The attempt of the Senate to withdraw troops from Iraq makes me yearn for the days of Lyndon Johnson as majority leader. To say the least Johnson new what power was, how to get it, and how to use it. To watch the pathetic efforts of Harry Reid, knowing that he is totally wrong in what he is attempting to do and watching him flounder in a sea of incompetence leaves one with a sense of emptiness and an inability to feel empathy or have any way of putting him out of his misery. I am not saying that I approve of the Democrats actions or that I approve of Lyndon Johnson, but he did get things done. Often times, like FDR what he accomplished was at the expense of freedom and was totally self-serving. Remember the 1954 amendment to ban all non profit groups from engaging in election activity. This was Johnson's way of silencing his opponents, two powerful anti-communist organizations, and securing his own re-election. We are beginning to do it right in Iraq. Not perfect, but we are going on the offensive. Still there is no substitute for victory and for my part, I would like to see "Unconditional Surrender" as our objective. There is no religion of peace, it is an ideology of hatred and conquest. Maybe Sen.Kennedy will charge them with hate crimes. I tend to be more aggressive. I would, upon each attack on the United States, bomb a mosque to the ground, starting with Saudi Arabia.

    "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Culture has got to go." This chant was heard on the campus of Stanford University some years ago. The leader of this group of protesting students was none other than Jesse Jackson.

    Diversity and Moral Relativism, where no idea is superior to another, are dangerous metaphors for division, confusion and mediocrity. College students fall prey to what G. K. Chesterton said about people, "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, -- they believe in anything."

    Diversity programs and sensitivity training are sold by the multicultural activists as the great equalizer while it is really the grand promoter of mediocrity, the enemy of excellence and individual achievement. It is "bogus" in the words of the author
of "Illiberal Education" Dinesh D'Souza, "that it does not reflect the temper or the accomplishment of other cultures but a distorted and prejudicial view of Western Culture." He continues by saying
that "Multicultural education, in general, is inspired by political activists who are alienated from what they see to be the racism, the sexism, and the homophobia of the West."

    It is bogus in that the multicultural activists do not like
what they see abroad so they look to non-representative figures, figures who do not reflect the temper or the accomplishment of their own cultures, but who reflect the political prejudices of Western culture, and yet it is being fed to us with a shovel as politically correct. This way we do not offend anyone, yet it
takes away that very right of free speech that the ACLU claims to
be defending.

    One example of this bogus attempt to distort and create a prejudicial view of Western culture is the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Rigoberta Menchu Tum. Research into her background revealed that she had been lying all along. The story that informed of Rigoberta's secular sainthood cane apart following research carried out by Anthropologist David Stoll. His research, confirmed by the New York Times, and reported by Nathanael Blake in his article of April 21, 2006 revealed that she was not illiterate, she had been educated in a prestigious Catholic boarding school.

    The land dispute that was considered central to her formulating her Marxist beliefs did not pit her family against wealthy landowners. It was actually against their own relatives. Other facts included in the report stated that her brother Nicolas, did not die of starvation, but was alive and well in Guatemala. It does not matter if these are lies, her lies are noble, according to her supporters, for the normal standards of historical accuracy do not apply since her her falsehoods supposedly served a good cause.

    Multicultural education is too important to leave in the hands of the activists and ideologues. They tend to divide rather than unite. We live in a multiracial society and we should be looking for the commonality of all Americans. Those traits that we share in common as Americans not as hyphenated-Americans but as Americans without divided loyalties. We now see "illegal" Mexicans and members of the Hispanic community carrying Mexican flags and signs claiming that Europeans are illegal and have been since 1492. Their aim is not "immigration" per Se (which has long been provided by the U.S. through legal means), but anarchy, similar to the Cloward-Piven strategy of the sixties and seventies that exploited group rage in order to advance the cause of "social justice."

    Since F.D.R. populated the Court with judicial activists, we have seen the Supreme Court Justices, with their belief that the Constitution is a "Living Document" subject to all manner of judicial interpretation, legislate from the bench by issuing rulings based on their personal interpretation of the Constitutiion or that of the liberal left.

    Prior to the ascent of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the presidency,
the courts were still populated with originalists, who properly rendered legal interpretation based on a strict construction of the Constitution's "original intent."

    The institutions examined here all seem to have the same failing. They are inclined to see government and the art of governing as requiring the existence of a power elite. Senator Kennedy and others of the Democratic left, who feel that the Judicial Branch of government is the only branch sensitive to Social Justice Agendas, are inclined to see themselves as the only ones with distant vision and capacity to see things whole and that they must come to play a superior role. It is Socialism or Communism in disguise. It has been disguised as progressivism, liberalism, secular humanism, and eventually environmentalism, feminism, and a vast assortment of other "social justice" causes.

    Christianity teaches individualism, as defined by the radical command of Christ that we love our neighbors as our selves and not the secular individualism focused on the desires of the self. It is not a matter of self-constituting autonomy but of living out the singular, God-given destiny that is every human life. Properly understood, individualism does not lead to isolation or withdrawal from society. Quite the contrary, it actually promotes involvement in society. If one loves his neighbor as he loves himself, he will be reciprocal of his neighbor and helping his community in any way that he can. He does not see his neighbor as part of a group or class, but as an individual deserving of the dignity and respect that he himself, as an individual, expects from everyone else.

    Indeed, it is now clear that a silent revolution in values set in among Europeans after 1963 which destroyed the Christian values of responsibility, sacrifice, altruism and sanctity of long term commitments. These values as such can only be sustained through knowledge and faith.   

    We cannot ignore reality for long and dismiss the interests of the nation as a whole as alien to our own interests. We are one nation and one people and we must live, work, govern and be governed in the same manner. Only through knowledge, hight purpose and the use of self restraint in the excercise of power can this nation determine whether a government of separated powers will continue to endure. Surely our Governors, State Legislators and the United States Congress and Senators can see that they have the power, as our elected representatives, to change the direction of those promoting the destruction of our Constitution or face the consequence of the People changing them.

     We hear them, the conservative media talk show hosts day in and day out talking about the ACLU and the liberal left, the disinformation of the mainstream media and they keep us informed of the real issues that we face. We can easily find agreement with them but someone must act in order to change the current direction.
Our nation is experiencing a power struggle.

     Secular Humanism and Moral Relativism is attempting to gain power through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions that are so necessary for the continuance of freedom an democracy in our time. Socialism is their goal. Socialism that destroys that individualism that Christianity teaches.

