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."

Your Voices Must Be Silenced

The current Senate continues to astound many Americans with their inability to act in their best interests. Fortunately, the latest attempt to reward illegal aliens with citizenship for breaking in to our country was stopped yesterday.

Consider it a very short-term victory.

Under the illusion of an oligarchy, the Senate expressed deep concerns over the impact the alternative media had in engaging the masses to respond directly to their representatives. Both parties vented in frustration over talk radio and how the curtains have been raised and politicians were caught with their pants down.

Trent Lott managed to stab an entire industry that once defended him:

"Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."

Not long after, the Democrat Party leaders were quick to spout their own share of contempt for an informed citizenry.

Most notable was Ted Kennedy, who sunk shock value to a new low by comparing border agents and concerned citizens to the Gestapo.

"What are they going to do with the twelve and a half million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion dollars, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Try and find them, develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows. That's their alternative?"

Harry Reid made Trent Lott look like Mother Teresa:

"Talk radio has had a field day. These generators of simplicity. Now, Mr. President, I want everyone to know, I want the record spread. I do not believe that anyone who is a United States senator that votes against this motion to proceed is filled with prejudice, filled with hatred, with venom as we get in our phone calls and our mail. I don’t believe that."

In Reid's point of view, the American people are to blame, no matter what.

John Kerry has joined the chorus against the free exchange of ideas in exchange for dictatorship.

"I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back. I mean these are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is that, you know, they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think it’s been an important transition in the imbalance of our public…"

I still give him credit - unlike Senator Voinovich, at least Kerry knows what the Fairness Doctrine is.

The war on free speech is next on the list, make no mistake. I predict a domino theory, should the Fairness Doctrine ever be reinstituted again. First, talk radio will lose interest because listeners desire to hear talking points, not a 24/7 debate. The Democrats know this. Then will come heavier regulation of the internet. Alternative media outlets, such as World Net Daily will be required to make room for a liberal point of view. If worse comes to worst, the blogosphere will be next on the list.

Forget about those border agents, let's replace them with people who can monitor talk radio!

A Better Vision For Iraq

There are those who believe in peace through strength. And there are those who seem to believe in peace through wishful thinking.

Given that vision is not necessarily a virtue, the Bush Doctrine tends to reside on the latter. Indeed, vision can be a scary thing. Many of the most successful presidencies were made so because they were not led by men who saught to leave behind a legacy. George H.W. Bush struck Saddam down when time made it right. His son, on the other hand, seemed to waste little time in drafting the case against the man who tried to kill his father.

After the plot had been arranged to take over the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, a confident President Bush made his way out to the United Nations in search for allies in his next phase in the "War on Terror." Bush charged Saddam for having violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions repeatedly. Oddly enough, the UN had no will to enforce their own resolutions. France and Russia were quick to reject the proposal to go to war, although their intelligence both suggested that Saddam was in pursuit of WMDs. Obviously, Saddam was quite brotherly as a trading partner to those nations.

In a 2003 interview with Newsweek, George Herbert Walker Bush discussed the seemingly enormous hassle of getting support from the French government, even during Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

MEACHAM: Do you regret that the president was unable to build the kind of international coalition you had in 1990-91?

BUSH: It’s a very different problem he faces, and my coalition-building was far easier because you could see the troops from Iraq in Kuwait. Even then, though, there was a lot of opposition. I was reminded by one of my top people the other day that the French were very difficult to get onboard.

What burns me up now are these statements that are critical of the president and of Colin Powell—"failed diplomacy." The problem they face is so different and so much bigger that I think any comparison is just night and day. It seems to be au courant, if you’ll excuse my knowledge of French, having studied it for 11 years, but I don’t agree with it. I think when history is written people are going to find some very interesting things about the French position. And I’m annoyed at the German position. I don’t talk about it publicly, but I know a lot of German people not in the coalition government with Schroder who are very, very upset about the position of their government.

MEACHAM: What do you think is going on with France?

BUSH: [Pause] They’re French.

MEACHAM: Any elaboration?

BUSH: Nope. There’s always been some friction. I was once talking to a group of French intellectuals, and I said, “You think we’re arrogant, and we think you’re French.” And they looked at each other and thought maybe I’d said something very intelligent. But that may well be it. It’s too bad, but life goes on, and we’ve got to do what we’ve got to do.

In Bush's declaration of war, he was clear to market the intervention with the language of a compassionate crusader. Mistakes would soon follow: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted to carry on in his military buildup of expanding technology rather than reach a definitive strategy with a substantial amount of ground forces - a mistake that was foreshadowed by the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. All things considered, the US miltary and its allies were quick to topple an oppressive regime and achieved a series of early successes.

Then came the downfall of the Bush Doctrine.

Iraq somehow went from a potential terrorist threat to a democracy project, which created a time-consuming, bottomless pit expense. To this day, much of the developments in Iraq are being done by the military, when the Iraqis can take many tasks upon their own hands. In retrospect, the invasion would have been victorious in the long run if we had conducted a broad-scale search for illegal weapons, caught Saddam, and demanded that he pay financially in return for his failure to comply with the UNSCRs.

Needless to say, we might as well have declared victory in Iraq four years ago with these recommendations. We didn't have to make Saddam's Iranian problem our own problem. Instead, thousands upon thousands of needless civilian and military deaths came as a result of insurgent attacks - with credible evidence suggesting that the Iranians are behind many of them. A shorter stay would mean less deaths and better relationships with our allies.

Although we have brought life to a new democracy at an extremely high cost, there is still hope for more success in Iraq. Not all hope is lost.

Since the troop surge, sectarian violence and insurgent attacks have reportedly dropped on a dramatic scale. Patrick Ruffini of Townhall.com had a hopeful column two weeks since the surge began. Even though there have been successes in the Baghdad area, cynics warn of the consequences of spreading our military too thin, too late. Take for example, the fact that amputee soldiers are being sent for yet another tour of duty in Iraq.

