Harding and Race: A Reality Check

It is rare to find anything meaningful written about America's 29th president, Warren G. Harding, even on the internet. Rather than spend a nickel worth of time digging for any truth of Harding, he is often the subject of ridicule and conspiracy theories. Today, I aim to address an outrageous falsehood that has stood the test of time.

My main source is John W. Dean's biography, Warren G. Harding. It is a well-written biography that seeks to find the truth about the Harding Administration. It addresses the corruption of bad apples in the administration that gave Harding a bad name, although he had nothing personally to do with any major scandal that arose out of his term.

It turns out that Harding was a beloved president throughout his presidency who fought an inherited economic backlash and lead America back into a peaceful foreign policy. And yet, many historians consider him to be our worst president. On what basis, we may never know. We can speculate that historians hold a high cloud in the sky for almost any president who led us into a bloody war or a a grand government giveaway. It's fair to suggest that by large, historians willfully disregard any president without a New Deal or a World War in mind.

It has been falsely rumored that Florence Harding, his wife, destroyed all of her husband's papers. True, she destroyed many in the name of protecting his legacy, for as laughable as that may seem. The papers that remained were kept by the Harding Memorial Association until the hundredth anniversary of Warren Harding's birth. They were then transfered to the Ohio Historical Society. In 1970, they had been microfilmed. The documents provide solid evidence that contradicts much of what has been propagated by Harding's detractors.

Without evidence, some sources continue to assert that Harding was inducted into the KKK during his presidency. However, many other sources rightfully admit that this claim lacks evidence. There is no reasonable doubt that could suggest otherwise that the revival of the Klan was due to the racism of Woodrow Wilson.

As it turns out, Harding met several times with James Weldon Johnson of the NAACP, which gave black voters hope that their grievances would be addressed. At their meeting on April 4, 1921, the two of them spoke of minority unrest, due to policies that led to such injustices as lynching, disenfranchisement, and peonage (partial slavery to work off debts). In a special address to Congress on April 12, 1921, President Harding called for an end to lynching. The antilynching legislation passed through the House. Sadly, the legislation was stopped in the Senate by a filibuster from Southern Democrats.

Johnson pleaded for Harding to rehire blacks back into government jobs that were thrown out by the Wilson Administration. Wilson relentlessly excluded and segregated blacks from serving in such positions. Harding - the laughably accused "Klansman" - appointed qualified blacks to high-level posts in the Departments of Labor and Interior and a black man as minister to Liberia. He also filled three additional posts with black Americans. Within six months in office, Harding placed 140 additional blacks in lesser posts, not to mention roughly 24% of the District of Columbia's post office employees were black.

In hopes to invite blacks and Southerners into the GOP, Harding gave a daring speech on civil rights on October 26, 1921 at Woodrow Wilson Park in Burmingham, Alabama. The audience was large and segregated between blacks and whites. In Dean's book, it is considered "no doubt the most daring and controversial speech of Harding's political career."

Harding addresses...

"When I suggest the possibility of economic equality between the races, I mean it precisely the same way and to the same extent that I would mean it if I spoke of equality of economic opportunity as between members of the same race. In each case I would mean equality proportional to the honest capacities and deserts of the individual...I would say let the black man vote when he is fit to vote; prohibit the white man voting when he is unfit to vote...Whether you like it or not, unless our democracy is a lie you must stand for that equality."

This gutsy speech received mixed reviews. It outraged many white Southerners, while it gained praise from W. E. B. Du Bois and even the "back to Africa" advocate, Marcus Garvey.

An honest look at the history of Harding's administration can produce shocking discoveries, indeed.

When Randolph Downes served as editor of the Northwest Ohio Quarterly, he wrote an article entitled "The Harding Muckfest: Warren G. Harding - Chief Victim of the Muck-for-Muck's Sake Writers and Readers."

He concluded:

"It is saddening to relate this perversion, this poisoning of the wells of American history. There is much that we must unlearn lest we become hypnotized with false learning that is worse than ignorance...It is high time for a painstakingly honest and scholarly appraisal of the life of Warren G. Harding."