     In his book, "The Everlasting Man," G.K.Chesterton described this reversal process as the "theology of demons" and said that it was sadistically anti-human and anti-childhood. It is intrinsically evil. It is a malignancy-filled system of philosophy posturing as something seemingly inocuous in order to infect Christendom and the individualism of Christianity in the United States of America.

     David Horowitz writes about the academic circles and popular culture that gives rise to the prominence of the likes of Noam Chomsky as the expression of an anti-American cult. We are the "Great Satan" and this is what is being taught in our universities. Another academic who is revered is Howard Zinn, intellectual "guru" to movie and music celebrities, who penned 700 pages of Marxist caricature with "A Peoples History of the United States" claiming nation-states are merely a fiction, and only economic classes are "real" social actors. These and others seek only to divide this country. They are traitors and we need to weed them out of our universities.

     Even the likes of Notre Dame, the flagship of American Catholic Institutions, and the Jesuit institutions such as Georgetown are falling prey to multiculuralism and diversity ploy. The president of Notre Dame defended the presentation of the "Vagina Monologues" on campus as an example of diversity. What ever happened to right and wrong and just plain bad taste. The Catholic Church does nothing.

     The list of academic institutions who preach and teach anti-American and anti-Christian dogma to our children is growing daily. Morality becomes a key issue when the myth of moral neutrality is taught and has become one of the most entrenched assumptions of moral relativism in our society today. They talk of tolerance and respect for another's point of view, but the implication then, however, is that any point of view different from the one being taught or expressed is immoral and tyrannical. If you disagree with the position that all points of view are equally valid, then your point of view is not valid. This argument self-destructs. This ethic turns out to be the most bankrupt of all moral systems. It is called Moral Relativisim. It can be made to sound persuasive, but it is misleading and fallacious.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton in his book, “The Flying Inn” has one of his main characters say “I think modern people have somehow got their minds all wrong about human life. They seem to expect what Nature has never promised; and then they try to ruin all that Nature has really given. At all those atheist chapels of Ivywood’s they’re always talking of Peace, Perfect Peace, and Utter Peace, and Universal Joy and souls that beat as one. But they don’t look any more cheerful than anyone else; and the next thing they do is to start smashing a thousand good jokes and good stories and good songs and good friendships by pulling down ‘The Old Ship.’” Sounds familiar.

Most of Chesterton’s writings show the conflict between Christianity and atheism. In “The Ball and the Cross” Chesterton chronicles a hot dispute between a devout but naive Roman Catholic and a zealous but naive atheist.

The words of one of the early leaders and founders of this nation serve as a haunting reminder of the need to protect and cherish our Christian Heritage and our Strength and Innocence of Character.

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." --Samuel Adams

Our founding fathers knew from the beginning that if Democracy were to inevitably survive, men and women of strong character and faith would be needed as leaders of this nation “under God” and that it did not stop with them, but that it required men and women of strong character in all aspects of American life.

Since the end of World War II, our institutions and our national character have come under ever increasing attack from those who then claim protection under the first amendment of the Constitution. I do not wish to deny them this right nor to deny the principle of free speech. I do wish however, to stop the erosion of the rights of the many by the working agenda of the few.

James Madison recognized a faction as a group adverse to the rights of other citizens and states that, “there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its cause; the other by controlling its effects.”

To remove the causes of faction would require the destruction of liberty for, “liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires.”

He sees the latent causes of faction as sown in the nature of man, which leads to the conclusion that relief is to be sought only in the means of controlling its effects, and this relief is supplied by the republican principle of elected representatives who then pass laws by which this Republic is governed.

However, that is not the end of the argument, in the Federalist essay Number 10, Madison comes to deal with the crucial problem of breaking or controlling the violence of faction, whether amounting to a majority or minority, by offering the crucial assumption that a broader republic with its national Congress representing many sections and groups would overcome and control the violence of faction, be it either majority or
minority.

Madison saw government as a necessary evil that must be
curbed, not an instrument for the realization of men’s higher ideals or the broader interests of the nation. The historian, Richard Hofstadter, has called this a harmonious system of mutual frustration.

The first Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For too long now we have seen the courts uphold the rights of a lone dissenter only to take away the rights of the many.

The ACLU and the Judiciary prefer to interpret Christianity and any expression of faith in God as an establishment of religion rather than faith in a Higher Being that the founders of this nation trusted for guidance while defining this nation, its Christian Heritage and its Constitution only to ignore the next sentence in the Bill of Rights which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Perhaps we should change the wording of the Constitution to say that Congress and Federal Judges shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In this instance it would appear that Madison’s thinking and his central aim to stop people from turning easily to the government for help is a lost exercise of the intellect. The judiciary branch of government, the Federal judges who are not elected but appointed and therefore are not representatives of the people as such have given to themselves a power that the Constitution does not give even to Congress.

The real issue then is whether or not any federal judge has the right to interfere with state actions that may or may not have anything to do with or constitute an establishment of religion.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power to make laws regarding an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States by the 10th Amendment, is therefore reserved to the states or to the people.

The attack on the Constitution may or may not have started with Roe v. Wade, but it certainly was a critical juncture that opened up for Justice Harry Blackmun and his view that, the document he had sworn to uphold, could and should be altered according to liberal prejudice and judicial whim rather than the Republic’s rule by law and the founders idea of principles that do not change.

Now we see the institution of marriage coming under attack from the ACLU, the NEA or National Education Association Teachers Union, the Judiciary and a minority group with an agenda claiming that they wish only to have the same rights as married couples of both sexes. This is far from the truth and their attempts to equate their quest with that of the Civil Rights Movement is nothing but an attempt to impose an acceptance of a life style that is alien to Christians and all who believe that heterosexuality is the norm.

We as Christians, have the obligation to minister to and to certainly have compassion for and to accept them as children of God. There should be no hatred of people from either direction. Happiness and freedom through Jesus Christ is and should be every one's goal.

Judicial Tyranny must not and cannot be tolerated in Massachusetts or any where else in this country.

As long as they continue to legislate from the bench, we as citizens must resist. The homosexual agenda can be seen only as one more example of an attack upon our economic and social conditions our institutions and our national character. Forgive me, but I grow weary.

It is time, it is time to reclaim our rights as Christians and proclaim the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence with enough vigor that those who seek to attack our national character begin to tremble. We are now
and forever “One Nation Under God.”