As arrogant as the Democratic Congress has positioned itself, they managed to pass a $120 billion bill to fund the war without the danger of the timetable included.

After struggling for months to persuade Congress to issue a clean bill to fund the war, President Bush must use it wisely. The best option would be to bulk up on the surge for another 4-6 months and invest the remainder into Iraq's military, and lead our way out of Iraq from there.

A new and democratic government in Iraq may undergo many struggles on its own to win the peace, but the sooner we give them complete sovereignty of their own country, the sooner the Iraqis can prevail. Iraq can be a godsend as a trading partner to the free world, and more peace and national unity will come about as a result.

Agents of Amnesty

They never learn.

Over twenty years ago, Congress approved of the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act, which gave amnesty to over three million illegal aliens. The bill gave precedent to a disturbing trend: amnesty now, enforcement later - or never.

But things have gotten much worse.

Due to the heat that this issue has packed with the American public, pro-amnesty Senators had the audacity to work behind closed doors and draft over 400 pages of guidelines for rewarding crime and drafting unenforceable laws. At least 12 million illegal aliens will be given citizenship if the plan passes. Rumor has it that any illegal who receives amnesty will be able to haul along 11 relatives. That could potentially mean 132 million people will be given citizenship on a bargain deal. The Senate is scheduled to debate the amnesty bill on Monday.

The usual suspects are passing the Kool-Aid around: Ted Kennedy, Arlen Specter, and John McCain, with Presidente Bush eager to sign his John Hancock on the bill. You know you're in trouble when Ted Kennedy lives a day without calling Bush a liar.

Your troubles may be worse than you think.

If we invite 132 million people into the country without bothering to assimilate them, English may become our second language. Bilingualism, or as I call, Babelism, will destroy America's economy. Worse, they will impose their way of life on Americans to the point where we are strangers in our own country.

Atheofascists Petition Against the Creation Museum

It's amazing what passes for science today. A secular consensus somehow equates that any opposition towards a dominant scientific theory is irrational - especially if it could lead to a debate. We can't let that happen, can we?

So it's not surprising that Dr. Eugenie Scott, the Director of the National Center for Science Education, has been out trying to convince other scientists to sign petitions against the Creation Museum, which is scheduled to open in less than two weeks.

Dr. John Pearse, the President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, has joined the chorus by writing the following in response to Scott's letter:

"Museum of make-believe facts being opened in the Cincinnati area. She [Eugenie Scott] is directing it mainly to our members in the Kentucky-Ohio-Indiana area, but the Core Officers and I think it should go out to all of you. The new museum could be a fun thing to go to if it was taken as a sort of Disneyland of anti-intellectualism. However, it is a serious frontal attack on evidence-based reasoning, and as such is a real threat to educating an informed, modern citizenry."

Sorry, Doc. When you are challenged with an alternative viewpoint backed by 55 videos, amongst many other resources that the Creation Museum has to offer, calling it the "Disneyland of anti-intellectualism" doesn't end the debate.

If Pearse was the least bit unreasonable in his argument that "evidence-based reasoning" is threatened by the sight of a Creation Museum, then Scott might as well consider a lobotomy. She resorts to scare tactics directed at college-bound students and their parents:

"Students who accept such material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."

On the other hand, she must wonder why so many scientists with PhDs have devoted their passion towards defending and rationalizing Creation Science.

In a letter to Pearse, she continues her anti-religious tirade:

"This museum is viewed with dismay by teachers and scientists because it will present as scientifically valid religious views such as special creation, a 10,000 year old Earth, Noah’s Flood, and the like."

Why is the Darwinian community threatened by this museum?

A few possibilities - Darwinism is like a religion, those who subscribe to evolutionary biology in full accept it as fact, and are unwilling to debate it. Another possibility could be much worse: they will destroy religious freedom at all costs, even at the cost of our constitutional rights.

How is such an activist movement helpful for democracy, let alone science?

If you aren't doommongering in favor of a dominant theory, you're considered a Nazi. That's basically the rhetoric of the global warming alarmists. Similarly, the Darwinists have enormous power that they refuse to give up. They have undoubtedly succeeded in their social engineering crusade in our public schools.

Yet, one can only hope to see real scientists emerge and approach the subject objectively enough to engage in a healthy debate.

A Bureaucrat With a Mental Case

I don't know where to begin on John Edwards. He has got to be embarrassed at least half the time he makes the headlines. And we're talking the Goliath Media. From his kneejerk obsession with class warfare to his trip to Wal-mart to buy his son a Playstation 3, to his 28,200-square-foot home and $400 haircuts, he has proven himself to be a man of excess.

His latest stunt is almost minor in comparison, but it may potentially effect all Americans.

According to NewsMax, John Edwards' proposals could cost American tax payers $1 trillion. If successfully enacted, this could be the largest shopping spree in American history.

While many Democrats have proposed tax cuts for the middle-class, John Edwards makes no such promise. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Edwards defended his plan to hijack the middle-class for the common good.

"I think for me, as opposed to the additional tax relief for the middle class, what's more important is to give them relief from the extraordinary cost of health care, from gasoline prices, the things that they spend money on every single day that are escalating dramatically."

His proposal for health care alone is projected to cost between $90-$120 billion a year. Employers would be forced to provide insurance or contribute to the coverage of every worker. The federal government would then pay the tap for low-income Americans. Edwards would fund his plan by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. According to the Laffer Curve, tax cuts pay for themselves by generating more government revenue in the long term as a result of allowing Americans to keep a higher percentage of their paycheck. A tax increase on the wealthy may help generate government revenue in the short-term, at the risk of numerous long-term consequences, including less job creation in the private sector, a decrease of economic activity, and reductions in employee benefits. Ergo, an increased progressive income tax and a requirement for employers to provide coverage would be an illogical contradiction.