McBama’s Crimes Against the Constitution

Much can be asked of why I plan to vote for a third-party candidate this year. My reasons are obvious: I doubt the sincerity of the oath that our next president will take, so long as it is John McCain or Barack Obama.

Like almost any year in the twentieth century, this election year offers no major presidential candidate that supports the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate of 2008, taught "constitutional law" for ten years. John McCain, the Republican, has been a member of Congress in 1982, which means he has sworn to uphold the Constitution six times under oath.

With that said, you might think these men would take their oaths to protect and defend the most fragile document of our country seriously. Yet, both have a track record for violating the Constitution day after day.

A topic such as the Constitution could take days to cover. Therefore, I cannot cover every crime the top two presidential candidates have committed against the supreme law of the land.

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution. It reads, "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."

Thomas Jefferson's unwavering defense of the Tenth Amendment and other elements in the Constitution became known as "strict constructionism." His opponents, such as Alexander Hamilton (who actually argued for a monarchistic government for the entire continent), argued for a more flexible interpretation, which became known as "loose constructionism." Oddly enough, the Revolution was provoked by a loose interpretation of the British Constitution.

In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama very plainly expresses his distain for strict constructionism:

"When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.

"I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."

The Framers of the Constitution recognized the need to change laws from time to time, which is why they gave us the right to make constitutional amendments, such as the abolition of slavery.

Justice Breyer's loose interpretation is willfully ignorant and completely disregards the Tenth Amendment in favor of the federal government's unchained right to pass any program into law that it wants to.

This is the same view that led to Harry Truman's steel mill seizure in 1952, Woodrow Wilson's imprisonment of Eugene V. Debs for speaking out against World War I, and Bill Clinton's "impeachment bombing" of the Serbs, despite congressional refusal. Let's not forget about the man who questioned the constitutionality of Theodore Roosevelt's coal mine strike. The president grabbed the man and infamously proclaimed, "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!"

John McCain claims to support strict constructionism, but unfortunately, his voting record suggests otherwise. McCain and many other Republicans have supported the Tenth Amendment only at convenience.

The First Amendment is intended to protect our Freedom of Speech, for example.

Yet, John McCain drafted a bill with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold that attacked this right with a provision in The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. "McCain-Feingold") that authorized a federal speech code that can enforce up to five years of jail time.

McCain-Feingold was drafted and signed into law before Barack Obama became a U.S. Senator. But Obama has spent his three years in the Senate attacking the same fundamental right with not only no promise to end McCain's attack on free speech, but in addition to that, he supported the "Fairness Doctrine" before he was against it.

According to Obama's press secretary, Michael Ortiz, "Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters."

Read the rest of this statement:

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

In other words, the Fairness Doctrine on steroids. Meaning government limiting free speech, overregulating the internet, and giving your tax dollars to liberal personalities, like they did with the now bankrupt Air America. Although the Communist Manifesto highly recommends it, I don't see any article in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate any media outlet it wants to.

The examples are endless, but one thing is clear - we haven't had a genuine constitutional government since the days of Calvin Coolidge. You can expect the guillible masses to vote on the lesser of two evils. At the end of the day, I ask, "Why vote for evil at all?"

This is why I stand by my support for Chuck Baldwin, the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party.

As John Quincy Adams once said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

The Case For Chuck Baldwin

Republicans and Democrats have a lot more in common than you might think. The commonalities are not limited to lobbyists, special interests, and kissing babies at a photo op. They rely on the ignorant masses to decide who is the lesser of two evils. The "lesser evil" is often the candidate most successful at keeping third-party contenders off the ballot.

Meet Chuck Baldwin, the presidential candidate representing the Constitution Party. He is an accomplished pastor, an alternative media personality, and a former Republican. Baldwin worked in the Florida Moral Majority to help elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. After helping the GOP register nearly 50,000 conservative Christian voters, he left the party.

In 2004, Baldwin ran as Michael Peroutka's running mate for the Constitution Party in the presidential election.

This year, Chuck Baldwin won the endorsements of The Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi and Congressman Ron Paul.

As a young political party, the Constitution Party has been relatively successful - it's the third largest in registered voters. Such success is due to conservatives who remain dissatisfied with unprincipled Republicans.