The Child and the World
The Weakness of Our Educational System

The first Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

The ACLU and the Judiciary prefer to interpret Christianity as an establishment of religion rather than faith in a Higher Being that the founders of this nation trusted for guidance while defining this nation, its Christian Heritage and its Constitution. Then to ignore the next sentence in the Bill of Rights which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Perhaps we should change the wording of the Constitution to say that Congress and Federal Judges shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

From these early days of the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 until the court case of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, the country had been spared “a misleading metaphor” as Justice William Rehnquist has described the “Separation of church and state” expressed by President Thomas Jefferson in an exchange of letters with the Danbury Baptist Association. The Court chose to take one sentence out of these exchange of letters and pass it off as the enforcement of a long standing constitutional principle. Taken as a whole the letters reflect Jefferson’s true intent which is the same as the other Founders. He believed that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination. We are a Christian Nation and Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The Supreme Court does not have the right to inject themselves into an area where there is no lawful basis for the courts or any element of the federal government to act. We are “one nation under God” and we shall remain that way, but we must fight against those who would take away the right to acknowledge God in our every day lives.

Recently the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals informed us that parents have no fundamental right as a parent to control the upbringing of their children ..... in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs and no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on “whatever” in any form or manner they select.

Christianity must ask the question, “Where are they going with all this?” Well it isn’t toward the individualism that Christianity teaches. "The Christian idea of vocation, that unique role that each Christian plays in the cosmic drama of creation and redemption, is the one root of the Western idea of individualism. It was not, in its origins, a matter of self-constituting autonomy but of living out the singular, God-given destiny that is every human life."

The new education of today rests on two intellectual pillars. Its use, or misuse, of science and its appeal to the educational philosophy of John Dewey.

The objectives of Dewey’s educational theory and his general philosophy was that of the development of an educational theory that would be wholly consistent with Darwinism and The Origin of Species. In this sense Dewey saw education as a major force in social reconstruction.

Perhaps an even better question might be “What Manner of Child Shall This Be?” Dewey believed that if society is to be remade, the child is placed at the center of the school and the rigid authority of the teacher and the traditional weight of the curriculum are displaced by his or her own developing interests and impulses. The role of the teacher becomes that of director of indoctrination and facilitator of the learning process that forms a type of character and mind suitable to the work of social reform.

Pre-Darwinian theory had no trace of the more sophisticated functionalist psychology of Dewey’s writings.

Most of the early writings of John Steinbeck are filled with near biblical Old Testament expressions of a fundamental theme, that theme of the need for a moral choice as an identifying mark of the human condition. A choice between good and evil. Today we are faced with that same choice to keep out of nature’s way and not to corrupt that childhood as it comes fresh from the hands of God or allow a malevolent system of morals and philosophy to shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible.

Progressive education is Socialism in its most malevolent and destructive form. It is evil and it will destroy Christianity and Democracy as it tears away at the very fabric of our Constitution, which is based upon Christian principles.

Coming back to the original issue. In the 1950’s, Conservative Christianity was vilified as being anti-intellectual. The Socialist philosophy of John Dewey and his theories of education as a means of social reconstruction are pervasive and are taught in every School of Education in every University in this country. Teachers no longer are required to know their subject, they must however be well trained in the methods of teaching Socialist Indoctrination.

Dewey always feared that the teacher, as the responsible adult was the prime source of conformity. Instead of having finally produced a program to liberate the child from unimpeded growth, as American educators still believe, placing the child squarely at the center, defining education as growth without end, and so weighting the discussion of educational goals, and a quarter of a century of explanation and clarification statements, were not enough for Dewey to hold in check the anti-intellectual perversions of his theory.

Short of open rebellion, civil war and revolution how do we fight back when the opponents are so well entrenched? There is no question that as Christians, there will be sacrifice and determination is the order of the day.

The ACLU and the National Education Association are well funded and have been promoting Socialistic Ideology since the 1920’s. Congress was unable to get a bill through that would have cut off funds to the ACLU, the Public Expression of Religion Act, and while the liberal left is always willing to burn books to advance science, they refuse the mention of IQ in any context.

It is obvious then that the goal of the liberal left is not to educate our children, but to indoctrinate our offspring in the doctrines of what Ann Coulter calls the “Church of Liberalism.” It is the same method used by Islam in their religious schools of indoctrination.

There are positive steps that can be taken, but the road is long and hard. Many  of the good solutions have been outlined by Joshua Herring in his original article for RenewAmerica, March 12, 2007. We have two choices, basically, we can ignore the present educational system and start a Christian system which provides pride in the possession of intellect and joy, as a child of God made in His image, in the use of it. Or we can attempt to tear down what is already in place. The former makes more sense. But we must do it and not just talk about it.

Christians are always fighting from a defensive position. The ACLU and their atheist plaintiffs sue every time they can find a cross or the ten commandments vulnerable to their blackmail. Why not go on the offense and treat liberalism as a religion.

Here are some excerpts from a link called the Education Reporter. This report also contains the quote from the Harvard professor, Chester M. Pierce. After reading this you will realize how long and why they have been engaged in taking over our educational system. As I stated in an earlier post, Christianty teaches children mutual respect for the individual and each other and how to think for themselves. It will take more than a maximum effort to stop these people in their quest for Socialism.

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2001/sept01/socialism.shtml

Excerpts :

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well- by creating the international child of the future."

Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union, boldly told the world: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

John Dewey, known as "the father of modern education," was an avowed socialist and the co-author of the "Humanist Manifesto." The U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities discovered that he belonged to 15 Marxist front organizations. Dewey taught the professors who trained America's teachers. Obsessed with "the group," he said, "You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society, which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."

Was Abraham Lincoln, and were many of our Founders, "done a disservice" by being home-schooled? No doubt if they had undergone Dewey's Utiopia of government education, they could have made something of themselves!

Indeed they and our Nation would have been done a disservice had they been subjected to the anti-intellectual perversions of his theory.

The recent CPAC event has left me with some conclusions that may not do much for my reputation once I set them to paper. I have grown weary with the fact that we have allowed ourselves (conservative Christians) to be overwhelmed by the rhetoric of pusillanimous politicians who have no honor and show their contempt for the "bauble popularity." Their attitude is that they say what ever they feel the present crowd would want to hear. They are pro choice for one crowd and pro life for another crowd. Where is the honor among these people.

Ann Coulter is the only one who tells it like it is and does not apologize for it. What she said about John Edwards needed to be said. I personally may have used a different choice of words, but if you listen to his speeches and some of the language he uses to put forth his positions, especially when he talks about America being a Christian nation, he is pandering to a specific group of people who resent Christianity. Her word was just what she said, a school yard taunt said in a humorous manner.