Like many hardliners in his party, his goal is not only to fight poverty, but to end it as we know it. His War on Poverty will cost an annual $15 billion-$20 billion. Reagan once famously said, "Some years ago the United States declared war on poverty, and poverty won." At the end of the day, Reagan was right. During the Reagan era, so-called "decade of greed", private charity doubled. Social programs are well-intended, but they have historically benefitted middle-class social workers far more than the poor.

Other high-ticket items on the annual Edwards shopping list include a $13 billion energy fund, $5 billion for foreign aid, and a $1 billion rural recovery plan. He has also hinted federal assistance for college tuition, a border security plan, and federal funding for stem cell research. The costs have yet to be projected. Current figures estimate that John Edwards has already made $125 billion worth of annual proposals.

In addition to his enormous budget, Edwards has a few setbacks in his personal life. His wife is not expected to live for another ten years, although she has publicly approved of Edwards' decision to run for office.

On a far less serious matter, his hair has made headlines across the globe. The media couldn't help but succomb to the sensationalism of his whopping $400 haircuts. So that's where all the Coulter Cash went. In addition to his Antoinettesque lifestyle, bloggers have had field days with this YouTube video:

Prison vs. Work

I haven't been in the mood to post anything serious, lately. I've had this sitting around in my hard drive, and can't wait to delete it. Having said that, you may end up doing the exact same thing. After reading this, you will realize that crime does pay after all - as long as you turn yourself in.

IN PRISON ... you spend the majority of your time in a 10x10 cell.
AT WORK ... you spend the majority of your time in an 8x8 cubicle.

IN PRISON ... you get three meals a day.
AT WORK ... you get a break for one meal and you have to pay for it.

IN PRISON ... you get time off for good behavior.
AT WORK ...you get more work for good behavior.

IN PRISON ... the guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you.
AT WORK ... you must often carry a security card and open all the doors for yourself.

IN PRISON ... you can watch TV and play games.
AT WORK ... you could get fired for watching TV and playing games.

IN PRISON ... you get your own toilet.
AT WORK ... you have to share the toilet with some people whopee on the seat.

IN PRISON ... they allow your family and friends to visit.
AT WORK ... you aren't even supposed to speak to your family.

IN PRISON ... all expenses are paid by the taxpayers with no work required.
AT WORK ... you get to pay all your expenses to go to work, and they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisoners.

IN PRISON ... you spend most of your life inside bars wanting to get out.
AT WORK ... you spend most of your time wanting to get out and go inside bars.

IN PRISON ... you must deal with sadistic wardens.
AT WORK ... they are called managers.

For as tempting as it is, I advise you not to get locked up. If too many of us get locked up, too few will be left to pay the expenses.

Bush Breaks Loose to Raise Malaria Awareness

In the White House Rose Garden, President Bush joined his wife to attend a ceremony to recognize Malaria Awareness Day.

There, he joined the KanKouran West African dance company at the end of the ceremony.



While Bush’s drumbeat isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, it’s nice to see the lighter side of Washington every so often.

There has been tremendous progress in fighting malaria since DDT was reintroduced by the World Health Organization. According to South African national health spokesman Charity Bhengu, malaria cases have dropped by 65% and malaria deaths dropped by 73% within the country.

Although fervent environmentalists pushed for a ban on DDT in the 1970s - arguing that it was harmful and cancerous to children – the plusses outweighed its minuses, paving way for its reintroduction.

In the President’s speech, Bush announced that 500,000 insecticide-laced bed nets would be sent to Zambia and Uganda. The bed nets are about $10 in retail value, and have been a proven means of prevention for the disease. US officials believe the current two-year-old anti-malaria program has already helped an estimated 11 million Africans.

President Bush ensured America’s commitment to combat malaria.

"On this special day, we renew our commitment to lead the world toward an urgent goal, and that is to turn the tide against malaria in Africa, and around the globe."

The plan strives to cut the mortality rate in half.

Fifty States That Give Thanks

Alabama 1901, Preamble
We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble
We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.

Colorado 1876, Preamble
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.

Connecticut 1818, Preamble
The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble
Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble
We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble
We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil l, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble
We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble
We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble
We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble
We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble
We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble
We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble
We ... the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction …

Michigan 1908, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble
We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness … Establish this Constitution.

Montana 1889, Preamble
We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the
blessings of liberty establish this Constitution…

Nebraska 1875, Preamble
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble
We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution…

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V.
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble
We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty.

New York 1846, Preamble
We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble
We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…

North Dakota 1889, Preamble
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble
We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common…

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this…

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences…

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble
We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance…

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble
We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing…

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble
We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties…

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble
We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble
Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man…

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI
Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other…

Washington 1889, Preamble
We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…

West Virginia 1872, Preamble
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God…

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility…

Wyoming 1890, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution…

I Am Cincinnati... and Virginia Tech, Too!

There’s a lot to say about what our college campuses have become. One has to wonder how much shame is required to obtain a career as a professor. We can always use Nikki Giovanni from Virginia Tech as an example, who calls herself a poet.

During Ken Blackwell’s gubernatorial campaign in Ohio, she read an original poem entitled “I am Cincinnati.”

A few lines in the poem worth quoting: "I am not a son of a bitch like Kenny Blackwell," and "[Cincinnati is] not a political whore.''

I imagine her students receive more education at a frat party than in her classroom.

In Giovanni’s speech following the Virginia Tech shooting: “We Are Virginia Tech:

“We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did not deserve it but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, but neither do the invisible children walking the night to avoid being captured by a rogue army. Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy.

I’m not sure how you can be Cincinnati and Virginia Tech at the same time. But anyways, this speech received harsh criticism, considering what the grieving families had gone through. I may be out of it, but how can this professor compare an elephant’s community “devastated for ivory” to the worst shooting massacre in American history?

