of explosives placed in the pit before the ground is covered again. Satellite programs should allow us to locate the whereabouts of the terrorists who placed these weapons, thus allowing the Americans to use their technical superiority to overcome these deadly crude devices.
Sergeant Cadavero did not live to see Iraq become a stable and thriving nation. He was killed on February 27, 2007 when the armored Humvee he was a passenger in was hit by a roadside bomb. In these battle plans of a fallen soldier lies a more comprehensive strategy for economic, political, and military victory than what is currently being suggested by our elected leaders. However, achievement will be difficult on the Iraq front and all others until we unify together against this struggle.
It is true that dissent is patriotic, but only when it is done with dignity and not at the expense of our country or our soldiers. During World War II, the defeated Republican Presidential candidate, Wendell Wilkie, acted as President Roosevelt’s envoy to Great Britain because loyalty to country, instead of party, took precedence. We are all in this global war on terrorism together despite the differences we may have in the best course of action, something a more patriotic opposition party would remember and a wiser Grand Old Party would never let the American people forget.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 27, 2007 | There are no words profound enough to bring comfort to those who love Jon, but perhaps there can be some solace found in his. In a brief phone call to me after a particularly grueling mission Jon stated that, as had many soldiers before him, amongst the hell of war he was able to understand the power of redemption and the love found in sacrifice. He was assured of the immortality of his soul, and passing into the next life was not to be feared, for, in his words, “there is no ending, it’s the same journey, just in a different place.”
Jon belonged to God and has returned to Him. We were lucky enough to have Jon here with us for a little while; we loved him, raised him right, and helped him on his path in being who he was meant to be. We are happiest when we are doing what God planned for us to do, and Jon was very happy being a soldier. As he said in his very last words to me: he had no regrets, he would do it all over again, and he loved being an American.
I can picture Jon now, as he did on earth, finding the veterans in heaven, thanking them for their service, listening to their stories, and proudly telling some of his own of the IED’s he found and the lives he saved as he followed in their heroic example of keeping America free.
Where the soul goes after death is a reflection of the life it has led on earth. With his love of man and closeness to God, Jon didn’t just reach heaven on the morning of February 27, 2007 – he was already there.
|
| |
| |
| | | | June 13, 2007 | The worst nightmare became a reality for our family on the evening of February 27, 2007, when an Army officer and chaplain visited my mother and told her that her son, and my brother, Sergeant Jonathan (Jon) Cadavero was killed earlier that day in Baghdad, the result of a roadside bomb. There are no words to adequately describe the grief and devastation our family is feeling.
During the past three weeks, amongst the throngs of sympathizers and those offering condolences, a subtle, almost hesitant, question has been slowly surfacing as to how we feel about the president and this war now. The response has been unchanged: our support for President Bush and the global war on terrorism is not in any way diminished because of Jon’s ultimate sacrifice. It would dishonor Jon to change our position based on his passing and ignore the reasons for his service.
After graduating college with honors in December 2004, Jon volunteered for the U.S. Army because he believed that it was during wartime when his country most needed him. He was placed in the 10th Mountain Division, and deployed for Iraq on August 13, 2006. In an unspeakable act of bravery, Jon served as a medic for a front-line unit, an elite group responsible for finding and neutralizing IED’s in southern Baghdad.
When Jon came home for 2 weeks last November, he related an incident that gives insight as to why some have the false assumption that America is not winning. A small group of our troops were greeted like sports stars amongst a crowd of appreciative Iraqi men, women, and children. Jon and his comrades saw a man in the periphery who, angered at the gratefulness towards the American soldiers, spat. The media that was present, which had been ignoring the display of Iraqi-American friendliness, immediately focused their attention and cameras on the 1 hostile individual. If people believe that we are losing in Iraq it is not a factor of the troops, but because of biased media reporting and certain impulse-driven members of Congress who keep spinning a tale of defeat. The reality is that we have made great progress. Much like the building of America itself, the advancements in Iraq are slow and steady, the result of deliberate effort and determination.
The idea that this war can never be won is the same defeatist argument used by some during the Cold War. In response to every external Communist threat during the second half of the 20th century, the left consistently predicted American defeat and demanded retreat and appeasement. Retreat has never offered protection; it only delays the inevitable. Time and again the left has shown absolute compassion for American enemies and intolerance for our friends. But, when you are hiding under the bed like a scared child, with enough time the burglar will find you.
The only way our husband’s, father’s, son’s, and brother’s deaths shall be in vain is if we withdraw before Iraq and Afghanistan have been stabilized. Besides the obvious result of emboldening our enemies and making us more susceptible to future attacks, this would show the world that America has given up hope of making a difference. Anyone who believes that our country cannot make a positive change does not understand America or the heart of the American people. For hundreds of years, Americans have yearned to work to create a better situation in spite of immediate setbacks or time involved. Since its creation, America has been the hope of what can be in this world. Even during our darkest days, during our Revolution, Civil War and World War II, America was still lighting the way because we believed in what we could be, even if we weren’t there yet.
At Jon’s final resting place there is a monument which states a quote from Thomas Paine: “It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies.” In honor of the fallen from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, Americans must remain united, now more than ever, and resist the cancerous infection from spineless politicians that would have Americans change their nature from hard-working heroes to victims. The time to withdraw is not when we would want to leave, but when we would not wish to leave, when Iraq is no longer a place of danger but a place of prosperity for all.
|
| |
| |
|
|
 |
|