Then we have to listen to Alan Colmes, who serves only as a supercilious gadfly and is devoid of a useful purpose in life, berate Ann on the H&C show, I wish, like Zell Miller recently and Charles Gibson more than a century ago, that dueling was still legal. The reasons are listed below, and the account is taken from Doris Kearns Goodwin in the book "Team of Rivals."

Ann Coulter is my kind of woman. She is kind of woman, who in a bar fight, would stand back to back with you and take on all comers, and you would win.

We need some means of holding people to account when they attack our honor. It is not that I actually approve of dueling, but like Charles Gibson, the feeling is, that something is missing in our public behavior. What is missing is Honor.

Edward Bates was a Congressman from Missouri when he got into a heated argument with fellow Congressmen George McDuffie of South Carolina on the floor of the House. McDuffie ridiculed him personally and Bates, in an impulsive moment, challenged the South Carolinian to a duel. McDuffie, for reasons of his own, wisely declined the challenge and agreed to apologize for his offensive language. Some years later, reflecting on the Southern practice of the “Code” of dueling, a friend of Edward Bates, Charles Gibson, maintained that as wicked as the code was, the vulgar public behavior following the demise of the practice was worse still. “The code preserved a dignity, justice and decorum that have since been lost,” he argued,”to the great detriment of the professions, the public and the government. The present generation will think me barbarous but I believe that some lives lost in protecting the tone of the bar and the press, on which the Republic itself so largely depends, are well spent.”

The “Code Duello” was a long standing practice for settling disputes among Southern Gentlemen. The most infamous was the Hamilton-Burr duel which resulted in Hamilton’s death and Burr’s political fall. However, in the end it served the purpose of maintaining Honor.

  With the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt and the emergence of the celebrated “Bully Pulpit”, the executive branch of government began to break from the traditions of the past and establish a dialogue and a direct relatonship with the people. It was not however, until Woodrow Wilson took office in 1913 that the rhetorical presidency was established and institutionalized. Wilson argued that the President “has no [other] means of compelling Congress” and that the office should be used to sway public opinion. Wilson now saw the President as a national leader and spokesman, “the only national voice in affairs,” who could be irresistible in dealing with Congress so long as he understood and led public opinion.

 Both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were able to provide strong leadership because their techniques of leadership and their ability to assert the position of the President as the spokesman of the people and to use public opinion as a spur on Congress. The President must give voice to the highest aspirations of the American people first, and then to the people of the world.

 Prior to the Roosevelt and the Wilson administrations, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American Foreign Policy. The rapidly expanding American power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe

Page 2

were the two main factors that projected America into world affairs.

 George F. Kennan was Professor Emeritus in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. when he, at a dinner given in recognition of his ninetieth birthday and the author of these lines in an article written for Foreign Affairs “On American Principles” ventured to say that what our country needed at this point was not primarily policies,”much less a single policy.” What we needed, he argued, were principles -- sound principles --”principles that accorded with the nature, the needs, the interests, and the limitations of our country.”

 Faced with demands for support from rebellious Spanish colonies in South America following the Napoleonic Wars, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams enunciated a principle of American foreign policy that is still relevant today: the best way for a larger country to help smaller ones is by the power of example. To go further, Adams warned, would be “to involve America beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue.”

 John Quincy Adams was the Secretary of State during the presidency of James Monroe (1817-1825) when he realized that the United States historical experience left no choice but to welcome and give moral support to all peoples in their struggle for the recogonition and consolidation of their

Page 3

independence. Adams was enunciating a principle of American foreign policy: namely, that while it was “the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all,” America was also “the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

 Oddly enough, herein lies a misunderstanding. America’s current predicament has yielded up a yearning for what the editor of Foreign Affairs has called “the perennial hangover cure” for American foreign policy--realism. There is an unrealistic quality of realism to be found in this oft-quoted dictum, as it was expressed by the former career diplomat, and author of the now famous Long Telegram that outlined the dangers of Soviet expansion, which formed only a tiny part of a July 4th speech that Adams delivered in 1820. The rest of the speech is mostly ignored by Kennan. In his July 4th speech of 1820, Adams continued by saying that the Declaration of Independence was “the first solemn declaration by a nation of the only legitimate foundation of civil government. It was the corner stone of a new fabric, destined to cover the surface of the globe....It stands, and must for ever stand alone, a beacon on the summit of the mountain, to which all the inhabitants of the earth may turn their eyes for a genial and saving light till time shall be lost in eternity, and this globe itself dissolve, nor leave a wreck behind.” With both statements considered, Adams is confronting Realism with Idealism. Conventional wisdom seeks

Page 4

to simplify our history and codify as doctrine what is, in fact, only a part of a much more complicated truth, and that truth is that American foreign policy has an interest in both realism and idealism, and always has. Jefferson shared Franklin’s belief that idealism and realism should both play a role in foreign policy. In this nation our leaders are realists without illusion or at least they should be if they are not. We must instill this nation with ideals and principles, while fully understanding that we can not fall prey to illusion. We must believe without becoming cynical, we must be cynical without becoming cynics.

 The debate over the fundamental question of what direction American foreign relations will take in the future seems to be an old one, as old as the country itself. Will the United States choose to play a continuing role in world affairs? The recent frustations of American involvement in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that America’s mission has been ill-defined. Merely standing for certain principles is insufficient. Now we face the task of trying to implement those principles in the hostile environment of the world outside of our own sovereignty.

 History has always played an important role in finding answers or at least a certain wisdom necessary for guidance in involvement and intervention. Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan found themselves faced with the choice of imposing the will of the United States, through occupation

Page 5

and control, in the early days of their administration as they dealt with problems in Mexico and the Caribbean and other Latin American countries. Wilson abhorred the very thought of using force in international relations, yet he became the first President in American history to employ violent means upon nations that were somewhat free and soverign.

 In the words of Arthur S. Link, in his five volume biography of Woodrow Wilson, “In all these episodes the story is remarkably the same in its larger outlines and meaning. It is one of men with noble motives being lured on by their own good intentions and sometimes by foolish or interested advisers, being influenced by subtle pressures and subconcious motivations that they did not recognize, and finally being trapped by events that they could not control. In short, it is a tale of what happened when evangels of democracy set out to teach other peoples how to elect good leaders and govern themselves well.”