In any event, it gets much worse. Here’s an excerpt of Nikki Giovanni’s poetry:

"The True Import Of Present Dialogue, Black vs. Negro"
by Nikki Giovanni

Nigger
Can you kill
Can you kill
Can a nigger kill
Can a nigger
kill a honkie
Can a nigger kill the Man
Can you kill nigger
Huh?
nigger can you
kill
Do you know how to draw blood
Can you poison
Can you stab-a-Jew
Can you kill huh? nigger
Can you kill
Can you
run a protestant down with your
'68 El Dorado
(that's all they're good
for anyway)
Can you kill
Can you piss on a blond head
Can you cut it
off
Can you kill…

This "professor" belongs in a psych ward, not on a college campus.

Hatred, Violence, and Terrorism Redefined?

Just hours after the Virginia Tech massacre, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama made a startling claim: words are violence, too.

In his response to the shooting, he contended:

"There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways.

“There's the ‘verbal violence’ of Imus.

“There's the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country.”

That’s right. The outsourcing of jobs has suddenly been redefined as a form of violence as well. And according to dictionary.com, it may as well be a form of terrorism:

Terrorism

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

And if Don Imus is a terrorist for his poor choice of words, then a middle school student might as well be charged with a hate-crime for his choice of food: ham.

The “Ham Crime” was committed at Lewiston Middle School in Lewiston, Maine, when a white male student put a ham steak in a lunch bag on a table where Somali students were seated. Pork is considered offensive towards Muslims.

The student had already faced a suspension for this. But since he’s a non-Muslim white male, why not throw him in jail?

Identity politics is an ongoing tradition that was first popularized by Benito Mussolini in Fascist Italy. Political correctness was a popular policy that heavily censored public opinion within the walls of the former Soviet Union. Combine the two, and you have hate-crime legislation.

But even a practical joke is a form of violence, so claims Barack Obama.

The school has chosen to work with a group that pushes this lunacy as their raison d'être. This group is the so-called Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence.

They'd like to send a message out to every white kid: If you’ve ever played a practical joke that was even the least bit insensitive, you can now consider yourself hateful and violent. Let this be a fair warning.

A Week of Madness at Virginia Tech

As you are well aware, the shooting that took place this past Monday was the worst shooting massacre in U.S. history. 33 people were shot dead, including the killer, Cho Seung-Hui. A day of infamy, undoubtedly.

What caused such a sick act of human madness?

The question is on everybody's mind.

We can blame it on permissive gun ownership, excessive gun control, overly flexible immigration laws, hostility towards immigrants, depression, anti-depressants, racial profiling, anti-Americanism, or America herself. Chances are, you'll stand by at least two of the issues with a raging passion.

We rush to the stage, asking "what law should we invent as a result of this massacre?"

There is no such law that would have prevented such a tragic outcome. Laws need not apply to those who mean harm.

You can disarm the entire country. Yet, Cho could purchase a chainsaw for half the cost of a gun. You can cry for Cho's desperate need for attention, but that isn't going to earn him any pity points. You can open the borders wide open, only to become a stranger in your own country. You can give him Prozac, and he can oversleep all semester and express yet more apathy towards others around him.

Or, you can even forbid law-abiding students the right to carry a gun, like Virginia Tech chose to do a year before the incident.

As a result of the Virginia state legislature's proposal of a bill to make it easier to carry firearms on college campuses, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker had this to say:

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Sure, it made people feel safer, but in reality, it didn’t make anybody safer.

Ever since Florida adopted the right-to-carry in 1987, the murder rate decreased by 51%. According to the Florida Department of State, less than two one-hundredths of 1% of the state carry licenses were revoked due to crimes committed by firearms.

According to law professor and firearms issue researcher David Kopel:

"Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed-carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences. Permit-holders will slaughter each other in traffic disputes, while would-be Rambos shoot bystanders in incompetent attempts to thwart crime. But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media's radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn't so bad after all."

Yet, the consequences of shouting down the rights of good men to defend themselves were not only more severe, but a reality.

When the incident emerged, Madman Cho killed two people and fled the scene. The university closed down one building and resumed classes, giving Cho a mere halftime show to reload and send his hate-filled, self-victimizing package to NBC. Let me reiterate: a college shooting takes place, the killer was on the loose, and the campus shut down one building.

As if gun control policies on campus would have any effect at this point.

Virginia Tech President Charles Steger trusted the word of authorities who claimed that it was only a domestic dispute, and thought the gunman had fled campus.

His own words:

"We had no reason to suspect any other incident was going to occur."

Why not?

You didn’t have the gunman in custody. You didn’t have him identified. But “go on with your lives, nothing to see here” had reached such a trustworthy consensus. And then you tackled the wrong man, as shown below.

To make matters worse, the police were standing around doing nothing while the shooting was going on.

Here’s the cell phone clip.

It’s bad enough that private citizens were stripped of their constitutional rights. But it’s a glimpse of Hell when the police pace around like husbands watching their wives get prettied up.

After receiving the “Cho Show,” NBC quickly broke the story. They have faced enough criticism over the Don Imus story, but why stop now.

Here are some excerpts of the “Cho Show.”

"You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today, but you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off."

He went on.

"Jesus loved crucifying me. He loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and ripping my soul all this time."

Personally, I see no vice in NBC’s decision to air Cho’s package, other than the possibility of distracting attention from the victims.

In addition, Cho’s own literature was obtained. One of them which portrays a new stepfather as victim to his new stepson’s bizarre antics, which included accusations of pedophilia. Eventually, the stepfather is driven mad by the torment and murders the stepson. It can be read on the Smoking Gun.

Further incite could refer to his self-appointed nickname, “Ismail Ax,” which was written in red ink on his arm. In Korean cultures, red is a symbol of death. “Ismail” is a likely reference to the first Arab, Ishmael, who was born of Hagar, rather than Sarah, as God intended. Jewish tradition generally regards him as an illegitimate child, a result of sin, and forsaken by God, whereas Islam regards him as an appointed prophet of God.