What about John McCain?

What about him.

He is still the same John McCain who wants to grant amnesty to illegals, sign a Kyoto treaty, and occupy Iraq for an unpredictible amount of time. A globalist with a mind of his own, if you ask me.

What about Sarah Palin?

Get to know her a little better.

She not only advocated a windfall profits tax as Governor of Alaska, but raised taxes on middle-class families and supported the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," until it costed her political points.

Neoconservatives who granted her immediate status as a political messiah may want to think twice about her record. It seems as though neoconservatives haven't bothered to compare her to Barack Obama, who also became an instant political celebrity as soon as he gained national attention.

I'm not doubting her as a moderate conservative. I am simply pointing out that she is not the arch-conservative that alternative media outlets tried to portray her as.

Chuck Baldwin's platform by far outwits John McCain's experience as a globalist in the Senate, and here's why.

On economics, a Chuck Baldwin presidency would repeal the 16th Amendment to stop abusive taxation, ditch the Federal Reserve to stop rapid inflation, and ignite a Made in America Movement.

Instead of the neoconservative "Fair Tax" proposal that would end the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, Baldwin would not only end the IRS and the income tax, but reinstitute a tariff-based economy. Why is that a good idea? First of all, the Fair Tax plan risks having not only a new national sales tax that would reduce consumer activity, but the income tax could be reinstated the same way it was introduced: class warfare. A tariff-based economy allows Americans to keep their pay checks and to slow down global competition in the markets. Once this country let go of that policy, which was recommended by the Founding Fathers, Brand America was traded in for cheap labor in far-off countries.

Instead of a downright frightening, McCain-approved bailout bill for Wall Street, Chuck Baldwin would take the advice of Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, and George Washington by fighting the fiat system and limiting the power of international bankers in government.

His own input on the issue:

If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

On the issue of border security, Chuck Baldwin refuses to kneel to any bill that would legitimize the spread of illegal immigration. As a matter of fact, Baldwin is the only presidential candidate who is serious about bringing an end to our illegal immigration crisis. Instead of signing an amnesty bill to grant citizenship for those who refused to wait in line as John McCain and Barack Obama would, Baldwin would give the benefit of the doubt to the border patrol agents, not the lawbreakers.

He pledges, "The first day Chuck Baldwin is in office as President is the last day Ramos and Compean spend in jail!"

The Dark Side of Obama

Senator Barack Obama's charismatic message of "hope," "change," and "yes, we can" have inspired many on the political left to believe that America will undergo a makeover in the political scene and win credibility with the rest of the world.

Keyword: credibility.

Just how credibile is Senator Obama? We will soon learn of his techniques, his values, and of course, his major controversies that have been swept under the rug in exchange for the media coverage of a silly picture of Obama in a turban.

Needless to say, even the mainstream media's coverage of his minor controversies, such as the Che Guevarra flag at his Houston campaign headquarters and his wife's recent comments about being proud of her country for the first time have sparked plenty of curiousity about Obama's background. This is a continuous exploratory of what is not being covered day in and day out.


Just Plagiarism

News has recently come to light about Barack Obama's use of plagiarism, borrowing at verbatim segments from a speech from Massachussetts governor and personal friend Deval Patrick. While Governor Patrick has defended Obama, it should not necessarily discredit the charge unless Obama is willing to cite his sources.

Just Words Pt. I:



Just Words Pt. II:



Just Words Pt. III:





The Afrocentric Trinity United Church of Christ

Unlike others on the political right, I am not one to dispute Obama's claim as a born-again Christian. However, I will make clear where his Christian values come from, if I should be loose with my rhetoric.

The TUCC of Chicago that Barack Obama attends is arguably separatist in addition to being Afrocentrist. From its own website:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

The church is led by Jeremiah Wright, a controversial black liberation theologian who has praised and had associations with Louis Farrakhan, the hard-lined anti-semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The reverend has rightfully expressed some concern over Obama's Jewish support as a result. "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

Wright has praised Farrakhan, calling him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose" with a "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation," and a man of "integrity and honesty."