 At the end of the day, this nation must harken back to the words and the one principle of American Foreign Policy enunciated by John Quincy Adams, that while America is “the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all” it is the “champion and vindicator only of her own."

 Notes: A. S. Link, Wilson, Volume III, The Struggle for Neutrality, Princeton University Press 1960, pages 495-496.

The Constitution In Crisis: Since the end of World War II the Supreme Court has actively engaged in rewriting the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence as well as The Federalist Papers documents the Founding Fathers’ plan for limited government originally set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and demonstrates that the Founding Fathers were all men of strong and, needless to say, Christian faith and that we are now and forever “One Nation Under God”

The aim of the body politic, in their struggle to govern, must be a continuing effort to make those in power more responsive and responsible to the Democratic wishes of the people of this great Republic. Instead we have seen the Executive and Legislative branches of government willing to relinquish and abandon the system of checks and balances afforded them to a Judicial branch who wish to govern by fiat from the bench. These are unelected officials, and since they are not elected but appointed and therefore are not representatives of the people as such, they have given to themselves a power that the Constitution gives only to Congress as the Legislative branch and to the states. The Judicial branch and the Supreme Court in particular, seek to establish their existence as a power elite who by distant vision and their capacity to see things whole, come to play a superior role.

Thomas Jefferson once said that, "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone."

 As this “One nation Under God” finds itself becoming enslaved by those in the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court who make such laws from the bench and then seek to enforce them. The question then becomes is the public bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation? Shameless Judicial activism is forcing Christians to take a stand. It is a stand that is long overdue.

 Those who claim to have a “Live and Let Live” philosophy are either fooling themselves or are fooled by the Radical Left and the media hype spewed almost daily by the Liberal Press. How do you remain tolerant when those whom you are allowing to live thusly are busily building organizations that have political agendas that are by design aimed at denying you your right to “Live” as you would “Let Them Live”? There can no longer be a body of people who refuse to take a stand in the face of moral decay. Those who would allow secular corruption of our children by not allowing prayer in school, by not allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed, by proclaiming that any display of the birth of Christ in the form of a manger scene on the Court House lawn or public school grounds or any public property is an establishment of religion are not only wrong but dangerous and deliberate. We can no longer be tolerant of judges and politicians who wish to destroy our Constitution and our reliance on old identities. They must be revitalized and reaffirmed, not blurred and compromised. We as Christians, in order to survive, need to rediscover theological firmness and doctrinal clarity.

 Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 81 wrote,

"[T]here is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”

Previously, Hamilton had written, ... [T]hough individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter...." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

The Virtue of Intolerance, by now should outway our blindness to the facts. We as a Republican Nation, ruled by law, laws given to us by elected representatives and guided by principles that do not change are not bound by laws coming from Supremacist Judges who have exceeded their Constitutional authority. In this democratic nation all power is ultimately vested in “the people.”

Such knowledge does not help much in defining how power is exercised. Who holds the power and who has the ability to act and carry out the functions of government is the key to the separation of powers. We can no longer afford to be tolerant.

We have seen the Supreme Court Justices, since F.D.R. populated the court with judicial activists who with their belief that the Constitution is a “Living Document” subject to all manner of judicial interpretation and who legislate from the bench by issuing rulings based on their personal interpretaton of theConstitution or that of the liberal left.

Prior to the ascent of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the presidency, the courts were still populated with originalists, who properly rendered legal interpretation based on construction of the Constitution’s “original intent.”

The institutions examined here all seem to have the same failing. They are inclined to see government and the art of governing as requiring the existence of a power elite. Senator Kennedy and others of the Democratic Left who feel that the Judicial Branch of government is the only branch sensitive to Social Justice Agendas are inclined to see themselves as the only ones with distant vision and capacity to see things whole and that they must come to play a superior role. It is Socialism (Communism) in disguise. It has disguised itself as progressivism, liberalism, secular humanism, and eventually environmentalism, feminism, and a vast assortment of other social justice causes.

Christianity teaches individualism and as such can only be sustained through knowledge and faith. We the people cannot ignore reality for long and dismiss the interests of the nation as a whole as alien to our own interests. We are one nation and one people and we must live, work, govern and be governed in the same manner. Only through knowledge, high purpose and the use of self restraint in the exercise of power can this nation determine whether a government of separated powers will continue to endure. Surely our Governors, State Legislators and the United States Congress and Senators can see that they have the power, as our elected representatives, to change the direction and destruction of our Constitution or face the consequence of the People changing them.

We hear them, the Conservative media talk show hosts day in and day out talking about the ACLU and the liberal left, the disinformation of the Mainstream Media and they keep us informed of the real issues that we face. We can easily find agreement with them but we must act in order to change the current direction. Our nation is experiencing a power struggle.

 Secular Humanism and Moral Relativism is attempting to gain power through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions that are so necessary for the continuance of mankind.

 In his book the, “The Everlasting Man,” G.K. Chesterton described this reversal process as the “theology of demons” and said that it was sadistically anti-human and anti-childhood. It is intrinsically evil. It is a malignancy-filled system of philosophy posturing as something seemingly inocuous in order to infect Christendom and Christianity in the United States.

It is very disturbing to listen to Western leaders, Diplomats and others who are responsible for setting and establishing policy toward Islam and Terrorism when they refuse to face the reality of Muslim aggression that has all through history been and continues to be, “Jihad Without End.” The Muslim does not hate us because they hate freedom, they hate us because we are not Muslim.

 The House of Islam, long before todays political correctness has never been known as “a Religion of Peace’ and the sooner we in the West recognize that this is an ideology which uses religion for war and aggression and that through out the world Christians and Jews are being persecuted and murdered by Muslims, we will remain in grave danger.

 Our Secretary of State must be living in a different world if she considered the Gaza pullout to be “Successful and Effective”. Why do we continue to attempt to deal with these people when we know that they view diplomacy as a sign of weakness. Obviously we have forgotten the lessons of history when Churchill stood almost alone against Nazi aggression and the British and French pusillanimous policy of appeasement. This is a serious chess game and we must not forget the roles of Power, Strength and Strategy.

Islam was spread by the sword from its beginning.  Mohammed conquered the Arabian Peninsula in 20 years and within 100 years, most of Spain was conquered. It took Charles Martel stopping them at Tours in the West, then they were stopped in the East at the gates of Vienna in 1450. This history shows the aggressive nature of a Muslim religion that wants the West to believe that they are “a Religion of Peace”.