Clearly, Cho was a self-victimizer who refused to get along with the good, the bad, and the ugly that exists in American culture. In reference to his suicide note, it’s tough to justify that "rich kids," "debauchery," and "deceitful charlatans" are solely, or even remotely to blame for this tragic outcome.

Although this massacre gave Rosie O’Donnell and Friends a convenient rush to judgment, more gun control is not the answer, as my previous argument suggests.

On January 16, 2002, a gunman opened fire at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, killing three people, and wounding three others. The heroes of the day were the three students who stopped the shooting, two of whom did so by exercising their right to bear arms.

This time around, Virginia Tech prohibited students from carrying firearms, but that didn't stop a madman from defying the law. It stopped responsible, law abiding citizens from fighting back. Instead, 33 lives were cut short.

The hero in this case was not the police department, but an Israeli Holocaust survivor who is no longer alive. His final act of heroism was barricading the doors, telling his students to jump out the window of the first floor, and taking the bullets for them. His name was Liviu Librescu.

Mommy, I Forgot To Duck

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding a nation-wide ban on the most horrific form of infanticide ever performed in the United States, commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

Thank God it was upheld, even by the skin of its teeth.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this to say in her dissent:

“In candor, the Partial Birth Abortion Act and the court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court - and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.”

Reasonable people can agree to disagree over such an act that was imposed by a growing special interest movement.

Now let me tell you what I really think.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a monster. She is the loudest cheerleader for infanticide in the entire country. She was appointed by a radically feminized president to uphold every possible form of abortion known to man. She was then approved by a spineless Congress who had no intention of questioning her background in general, and her membership and involvement with the ACLU in particular.

Bill Clinton had two chances to sign partial-birth abortion bans into law. He vetoed it both times. Yet this man continues to be hailed as a centrist. Along with his wife, presidential candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama decried the ruling.

Here’s Hillary’s reaction:

"It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

What “constitutional rights” could she possibly refer to? Abortion was never mentioned in the Constitution. Our Framers actually had a conscience. You have to dismantle the Constitution over and again, and throw a little bit of the 1960s into it, along with as much human madness as possible for it to even remotely guide the decision-making process on the matter of partial-birth infanticide.

The Clintons can create a penumbra with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in the Constitution for an absolute right to an abortion, and at the same time, can deny that the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens to own guns.

To give you a better idea of how sick our society is today, Abortionist Martin Haskell once admitted to the House Judiciary Committee:

“[T]he majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.”

This is the man who started this madness in 1992, and went on to perform it on thousands of healthy women with his own hands. In a 1993 interview, he expresses his appreciation for the ultrasound and how it has helped him make blood money.

“You see the easy ones would have a foot length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy. At first, I would reach around trying to identify a lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, ‘Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it.’ I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity."

In 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, Bernard Goldberg offers a response:

“Well, doc, if you could just wait a little while until the baby was born, and put a bullet in its head, that would be even easier!”

After Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse at one of Haskell's clinics, witnessed a partial-birth abortion of a baby boy at 26 and a half weeks, she offered her condolences.

"I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant ... The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet.

"The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."

It's about time this atrocity has been formally abolished.

Tonight I'm Gonna Party Like It's 1965

In a conversation with Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, fellow Justice Thurgood Marshall had reportedly stated, "You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it is our turn." Apparently, this mantra remains for the Race Card Reverends, or more specifically, Al Sharpton.

It doesn't take a thousand Google searches to find an insinuation that white Americans are somehow inherently xenophobic, racist, bigoted - you know the list. With Al Sharpton's latest jihad against white people, it's abundantly clear that the Don Imus incident didn't result in a sole assault on Imus himself, but free speech in general.

In 1911, Booker T. Washington warned us about the concept of victimization for profit.

"I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."

Don Imus took responsibility for the comments he made. He apologized to those he wronged - the Rutgers basketball team. Imus went ahead and offered his regrets to Al Sharpton, although he wasn't even remotely personally insulted.

As Ann Coulter put it...

"This wasn't an insult to all mankind, and certainly not an insult to Al Sharpton. Now, if Imus had called the basketball players 'fat, race-baiting black men with clownish hairstyles,' well, then perhaps Sharpton would be owed an apology."

The cloth has been removed, unvailing an agenda to shred our constitutional and self-evident freedoms and burn them to a crisp. Imus's comment was not made out of hatred, but common stupidity that often associates with filling hours worth of satire on the radio every day. Most people accept that "shock jocks" are, by definition, offensive at times.

Courageously, Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star went on CNN with Tucker Carlson and defended his article about Al Sharpton's victimization profiteering from the Don Imus incident. He probably jumped the gun by using the word "terrorists", but other than that, his argument is accurate.

If Al Sharpton cared about racism and xenophobia, why didn't he comment on what the Sudanese thought about us foreigners? From Al-Quds Al-Arabi of London on September 24, 2003:

"During September 2003, mass hysteria spread through Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, which was ultimately quelled by police intervention and statements made by the health minister. The panic was caused by rumors of foreigners roaming the city and shaking men's hands, making their penises disappear. The rumors were spread rapidly by text messages on cellular phones, and diverted the public's attention from a breakthrough in negotiations in Kenya between Sudanese Vice President Ali Othman and SPLA leader John Garang."

In a time of terror and uncertainty, is it really necessary to bury a story in order to portray our Islamist oppressors as tolerant, peaceful, or even democratic? Oh wait, they're not white Americans. That's why it's not dirty to Al Sharpton. Or not dirty enough to make a quick buck and make face time with the sweethearts in the mainstream media.

Speaking of sweethearts, why wasn't Al Sharpton outraged by our tax-funded C-SPAN televising Dr. Kamau Kambon to speak about Hurricane Katrina? I thought Hurricane Katrina was important to Reverend Al. Oh, wait a minute. There's no controversy here. Just an ex-professor calling for the extermination of white people.