Four years after 9/11, Wright wrote that the terrorist attacks proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Whatever that means.



A Communist Mentor

Although Obama admits in his books that he attended socialist meetings and came into contact with Marxist literature, it is surely surprising for the voting population to learn that one of his most closest and most formative political mentors was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA member who advised Obama not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit."

This is not a rush to judgement.

In Barack Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, the presidential hopeful identifies repeatedly as "Frank" a man who offered Obama political advice and shaped his political philosophy. Obama's critics have tracked Obama's communist ties from his life in Hawaii during the 1970s, when he first met Frank Davis, all the way up to his sponsoring of the Global Poverty Act, which was actually a Communist Party USA initiative to redistribute billions of US tax dollars to third-world countries.

Now why wouldn't he identify him by his full name?

The link is clear from this speech that was delivered at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University:

When these sources are explored, I think scholars of the future will be struck by, for example, the response in Honolulu when tens of thousands of workers went on strike when labor and CP leaders were convicted of Smith Act violations in 1953 – a response totally unlike the response on the mainland. Of course 98% of these workers were of Asian-Pacific ancestry, which suggests that scholars have also been derelict in analyzing why these workers were less anti-communist than their Euro-American counterparts. In any case, deploring these convictions in Hawaii was an African-American poet and journalist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson. Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside.

Friendship With A Pentagon Bomber

A recent story was broken by The Politico that linked Barack Obama to Bill Ayers, the man responsible for bombing the Pentagon during Nixon's term in office.

"I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers has said. "I feel we didn't do enough."

The article suggests that Obama's relationship with Ayers was not limited to one meeting that took place in the 1960s with young, radical college kids. In fact, Obama has been reported to have visited Ayers at his home, and a prominent Chicago physician and health care advocate has described Obama and Ayers as "friends."


Abortions on Newborns

It is not uncommon for the Democratic Party to back a pro-choice candidate. This time around, the three major Democratic presidential contenders all stood against the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban. Evidently, Barack Obama would not only roll back legalized partial-birth abortion, but take matters one step further. So says his record as an Illinois state senator.

As a state senator, Obama jumped on a fervent crusade to kill a bill that would have protected newborns who survived partial-birth abortion attempts from induced labor abortions. Induced labor abortions are performed by medicating the mother of the child to stimulate a premature birth. The babies that survive this horrific procedure are left untreated to die.

In 2000 and 2001, Jill Stanek, a nurse, testified to the U.S. Congress about how her hospital handled this procedure.

"One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

I doubt most Americans understand that this procedure was even legal in their own country. It should be sickening to realize that it was, thanks to men like Obama. Considering that the US Senate passed a bill similar to the one Senator Obama killed, maybe "change" isn't such a great idea after all.

The Declaration, The Constitution, or The Communist Manifesto?

This is a ten-question multiple choice quiz that I put together in order to encourage any readers to explore America's founding documents and all they stand for: freedom, liberty, and limited government, as opposed to the Communist Manifesto, which stands for none of the above.

You have three options to choose from for every question: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Communist Manifesto.

Have fun, share, and enjoy!

Questions

1. "[A] graduated income tax."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

2. "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

3. "Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

4. "[M]ake all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this... in the Government... or in any Department or Officer thereof."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

5. "Centralization... by means of a national bank with State capital."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

6. "[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

7. "We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

8. "The enumeration... of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

9. "That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

10. "[N]o Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

a. The Declaration of Independence
b. The U.S. Constitution
c. The Communist Manifesto
d. No Answer

________________________________________________

Answers:

1. The Communist Manifesto.

"Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

2. The Declaration of Independence.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

3. The Communist Manifesto.

"Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour."

4. The U.S. Constitution.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

5. The Communist Manifesto.

"Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

6. The Declaration of Independence.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

7. The Declaration of Independence.

"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind - Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends."

8. The U.S. Constitution.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

9. The Communist Manifesto."

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labor when there is no longer any capital. All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture. That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine."

10. The U.S. Constitution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

The Inevitable Maverick

Time has come and gone for Republican voters to cast their ballots for their favorite presidential candidates, and John McCain appears to be the inevitable nominee. In order to win the presidency, "The Maverick" must win back his credibility with the conservative base.