Now we see one more example of Muslim and Islamic aggression with widespread rioting in France. Fox News had a Catholic priest on a news show during the time of the riots. The priest, while well intentioned but very naive was in France trying to explain to the world after having interviews with Muslim school teens that the riots have nothing to do with religion. Everything the Muslim does is about religion and hatred of Christians and Jews. Do we not understand this fact, that Islam is intent upon carrying out their worldwide Jihad Without End.

There is a long history of Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler and the influence of Hitler on Arab Nationalism and Muslim fanaticism. Islam and Facist ideology have shared the same goal since long before the First World War. They share a hatred of Zionism and a desire to destroy all of Israel. Islam’s hatred of Jews and Christians was codified, according to Serge Trifkovic in his book “The Sword of the Prophet” on the eve of the First Crusade.

 Muslim aggression has all through history been and continues to be, Jihad Without End. The Muslim does not hate us because they hate freedom, they hate us because we are not Muslim. It is a religious Crusade to create a Muslim World dominated by Islam. This is not new, it was going on long before Pope Urban II declared in 1095 at Clermont that “A race absolutely alien to God has invaded the land of Christians, has reduced the people with sword, rapine and flame.”

The House of Islam is in a permanent state of war with the lands that surround it, of course it can be interrupted by temporary truces, but peace will only come with the completion of global conquest.

In his foreward to “T.E. Lawrence in War and Peace,” Professor Michael Clarke, Director of the International Policy Institute, King’s College London wrote in June 2005 that Lawrence came to understand the principles of effective counter-insurgency. He learned from brutal experience that insurgencies worked not by confronting the enemy at its center, but by stretching it out like elastic. Insurgencies by themselves would seldom defeat an enemy, but they could deny victory almost indefinitely, while more conventional forces, be they military or political, would work to defeat it.

The “War on Terror” is what we have chosen to call this challenge to our freedom, but we continue to sleepwalk while our culture is being systematically destroyed from within. Since the Crusades, Islam has tried to portray themselves as victims of religious persecution when in reality it was an excuse for four centuries of conquest.

 There has been no hi-jacking of a beautiful religion as the President keeps trying to tell the American people. Look around you and you will see in every part of the world Christians being killed by Islam in the name Allah. The House of Islam is in a state of permanent war and the choice of conversion or death is the only option offered to Christians and Jews. It is an ideology not a religion. It is a race and an ideology totally alien to God that has invaded the land of Christians and we must defeat this radical Islamist ideology just as we defeated the Soviet communist ideology and Nazism and Adolf Hitler’s brand of anti-Semitism.

There is no substitute for victory, and this is the attitude that we must maintain if we are to defeat “terrorism.” We can not wait for Islam to be reformed or to win the hearts and minds of the mullahs. They view diplomacy and negotiation as a sign of weakness.

Jerusalem is sacred to the Muslim belief as the city from which the prophet Muhammad ascended into heaven, but if the God of Christianity is correct in His teachings through Jesus Christ as all Christians throughout the world believe, then Muhammad along with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the nineteen Muslims who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania are in Hell where they belong. They are despicable, thieves, liars, dirty, awful without a redeeming feature, not martyrs. Their mindset on “Jihad Without End” leaves no room for negotiation or diplomacy. Perhaps we as Christians should offer Muslims the same alternative they offer to the Christian world, convert or die.  I fully understand that this notion defies True Christian Belief, but if Christianity is to survive, then the issue of self defense is an undeniable fact of life.  

The Wolf is at the door again. The ACLU is still trying to convince us that they, and only they, are the defenders of our Civil Rights. The ACLU is the product of a malevolent system of warped morals and anti-human philosophy. They are the snake in the Garden of Eden holding out the apple as a seductive illusion of power granted to those who are foolish enough to believe their “Enlightened” thinking.

The ACLU is a product of Enlightenment conspirators who had produced a system of morals and philosophy which is, in the words of Winston Churchill, “as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible.” This malignant world view “has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. This worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing” (Zionism versus Bolshevism).

The ACLU and their theology of Secular Humanism (communism in disguise) is attempting to gain power through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions that are so necessary for the continuance of mankind and our Republican form of government.

In his book the, “The Everlasting Man,” G.K. Chesterton. described this reversal process as the “theology of demons” and said that it was sadistically anti-human and anti childhood. It is intrinsically evil. It is a malignancy filled system of philosophy posturing as something seemingly innocuous in order to infect Christendom and Christianity in the United States.

The ACLU is a major carrier of this infectious disease as they mount attacks on each and every aspect of religious and individual expression in our daily lives. They seek to enslave not to defend our freedoms.

Social justice agendas were launched in the name of civil rights and other rights that exist only in the minds of nine justices of the Supreme Court who were never elected to any legislative office, and with the sole purpose of creating in America a cultural revolution in which God no longer dominates the moral horizon, and personal autonomy and individual choice become the twin pillars of a debased moral view.

The Bill of Rights mean nothing to the American people unless they are strengthened and maintained by the Constitutional principle of Checks and Balances and the Separation of Powers between the three branches of government. The Executive branch, the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch. They are meant to balance out in order to prevent any one branch from attaining supremacy.

However, since the 1920’s with the help of people like the ACLU, the balance has shifted to an elitist Court that sees the Constitution as a ”Living Organism” that can be changed or interpreted to say what ever they want it to say.

This is the real danger of the ACLU. Their aim is to destroy the Bill of Rights along with the Constitution of the United States. The ACLU is intrinsically evil.

There are many little known facts about the ACLU of which most people are not aware. There is a little known 1976 federal law called the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act which allows the ACLU to collect attorney’s fees for its suits against the Ten Commandments and all of the crosses it can find through out this land. Kentucky taxpayers paid $121,500 to the ACLU for their action against the Ten Commandments displayed in two county courthouses. Tennessee paid $50,000 and Alabama paid $540,000. The ACLU profited plus $160,000 in court costs from their suit against the Boy Scouts of America. This is not a list of good works.

The very fact that the Founding Fathers belief in a Supreme Being and the Constitution that they gave to us is based on Christian tradition and values is the very reason that all other religions are protected. The ACLU has an agenda and it has nothing to do with civil rights. They are using the courts and the judicial activism of the courts to write law by fiat.

Congress, as the elected representatives of the people, must reclaim there role in the balance of power struggle with the Judicial branch. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was most evident when they created the separation of powers with the three branches of government. The Constitution defines the specific powers of each branch. No one branch is greater than the other two and Congress must act soon to bring balance to the system once again. The Republic, its rule by law and reliance on principles that do not change, is not a cause but an effect of our national character. The ACLU’s agenda is to destroy our national character. 