Here is the transcript:

"Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem? I know it because they have retina scans, They have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks. And they're monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is how we are going to exterminate white people. Because that, in my estimation, is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem."

I've gotta admit, that one's a little hard for Sharpton to cash in on.

What Would a Centrist Platform Look Like?

I figured I'd find out.

So here, we've rounded up half a dozen party outcasts - Tim Roemer, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Arlen Specter. Their worldviews have astounding similarities - strong support for tax cuts, health coverage, free trade, capital punishment, and military spending - among other general agreements.

On The Issues is a generally reliable source of information, although their dichotomy is a little faulty. My previous "mass project" had more thorough analysis on political philosophies. In any event, I took into account all the major positions of the Selected Six, and used the dominant outcome to determine the "party line."

In taking the PoliticsMatch Quiz, I answered according to the platform. The results were interesting. Here is the graph of the party line.

Strikingly similar to our last Republican-led Congress: favorable to tax cuts, but otherwise heavy on spending and government, socially moderate, and pro-military. Overall, aligned with the majority of Americans.


Click on the pictures to enlarge.

Personal Issues:

Favorable to:

• Sexual Orientation Protected by Civil Rights Law
• School Prayer
• Capital Punishment
• "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws
• Anti-drug Legislation
• Allowing Churches to Provide Welfare Services
• Educational Choice

Opposed to:

• Abortion as a Woman's Right
• Absolute Right to Gun Ownership

Economic Issues:

Favorable to:

• Affirmative Action
• More Federal Health Coverage
• Privatized Social Security
• Reducing Use of Coal and Oil
• Tax Cuts
• Immigration
• Expanding Free Trade

Opposed to:

• Non-Applicable

Military Issues

Favorable to:

• More Spending On Armed Forces

Opposed to:

• Seeking UN Approval for Military Action

We Need Another White Boy To Crucify

Now that the "Duke Boys" have been cleared of all charges, the racial agitators have a chance to come to their senses. Yet, it seems as though Don Imus is reluctant to allow that to happen.

I have no intention of defending Imus's comment. It was worthy of his dismissal from MSNBC, and was long overdue. They were degrading to the Rutgers' basketball team in a very personal way. Wikipedia carries a revealing list of Imus's insults directed at women and minorities. It really makes you think about the job requirements that MSNBC demands. But then again, MSNBC doesn't generally hire the best and the brightest to fill up time and gobble up ratings. If Imus belongs anywhere, it would be on Sirius satellite radio, with his rival, Howard Stern.

Mike NiFong, the Durham Dirtbag, has represented the lowest form of our legal system by exploiting racial tensions in an election year with an investigation that was faulty from the beginning. Crystal Gail Mangum, the stripper and self-claimed "rape victim", will serve in reminding our society of Tawana Brawley, another "rape victim" that the Race Card Reverends rushed to judgement to defend.

The Duke professors, otherwise known as "The Group of 88" are no less despicable. They have declined to apologize to the wrongfully accused for their student newspaper ad entitled, "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" - which was purely intent on attacking the accused three. The Group of 88 has maintained its position in waging wreckless class warfare in their "Open Letter to the Duke Community."

"There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character. We reject all of these."

A few quotes from the accused:

Collin Finnerty: "[K]nowing I had the truth on my side was really the most comforting thing at all throughout this last year."

David Evans: "I hope these allegations don't come to define me."

Reade Seligmann: "[T]his entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed."

As news broke about Nifong facing a possible lawsuit and facing trials of scrutiny, coincidentially, I was reading The First Oration Against Catiline by the great Roman orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero. The speech was in response to his murder plot, headed by Lucius Catiline.

"Shame on the age and on its principles! The Senate is aware of these things; the consul sees them; and yet this man lives. Lives! ay, he comes even into the Senate. He takes a part in the public deliberations; he is watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every individual among us. And we, gallant men that we are, think that we are doing our duty to the republic if we keep out of the way of his frenzied attacks."

We face a similar age of injustice, with abuses of power and blind loyalty with our legal system, which has been led by the Durham Dirtbag and the Race Card Reverends for this past year. Nifong's prosecutorial abuses of power has alarmed the public over these character assassinations. Finally, the truth has unraveled, but the usual suspects are quick to flee the scene of the accident.

Of course, "Race Card Reverends" refers to the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The two of them are no different from the Durham Dirtbag. They'll jump to conclusions, point the finger at any given white male, and when he's proven innocent, they repeat the cycle and change the story, like modern day Judases in holy robes.

First, Sharpton charges Steven Pagones with raping Tawana Brawley. After his innocence was proven, he moves on without apology, accusing the police. In 2002, the Associated Press asked Sharpton, then a presidential candidate, if he would apologize to Pagones. Here's what the remorseless race-baiter had to say.

"Apologize for what? For believing a young lady? ... When people around the country know that I stood up for a young lady ... I think it will help me."

No, Al. You jumped on a case without evidence. You rushed to judgement. In a race to become the next Martin Luther King, you stoned an innocent man.

In 2003, the walking obscenity of a "presidential candidate" was at it again, in a state we call denial. When asked about the same case, Sharpton told the New York Daily News...

"[A] jury said in the Central Park jogging case … that I was wrong, and it was just overturned 13 years later. Juries can be wrong. I've stood by what I believe. Juries are proven wrong every day."

But enough is enough. I shouldn't have to go on with Sharpton inciting the anti-semitic Crown Heights Riot, the anti-semitic outburst that helped provoke a murder at Freddy's Fashion Mart, and the garbage he now spews on a daily basis with his new talk radio program.

You have to wonder if Jesse Jackson has paid off Mangum's scholarship as promised, regardless of the outcome. Can you imagine him spreading his charity to a Jewish girl? I doubt it. Especially if she lived in "Hymietown."