John McCain has lived an honorable life, and his life story should serve as an inspiration to every American, right, left, and center.

One small problem, many conservatives say: he's not Ronald Reagan. Every "Reagan-or-else" conservative who stayed home is getting what they deserve for doing so. They had their chance. Had they supported Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, they would find themselves in a better position. These self-declared hardcore conservatives who will vote for McCain will do so reluctantly in 2008, and he must prove his leadership during his first term, or he will be starved at the polls in 2012.

As of now, many conservatives believe that by sitting out in 2008, history will repeat itself as it was in the days of Jimmy Carter if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are to take over the White House. This is a childish assumption of economic ruin to a dystopian proportion. To make matters worse, they fail to see that it took much more than Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan. Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon were perhaps the weakest Republican presidents in the late 20th century, whose policies offered little recovery from Lyndon Johnson's disasterous "War on Poverty." Even by 1976, the GOP wasn't ready for Ronald Reagan, and the struggle for economic freedom had begun shortly after the Kennedy assassination.

John McCain is not a "liberal." His platform is compatible with the basic tenets of conservatism, and are the mere party line of Thatcher's modern-day Conservative Party in Great Britain.
While John McCain and mainline conservatives have many substantive disagreements, his McCain's positives by far outweigh his negatives. He appears to be open, honest, and sincere about his positions and intentions. If conservatives are strong and firm enough in their areas of agreement with McCain, they will support him on key issues, such as terror, taxes, and judges.

Still considering a third party vote?

If you did not like Ron Paul, you will not like the third party alternatives. There is no clear and fundamental difference between Ron Paul, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party on the issues of foreign policy and homeland security. Both want immediate withdrawl from Iraq and removal of a long list of Bush's anti-terror policies with no suggestions for alternatives.

The Constitution Party is strictly non-intervention, uncompromising on gay rights (they've even taken shots at James Dobson), as absolutist as they come on abortion, in favor of protectionist trade policy, and silent on the War on Terror.

The Libertarian Party is Ron Paul on steroids. They only seem to view policy issues through an economic lense, which can be defined as anarcho-capitalist in their general worldview. That might explain why they support unfettered abortion rights, homosexual marriage, legalized prostitution, state-sponsored gambling, recreational drug use, and open borders. These policies are further to the left than the vast majority of the Democratic Party claims to be, although they may appeal to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Although John McCain has not been known to market religion in the Senate, he understands the culture war between secular progressives and traditionalists. He has made a tireless effort to make amends with religious voters and should be forgiven for his past transgressions against Jerry Falwell and the religious right. The last thing even a conservative should expect to see is John McCain appointing an activist judge like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

John McCain has been unwavering in the War on Terror, and the success of the troop surge is largely due to his leadership, attentiveness, and commanding capabilities. He's had the most military credentials out of any candidate who participated in the race. His campaign has focused on a sympathetic approach to the needs of veterans, past and present.

Many conservatives would concede these points, but point out that he is a staunch opponent of waterboarding. Waterboarding may be an overrated tactic, and the GOP should respect McCain's moral opposition - as a former POW himself - if he can propose a viable alternative.

On economic issues, McCain has given up largely on class warfare and has pledged to continue his efforts to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts initially, but it's conceivable to believe that he has changed his position upon witnessing the creation of millions of new jobs and companies expanding their businesses in the States. In addition to the tax cuts, McCain has exhibited the principle of fiscal restraint in Congress, as opposed to many big-spending "neoconservatives" in the Senate.

The issue of illegal immigration is most controversial of all. At his recent speech at the CPAC convention, many conservatives in the audience booed his very mentioning of the topic. He responded by pledging to secure the border before opening the debate on a path to citizenship. Should he become president, his feet will be held to the fire by border advocates who are fed up with President Bush's self-centered approach to the issue. Conservatives should not rule out McCain's promise to improve border security so quickly. He is aware of the growing concern over the issue, especially after the massive protest following "McCain-Kennedy." Neither Obama or Clinton would be forced to hear their base out on the issue, and have no political incentive to do so. Instead, they have every incentive to pander to voters, illegally or not.