Militant Christianity and the Virtues of Intolerance
“Any leader who comes with armed support in the name of a compelling faith, is sure of a following” For Charlemagne, that faith was Militant Christianity “the most powerful (faith) the world has ever seen.”

It is time for “Militant Christianity” to rise up and go on the offensive against those who wish to destroy Western Culture, the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

The need for “Militant Christianity” is not a supercilious notion coming from the “right wing radical nuts” as the left tends to label anyone who believes in God and is of the Christian faith, but it is in response to the drift away from any socialogical, as well as theological moorings.

There can no longer be a body of people who refuse to take a stand in the face of moral decay. Those who would allow secular corruption of our children by not allowing prayer in school, by not allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed, by proclaiming that any display of the birth of Christ in the form of a manger scene on the Court House lawn or public school grounds or any public property is an establishment of religion are not only wrong but dangerous and deliberate. We can no longer be tolerant of judges and politicians who wish to destroy our Constitution and our reliance on old identities. They must be revitalized and reaffirmed, not blurred and compromised. We as Christians, in order to survive, need to rediscover theological firmness and doctrinal clarity.

The Liberal Left refuses to acknowledge that our unity arises from an ideology and value system that is more right of center than they are willing to admit, but we continue to sleepwalk while our culture is being systematically destroyed from within. We must free ourselves from the grip of Enlightenment conspirators, secular humanists, who have attempted to replace our Christian attitude and strength in this country , as they have in Europe, with a system of morals and philosophy which, in the words of Winston Churchill is, “as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianaty has rendered possible.” This malignant worldview “has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. This worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing.”

Diversity and Moral Relativism, where no idea is superior to another, are dangerous metaphors for division, confusion and mediocrity. College students fall prey to what G.K. Chesterton said about people, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, -- they believe in anything.” Social justice agendas were launched in the name of civil rights and other rights that exist only in the minds of nine justices of the Supreme Court who were never elected to any legislative office, and with the sole purpose of creating in America a cultural revolution in which God no longer dominates the moral horizon, and personal autonomy and individual choice become the twin pillars of a debased moral view.

The ACLU and their theology of Secular Humanism (communism in disguise) is attempting to gain power through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions that are so necessary for the continuance of mankind and our Republican form of government.

Agendas with a common link, the ACLU, Gay Rights agenda, Feminist Movement, the right of a woman to have control over her reproductive system through Abortion, and there are far too many more agendas to mention, but the common link is always there. This is how we must view this agenda driven society controlled by Evolutionary Secular Humanism. The evil of this system is that they seek to gain power through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions so necessary for the continuance of mankind and freedom and Democracy in the United States of America. It is a malignancy-filled system of philosophy comparable to a “grimoire of goetia” or black magic.

From the beginning the purpose of the Federalist was threefold. (1) To expound and explain the blessings and the beauties of the Union as a federal system. (2) To present an indictment of the Articles of Confederation for their failure to provide any semblance of good government. (3) To analyze and defend the new Constitution as an instrument of federalism and constitutionalism. Publius the political theorist had many faces. One face in the person of Madison, was that of of the federalist and exponent of limited governmant. Another face, in the person of Alexander Hamilton, was that of the nationalist and admirer of energetic government. Underneath the different and varying facades the soul of Publius was unified and searching for free government at both levels in a federal system that must exercise direct authority over individuals over a wide expanse of territory and in the same instance, provide for the enjoyment of individual freedom. Publius, the political realist, had only one face and that face was bound to the exposition of certain enduring truths that would provide an understanding of both the dangers and the delights of free government.

The Wolf is at the door again. The ACLU is still trying to convince us that they, and only they, are the defenders of our Civil Rights. The ACLU is the product of a malevolent system of warped morals and anti-human philosophy. They are the snake in the Garden of Eden holding out the apple as a seductive illusion of power granted to those who are foolish enough to believe their “Enlightened” thinking.

The ACLU,as well as other agenda driven organizations, and their theology of Secular Humanism, Multiculturalism, and Moral Relativism is attempting to gain power through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions that are so necessary for the continuance of mankind and our Republican form of government.

In his book the, “The Everlasting Man,” G.K. Chesterton
described this reversal process as the “theology of demons” and said that it was sadistically anti-human and anti-childhood. It is intrinsically evil. It is a malignancy-filled system of philosophy posturing as something seemingly inocuous in order to infect Christendom and Christianity in the United States.

The ACLU is a major carrier of this infectious disease as they mount attacks on each and every aspect of religious and individual expression in our daily lives. They seek to enslave not to defend our freedoms.

Social justice agendas were launched in the name of civil rights and other rights that exist only in the minds of nine unelected justices of the Supreme Court and with the sole purpose of creating in America a cultural revolution in which God no longer dominates the moral horizon, and personal autonomy and individual choice become the twin pillars of a debased moral view.

The Bill of Rights mean nothing to the American people unless they are strengthened and maintained by the Constitutional principle of Checks and Balances and the Separation of Powers between the three branches of government. The Executive branch, the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch. They are meant to balance out in order to prevent any one branch from attaining supremacy.

However, since the 1920’s with the help of people like the ACLU, the balance has shifted to an elitist Court that sees the Constitution as a ”Living Organism” that can be changed or interpreted to say what ever they want it to say.
This is the real danger of the ACLU. Their aim is to destroy the Bill of Rights along with the Constitution of the United States. The ACLU is intrinsically evil.

There are many little known facts about the ACLU of which
most people are not aware. There is a little known 1976 federal law called the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act which allows the ACLU to collect attorney’s fees for its suits against the Ten Commandments and all of the crosses it can find through out this land. Kentucky taxpayers paid $121,500 to the ACLU for their action against the Ten Commandments displayed in two county courthouses. Tennessee paid $50,000 and Alabama paid $540,000. The ACLU profited plus $160,000 in court costs from their suit against the Boy Scouts of America. This is not a list of good works. There are bills in Congress, such as the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R.2679) to deny attorney fees in a civil action against a state or local official to the ACLU. This would effectively cut off taxpayer support of the ACLU.

The very fact that the Founding Fathers belief in a Supreme Being and the Constitution that they gave to us is based on Christian tradition and values is the very reason that all other religions are protected. The ACLU has an agenda and it has nothing to do with civil rights. They are using the courts and the judicial activism of the courts to write law by fiat.