But the Race Card Reverends have been avoiding involvement with the fictitious rape allegations against Duke White Devils' lacrosse team. After all, they've been blessed with the "nappy-headed hos" remark from Don Imus.

On The Today Show, Meredith Vieira had Jesse Jackson on as a guest. Obviously enough, Imus was the trial du jour. In any event, Vieria took a good shot at Jackson's hypocrisy.

"But people do say stupid things sometimes. And Reverend Jackson, I apologize, but some of your critics reminded me of 1984, and I remember it as well. You were running for president, and you referred to New York City as 'Hymietown.' And you were raked over the coals for that. A lot of people said you were anti-Semitic, gentlemen. And it took you seven days to apologize, and then you begged for forgiveness. So what's the difference between that and this?"

Jesse Jackson was quick to unleash his trap about the "context." Not one word in response to the "Hymietown" incident. He went on to ask if the Imus incident was the new standard for NBC and MSNBC, followed by three seconds of dead silence. And for good reason. If Vieira followed up with an equally meaningful question as her former, the "Fairness Doctrine" would be reintroduced the next day. I like to think of it as the Fascist Doctrine.

After the Don Imus story is bored to tears, it will be interesting to see what the Race Card Reverends and the Duke Professors have to say. Chances are, someone equally as reprehensible as Don Imus will expose his true colors. If it's in a rap album, it won't make the headlines. If it's a white man, you're in for another bail-out.

In Defense of Self-Defense

The Second Amendment guarantees every American citizen the right to bear arms. Yet, over the years, ambitious bureaucrats have attacked this right to the point of no return, arguing that gun control lowers the crime rates and reduces gang violence, and that our dearest Constitution had specified this right strictly to the states.

The so-called American Civil Liberties Union has perpetuated this myth not to protect individual liberties, but to push a radical statist agenda. They contend:

"The original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of states to maintain militias."

No, Mr. Romero. That was already mentioned in the original intent of Article 1, Section 8.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Now let's take a look at the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Throughout the Constitution, the government is referred to as the "state", and individuals are referred to as the "people." If our Framers not only would have replaced the word "people" with "state," had they intended to deny its citizens the right to self-defense; moreso, it's likely that the Second Amendment wouldn't have been written at all.

In an interview on CSPAN, historian Garry Wills made a blatantly preposturous claim.

"The idea that my gun protects me from my government is not in the Founders... it's just not there ... The use of the militia originally was to be a defense of the country, and the proof of that is very simple. The federal government can federalize, can put into federal service any militia at any time it wants. So the idea that the militia can be used against the federal government is nonsense."

A respected historian who thrives on historical ignorance is a dangerous person.

What would George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights," think of Wills' claim, not to mention, San Francisco's failed attempt to ban handgun possession and firearm sales? According to this quote, not too favorably:

"What is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

There's that word, again - the people. In Thomas Jefferson's commonplace book, as the author of the Declaration of Independence is quoted:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Also from Jefferson:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

As George Washington, our first president, is quoted, "A free people ought to be armed."

If that isn't enough, we can always look back on how the early courts interpreted the Constitution. In 1833, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story had this to say.

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Yet, in spite of what history has proven, the Second Amendment has been trampled upon today more than ever by law, media, academia, and globalist-leaning politicians who propagate fear of gun owners to make face time. The fearmongering has caught up with a small but vocal minority of American citizens who are led to believe that private citizens purchase guns because they intend on using them. This logic is faulty, and requires a vast distrust in individualism in general, and mankind in particular.

Take for example the incident at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, on January 16, 2002. After a student recieved news of a suspension for low grades, he bursted through campus with a handgun, killing the dean, a professor, and a student, in addition to wounding three other students. The Washington Post, CBS News, and NBC News were quick to inform viewers about three heroic students who stopped the gunman. As the news broke all over the country, very few news organizations told the whole story - two out of three of the students who stopped the gunman did so by carrying guns.

After the incident, criminologist, author, and scholar John Lott performed a LexisNexis search on the story and found a fascinating case of media cover-up: only 4 out of 208 reports bothered to mention that the students stopped the shooting spree by carrying guns. James Eaves-Johnson conducted his own Nexis search, only to discover that two of 88 stories reported that fact. He gave it a second go with Westnews, finding that only two out of 112 stories on the incident mentioned how the students subdued the perpetrator. Former CBS anchor Bernard Goldberg took matters in his own hands and found just six out of 100 papers that told the real story. Shockingly, the New York Times was one of them.

On September 11, 2001, four planes were hijacked by Islamic terrorists, which killed 2,972 people in our home and native soil - or 2,992 if you would, like Reuters, include the jihadists as "victims." In any event, three out of four of those planes hit their assigned targets. One headed towards Washington, DC crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The passengers on the plane who fought back are hailed as heroes for one reason: when the government wasn't there to protect them, they took matters into their own hands.

But that didn't stop the local government in Washington, DC from litigating over whether private citizens can even possess a firearm in the privacy of their own home, citing the gungrabber's invented notion that "a well-regulated militia is a "collective right" rather than an individual right. Thankfully, a federal Appeals Court rejected the proposition.

Yet in spite of the Constitution's victories in DC and elsewhere, the attacks on gun owners show no end in sight. The Roanoke Times went ballistic enough to treat gun owners no different than sex offenders. On their website, they enforced their own version of Megan's Law, publishing the names, addresses, and additional confidential information of gun owners in the area. Thankfully, enough pressure led them to take down the list. So much for respecting anyone's right to privacy. Speaking of Megan's Law, back in February of 1995, U.S. District Judge Nicholas H. Politan ruled it unconstitutional, comparing public notification of nearby sex offenders to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear the Star of David. This judicial atrocity was thankfully overruled by the state attorney general, under the basic principle that a sex offender's right to privacy ends when a crime is committed. As should a gun owner's.