What this election will come down to is the differences that remain between McCain and the Democratic nominee.

The Democrats have made a huge mistake by backing inexperienced, divisive, and far-left candidates who represent a congressional majority with an embarrassing 11% public approval rating. This Congress, led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, was not given the majority vote to retreat from Iraq, but to change course and enact a more promising strategy. Clinton and Obama have the same far-left positions on moral issues and national defense that gave John Kerry a humiliating defeat in 2004. Voters don't want to hear about "change" for the sake of change. They want to know how the candidates would leave the White House better than they found it.

The War on Darwinism

Charles Darwin once said that "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Unfortunately, such balance is not so prevalant in today's atheistic culture of learning.

On April 9, 1989, the prominant neodarwinist, Richard Dawkins, expressed his heartfelt antipathy to the New York Times:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

Why such a dramatic shift in the attitude between Darwin and his modern-day disciples?

What forces drive their zealotry when neodarwinism is called into question?

Some suggest that "fundamentalism" and "religion" are responsible for the ignorance of scientific facts. Yet, few examples of "fundamentalism" exceed Mr. Dawkins' self-pious creed.

While Communist China allows scientists to question many elements that the neodarwinists have propagated over the years, it is not unusual for a biology teacher to face consequenses for expressing skepticism in regards to evolutionary biology here in America.

Take Roger DeHart, for example. DeHart was a beloved biology teacher from Burlington, Oregon, who provided his students an open forum to discuss concepts of neodarwinism openly and critically. He was eventually banned from teaching within the district ever again.

His crime?

Supplying outside materials, allowing students to debate intelligent design, and presenting ample evidence that was unfavorable to the claims of Darwinian evolution. More alarming, he never even mentioned the word "God."

Meanwhile, back in China, Jun-Yuan Chen, an internationally respected paleontologist, has made discoveries that have rocked the scientific establishment.

From an article in The Boston Globe, May 30, 2000:

According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can't account for the speed, the breadth, and onetime nature of "the Cambrian explosion," a geologic moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record.

Rather than Charles Darwin's familiar notion of survival of the fittest, Chen said he believes scientists should focus on the possibility that a unique harmony between forms of life allowed complex organisms to emerge. If all we have to depend upon is chance and competition, the conventional forces of evolution, Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear."

Later in the same article arrives an astounding merge: members of China's Communist Party and creationists, who share a skepticism for Darwinian evolutionary biology.

"Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge," declared the Communist Party's Guang Ming Daily last December in describing the fossils in southern China. "In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory. . . . In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion." Taunts from the Communist Party wouldn't carry much sting, however, if some Western scientists weren't also concerned about weaknesses in so-called neo-Darwinism, the dominant view of evolution over the last 50 years.

"NeoDarwinism is dead," said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where Chen had found his first impressions of Haikouella five years ago.

Could it be that the Communist Party in China is more open-minded and intellectually honest than the neodarwinists in America, who claim a tax-funded monopoly in our schools and college campuses?

Is it so far-fetched to point out that no random genetic mutations have successfully proven any viability to neodarwinist claims since the theory of evolution emerged?

Neodarwinists proudly point to fruit flies as evidence for genetic mutations, because they have grown an extra pair of wings in many of their experiments. One problem: the flies are actually degenerating in their capabilities, rather than improving, condescending the survival of the fittest. It is now harder for the flies to fly off the ground. To make matters worse, they cannot survive outside of the lab.

The most evidence we have of any genetic mutations are crippled and dead organisms that have emerged as a result of lab experiments.

In spite of the iron fist that the neodarwinists may have over our schools, a recent Zogby poll has indicated that most Americans are not in alignment with their agenda.

According to the poll, 71% of Americans agree that "Biology teachers should teach Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it," while only 15% agreed that "Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory and the scientific evidence that supports it."

This counter-cultural surge is also advocated by scientists who represent a small minority within the scientific community, but a large percentage of America that argues in favor of more objective education.

In an advertisement that appeared in the prestigious New York Review of Books, over 100 scientists, including scholars from Yale, Princeton, MIT, and the Smithsonian signed on to this statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."