Congress, as the elected representatives of the people, must reclaim there role in the balance of power struggle with the Judicial branch. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was most evident when they created the separation of powers with the three branches of government. The Constitution defines the specific the powers of each branch. No one branch is greater than the other two and Congress must act soon to bring balance to the system once again. The Republic, its rule by law and reliance on principles that do not change, is not a cause but an effect of our national character. The ACLU’s agenda is to destroy our national character.

So what would you expect from John McCain, the Senator who along with Senator Feingold, a Democrat, co-authored the so called Campaign Finance Reform. Along with this finance reform he gave us MoveOn.org and George Soros and God knows how many other reforms. McCain now steps in again with his “torture amendment” and has helped stall the renewal of the “Patriot Act” with only a six month extension. This gives the opposition time to promote their agendas. President Bush needs to become more aggressive. Surely by now he realizes that these people are “Polecats” and their motives are suspect in every way.

John McCain has once again found himself on the wrong side of an issue that cannot be called anything but Amnesty and a sellout to George Soros and Edward Kennedy and their intense desire to destroy this country and rewrite the Declaration and Constitution of the United States. Their desire for an "Open Society" is nothing more than an attempt undermine the rule of law expressed in our founding documents. It is a sham and another reason why you cannot trust John McCain and his friends in the Senate.

The time has come for open rebellion against these people in Congress who promote these fallacious polls showing that the people of this country are wanting these changes. It has been shown that Pewgate was an example of the lies used to make it appear that millions of Americans were clamoring for "Campaign Finance Reform" even though they were not. Sounds like "Citizen Kane." What did the American people get from all of this snow job but more restrictions of free speech.

The American people are showing their outrage with Bush, McCain, Graham, Kennedy and others who are in powerful positions and think that they can shove this kind of garbage down our throats. These people should be run out of Congress now, don't  wait for re-election, tarred and feathered on the Capitol steps and left to sit there in their shame. What is really outrageous is the arrogance of these people, and it is time that we Americans show our outrage and punish them severely. Kennedy has yet to pay for his past sins and God in heaven will judge him on this basis. It is the epitome of hypocrisy for him to stand before the Senate and the American people and lecture us on morality and fairness. How dare he.  He and his entire family are an example of how immoral and corrupt you can be if you have enough money.

 Now McCain has allied himself with the likes of Senators Warner, Graham and Collins whose judgement should be in question after several years of being on the wrong side of issues requiring intestinal fortitude. They are living in a world that no longer exists.  Graham's idea of torture would be if you took away his tricycle, and Warner, if he had to spend another weekend with Elizabeth Taylor.

Read the reports of  mass graves that are discovered daily throughout the world and you will see people, mostly Christians, who were tortured and then murdered by Muslims. No reason, no information was being sought, just torture for the sake of instilling fear in the minds of those who may wish to oppose them. The Geneva Convention means nothing to these people. The enemy is barbaric and ruthless. Colin Powell and John McCain are military men and are still living in the belief of old standards, standards that work well with men of honor, but that will not protect a single member of the armed forces against the enemies we face today. Instead of standing with the President and the Republican leadership to uphold the Constitutional option regarding cloture, McCain joins with the Gang of Fourteen and nearly sandbags the President’s choices for the Supreme Court. With his torture amendment he fails to see the needs of the country in fighting a war against an enemy who does not recognize any form of decency as regards to our troops or anyone else considered to be “Infidels.” These people are evil and you don’t fight them armed only with Immanuel Kant’s vision of perpetual peace. Where is the honor in all of this. It is an ideology that needs rethinking in America today following the lack of honor that we faced in our opponents in Korea and Vietnam.

 In World War II, we quickly learned about honor. We had it others didn’t. The German soldier had it, the Nazi’s did not. The Japanese had a twisted sense of honor, one that allowed them to torture civilians and prisoners alike. In the war that John McCain fought in Vietnam, our leaders lacked the desire to attain “Victory” and this led to the prisoner abuse that he suffered. If anyone should understand this it should be McCain. Senator McCain elects to sell out his President, his party and the electorate to protect the rights of the Minority Party in the Senate. McCain claims that he and his Senate co harts are merely responding to the wishes of the people. Where does he get his information, ah from the mainstream media. Surprise, surprise!! Senator McCain, is just not being honest or he knows nothing about the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and obviously knows little about controlling the violence of faction. The Congress of the United States is not to be ruled by Factions. That is the very reason that we have elections. Madison saw a broader Republic with its national Congress representing many sections and groups. It is the express will of the people that when they elect a majority party into power that party should be allowed to bring its program into being. Rule by faction in the Senate stops deliberation and debate, the true functions of the Senate and the House.

 The People for the American Way were encouraging Americans through a Human Rights First Campaign to demand that President Bush withdraw his veto threat of the McCain Anti-Torture Measure. This group was founded by Norman Lear of “Archie Bunker” fame or “All in the Family” if you need to be correct. That program also gave us “The Meathead” and you know what he stands for as a liberal activist in Hollywood. The House Un-American Activities actions of the 40’s and 50’s were much maligned, but today they might find a more sinister enemy.

Some have made the assertion that Islam was “born in the full light of history.” That statement is incorrect since “the full light” is but the reflected glimmer of medieval Muslim scholars, men who themselves were believers and, therefore, of necessity, apologists.

I am sure that you have heard it said that “September 11 changed America forever.” That is a given, but no where do we hear a definitive and coherent explanation of just what, exactly, changed. What changed, other than the fact that we Americans were attacked on our own soil, but for the first time in American history we have been forced to confront an Islamic militancy that has been assaulting the rest of the world for almost 14 centuries.

This advice is taken from the article by Michael Medved of August l6, 2006, “Does U.S. Bigotry cause Muslim madness”

“The best way to respond to aggressive, triumphalist religiosity from the Muslim community isn’t to insist on more tolerance, or even acceptance, of Islamic demands; nor can we hope to counteract the allure of Jihadist ideology with ringing affirmations of easy-going secularism. Given the deep-seated human hunger for connection with a Supreme Being, the nearly universal yearning to draw closer to eternal truth, it’s not possible to beat something (radical Islam) with nothing (secular agnosticism). In this sense, the United States, with our robust movement of Christian revival, counts as far better equipped for the struggle ahead than our European allies where traditional faith of all kinds (except for Islam) has largely collapsed. Even skeptics and non-believers ought to welcome the vigor of Christian evangelism