Today, the insanity only gets worse. As the community of Littleton, Colorado honored a fallen hero who served in Afghanistan, Navy Seal Danny Dietz, with a statue at a park where he grew up, opposition grew on the grounds that it glorified violence (Click on "Video" at link). In spite of the unneccesary outcry, the town's plans are set to continue in honoring the fallen soldier.

I Accept This Rudy For All His Faults

There's plenty to be said about America's Mayor, and given his current popularity, much will be said. Given his diversified worldview, few disagree that there is a Rudy for everyone.

Because this presidential election will ultimately make way for America's path in the War on Terror, there may never be a better time for Rudy Giuliani to receive the nomination. The Democrats are likely to champion the "anti-war" position - no protection under the Patriot Act, immediate retreat from Iraq - while Giuliani remains a consistent but civil advocate for getting the job done at home and abroad. While many conservatives find him weak on domestic policies, few can deny that he has the necessary will to protect all Americans, whether serving in the military, or living amongst the civilian population.

The Democrats' biggest problem: when Americans think of 9/11, they think of Rudy Giuliani.

He dealt with the issue firsthand, and his leadership and charisma were vital in restoring not only New Yorkers, but America's ability to get on with their lives. As of now, no contending Democrat has a public image of confidence and security that Giuliani has. The same can be said just as easily about Giuliani's Republican contenders.

As of yet, there is no Republican candidate who can compete with Rudy Giuliani on the most important issue of our time - Radical Islam. While he masterminded the troop surge in Iraq, Arizona's Senator John McCain has lost credibility with conservative voters on many domestic policies. Although to the contrary, Mitt Romney, the Governor of Massachussetts, has morphed into a solid conservative over the last few years, he has established himself as a flip-flopper in doing so. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is a strong social conservative, but he is weak on border security. While I leave many second tier candidates unnamed, I have my reasons: they won't get the nomination. The only potential and viable alternative to Rudy Giuliani at this point is former Senator Fred Thompson, and he might not even run for office.

Indeed, Giuliani's resume as Mayor of New York City is impressive for many Americans. Prior to Mayor, he served as Associate Attorney General under Ronald Reagan in 1981. In 1983, he became United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Under Giuliani as Mayor, overall crime decreased by 56%, and murder by 66%, making New York City the safest large city in the country according to the FBI. Not a bad record for a nation that is weary of crime and terrorism, both foreign and domestic.

His economic performance was met with the same successes. When Giuliani first took office, one in seven New Yorkers were on welfare. Welfare rolls were reduced by 60% as a result of a welfare-to-work initiative, or "workfare," for buzzword's sake. In addition, 23 city taxes were either reduced or eliminated, turning a $2.3 billion budget deficit into an enormous surplus. As a result, 423,000 private sector jobs were created in his two terms as Mayor, and tourism grew to an all-time high.

In response to his leadership, Giuliani has won enormous praise from former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, now serving as Senior Policy Advisor for Giuliani's campaign. In an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes writes:

"He set out to restore fiscal discipline to the 'ungovernable city' – and achieved results that Reagan Republicans can applaud."

Rudy has also received praise from columnist George F. Will, who has criticized the Bush Administration as too optimistic about the War in Iraq. He says of Giuliani:

"His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years."

Other endorsements include neolibertarian comedian and talk show host Dennis Miller, Michigan state Rep. Jack Brandenburg, and former U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas Richard Blankenship.

Rudy's biggest problem: his ornery conservative base. While many applaud his accomplishments as Mayor of New York City, as well as his contagious tranquility on 9/11, the domestic issues have hurt Giuliani the most. He supports legalized abortion, although he now oppposes partial-birth abortion. He has praised both John Roberts and Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court...

"I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that."

...while delivering a bothersome complement for the radical ex-ACLU General Counsel turned Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [John Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category. I mean, she was -- she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person."

Other criticisms include gun control, illegal immigration, and a "Kerry-esque" stance on homosexuality. Yet in spite of a handful of liberal positions, Giuliani is most loathed for attending a Gay Pride event in drag. However, if he manages to keep his Dukakis moments to a minimum, he will maintain his popularity as America's Mayor, rather than the "Drag Queen of New York."

Social conservatives find these domestic policies comparable to Bill Clinton. They are also comparable to Barry Goldwater and Margaret Thatcher, who both advocated expanded rights for homosexuals and legalized abortion. Yet today, many conservatives continue to revive them as heroes who stood up to their enemies, as well as the establishment, in times of great moral conflict.

Social conservatism will be remembered for 2004, when "moral values" defined the re-election of President Bush, in spite of harsh criticism for the Iraq War. Predictably, the social conservative movement has since lost ground, as Congress was soft on the positions that mattered most to the American public. Consider the mid-term elections in 2006.

The Grand Old Party made every effort to repeat its prior successes with a brilliantly crafted catchphrase: "San Francisco Values." Considering the indictments leading up to the election, real (Mark Foley) or fake (Tom DeLay), even the most religious voters weren't swayed into voting straight GOP. It didn't matter that William Jefferson had nearly $100,000 found in his freezer, or that Harry Reid accepted illegal bribes from the boxing industry, because the GOP did not fight back. Now, we have Speaker Pelosi, and we don't know what to do with her.

Domestic issues aside, neither Rudy's Republican or Democratic opponents can compete with the leadership we saw on 9/11. Rudy Giuliani has the charisma to unite America that his contenders lack. Barack Obama has a sense of civility, but his lack of experience in any given area will be difficult to overcome. Hillary Clinton is effortlessly exposable as a partisan panderer. John Edwards hasn't reinvented himself, and is still obsessed with "The Two Americas."

While "San Francisco Values" was a slick cliche for a while, it has been worn out to exhaustion. It's time to mature as American citizens and focus on the number one issue of our time. The Presidential Election of 2008 will remain crucial, and our direction in the War on Terror will be determined once and for all.